    [Senate Hearing 117-993]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 117-993

                   NOMINATIONS OF: DR. DAVID A. HONEY TO
                     BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
                     FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; MS. BREN-
                     DA S. FULTON TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                     OF DEFENSE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE
                     AFFAIRS; AND MS. COREY A. HINDERSTEIN
                     TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
                     NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL
                     NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 7, 2021

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-381 PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    �JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman	JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    �
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire		ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
    KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York		DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut		TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii			MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
    TIM KAINE, Virginia			JONI ERNST, Iowa
    ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine		THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
    ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts		DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    GARY C. PETERS, Michigan		KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia		RICK SCOTT, Florida
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois		MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada			JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  	TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
    �
    �
    �		    Elizabeth L. King, Staff Director
    � 		John D. Wason, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                               C O N T E N T S

    _________________________________________________________________

                                october 7, 2021

                                                                       Page
    Nominations of: Dr. David A. Honey to be Deputy Under Secretary       1
      of Defense for Research and Engineering; Ms. Brenda S. Fulton
      to be Assistant Secretary OF Defense for Manpower and Reserve
      Affairs; and Ms. Corey A. Hinderstein to be Deputy
      Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National
      Nuclear Security Administration.

                               Members Statements

    Reed, Senator Jack...............................................     1

    Inhofe, Senator James M..........................................     3

                               Witness Statements

    Nunn, Hon. Samuel, Former U.S. Senator from Georgia..............     3

    Sherrill, Hon. Mikie, A Representative in Congress from the State     5
      of New Jersey.

    Honey, Dr. David, Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense     6
      for Research and Engineering.
      Advance Policy Questions.......................................    49
      Questions for the Record.......................................    68
      Nomination Reference and Report................................    78
      Biographical Sketch............................................    79
      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................    81
      Signature Page.................................................    88

    Fulton, Brenda, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for      8
      Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
      Advance Policy Questions.......................................    88
      Questions for the Record.......................................   101
      Nomination Reference and Report................................   122
      Biographical Sketch............................................   123
      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................   125
      Signature Page.................................................   131

    Hinderstein, Corey, Nominee to be Deputy Administrator for           10
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security.
      Advance Policy Questions.......................................   131
      Questions for the Record.......................................   145
      Nomination Reference and Report................................   149
      Biographical Sketch............................................   150
      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................   151
      Signature Page.................................................   161

                                     (iii)

                  This hearing is printed to include all available
                  information Requested or required to be inserted for the
                  record.

                                      (iv)

      NOMINATIONS OF: DR. DAVID A. HONEY TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
       DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; MS. BRENDA S. FULTON TO BE
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS; AND
    MS. COREY A. HINDERSTEIN TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR
           NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2021

                                  United States Senate,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m. in room
    SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Committee Members present: Senators Reed, Shaheen,
    Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Warren, Peters,
    Rosen, Kelly, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst,
    Tillis, Sullivan, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley, and Tuberville.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Chairman Reed. Let me call the hearing to order.
        Good morning. The Committee meets today to consider the
    nominations of Dr. David Honey to be Deputy Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering; Ms. Brenda Sue Fulton, to
    be Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and
    Ms. Corey Hinderstein to be Deputy Administrator for Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation, the National Nuclear Security
    Administration.
        I thank the nominees for their willingness to return to
    public service.
        I would also like to welcome the family members who are
    with us today. Dr. Honey, I welcome your wife, Cynthia and son,
    Jonathan; Ms. Fulton, I welcome your cousin Rachel; and I thank
    Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, who will introduce you, via
    Webex; and Ms. Hinderstein, I welcome your family members,
    Evan, Laura, and Rachel; and I thank Senator Sam Nunn for
    joining us to introduce you via Webex.
        Dr. Honey, you are nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary
    of Defense for Research and Engineering. You have an extensive
    technical and professional background from your career at
    DARPA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Strategic
    Capabilities Office, and in other positions working on research
    and advanced technology programs and issues. If confirmed, you
    will support Under Secretary Heidi Shyu in shepherding the
    Department's modernization activities.
        We are in a competition with China for technological
    superiority in areas like quantum computing, artificial
    intelligence, robotics, and biotechnology, and you and your
    team will be responsible for ensuring that the Department has
    the right budget and policies in place to win that competition.
        You will have also a role helping to ensure that DOD's
    acquisition programs are managed with solid, technical
    foundations, mature technologies, and robust developmental
    testing in systems engineering approaches.
        Too many of our systems skip important early engineering
    steps, leading to test failures, costs and schedule overruns,
    and worst of all, delays in deploying new capabilities to our
    forces. In your role, you will serve as a technical conscience
    of the Department to ensure that acquisition programs proceed
    prudently and expeditiously from research into deployment. I
    look forward to hearing how you will address these challenges.
        Ms. Fulton, you are nominated to be the Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. As the principal
    advisor on all matters relating to civilian and military
    personnel policies, you will be responsible for Reserve
    integration and military community and family policy, as well
    as day-to-day supervision of the Department of Defense
    Education Activity and the Defense Commissary Agency.
        Your extensive leadership experiences in the public,
    private, and military sectors should serve your well. One of
    Secretary Austin's priorities is to eradicate extremism within
    the ranks. While we continue to believe that the number of
    extremists in the ranks remains very small, even one is too
    many. I hope you will share your views on how you will approach
    this issue, especially as the lines between actions, thought,
    and speech becomes more difficult to define each day.
        As we know from the President's Independent Review
    Commission that studied sexual assault and harassment in the
    military, there has been a dangerous erosion of trust and faith
    within the ranks in leaders' ability to effectively address
    this issue. While reforming how we prosecute sexual assault,
    harassment, and related crimes under the UCMJ, it is important,
    prevention is paramount. I would ask that you share your views
    on how we can reduce the incidents of sexual assault and
    harassment across the force.
        Ms. Hinderstein, you are nominated to be the Deputy
    Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration. I would note your
    expertise in this area from your previous work at NNSA and the
    Nuclear Threat Initiative.
        If confirmed, you will be responsible for leading NNSA's
    nonproliferation efforts across a broad, important portfolio,
    which ranges from supporting the verification of current and
    future arms control treaties, securing the loose nuclear
    material around the world, safeguarding the sale of U.S.
    nuclear technology overseas, and technically supporting the
    interagency in any future negotiations with Iran on their
    nuclear capability. As part of these duties, you will be
    responsible for overseeing the disposal of excess weapons
    plutonium, including working with the State of New Mexico to
    dispose of the 34 metric tons of excess plutonium at the Waste
    Isolation Pilot Plant.
        On the international stage, you will be charged with
    leading technical efforts for any follow-on nuclear weapons
    agreements with Russia after New START, as well as technical
    efforts to verify and secure North Korea's nuclear capabilities
    if a freeze agreement is reached. These are complex challenges
    and I am going to ask that you discuss how you would address
    them.
        I want to, again, thank the nominees for their willingness
    to serve. I look forward to your testimonies.
        Now, let me recognize the ranking member, Senator Inhofe.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES INHOFE

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Chairman Reed.
        Thanks to our witnesses for being with us and their
    willingness to serve the nation. The world is a dangerous place
    and America is under a greater threat than at any point in our
    lifetime; threats from China, Russia, and North Korea, Iran
    have all worsened since 2018.
        As we learned over the last 2 weeks of hearings, threat of
    radical Islamic terrorism is growing, now that Afghanistan is
    the safest place in the world for terrorist planners. Now,
    while the world is focused on Afghanistan, we saw concerning
    developments in other places, too. In the last 2 months,
    revelation about the new Chinese nuclear silos has completely
    changed the nuclear environment. Russia continues to test
    nonstrategic nuclear weapons and its recent exercise was the
    largest in 4 decades. Iran's stockpile of fissile material
    continues to expand and the North Koreans continue to make
    surprising technological leaps. It more important than ever
    that we complete our nuclear modernization on time and continue
    to encourage innovation at the Department of Defense.
        It is clear to me that the old ways of doing business just
    no longer work. Our government requires strong civilian
    leaderships and leaders of competence and character, if we hope
    to preserve and defend our way of life from those who would do
    us harm.
        That is why these areas are so important because they help
    us understand our potential leaders and the values that they
    would bring to the job. So, we look forward to the hearing, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Reed. At this time, it gives me great pleasure to
    introduce the former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
    Committee, Sam Nunn, so he can introduce Ms. Hinderstein.
        Chairman Nunn?

    STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL NUNN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

        Senator Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Am I unmuted? Can you hear me?
        Chairman Reed. We can hear you, Mr. Chairman, and see you.
        Senator Nunn. Good.
        Thank you, Chairman Reed, Senator Inhofe, members of the
    Armed Services Committee. I am honored to appear before this
    important committee and, of course, it is familiar and I
    understand the job and the awesome responsibilities that all of
    you have.
        I am joining you today from California at Stanford, where I
    will be attending the memorial service for George Schultz. As
    you know, our Nation lost George earlier this year at the age
    of 100. He had a remarkable record of public service from
    serving as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps to the U.S.
    Secretary of State and a lot of important jobs in between.
        George believed that the Committee and the Senate should be
    in on the takeoff, as well as, in on the landing on important
    national security and foreign policy issues, and he made a
    point of keeping us informed.
        Mr. Chairman and Senator Inhofe, in that spirit, I am
    honored to introduce Corey Hinderstein to the committee. I am
    confident that our nation's security will be greatly
    strengthened by Corey's expertise, her leadership skills, and
    her sound judgment in this crucial role, if she is confirmed.
        Corey has worked for 25 years in the areas of nuclear
    nonproliferation and security. She has strong leadership and
    analytical skills and a commitment to pragmatic problem-
    solving. Corey has a great understanding of the history of
    these issues that she will be involved in and she develops
    innovative and creative paths forward, as well as anyone I have
    seen.
        Corey is an extraordinarily qualified nominee. Her previous
    work at the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, and
    her experience working with us at the Nuclear Threat Initiative
    have prepared her very well for this important position.
        Mr. Chairman, if you compare Corey's list of experiences
    with the areas of responsibility that you outline for the job
    that she will hold, if confirmed, they line up almost
    perfectly, from international safeguards to arms-control
    verification, to nuclear security, to minimization of enriched
    uranium; all enormously important.
        Corey was the key staff member responsible for scoping and
    standing up the World Institute for Nuclear Security. This is
    an international, nongovernmental organization, focusing on
    security for people who are handling nuclear materials all over
    the world; almost 5,000 members now from more than 140
    countries and Corey played the key role there.
        She also played a critical role in the creation of the
    International Atomic Energy Agency's Low Enriched Uranium Bank,
    which I think is enormously important going forward in the
    future. In both of these projects and many others, Corey worked
    with governments and international organizations and across
    Republican and Democratic administrations.
        If confirmed, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inhofe, I am
    confident she would bring this spirit of cooperation to her
    work and NNSA and in her dealings with this committee and the
    Congress. For 3 years, Corey took a leave of absence from our
    organization, NTI, to serve in the same NNSA office she is now
    nominated to lead.
        During that time, she worked closely with the Secretary of
    Energy, the NNSA administrator, and her international and
    interagency colleagues to strengthen global nuclear security,
    including work to deliver strong risk-reduction commitments at
    the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit, held by President Obama.
        She was also part of the team implementing the Iran nuclear
    agreement with a focus on monitoring, as well as the all-
    important job of verification.
        In conclusion, Chairman Reed, Senator Inhofe, and members
    of the committee, I am confident that Corey is fully prepared
    to serve in this critical role and I support her nomination by
    President Biden. I urge the committee's support, and I urge
    your confirmation by the full Senate.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, not only
    for your introduction today, but for your extraordinary service
    to the nation.
        Now I would like to introduce, via Webex, Congresswoman
    Mikie Sherrill, who will introduce Ms. Fulton.
        Congresswoman?

    STATEMENT OF HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                     FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

        Representative Sherrill. Well, thank you, Chairman Reed,
    Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the committee, for
    holding this hearing today. It is also wonderful to be here
    today with the legendary Chairman Nunn, so that is quite an
    honor for me.
        Senator Nunn. Thank you.
        Representative Sherrill. I am so glad to be before you to
    introduce my friend Sue Fulton and I am incredibly proud she
    has been nominated for the position of Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
        I have admired Sue for many years. As a graduate of the
    first class at West Point that included women, she is certainly
    a trailblazer. In the Army, she served our country with
    distinction as a platoon leader and as a company commander, but
    as with so many of our veterans, her service did not end when
    she left active-duty. She has continued to be a tireless
    advocate for our servicemembers, their families, and our
    veterans.
        After she left the Army, Sue had a successful private
    sector career, but stayed connected to the military;
    continually finding ways to support her community and her
    country. That includes the work she did for 8 years on the West
    Point Board of Visitors, including 5 as chair or vice chair,
    working in a nonpartisan manner to center character development
    as a way to deliver the best possible Army leaders. It includes
    decades of improving the military's ability to fight and win
    wars by increasing the pool of talented men and women who
    served. She did this through expanding opportunities for women,
    LGBTQ Americans, and black Americans. She ensured we continued
    to provide our Nation with the world's very best fighting
    force.
        Most recently, Sue took on the challenge, and it truly was
    a challenge, of heading the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
    Commission, the MVC, and led a charge to modernize and
    transform a broken hidebound system where customers stood in
    land to stand in line. Under her tenure, she moved to a
    primarily analog system for in-person services to a system
    where about 80 percent of transactions are available online.
    Sue is knowledgeable, passionate, and she gets results.
        I am going to just highlight, briefly, something I think is
    abundantly clear across Sue's resume. By virtue of who she is,
    Sue has achieved a remarkable number of firsts and I can tell
    you firsthand, that in the best of us, people like Sue Fulton,
    those experiences breed not only toughness and courage, but
    also compassion and empathy.
        Sue has spent her life fighting to help others achieve
    their own firsts and to make sure they have supporters by their
    side when they do so. That would be admirable in its own right,
    but what makes Sue special is that she has led with the broader
    mission in mind, whether it was readiness, preparing the next
    generation of leaders, or innovating the MVC.
        Sue exemplifies the type of leadership that we prize in the
    military. She doesn't care what your political ideology is but
    focuses on bringing people together and leading them to
    achievements that benefit everyone. Let me assure you that Sue
    understands the importance of working in a bipartisan and even
    nonpartisan manner. She has an impressive track record for
    doing so and would bring that with her into the Department of
    Defense. She knows how to work with a broad array of people to
    get the job done. If you need proof, look no further, here I
    am; a hardcore Navy fan introducing an Army grad in glowing
    terms.
        So, I will end by expressing my sincere hope that you all
    support Sue Fulton's nomination, because I cannot wait to see
    what she will accomplish for our servicemembers, for their
    families, and for our country. Thank you so much.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
        Now, let me recognize the witnesses for their opening
    statements.
        Dr. Honey, please?

       STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID HONEY, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
           SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

        Dr. Honey. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
    distinguished members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be
    here.
        I would also like to thank President Biden, Vice President
    Harris, Secretary Austin, Deputy Secretary Hicks, and Under
    Secretary Shyu for the trust they have placed in me throughout
    this nomination process. I would also like to thank my wife,
    Cynthia, and the rest of my family for their support and
    understanding of the many demands I have encountered during my
    career.
        Today, I am humbled to sit before you to be considered for
    the role of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering. Bringing the best innovations and technologies to
    our servicemembers and civilian workforce is paramount to
    protecting our way of life.
        I take this charge seriously and have devoted much of my
    career to the defense of our Nation. I received my first
    security clearance as a federal employee in 1974 and have seen
    firsthand the evolution of many of the issues that concern us
    today.
        While the global competition and challenges we face seem
    daunting, I know from my experiences that there is much that we
    can do to overcome them. For example, while serving as a B-52
    pilot, our combat capabilities benefited greatly from a series
    of aircraft modernization efforts, and as a result, the B-52
    remains a formidable weapon system.
        Having served as a scientist in the Air Force Research
    Laboratory, I have participated in the struggle to push
    research and development across the ``Valley of Death'' and
    deliver a competitive edge to our warfighters. While I have
    often tapped into the significant capabilities of large
    companies in the Defense Industrial Base, I am also a strong
    proponent of our highly innovative small business sector and
    have actively participated in the SBIR program.
        My commitment to pursing innovation has deepened during my
    two tours at DARPA, where I learned how a small agency can
    pursue high-risk/high payoff research, and repeatedly change
    our world for the better. During my time as the Director of
    Science and Technology in the Office of the Director of
    National Intelligence, I gained additional perspective on the
    nature of today's threats to our national security and the role
    of S&T leadership in meeting those challenges. Having served
    previously in R&E, I am keenly aware of what it takes to ensure
    that R&E will be a valued contributor, and I believe that my
    experiences have well-acquainted me with the demands this
    position requires.
        As Under Secretary Shyu has stated before this Committee,
    ``the mission of furthering science, technology, and innovation
    across the Department of Defense could not be more important
    than it is today.''
        We face wide-ranging threats from across the globe and
    meeting these challenges takes teamwork and collaboration. It
    is critical that we leverage the research being done by experts
    in academia, industry, and DOD laboratories. Our future success
    will require a new wave of diverse STEM talent, robust
    investments in advanced technologies and manufacturing, and
    enabling a culture that allows us to take risks in search of
    reward. It is critical that we continue to modernize in areas
    such as microelectronics, 5G, directed energy, and hypersonics.
    We must also take real steps to partner with and support the
    acquisition community to transition our most promising
    technologies into programs of record.
        I do not take these obligations lightly, and if confirmed,
    it would be an immense honor to continue to serve our Nation,
    the Department of Defense, and the United States of America
    within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering. Thank you.
        [The statement of Dr. David Honey follows:]

                     Prepared Statement by Dr. David Honey
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Distinguished Members of
    the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here. I would also like to thank
    President Biden, Vice President Harris, Secretary Austin, Deputy
    Secretary Hicks, and Under Secretary Shyu for the trust they have
    placed in me throughout this nomination process. I would also like to
    thank my wife, Cynthia, and the rest of my family for their support and
    understanding of the many demands I have encountered during my career.
        Today, I am humbled to sit before you to be considered for the role
    of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
    Bringing the best innovations and technologies to our servicemembers
    and civilian workforce is paramount to protecting our way of life.
        I take this charge seriously and have devoted much of my career to
    the defense of our Nation. I received my first security clearance as a
    federal employee in 1974, and have seen firsthand the evolution of many
    of the issues that concern us today. While the global competition and
    challenges we face seem daunting, I know from my experiences that there
    is much that we can do to overcome them. For example, while serving as
    a B-52 pilot, our combat capabilities benefited greatly from a series
    of aircraft modernization efforts, and as a result, the B-52 remains a
    formidable weapon system.
        Having served as a scientist in the Air Force Research Laboratory,
    I have participated in the struggle to push research and development
    across the ``Valley of Death'' and deliver a competitive edge to our
    warfighters. While I have often tapped into the significant
    capabilities of large companies in the Defense Industrial Base, I am
    also a strong proponent of our highly innovative small business sector,
    and have actively participated in the SBIR program.
        My commitment to pursing innovation has deepened during my two
    tours at DARPA, where I learned how a small agency can pursue high-
    risk/high payoff research, and repeatedly change our world for the
    better. During my time as the Director of Science and Technology in the
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I gained additional
    perspective on the nature of today's threats to our national security
    and the role of S&T leadership in meeting those challenges. Having
    served previously in R&E, I am keenly aware of what it takes to ensure
    that R&E will be a valued contributor, and I believe that my
    experiences have well-acquainted me with the demands this position
    requires.
        As Under Secretary Shyu has stated before this Committee, ``the
    mission of furthering science, technology, and innovation across the
    Department of Defense could not be more important than it is today.''
        We face wide ranging threats from across the globe and meeting
    these challenges takes teamwork and collaboration. It is critical that
    we leverage the research being done by experts in academia, industry,
    and DoD laboratories. Our future success will require a new wave of
    diverse STEM talent, robust investments in advanced technologies and
    manufacturing, and enabling a culture that allows us to take risks in
    search of reward. It is critical that we continue to modernize in areas
    such as microelectronics, 5G, directed energy, and hypersonics. We must
    also take real steps to partner with and support the acquisition
    community to transition our most promising technologies into programs
    of record.
        I do not take these obligations lightly, and if confirmed, it would
    be an immense honor to continue to serve our Nation, the Department of
    Defense, and the United States of America within the Office of the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. Thank you.

        Chairman Reed. Thank you, very much, Dr. Honey.
        Ms. Fulton, please?

     STATEMENT OF BRENDA FULTON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
              OF DEFENSE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS

        Ms. Fulton. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
    Inhofe, distinguished members of the committee.
        I also want to extend my thanks to Congresswoman Mikie
    Sherrill, a fellow veteran, and a New Jerseyan for that
    generous introduction.
        I am honored to come before you as President Biden's
    nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and
    Reserve Affairs.
        I am joined here today by my cousin, Rachel Fulton Gray,
    who was a great support to my wife Penny and me during Penny's
    illness. I know that Penny, along with my parents, is looking
    down on me today. They are largely responsible for me being
    here today, and I miss them terribly.
        Across my career, I have accumulated a breadth of
    leadership experience, having served in the military, worked in
    the private sector, launched and led nonprofit organizations,
    and, in my current job, served in state government.
        The thread that unites my experience is a desire to serve.
    I was 17 when I first raised my right hand and swore a solemn
    oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
    States, as a new cadet at West Point.
        My father served in the Navy in the Korean conflict, on the
    USS Lewis which saw significant action. As a proud sonarman, he
    would always tease me about being an officer and not having to
    work for a living, a saying all of you who are military
    veterans will recognize, but his love of this country and for
    the military lives deep in me.
        I have worked with military leaders on multiple initiatives
    to increase diversity in the force. In every case, my guiding
    light was an effort to improve our ability to fight and win
    wars.
        On the West Point Board of Visitors, I had the good fortune
    to work with Lieutenant General Bob Caslen and my friend Rep.
    Steve Womack, and other board members in fighting sexual
    harassment and assault; expanding the diversity of our entering
    classes; and most of all, centering character and character
    development as a way to deliver the Army the best leaders
    possible.
        Our military faces an incredibly dynamic threat
    environment, with disruptive technologies and powerful
    adversaries. If confirmed to the role of Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, I would focus on
    ensuring the Department can attract and retain a lethal and
    effective force to meet those challenges.
        That means attracting the best talent. We know that smart,
    innovative people will seek out and thrive in an environment
    that is challenging, inclusive, diverse, and led by leaders of
    character. Whether in the civilian workforce, the Guard, the
    Reserves, or the active force, leadership rooted in our
    essential core values: selfless service, personal courage,
    honor, respect, and integrity, plays an important part in
    growing our overall talent.
        We also have to retain that talent. Where it makes sense,
    we should look at broadening opportunities, reviewing standards
    to ensure they align with the needs of the service and
    increasing flexibility in our talent management systems, and
    always, we must take care of our families.
        If I am confirmed, our core values will guide my efforts in
    support of Secretary Austin, all of our military services, and
    in my work with this Committee to deliver a smarter, stronger,
    more resilient, more capable total force for our country.
        Senators, I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Fulton follows:]

                    Prepared Statement by Ms. Brenda Fulton
        Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe.
        I am honored to come before you as President Biden's nominee for
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower & Reserve Affairs.
        I am joined here today by my cousin, Rachel Fulton Gray, who was a
    great support to my wife Penny and me during Penny's illness. I know
    that Penny, along with my parents, is looking down on me. They are
    largely responsible for me being here today, and I miss them terribly.
        Across my career, I have accumulated a breadth of leadership
    experience, having served in the military, worked in the private
    sector, launched and led nonprofit organizations, and, in my current
    job, served in state government.
        The thread that unites my experience is a desire to serve. I was 17
    when I first raised my right hand and swore a solemn oath to support
    and defend the Constitution of the United States, as a new cadet at
    West Point.
        My father served in the Navy in the Korean conflict, on the USS
    Lewis which saw significant action. As a proud sonarman, he would tease
    me about being an officer and not having to work for a living . . . a
    saying all of you who are military veterans will recognize. But his
    love of this country and for the military lives deep in me.
        I have worked with military leaders on multiple initiatives to
    increase diversity in the force. In every case, my guiding light was an
    effort to improve our ability to fight and win wars.
        On the West Point Board of Visitors, I had the good fortune to work
    with Lt. Gen. Bob Caslen, my friend Rep. Steve Womack, and other Board
    members in fighting sexual harassment and assault; expanding the
    diversity of our entering classes; and most of all, centering character
    development as a way to deliver the Army the best leaders possible.
        Our military faces an incredibly dynamic threat environment, with
    disruptive technologies and powerful adversaries. If confirmed to the
    role of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower & Reserve Affairs,
    I would focus on ensuring the Department can attract and retain a
    lethal and effective force to meet those challenges.
        That means attracting the best talent. We know that smart, creative
    people will seek out and thrive in an environment that is challenging,
    inclusive, diverse, and led by leaders of character. Whether in the
    civilian workforce, the Guard, the Reserves, or the active force,
    leadership rooted in our essential core values - selfless service,
    personal courage, honor, respect, and integrity - plays an important
    part in growing our overall talent.
        We also have to retain that talent. Where it makes sense, we should
    look at broadening opportunities, reviewing standards to ensure they
    align with the needs of the service; and increasing flexibility in our
    talent management systems.
        Always, we must take care of our families.
        If I'm confirmed, our core values will guide my efforts in support
    of Secretary Austin, all of our military services, and in my work with
    this Committee to deliver a smarter, stronger, more resilient, more
    capable total force for our country.
        Senators, I look forward to your questions.

        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Ms. Fulton.
        Ms. Hinderstein, please?

         STATEMENT OF COREY HINDERSTEIN, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY
     ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL
                    NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Hinderstein. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
    Inhofe, and distinguished members of this committee.
        I am honored to appear before the Senate Armed Services
    Committee today. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation
    to President Biden and Secretary Granholm and Administrator
    Ruby for the confidence they have shown in nominating me for
    this position.
        I would like to take this opportunity, also, to recognize
    my husband, Chase, who was not able to be with me here today,
    but who has supported me for more than 27 years through long
    days in the office and many weeks on the road.
        I would also like to thank my father, Evan, his partner
    Laura, and my sister Rachel for being with me today.
        Finally, I would like to acknowledge my mother, Sheila, who
    passed away in 2005, but who I know would be very proud to see
    me here today in your company.
        I would also like to thank Senator Nunn for his kind words
    of introduction. Senator Nunn is a model of public service,
    dedicating his life to his fellow Georgians and to the security
    of this country. He has been a mentor and a role model to me
    and to so many. I have learned from his example of vision with
    pragmatism, strength with flexibility, and leadership without
    ego. His great respect for the Senate and this Committee makes
    it even more of an honor for me to be here today.
        There is no more important role for government than to
    protect the security, health, well-being, and opportunity for
    the United States and its residents. For this reason, the
    Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation has an enormously
    important mission. As a technical office, DNN works to protect
    nuclear material wherever it exists in the world; reduce and
    eliminate nuclear material wherever possible; preserve American
    leadership by enabling us to meet our international
    obligations, while holding others to their commitments; reduce
    the opportunities for nuclear weapons to spread; develop
    verification and monitoring technology and approaches for
    current commitments; and to inform negotiations of future
    agreements, to increase the chance that we will be able to
    detect if nuclear activities pose a threat to the United States
    and our allies and to focus now on the tools and technologies
    to meet future threats.
        While addressing these foundational obligations of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of
    Energy, DNN must also work collaboratively across the
    interagency and build partnerships in the international
    community, the nuclear industry, in academia, and with
    nongovernmental organizations.
        If confirmed, I would seek to strengthen and expand these
    connections in service of our collective goals. Good ideas and
    good partners can be anywhere, and we need diverse viewpoints
    to meet the challenges ahead.
        I had the pleasure of working with the DNN team for nearly
    3 years. From the career civil servants to the professional
    support contractors, to the scientists and technicians at our
    national laboratories, plants, and sites, you won't find a more
    dedicated group of public servants. They work on nuclear
    nonproliferation and security because it is important and
    rewarding, and certainly not for the fame and fortune. This is
    a job that is never done. In the world of nuclear terrorism,
    for example, those protecting nuclear materials and facilities
    must get it right every day, while our adversaries only need to
    succeed once.
        The technical and political landscape is constantly
    shifting. Each new accomplishment is followed by a new
    challenge. If I am confirmed, I would commit myself to sustain
    today's investments, while also innovating tomorrow's
    solutions.
        I have worked for more than 25 years on nuclear
    nonproliferation and security, and much of that time has been
    in civil society. I have always wanted to dedicate myself more
    to public service and I am humbled by this opportunity to do so
    at a critical time for our nation's future.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Committee
    today and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Hinderstein follows:]

            Prepared Statement by Statement of Ms. Corey Hinderstein
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee,
    I am honored to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee
    today. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to President Biden
    and Secretary Granholm for the confidence they have shown in nominating
    me for the position of Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation of the Department of Energy.
        I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my husband,
    Chase Hinderstein [who was not able to be with me here today] but has
    supported me for more than 27 years and I know is watching now. I would
    also like to thank my father, Evan, his partner Laura, and my sister
    Rachel for being with me today. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my
    mother, Sheila, who passed away in 2005, but who I know would be very
    proud to see me here today.
        I would also like to thank Senator Sam Nunn for his kind words of
    introduction. Senator Nunn is a model of public service, dedicating his
    life to his fellow Georgians and to the security of this country. He
    has been a mentor and a role model to so many, and I am proud to count
    myself among those that have learned from his example of vision with
    pragmatism, strength with flexibility, and leadership without ego. His
    great respect for the Senate and this Committee - in which he spent so
    much time and energy as Chair - makes it even more of an honor for me
    to be here today.
        There is no more important role for government than to protect the
    safety, security, and opportunity for people of the United States. For
    this reason, the mission of the Office of Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation (DNN) of the National Nuclear Security Administration
    has an enormously important mission. Put simply, DNN works to:
          protect nuclear material wherever it exists in the world;
          reduce and eliminate nuclear material wherever possible;
          preserve American leadership by enabling us to meet our
    international obligations while holding others to their commitments;
          reduce the opportunities for nuclear weapons to spread;
          increase the chance that we will be able to detect it if
    nuclear activities pose a threat to the United States or our allies;
    and,
          focus now on developing the tools and technologies to
    meet future threats.
        While addressing these foundational obligations of the National
    Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy, DNN must
    also work collaboratively across U.S. government agencies and build
    partnerships in the international community, in the nuclear industry,
    in academia, and with nongovernmental organizations. If confirmed, I
    would seek to strengthen and expand these connections in service of our
    collective goals. Good ideas and good partners can be anywhere, and we
    need diverse viewpoints to meet the challenges ahead.
        I had the pleasure of working with the DNN team for nearly three
    years, from 2015 through 2017. From the career civil servants, to the
    professional support contractors, to the scientists of our national
    laboratories, you cannot find a more dedicated and hard-working group
    of public servants. They work on nuclear nonproliferation and security
    because it is important and rewarding; it is certainly not for the fame
    and fortune. This is a job that is never done. For example, those
    protecting nuclear materials and facilities from theft or terrorism
    must get it right every day, while our adversaries only need to succeed
    once. The technical and political landscape is constantly shifting.
    Each new accomplishment is followed by a new challenge. If confirmed, I
    would be proud to stand by their side as they work to sustain progress
    while innovating solutions.
        I have committed almost 25 years of my career to addressing nuclear
    nonproliferation and security issues and creating practical and
    actionable approaches to difficult challenges. Most of that time has
    been spent in civil society, but I have always wanted to dedicate more
    of myself to public service. I am humbled by this opportunity to do so
    at a critical time for our nation's future.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Committee today and
    I look forward to your questions.

        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Before we proceed to questions, I have a series of
    questions which all nominees must respond to. So, together, you
    can respond as appropriately.
        Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
    governing conflicts of interest?
        [All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Reed. Thank you.
        Have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would
    appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?
        [All three witnesses answered in the negative.]
        Chairman Reed. Exercising our legislative and oversight
    responsibility makes it important that this committee, its
    subcommittees and other appropriate committees of Congress
    receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and other
    information from the Executive Branch on a timely basis.
        Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify before
    this committee, when requested?
        [All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Reed. Do you agree to provide records, documents,
    and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested
    by this committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate
    committees of Congress and to consult with the requestor
    regarding the basis of any good faith delay or denial in
    providing such records?
        [All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Reed. Will you ensure that your staff complies
    with deadlines by this committee for the production of reports,
    records, and other information, including timely responding to
    hearing questions for the record?
        [All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Reed. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
    and briefers in response to congressional request?
        [All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Reed. Will those witnesses and briefers be
    protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
        [All three witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much.
        Now, Dr. Honey, what first struck me was your extraordinary
    experience in so many fields that are directly applicable to
    the position you have been nominated to, so I think that should
    be noted up front.
        As you know, we have been very concerned about the
    production of microchips, the supply base. As you know, we
    passed the CHIPS Act, working to provide funding for the
    development of domestic microelectronics manufacturing. The key
    effort is ensuring that the U.S. has capabilities that support
    both, state-of-the-art commercial needs and DOD's needs.
        It has been the history, though, that DOD has tried to go
    it alone too many times by using Trusted Foundry, which doesn't
    really work out because they are not commercially viable and
    they don't have the technological edge that some of our
    commercial entities can get.
        So, I would like your assurance that you will support
    efforts to develop commercially viable domestic
    microelectronics and not retreat to the foundry approach.
        Dr. Honey. Yes, Senator, I agree. The DOD needs, you know,
    are very important to me and while Trusted Foundry has had
    great utility for Department in the past, in my experience,
    keeping that up to the commercial state-of-the- art standards
    and making that available to the Defense Industrial Base and,
    thus, to our warfighters, just hasn't worked out. So, new
    models are needed and I am committed, if confirmed for this
    position, to work those issues and ensure that we are on a path
    to get commercial, state-of- the-art available to our
    performers and, ultimately, into our weapons systems.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Dr. Honey.
        Ms. Fulton, Secretary Austin implemented the Independent
    Review Commission at the direction of the President. There was
    a series of recommendations, in response, of course, to the
    scourge of sexual assault and harassment we have already
    witnessed.
        First, I would assume, and I ask for your confirmation that
    you will make this your top priority or one of your top
    priorities.
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator. We have to address the blight of
    sexual harassment and sexual assault if we expect to attract,
    continue to attract, and retain talent. If we expect to build
    effective teams, we have got to address this.
        A big part of my job, if I am confirmed, will be building a
    prevention workforce and addressing the leader challenges that
    were highlighted by the Independent Review Commission.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you.
        Many of the Commission's recommendations do not require
    legislation, so I assume and expect that you will immediately
    begin to do what you can do administratively. I know there has
    already been some changes. We have a civilian head now at the
    CID, but we have to be much more aggressive, and prevention is
    really the goal; it is not simply adjudication.
        Are you committing to that effort?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator, I am completely committed. There
    is an urgency around this issue, and if confirmed, I would
    definitely put that as one of my top priorities.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you.
        Ms. Hinderstein, and I have probably pronounced your name
    three different ways, so give me----
        Ms. Hinderstein. Hinderstein is correct. Thank you,
    Senator.
        Chairman Reed. Hinderstein. So, it is----
        Ms. Hinderstein. There are a few options.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Reed. As Meatloaf would say, two out of three
    ain't bad, so anyway, forgive me.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Reed. In July of 2019, you told CNBC News that,
    quote, I see no indication that Iran is rushing toward a
    nuclear weapon and they are taking steps that can be reversed.
        Can you clarify those remarks in regard to your assessment
    at the time.
        Ms. Hinderstein. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate you
    bringing up this really important issue of Iran's technical
    capability.
        The purpose of my comments at the time and others,
    similarly, was not to minimize the threat posed by Iran, but to
    differentiate the increasingly uranium enrichment activity from
    the broad suite of activities that would be required for them
    to actually produce a nuclear weapon.
        My comments were consistent with what I was seeing from the
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence's unclassified
    annual threat assessment, which said that Iran was not
    currently undertaking the activities that would be required to
    produce a nuclear device. So, I think that is the context. It
    was really a technical assessment on the weaponization issue,
    but it is certainly not to undermine any concern about the
    progression of the uranium enrichment activities.
        Chairman Reed. Well, how have you seen Iran's nuclear
    program advancing since you made those remarks?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Iran's nuclear program has certainly
    advanced as they have increased both, the scope and scale of
    the uranium enrichment activities, and I think it is going to
    be very important, if confirmed, that I understand what the
    current assessment is of those activities and how that might
    have changed our underlying understanding about their program.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inhofe, please?
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Fulton, in 2017, you were quoted by the New York Times,
    and I have the article right here, saying, quote, what people
    fail to understand is that chaplains give up some of their
    rights as ministers when they become military chaplains.
        Now, the DOD policy for chaplains doesn't say anything at
    all about this. In fact, it says, I believe, quite the
    opposite. It says, and I am quoting right now, and I am going
    to ask that this be part of the record.
        Chairman Reed. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. That if a chaplain is unable to support a
    specific request because of his or her religious endorsing
    organization's teachings, they all, the chaplains have these
    procedures that they go through with organizations, then the
    chaplain must offer referral to another chaplain or
    professional.
        Now, first of all, I would ask the question, do you still
    stand by your statement?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I----
        Senator Inhofe. The quote I am talking about is the quote
    where you said what people fail to realize is that the
    chaplains give up some of their rights as ministers when they
    become military chaplains.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I was referring to--thank you for
    allowing me to clarify--I was referring to that clause where a
    chaplain is required to find support for that individual one
    way or another; either support them, themselves, or find that
    support, whereas, you know, a civilian could turn someone away
    and say, not my job. Our chaplains are bound and do a
    remarkable job addressing all of the needs, one way or another,
    of our servicemembers.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, Ms. Fulton, that is not as I would
    understand the context that we are talking about this, but let
    me ask you, do you think that there are some of their rights,
    are any of the rights that they have given up in the context
    that we would look at those rights?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I think anyone who wears the uniform
    of this country has certain constraints on what they can say in
    public and certain requirements to serve others and to serve
    without regard to some of whatever personal feelings they may
    have.
        Senator Inhofe. Let me----
        Ms. Fulton. So, in that context, I would say, you know, our
    chaplains do a tremendous job serving everyone, but that may
    take them----
        Senator Inhofe. My time is disappearing, as you well know,
    right now. Let me just ask you, do you intend to change any of
    the longstanding DOD policy regarding the rights of chaplains
    to minister in accordance with their tenets and their faith,
    just yes or no?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Inhofe. Okay. You have referred, and I have several
    documents here I can use, to conservative people, primarily, as
    radicals. Do you consider me to be a radical because I don't
    support abortion?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Inhofe. All right. Ms. Hinderstein and thank you
    for giving me that----
        Chairman Reed. Thank Meatloaf.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate it very much.
        Last month the International Atomic Energy related a report
    stating that Iran's refusal to allow inspectors' access
    seriously compromised the agents' technical capability to
    monitor Iran.
        I think that I would join the chairman in just wanting some
    clarification in terms of your feelings about Iran. You did
    explain this thing on reversible, but I would like to have you
    elaborate just a little bit there on that because it is my
    understanding that you feel maybe you know some things I don't
    know, and I am hoping you are right and I am wrong, but how do
    you see that as reversible?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Senator, thank you so much for the
    question.
        Let me state, unequivocally, that I am extremely concerned
    about Iran's nuclear program and about the progress that they
    have made, in particular, in the last few years. I have been
    paying attention to Iran's nuclear program for more than 20
    years and, if confirmed, I would expect that it would have a
    high priority for me going forward, as well.
        Regarding the question of reversibility, I think it is
    important to separate the technical reversibility related to
    the equipment and materials. We can downblend uranium. We can
    remove, uninstall, put in storage, or even destroy uranium
    enrichment equipment. I think that is important to note when we
    ask ourselves, could Iran come back to the technical
    constraints of the deal. Those activities are possible.
        But I will also say that the knowledge that they have
    gained in the last few years is not reversible. We can't
    eliminate knowledge and experience, and so I do believe that,
    if confirmed, I would need it understand how their basic
    capacity has changed and whether there needs to be any change
    to our approach to accommodate that.
        I would note that Secretary Blinken even just said this
    last weekend that the terms of the JCPOA, at some point, will
    not be sufficient to recapture the benefits of the agreement
    because of the progress that is made and I would agree with his
    statement and seek to understand more, if confirmed.
        Senator Inhofe. Okay. Well, I appreciate that.
        My time has expired, but I would like to, if you are
    confirmed, have an opportunity to visit with you at some length
    and we could exchange some ideas. I would appreciate that.
        Ms. Hinderstein. I would appreciate that, too, Senator.
    Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't have any questions
    for Dr. Honey. He is going to be in good shape. I can't think
    of a better team than for him to be with than Heidi Shyu and I
    look forward to working closely with him.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Shaheen, please?
        Senator Shaheen. Good morning and congratulations to each
    of you on your nominations and for your willingness to serve
    the country at this critical time.
        Ms. Fulton, in your opening statement, you talked about one
    of the challenges of your job would be ensuring that military
    families are taken care of. In 2019, as a result of hearing
    from military spouses, Congress passed legislation that
    authorized DOD to use federal funds to help states come up with
    universal standards for professional licenses, so that military
    spouses, as they are moving from place to place, can start work
    at soon as they arrive at a new assignment and they don't have
    to go through a whole extended licensure process.
        If confirmed, will you commit to bolstering these grant
    programs, that I am pleased that DOD has already started work
    on this, but there is a lot more than needs to be done.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator Shaheen, I want to thank you for those
    efforts. We say all the time that we recruit the servicemember,
    but we retain the family. This is a very important benefit for
    spouses who take advantage of those professional licenses.
        If I am confirmed, I would do anything I could to make sure
    that that program is working for our military families.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. We are still hearing from some
    folks that it is a challenge, so I know that they will
    appreciate that.
        Continuing with another issue that this committee has been
    very concerned about, our anomalous health incidents, also
    known as Havana Syndrome, which have been in the news a lot in
    the last few years, I was pleased to see Secretary Austin
    release a memo that details DOD's commitment to the issue and
    urges employees to track and report any symptoms.
        But, if confirmed, do I have your commitment that you will
    review the Department's training and reporting process for
    anomalous health incidents, so that we ensure that people who
    may be affected, understand what to do in case of attack?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, we have to get on this issue. Anywhere
    within my area of responsibility, where we can review and
    support that effort, I commit to do so. Thank you.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Honey, I am sure that you are aware that PFAS is a big
    issue on our military bases across the country and the 2020
    NDAA. This committee directed that by January 1 of 2023, the
    military would come up with specifications to replace aqueous
    firefighting foam, which is the current biggest contributor to
    that on military bases, and then after October 1, the DOD will
    be prohibited, October 1 of 2024, will be prohibited from using
    aqueous firefighting foam.
        Can you talk about what you think needs to be done in terms
    of research, to ensure that we can meet those deadlines.
        Dr. Honey. Senator, the problem of what is also called
    ``forever chemicals'' is a serious issue. In fact, my wife and
    I were stationed at, while I was stationed at Pease Air Force
    Base, we took our kids back for a visit on vacation and I got
    to see the areas of the base that we used to occupy and go to
    were closed off for environmental remediation. So, the
    environmental impact has been huge and it does need to be taken
    care of.
        I am not presently engaged in that area of research, but if
    confirmed, I do commit to you that will be get briefed on what
    the activities are, are there any obstacles and communicate
    back to you where we are with this program and what needs to be
    done to meet those deadlines.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you.
        If you were at Pease, you know that there has been a major
    cleanup effort there dating back to 2014, and the Air Force has
    been very responsive, but to replicate that at every base
    across the country that has PFAS, we have got a lot more work
    to do. So, thank you for that commitment.
        Ms. Hinderstein, as you know, the U.S., Australia, and the
    United Kingdom just signed an agreement to transfer, to provide
    nuclear submarines to Australia, and in order to do that, we
    are going to have to transfer some fissile material to
    Australia, despite the fact that it signed a 123 Agreement on
    the use of that material.
        So, can you talk about some of the challenges that will be
    involved in that, what we need to do to help work with the
    Australians, whether there is any conflict with their 123
    Agreement.
        Ms. Hinderstein. Thank you, Senator.
        I want to say up front that I support the President's
    effort to shore up Australia's capabilities in the Pacific and
    I understand the contribution that the submarine deal makes to
    that arrangement.
        But there are also some challenges that come with it,
    including the nuclear safeguards challenges, as Australia is a
    non-nuclear weapon state and has an obligation for
    international safeguards. I would say that Australia has been a
    leader on nuclear nonproliferation. While this doesn't mean
    that we can transfer any technology or material capriciously,
    it means that I believe we will have a good partner in
    addressing any concerns that come and I believe that we can use
    the 18 months that has been announced to actually define the
    arrangements to our benefit to make sure that whatever the
    arrangement is with Australia, that it doesn't set a bad
    precedent for any other country that may seek nuclear
    capability.
        I would commit, if confirmed, to addressing this issue, as
    well as coming back and consulting with the committee.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
        Now, via Webex, let me recognize Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Dr. Honey, this committee has made a
    number of changes, including creating the R&E Division, in
    order to improve DOD's ability to deliver innovative solutions
    to the warfighter. But one thing that Congress cannot legislate
    is culture of the workforce, which witnesses have testified to
    is generally risk-averse.
        Can you talk about the importance of culture and risk
    tolerance, in particular, when it comes to innovation?
        Dr. Honey. Yes, Senator.
        A culture of risk tolerance really begins with leadership
    and it is very important as senior leaders that we communicate
    continuously to the workforce, risks that are acceptable, risks
    that may be going too far, and how we can work together to
    ensure that we are taking risks appropriately.
        During my two tours at DARPA, which have spanned a total of
    14 years, it is an agency which is really a master at the art
    of how do you take risks intelligently and lead the world in
    delivering capabilities to the warfighter.
        So, if confirmed, in R&E, that was one of the things that I
    would undertake to work with the workforce to understand what
    is the current risk-tolerance culture and what can be done to
    ensure that we have an environment where the workforce there
    feels comfortable in taking risks and is supported by
    leadership.
        Senator Fischer. What role do you think that R&E can play
    to help encourage this? Do you have any specific examples in
    mind how you would approach that?
        Dr. Honey. So, one of the things that I think is very
    important in the early process of creating a risk-tolerant
    culture is helping people think about objectives that they
    would like to achieve. What are the big things that if they had
    the resources and the commitment of leadership to follow
    through with, what could they undertake.
        At that point, you know, when leadership buys in, they,
    similarly, are also taking part and taking on the risk. One way
    that has been done, for example, is through the use of grant
    challenges. That has been very effective at trying to really
    take the leading edge out there in a risk-tolerant culture.
        Then there are tools, such as other transactions, which
    have been very helpful in engaging non-traditional parts of the
    community, which for many people, has been a big leap forward
    in risk-taking.
        Senator Fischer. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Hinderstein, while some proliferation challenges such
    as North Korea and Iran remain constant, the expanding arsenals
    of both, Russia and China, as well as their development of new
    and novel nuclear systems, they are dramatically changing the
    threat landscape.
        How do you see DNN's role adapting to the new environment
    and what area of focus to you intend to prioritize if you are
    confirmed?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Thank you, Senator.
        I agree that the reports, in particular, of China's nuclear
    buildup are profoundly concerning. I would certainly need, if
    confirmed, to get a full briefing on what the changes are with
    regard to China's nuclear arsenal.
        But in any case, we need to have a meaningful dialogue with
    China. I support the President's interim National Security
    Strategy, in which he calls for such a meaningful dialogue, and
    to me, that dialogue means that it would have to benefit U.S.
    national security interests, first and foremost.
        Similarly, with Russia, their expansion into new and novel
    deliver platforms does change the scope of activity,
    potentially, for future arms-control agreements. So, from a DNN
    perspective, if confirmed, I would want to focus on what the
    needs would be for verification and monitoring and technical
    support to any future arms-control agreement, making sure that
    they take into account the changes that have happened since our
    last negotiation with Russia and support the State Department's
    process. Thank you.
        Senator Fischer. When we look at Russia's arsenal,
    especially, the nonstrategic nuclear weapons and you are
    talking about an arms-control process, that is going to be
    really complicated and you alluded to that in your answer, when
    we look at those verification challenges for weapons that are
    far more complicated than the strategic nuclear forces.
        Do you anticipate that we have enough knowledge right now
    in order to address that, and if we don't, how are we going to
    be able to have the facts at our fingertips?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Senator, I completely agree with you that
    if we were to pursue an arms-control agreement with Russia that
    started to touch on nonstrategic nuclear weapons, we would need
    to take that into account into the verification system and we
    wouldn't be able to simply apply all of the existing system to
    that new reality.
        This is why I think it is extremely important that we work
    now and invest now, and that is my commitment, if confirmed, to
    look at those longer-term needs when it comes to verification,
    monitoring, and detection, to look at nonstrategic nuclear
    weapons, novel delivery platforms, and even looking at warheads
    as treaty limited items. These verification techniques do not
    come off the shelf when you need them, unless you invest in
    their development in advance, and I think that is what I would
    commit to do if confirmed.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Let me recognize, via Webex, Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Fulton, I really appreciated reading your written
    answers and you specifically said that sexual harassment and
    assault are barriers to recruiting and retaining the best
    workforce. I share your opinion that the Nation's brightest,
    most innovative individuals want to work in an inclusive
    environment and for leaders of character.
        The DOD has to make some substantial improvements in
    preventing sexual assault and harassment and prosecuting
    perpetrators. We have previously heard from President Biden
    that he beliefs that the decision-making of whether to
    prosecute these crimes should be removed from the chain of
    command for serious crimes, such as rape, murder, and child
    abuse.
        Do you share the President's commitment to removing these
    serious crimes from the chain of command?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I fully support the Secretary and the
    President in removing the sexual assault crimes from the chain
    of command. I would like to know more and understand more
    before I commit. You know, I would follow the lead of Secretary
    Austin. I would follow the lead of Under Secretary Cisneros in
    supporting whatever the decision is regarding what crimes
    remain with the commander and what crimes go to a different
    prosecutor.
        Senator Gillibrand. One of the challenges with regard to
    Secretary Austin's view is that it doesn't include murder, and
    so in the case of Vanessa Guillen from Fort Hood, she would not
    have had the benefit of a special review. There had been no
    evidence reported that she was harassed or assaulted, even
    though, in fact, she was, according to her family. But her
    murder would not be included and her murder may not have been
    investigated as carefully as a sexual harassment or a sexual
    assault case.
        So, my concern is that if you limit it to just two crimes,
    you are going to miss other related crimes, such as murder,
    such as arson, such as financial fraud, which are typically
    used in domestic violence cases against the person in the
    relationship who is being abused.
        So, I would like your commitment that you will look into
    the benefits that include bright-line felonies, not only for
    simplicity so that servicemembers can follow it appropriately,
    but also to make sure these, sometimes unseen, domestic
    violence cases and sexual assault and harassment cases that end
    in murder are included.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, it is a legitimate and extremely
    important question and you have my commitment to explore as, in
    every way, that if I was confirmed--if I am confirmed, I would
    explore in every way that is appropriate in my area of
    responsibility.
        Senator Gillibrand. Good, and I don't expect you to follow
    the leadership's views on this in this current position that
    you are going to be given. I expect you to make
    recommendations, to actually review the issues, perhaps in a
    more in-depth way, in a more thoughtful, nuanced way and make
    your recommendations up the chain of command, including to the
    President, and to really stand by your views and opinions
    because the position you are about to undertake is very
    important from the perspective of servicemembers.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I understand and, if confirmed, I will
    take that responsibility very seriously.
        Senator Gillibrand. Then related to that, Ms. Fulton, how
    will you support the President's view that transgender
    servicemembers should be able to serve openly?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I fully support that.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Well, I look forward to
    working with you.
        Dr. Honey, I would like to ask you a little bit about some
    New York assets. During my most recent visit to Rome Labs, I
    saw firsthand the incredible innovations New York's defense
    equities had to offer. The Innovare Advancement Center is
    particularly impress it to me in how it will bridge the private
    and public sectors in one space.
        How do you intend to improve this notion that the Valley of
    Death or Death Valley that a lot of entrepreneurs and
    innovators find, when they have technological breakthroughs and
    they develop technological breakthroughs but getting it to the
    warfighter and getting it into production is often very
    difficult, so I would like your thoughts on how to eradicate or
    rectify that, especially for the information directorate of the
    AFRL.
        Dr. Honey. Senator, I agree, the Valley of Death problem is
    one that is pervasive and is a very difficult challenge. I
    first encountered the notion of the Valley of Death and those
    issues, actually, when I was stationed at Rome Lab at Griffiss
    Air Force Base and saw a lot of great research going on, but it
    was very challenging to get it through the various wickets that
    it needed to go through to get it into a program of record.
        Areas where I have had success in this regard and where I
    would try and help R&E lead the Department is conducting the
    planning for tech transition from the very beginning. It is
    very important and R&E has the ability to do this, in my
    opinion, to bring together all the stakeholders, the
    developers, the acquisition community, the Defense Industrial
    Base, the users and other parts of the community to understand
    from the very beginning, what technology is being developed, to
    make sure that the developers have the right information they
    need, that they are going to go down the right path, but also
    that the experimentation and prototyping that needs to be
    conducted along the way happens, and then, ultimately, that the
    programs and the performers who are going to adopt and acquire
    the technology and integrate it, have the information they need
    in order to do so in an effective manner. Thank you.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to all our witnesses.
        I will submit additional questions for the record.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        Now, let me recognize Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to all of you for appearing before us today.
        Ms. Hinderstein, I would like to begin by just asking a
    question, but I am going to ask that you would answer it for
    the record afterwards. I am really concerned about preventing
    nuclear proliferation within the entire Middle East and I know
    that most of the discussion will be on Iran, but I think we
    have other players, as well, there.
        The cascading effect of one nuclear power simply seems to
    add to another, and so I will asking down the nuclear Iran
    problem or the Iranian nuclear problem, what are your next,
    biggest, and nuclear proliferation concerns in the Middle East,
    but I would ask if you would follow up with me and I will get
    that as a question for the record, okay?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Of course, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Dr. Honey, it would appear to me that you are very well
    qualified for the position that you are before us as a nominee
    for. One area that I think you could be very helpful to us on
    is with regard to your experience in DARPA and the
    opportunities provided for some very, very advanced research in
    a very classified way. A number of the areas in which we could
    very well fall behind other nations with regard to AI and so
    forth is if we are not able to find a way to bring into a
    commercially viable program, new technologies.
        I would ask for your cooperation in finding appropriate
    ways to declassify some of our research in such a fashion that
    it could be commercialized in a more expeditious manner.
        Would you be willing to work with us to see if we can do
    that?
        Dr. Honey. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
        There is tremendous benefits to getting the right
    technologies out into the commercial world. When the commercial
    world takes on some of these technologies, their ability to
    produce them at scale gives us yield, uniformity, and
    reliability that we just can't get any other way, so I do
    commit to work with you on that.
        Senator Rounds. What we do find here right now is in many
    cases, because of the classification of so many of the projects
    that we find success in, even other committees that help to
    fund other areas, such as in healthcare and so forth, we can't
    get connectivity between the Department of Defense and some of
    the others because of the classification necessary. So, I do
    appreciate that and I think it is an area in which we can work
    together to really bring some new technologies to the forefront
    and I thank you for that.
        Ms. Fulton, thank you for your service to our country. I
    have to admit, I start out these processes in which I believe
    that a President has, should have the right to appoint
    individuals they believe are appropriate to positions, but then
    I also believe we have a strong responsibility here to both
    advise and consent. Sometimes we give consent. Sometimes we are
    able to give advice if we disagree.
        I have serious questions about some of the inflammatory
    social posts which you have provided, and in particular, any
    concern is this, in the Department of Defense, we really do our
    best to try to keep inflammatory or partisan activities to a
    minimum. Your posts are pretty tough on Republicans and, in
    fact, you go out of your way in many, many cases to really
    attack Republicans on a very personal level. This is concerning
    to me. You have got 27,000 members that you would oversee. They
    are going to be Republican and Democrat, and independent.
        Can you share with us, let me just give you an example and
    perhaps you can respond to it. Let me pull out the right piece
    of paper. This is your quote from 2008 and this is on social
    media.
        Let's be real, when one of our two national political
    parties is unable to call out racism, our system is broken. It
    is not a political statement to say the GOP is racist; it is a
    moral statement, and one backed up by an increasing mountain of
    evidence.
        Ms. Fulton, can you explain this tweet to me.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I want to take the opportunity to
    apologize to you and to all the members of the committee for
    that tweet. My intent was to say that racism Democratic or
    Republican, that it is not a political issue; it is a moral
    issue and the parties should make a statement, because a whole
    group of people should never be tarnished with the actions of
    one, but I went about it all wrong. The words are muddled and
    confused and I deeply regret them.
        The idea that my words, that people I love and respect
    would be hurt by my words, especially Republicans, especially
    those Republicans, the people that I have worked with
    throughout my career to do work to benefit the Armed Forces, to
    make our military stronger and more effective, the people I
    have worked side-by-side with, the idea that I had hurt them
    with these words is devastating to me and I regret it.
        I know when we talk about race, we have to do it in a way
    that opens and expands the conversation, instead of shutting it
    down. By that standard, I failed miserably, and I deeply
    apologize.
        Senator Rounds. Well, Ms. Fulton, thank you for the
    apology, but I do think further explanation is necessary,
    because you wrote that in a very offensive and truly an
    incorrect statement for the world to see on the internet and
    you did that a few years ago and yet, as of Sunday, this tweet
    was still up on your Twitter page. So, look, I mean, I think
    you have got some explaining to do here and this is a very
    serious issue, because this is a time in which we are trying to
    take and bring people together, this type of an approach, an
    inflammatory approach, doesn't work, particularly, not within
    the Department of Defense. So, I think you have got some more
    explaining to do, but I do thank you for your apology.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Hirono, please?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have long held that racism is never far below the surface
    in our country and it pops up way too often. I will leave it at
    that.
        Congratulations to all of our nominees. Thank you for your
    commitment to service. I ask the following two questions of all
    nominees that come before any of the committees on which I sit.
    So, I will ask you, since you became a legal adult, have you
    ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any
    verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
        [All three witnesses answered in the negative.]
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
        [All three witnesses answered in the negative.]
        Senator Hirono. Dr. Honey, there has been a recognition
    that at times, a current acquisition process in the Department
    of Defense does not provide combatant commanders with the
    required resources to fulfill critical, operational needs
    arising from cross-service missions. This is especially evident
    in the INDOPACOM area of responsibility, as they struggle to
    bring on the new technologies they need to compete with and
    deter China.
        This committee has attempted to remedy this issue in the
    pending NDAA, through a pilot program at the Strategic
    Capabilities Office, SCO.
        If confirmed, how would you support SCO in the
    implementation of this program to ensure it is successful?
        Dr. Honey. Senator, thank you for your support in this
    area.
        In my experience, I have also, you know, had to work the
    issues of the services and the responsibility for train and
    equip. The combatant commands have the responsibility for
    combat operations and I have worked with INDOPACOM on these
    very issues.
        Senator Hirono. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Honey. For 7 months, I was the acting director of the
    Strategic Capabilities Office, so I deepened my understanding
    at that time of what INDOPACOM needs and what the issues are
    that they face.
        So, I am very grateful for what you have done in the NDAA.
    I believe that R&E, even though SCO is a direct report to the
    Deputy Secretary of Defense, SCO does have a strong
    relationship with R&E, and I would do everything I could to
    support the director of SCO and that organization in meeting
    their commitments in that area.
        Senator Hirono. Well, I think that you understand that the
    importance of ensuring that the technologies and capabilities,
    that the services align with the requirements identified by the
    INDOPACOM AOR. It is good to know that you have some
    familiarity with the INDOPACOM AOR because your position has
    wide-ranging responsibilities, including a responsibility to
    oversee the DOD labs and test ranges, and that includes Pacific
    Missile Range Facility.
        Have you ever visited PMRF on Kauai?
        Dr. Honey. No, Senator, I have not visited.
        Senator Hirono. I would welcome your visiting that facility
    should you be confirmed because PMRF is the world's largest
    instrumental, multidimensional, testing, and training missile
    range in the world. So, I would welcome your visiting.
        In addition, you also oversee the Missile Defense Agency
    and one of the concerns that I have had is that the DOD and the
    administration continues to not support funding for the
    Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii and this committee, through NDAA,
    has been putting back the money for that. Considering that the
    North Korea missile threat is not abating anytime soon, if
    confirmed, how would you ensure Hawaii is protected from
    missile threats from North Korea and elsewhere, going forward?
        As I said before, if the administration can come up with
    some other way to defend Hawaii, other than through the
    Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii, I am all ears, but up to now, I
    have not been given that kind of assurance. So, I just want to
    point that out to you, that that is an area that I welcome your
    input and support for Hawaii.
        One more thing. I am really glad that you mentioned your
    support for the SBIR and STTR programs. I am have a big
    supporter of these programs and you have said that you are a
    strong proponent of highly innovative small businesses through
    these programs, and much of the innovation comes from small
    businesses, but there is the issue of the Valley of Death that
    you have mentioned.
        As part of the Valley of Death issue, one of resources,
    these innovative small businesses need money to get past the
    Valley of Death. Is that something that we can address in a
    more fruitful way?
        Dr. Honey. So, Senator, to your first question about the
    MDA and the issue of missile defense. I am not currently
    briefed on some of the details of the MDA efforts, but I do
    commit to you that I will get fully briefed, if confirmed. You
    know, I am very concerned about the missile threats and would
    appreciate the opportunity to get back to you after I have been
    briefed and, you know, explain what I see the situation as and
    what we need to do in that regard.
        In the case of SBIR, one of the things I know that would be
    helpful, you know, if the reauthorization goes through that is
    always a concern. When I was at a small business, we worried
    about that quite a bit.
        I do think that there is a lot that can be done to try and
    help promote within the programs of record and the larger
    defense contractors where there are opportunities to leverage
    the investments that we have made into the small businesses
    that are then ready to transition into those programs. If
    confirmed, and I am working in R&E again, that is an area that
    I would focus on.
        Senator Hirono. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, and I
    look forward to working with all of you.
        Ms. Fulton, thank you for your commitment to make sure that
    we more effectively address the issue of sexual assault and
    sexual harassment in the military, which is a continuing
    scourge. Thank you.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Blackburn, please?
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Honey, Senator Hirono wants you to Hawaii. I want to
    get you to Oak Ridge National Lab and the quantum computing
    project there, I am sure you are aware, is something that is
    national lab-wide collaboration, and Oak Ridge is doing some
    really solid work to develop the next generation of computing
    systems. So, I would like to have you on a trip to visit there,
    so thank you.
        Ms. Fulton, my fellow Tennesseeans and I are very concerned
    about the current values of our nation's defense officials in
    their commitment to securing our nation. It is my hope that if
    you are confirmed, that you would act in a manner that would
    represent all Americans, even those that disagree with you.
        I won't sugarcoat this. The inflammatory rhetoric and the
    claims that you have made on Twitter and in interviews are very
    concerning. Your language is not representative of the way a
    top policy official at the Pentagon to write about policy or
    refer to her fellow Americans, including Republicans.
        Senator Rounds approached the January 2018 tweet with you.
    I have got a stack of your tweets here. We have got a poster
    with your tweets on it. Let me go to your March 2014 tweet.
        What about calling Republicans, right-winged, anti-everyone
    nutjobs, falling in love with a dictatorship?
        Or what about tweeting, this is from June 2017, that most
    Repubs still shamefully quiet on lies, corruption,
    incompetence, treason, they betrayed their oath to the
    Constitution?
        Would you consider that Republican Reservists and Guardsmen
    whose interests you will be representing at the Pentagon, would
    you consider them to be nutjobs? Would you consider them to be
    racists?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Blackburn. You would not, okay.
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator. I don't think any, in any case
    that a whole group of people should be tarnished with the
    actions of a few----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. What about the Republicans within
    the 25,000 employees that you would oversee as Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs? If they
    are Christians, do you think that they are racist and nutjobs?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I am a Christian, and no, I don't. I
    will, as I have throughout my career, work side-by-side with
    Republicans, with Democrats, with independents, with anyone,
    regardless of their political beliefs for the mission, for what
    is best for Armed Forces.
        Senator Blackburn. Why should we believe that if you were
    confirmed, that you would actually build a team that is diverse
    in fact and thought, rather than just diverse in appearance?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, throughout my career, I have worked
    side-by-side with Republicans, with everyone. My closest
    partner on the Board of Visitors----
        Senator Blackburn. Did you form an opinion that they were
    nutjobs and racists----
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator. One----
        Senator Blackburn.--and that the Christianity that the
    religion that they practiced didn't team with what you thought
    it ought to be?
        Are you a leader of character, a theme you focus on in your
    public speeches, and how do leaders of character behave on
    Twitter?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I strive to be a leader of character
    every day. I strive to uphold our values----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let me move on to Ms. Hinderstein.
    Nuclear proliferation is something that I have focused on. When
    we did the NDAA, I had an amendment on that. I was concerned
    about your statement that you saw no indication, this is from
    July 2019, you saw no indication that Iran is rushing toward a
    nuclear weapon.
        We know from the IAEA reports that they have stockpiled
    approximately 10 times the amount of total uranium that they
    were allowed under the JCPOA. So, have you changed your opinion
    on Iran and do you acknowledge that Iran has made irreversible
    gains toward a nuclear arsenal?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Senator, I am extremely concerned about
    Iran and I will clarify that my comments were about the
    technical capability to produce the nuclear weapon but were not
    intended to minimize the consequence of their dangerous and
    increased uranium enrichment activities.
        My statement about the rush to the bomb that you so
    accurately quoted was really intending to be consistent with
    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's public
    national threat assessment that said that there wasn't an
    indication that they were pursuing the activities related to
    the weaponization.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. I will come to you with a written
    question to delve further on this. If you are confirmed, then I
    would want to work with you on this issue.
        Ms. Fulton, my time has expired, but I have a couple of
    other questions I will send to you. Your rhetoric and your
    conduct is incredibly disturbing to me.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
        Let me recognize Senator King, please.
        Senator King. Thank you. I have got a lot of questions, so
    I am going to try to cover a lot of material very quickly.
        Ms. Fulton, I have recently seen data that the military is
    being more and more geographically concentrated in the South
    and the West. In 1985, it was about 50/50 between the South and
    the West and the Northeast and the Midwest. Today is 70/30.
        It concerns me our framers were very concerned about a
    standing army. We have crossed that Rubicon and now we are
    developing a regional basis to our army. I hope you will
    address this in terms of recruiting and just being cognizant of
    this growing regionalization, if you will, if our professional
    military.
        Will you commit to me that you will pursue that issue?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I will. All kinds of diversity are
    important; geographic diversity, no less than others.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Second, we are in a whole new set of conflict. The
    beginning of whatever conflict we enter into, and hopefully
    there won't be one, will be cyber. So, the question is, do we
    use the same kind of recruiting tools, the same kind standards,
    the same kind of physical standards for people that we need to
    fight the cyber war, as opposed to the people that need to
    fight the kinetic war?
        I think we need to face the reality that we are in, at
    least, a partially different kind of conflict. Do you agree?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I do agree. I think we have to do
    everything we can to make sure that we are getting the best
    cyber talent and that includes being creative.
        I have to say the committee has done an incredible job
    granting special authorities to be able to recruit and retain
    that talent. I think we have to make sure, while we have very
    high standards, we want to maintain those high standards, but
    make sure that we----
        Senator King. Well, the standards should match the
    requirements of the job; that is what I am suggesting.
        Ms. Fulton. The standards should align with the needs of
    the service.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, sir.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Mr. Honey, a couple of just comments and a couple of
    questions. One is, I know this is not strictly in your field
    but it is close, and that is, I believe strongly that when we
    are acquiring complex, technological weapon systems platforms,
    we should be also acquiring the IP. We should not have to pay
    extra for being able to 3-D print a part, for example. So, I
    hope that is something that will inform your discussion.
        Secondly, I am very worried about smaller, more agile and
    innovative companies being de facto excluded from the
    Department of Defense process simply because of the
    overwhelming nature of the forms and what is necessary. We have
    done a lot here to try to encourage working with smaller
    companies, but we have testimony from Silicon Valley saying, we
    don't even go to the Pentagon anymore, we don't answer the
    RFPs, because the process is so cumbersome and burdensome. So,
    I hope that is something else that you will follow-up on.
        You mentioned hypersonics. I believe that is one of our
    great strategic problems right now. Our posture, with regard to
    China involves aircraft carriers and naval power and unless we
    develop a counterforce to hypersonics, that force can be
    diminished dramatically at the early stages of a conflict,
    hypersonics.
        Cyber, of course, and directed energy, you mentioned all of
    those, directed energy, in particular, where we are talking
    about missile defense using 75, hundred-million-dollar
    missiles. Directed energy could be a lot more efficient if we
    can deal with the technological problems.
        Are you interested in and believe that we should be
    pursuing greater research into directed energy?
        Dr. Honey. Yes, Senator. The issues of missile defense and
    other applications for directed energy is one that I have
    worked in and around for a number of years. The technologies
    have gotten much better. There has been, tremendous advances
    have been made, still more to be made, but it is an area of
    research of which I continue to support.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Ms. Hinderstein, deterrence doesn't work with terrorists.
    My nightmare is terrorists getting ahold of nuclear weapons. We
    had a display here recently of nuclear warheads. They are about
    the size of a beer keg. They are not room-size; they are not
    very big.
        How do we deal, and perhaps you should take this question
    for the record, rather than try to answer it in 25 seconds, how
    do we deal with the issue of proliferation and the danger of
    terrorists getting ahold of nuclear material and, eventually,
    either an entire nuclear weapon or the technology to make a
    nuclear weapon?
        I think that is one of the great sort of, undiscussed
    challenges that is coming at us. If the terrorists on September
    11 could have killed three million people, instead of 3,000,
    they would have. Give me just a brief discussion of that and
    then hopefully a longer discussion for the record.
        Ms. Hinderstein. Yes, Senator, and thank you for the
    question. I would be happy to take a longer answer on the
    record, but I would just say that I agree that nuclear, the
    potential for nuclear, radiological terrorism is a major
    concern. I support an ``all of the above'' approach to nuclear
    security, meaning, secure, remove, convert, prevent, detect,
    and then if anything were to happen, be able to attribute and
    prosecute. I do think we have to look at nuclear security as a
    significant and, frankly, persistent threat to the United
    States.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Cotton, please?
        Senator Cotton. Ms. Fulton, in your written answers to
    advanced policy questions, you were asked if troops that are
    part of religious group or advocate for socially conservative
    changes to the law should be punished. You respond that as long
    as they are, quote, acting within the confines of federal law
    and DOD policy, they should be allowed to exercise their First
    Amendment rights of free speech and to observe the tenets of
    their religion.
        However, on June 30, 2014, you stated, once again,
    religious freedom, which you put in quotes, is twisted to mean
    conservative Christians can dictate their views to the rest of
    us. I suppose this was in response to the Supreme Court's Hobby
    Lobby decision.
        You also advocated for the repeal in that statement of the
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which I presume you know,
    was passed almost unanimously by this Congress. It was signed
    by President Clinton, and it was voted for by President Joe
    Biden. That law requires the Government to demonstrate a
    compelling government interest before it burdens any person's
    individual right to freedom of exercise of religion.
        So, if you were confirmed for this position, you will be in
    charge of DOD religious policies. You would have responsibility
    for overseeing chaplains and religious accommodations, yet you
    believe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is apparently
    being twisted by conservative Christians to dictate their views
    to the rest of us.
        So, which is it, Ms. Fulton, are you actually going to
    protect the religious freedom of troops and chaplains, or are
    you going to ensure that they can't dictate their views to the
    rest of us under the guise of religious freedom?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I support religious freedom and I
    would support religious freedom for all of our troops, all of
    our civilian employees, consistent with the law.
        Senator Cotton. Do you believe that the Religious Freedom
    Restoration Act should be repealed?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Why did you say so on June 30, 2014?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I support religious freedom and I
    would support religious freedom for our troops.
        Senator Cotton. Are you disappointed with Joe Biden that he
    voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Let's turn to a statement that you had in
    2017, where you said the vast majority of white evangelical
    leaders are utterly unmoored from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    The vast majority of white evangelical leaders.
        What percentage do you mean by the vast majority,
    obviously, something more than 51 percent of white evangelical
    leaders are unmoored from gospel of Christ, could you put a
    number on it?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Vast means of great extent or quantity,
    immense.
        Do you think 95 percent of white evangelical leaders are
    unmoored from the gospel of Christ?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Eighty percent?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Seventy percent?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Fifty-one percent? It has to be 51, right?
    It has to be at least 51; you said the majority.
        Ms. Fulton. Understood, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Let me ask you this, why is it white
    evangelical leaders? There are a lot of black evangelical
    leaders. There are a lot of Hispanic evangelical leaders.
        Are black evangelical leaders unmoored from the gospel of
    Christ?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I am not sure the entire context of
    that, but I would say that there are a wide variety of beliefs.
    We don't all have the same beliefs. We don't all have the same
    understanding of the gospel.
        Senator Cotton. Of course we don't, that is why we have
    things like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That is why
    we respect the freedom of exercise of all of our troops and all
    of our fellow citizens, whether they are white, black,
    Hispanic, Asian, or any other race or ethnicity, or whatever
    their religion is, yet here you are saying in public that the
    vast majority of white evangelical leaders are utterly unmoored
    from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
        Do you think it is appropriate to claim that anyone is
    unmoored from the gospel of Christ, any believing Christian,
    even if you disagree with this or that view they may have on a
    political controversy?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, while it is consistent with free
    speech, it is unwise.
        Senator Cotton. So, Ms. Fulton, I think you will understand
    why so many members of this committee and the Senate do not
    think that you are fit to take over this position. You are
    going to be in charge of military chaplains. You are nominated
    to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and
    Reserve Affairs and you have a long history of offensive,
    inflammatory accusations against Bible-believing Christians.
        I will oppose this nomination, and I certainly hope the
    entire Senate will oppose it, as well.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Cotton.
        Let me recognize Senator Sullivan, please.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to defer to one
    of my colleagues. I am still prepping here if that is okay?
        Chairman Reed. That is fine.
        Senator Scott, at the deferral of Senator Sullivan, you are
    recognized.
        Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman Reed.
        Ms. Fulton, I have read a number of your tweets and re-
    tweets about Republicans, white persons, Christians, voters,
    Americans, and sitting U.S. senators who will be voting on your
    confirmation. I simply cannot ignore the callous, hateful,
    divisive, and absolutely untrue things that you have said over
    the years.
        First off, do you want to apologize for any of the things
    you have said as we brought them up? Is there anybody,
    anything--what I have watched of your testimony, you are not
    apologetic for anything that you have said in the past; is that
    right?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I have deeply apologized to, and I do,
    again, deeply apologize to all of the members of the committee
    for the tweet that we discussed earlier, where, you know, my
    feeling is that the parties should have made a statement about
    racism, because I feel that no group of people should be
    tarnished with the actions of one, but I went about it all
    wrong and I am deeply sorry for that.
        My entire career, I have worked in a nonpartisan and
    bipartisan way, regardless of people's politics, worked to
    support the Armed Forces and make our military stronger----
        Senator Scott. Let me interrupt you for a second.
        Let's go back to what Senator Cotton said. The vast
    majority of white evangelical leaders are utterly unmoored from
    the gospel of Jesus Christ.
        Then you told the Windy City Times, the United States has a
    powerful, right-wing, antigay, anti-abortion lobby that
    purports to represent Christians. These radicals, I can't bring
    myself to call them Christians, since their language and
    actions hold no resemblance to the Jesus I know from the Bible.
        If confirmed, you are going to lead, as the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 27,000
    people and you will be doing policy for the entire military and
    civilian DOD workforce. You know, there are going to be some
    evangelical Christians in there and there are going to be
    Catholics who would work for you, if you were confirmed.
    Obviously, some of your potential subordinates are going to be
    pro-life.
        Some of us actually believe that we shouldn't be killing
    children. Obviously, this person would know that you have
    called their deeply held views, which they are free to hold, in
    this country, you are free to hold these things, you have
    called them radical. They are going to have to wonder about
    their ability to do their jobs or get promoted when their boss
    has such hateful, and it is hateful what you have said, and
    divisive language. So, how would you think that anybody, a
    conservative would ever move up after the things you have said?
        You supposedly, you said, oh, you spent a career advocating
    for diversity and demanding intolerance, but you struggle with
    intolerance, right, of anybody who has a different view.
        Now, let's go back to what Senator Cotton talked about,
    chaplains. You said what people fail to understand is that
    chaplains give up some of their rights as ministers when they
    become military chaplains.
        That is not true. The DOD policy for chaplains doesn't say
    anything like that; in fact, it says quite the opposite, quote,
    if a chaplain is unable to support a specific request because
    of his or her religious endorsing organization's teachings the
    chaplain must offer referral to another chaplain or
    professional.
        That is totally different than what you said. So, why?
        You obviously believe these things because you have said it
    a lot of times. You clearly lack sufficient self-control to
    show respect for other people and what they believe in,
    completely. You don't show any respect for them.
        There is good, productive public discourse. We have it
    here. We disagree a lot up here. But what you have said is
    hateful and you have done it a lot of times.
        So, I think when we review a nominee, I think it is
    important that we review their qualifications, but you are
    going to manage 27,000 people. I can't imagine those
    individuals that have a differently held belief are going to
    believe anything other than the fact that you will never give
    them a shot.
        So, I don't know why you did what you did. I am
    disappointed that you didn't--you should have started off by
    saying, I have made a lot of mistakes and let me go through
    them, and here is the reason why I said it, and I apologize,
    and it will never happen again. You are not willing to do that.
        So, I am in the same position Senator Cotton is. I hope
    this committee rejects your nomination, because I don't think
    you deserve to be able to be a manager over 27,000 people and
    especially over the chaplains of the military.
        Thank you, Chairman Reed.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Scott.
        Senator Hawley, please?
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to the nominees for being here.
        You know, we have heard from a lot of nominees who have
    come before this committee from this administration a lot about
    equity and about fairness being top priorities in today's DOD,
    but I have to say, that just doesn't seem to bear out to be the
    facts, and, Ms. Fulton, your nomination is the perfect example
    of it.
        What we have actually seen is targeting political
    opponents, targeting people who the administration doesn't
    agree with, trying to silence folks who they don't like.
    Clearly, it is a priority for this administration, because they
    have been focused on that, rather than doing things like, oh, I
    don't know, managing the evacuation from Afghanistan, where we
    have, let me remind this committee, yet again, 13
    servicemembers dead, hundreds of civilians dead, potentially
    thousands of Americans left behind enemy lines.
        Why?
        Because the DOD is focused on their radical left agenda,
    rather than on actually saving Americans and doing their jobs.
        Now, Ms. Fulton, I am astounded, frankly, that you have
    been nominated. Listen, you are entitled to have whatever views
    you want. Look, I am a constitutional lawyer. I am actually a
    religious liberty lawyer by training.
        Your faith is your faith. Your views are your views. You
    can say whatever the heck you want. This is the United States
    of America, but you are asking to be appointed to a very
    important position in the DOD.
        Let me come back to some of these statements that you have
    made. Religious freedom is twisted to mean conservative
    Christians can dictate their beliefs to the rest of us,
    hashtag, Hobby Lobby, repeal RFRA.
        When did you change your view on RFRA?
        You told Senator Cotton you are not in favor of repealing
    it. You were on June 30, 2014. When did you change your mind?
        Ms. Fulton. I couldn't tell you exactly, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Why did you change your mind?
        Ms. Fulton. I couldn't tell you exactly, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. You are choosing not to tell me or you
    don't want to engage or you don't like this line of questioning
    or you don't think you need to be responsive?
        Ms. Fulton. Oh, I am sorry, Senator.
        Of course I do mean to be responsive. I don't recall the
    details of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and I want to
    be clear that I support religious freedom. I support the rights
    of our troops and our civilian employees to their religious
    freedom to the entire extent that the law allows within their
    employment in the Department of Defense and I support that in
    every way, yes, sir.
        Senator Hawley. Why is it that you think that the vast
    majority of white evangelical leaders are utterly unmoored from
    the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can you explain that to me.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I am a Christian. I am a follower of
    Jesus Christ. I have had differences of opinion from people who
    don't believe in full equality for all, but I will say it is
    wrong, it was wrong for me in that moment and I believe it is
    always wrong to tarnish an entire group of people with the
    beliefs or actions of one or a few, and for that, I apologize.
        Senator Hawley. You said that if getting a Supreme Court
    judge who would outlaw abortion makes all of this worth it to
    you, referring to evangelicals, your religion has nothing to do
    with Jesus. You also say 86 percent of those who consider
    themselves white evangelicals support Trump.
        So, which part of it is, disqualifies these people as
    Christians, is it that they are opposed to abortion or they
    supported Trump or both? Help me understand your thinking.
        Ms. Fulton. I am so sorry, Senator. Could you read that
    again.
        Senator Hawley. On September 4, you said, 2017, 86 percent
    of those who consider themselves white evangelicals support
    Trump. You said in the same tweet thread, if getting a Supreme
    Court judge who would outlaw abortion makes all this worth it
    to you, your religion has nothing to do with Jesus.
        So, is it because that they supported Trump that they are
    not followers of Jesus or is it because they oppose abortion?
    Is it both?
        Ms. Fulton. I am trying to, Senator, I am trying to put
    myself back in that moment. I know there were several points at
    which I felt that the President had made statements or taken
    actions that I felt were in direct contradiction with the way
    that I understand Jesus' teaching, and I am expecting that I
    was reacting to that.
        Again, I don't believe we should ever tarnish a whole group
    of people for the actions of one.
        Senator Hawley. Do you think that it is your position to
    tell people when they are and aren't followers of Christ or
    truly----
        Ms. Fulton. No, sir.
        Senator Hawley.--Christians or not, just because they don't
    disagree with you?
        I understand you disagree with these folks but saying over
    and over that they are not followers of Jesus, you cited
    Matthew 23 on August 29, 2017, when you said the vast majority
    of white evangelical leaders are utterly unmoored from the
    gospel of Jesus Christ. Matthew 23 applies.
        Do you remember what you meant by that?
        Maybe a reference to the brood of vipers; that is Matthew
    23?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator.
        Senator, none of what I have ever expressed on social media
    was intended to silence others. I believe there is a free
    expression of beliefs there, but I do believe that I apologized
    for statements at any time when I tarnished a whole group of
    people for the actions or statements of one or a few and I----
        Senator Hawley. Well, it was clearly meant to denigrate
    others.
        Listen, my time is expired. I just have to say, Ms. Fulton,
    it is not just one statement; it is multiple statements over
    multiple years, running from 2014 through 2008, years, I mean,
    there is just pages and pages of these statements all directed
    at a particular group of people for whom you appear to have
    quite a significant amount of animus. You would be expected to
    oversee many of these folks in the Department of Defense.
        I mean, that is not fairness. That is not equity. That is
    targeting, and for those reasons, among others, I can't support
    your nomination.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
        Senator Kelly, please?
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Honey, during our recent meetings, we discussed the
    risks to national security created by America's reliance on
    foreign-made microelectronics, including microchips. As you
    know, this is a major concern of mine and countries like China
    are investing heavily to try to outcompete us, which is why I
    have been working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues
    to ensure our Nation has the resources it needs to increase
    American microelectronics manufacturing and development. I led
    the effort to include $52 billion in the competitiveness bill
    towards this goal with $2 billion allocated for efforts within
    DOD.
        I appreciated your opening comments about the need to
    leverage research from experts across academia, industry, and
    DOD. In your written responses to the committee, you indicated
    strong support for the establishment of a national network for
    microelectronics research that can bring those three parties
    together.
        In your view, what are the advantages of having academia
    and industry working in direct partnership with the Department
    of Defense as the national network model proposes?
        Dr. Honey. Senator, I thank you for your support in
    microelectronics and for these types of initiatives.
        My support for this and my interest in it actually stems
    from my previous experience at DARPA, having run a very similar
    type of effort in optoelectronics, where we did bring together
    industry, academia, and the Department to solve some very
    profound challenges over a number of domains in
    optoelectronics.
        So, having seen that before and the tech transition and the
    impact that that has had on the commercial world and to then
    feed back new capabilities to the Department that we could get
    out of the commercial world, I believe that this area of
    microelectronics is ripe for this type of activity again.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you.
        Can you explain a little bit why domestic, R&D testing,
    production, and packaging is so critical for our nation's
    ability to leverage to the next generation of technologies.
        Dr. Honey. Senator, yes, these, as you have just
    identified, these are a group of technology areas that are very
    important to have here onshore and available to our university
    students for learning how to design and make parts that will
    feed into that part of the supply chain, and that is part of
    the testing environment, but it is also important for industry
    to have resources to go to when they face a production problem.
        I had some experience in doing that previously when I was
    at Rome Lab in our test facility there when some folks from
    industry and, again, the optoelectronics world, faced
    challenges like that. They could come to us and leverage our
    expertise, and because we were working with so many different
    parts of industry and academia at that time, we were able to
    give them a much broader perspective on solving problems.
    Again, I think that activity would be replicated in this
    environment.
        Senator Kelly. Could you give an example, maybe, how
    currently when we need to test microelectronics and we have to
    do that offshore, why that is a risk to our national security.
        Dr. Honey. Senator, these types of activities, when they
    are done offshore, are a risk because it exposes the
    intellectual property, it exposes the circuit design,
    capabilities, and our intent when we do that, or there is the
    possibility of having that happening, for certain.
        So, having the ability to do that here in the U.S. gives us
    the ability to have those layers of protections that we need
    for our microelectronics that we are using in various
    applications or weapons systems and other places, as well.
        Senator Kelly. I want to highlight, just for the record,
    that some of that testing is done in China, which is not in the
    interests of our national security.
        Under Secretary Shyu has identified microelectronics as a
    priority, modernization area for DOD. You know, what are some
    of the challenges that the Department will face going forward,
    if we do not create a robust, domestic manufacturing
    capability?
        Dr. Honey. The challenges that I see, based on, you know,
    my experience at DARPA, my time in the Air Force, and working
    these issues is that we have to have the ability to work at the
    leading edge. We need to be able to have security for our
    designs. We need to have the environments where our Defense
    Industrial Base can collaborate with commercial partners on the
    leading edge and know that the intellectual property is
    properly being protected. We need to be able to ensure that,
    you know, all parts of that ecosystem that we need to master,
    we have the ability to do that here or, you know, we have
    already seen the democratization and spread of technology and
    how it impacts us. This is a way to help ensure that when we
    want to let that information out, we can, but when we need to
    protect it, we can keep it here in the U.S., as well.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, Dr. Honey.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Fulton, I have got to tell you, I am very concerned
    about your nomination. I am very concerned about the
    politicization of our military. I think if you are confirmed,
    you are going to add to that. It is very dangerous.
        So, let me go into some questions. You served on the Board
    of the U.S. Military Academy, didn't you?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, sir, I did.
        Senator Sullivan. You were chairman?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. You enjoyed it, you got a lot out of it?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. I serve on the Board of the Naval
    Academy. I love it, actually.
        You served until 2019, if I recall, correct, December 2019?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator, that is correct.
        Senator Sullivan. So, when President Trump came onboard as
    a new President, he didn't fire you or any of the other members
    appointed by President Obama, correct?
        Ms. Fulton. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. So, you weren't fired.
        So, Joe Biden gets elected, this is what I am talking about
    politicization of the military, he purges everybody nominated
    by President Trump off all the service academy boards.
        Do you think that was a good idea?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, that was the President's prerogative.
        Senator Sullivan. It is not his prerogative.
        I am asking you, do you think it was a good idea?
        You served on the Board. You weren't fired by Donald Trump.
    Do you think it was a good idea that--do you think any other
    President in the history of the country has done that?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't know, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. I will answer for you: no. First time
    ever.
        Do you think it was a good idea?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I think there is benefit to having
    people with longevity on the Board----
        Senator Sullivan. So, Donald Trump should have--I am sorry,
    go ahead.
        Ms. Fulton. There is a benefit to having people with
    longevity on the Board that, with experience in knowing how the
    Board works. There is also a benefit in getting new eyes on
    the----
        Senator Sullivan. But let me read you the law. The law says
    that board members designated by the President shall serve 3
    years. So, Biden's firing of everybody was illegal. I have no
    doubt about it. It is right here in the law.
        So, if you are confirmed, will you work to reinstate those,
    well, let me give you two examples from the U.S. Military
    Academy. General H.R. McMaster, the day after he was fired by
    Biden, he received the Distinguished Graduate Award.
        Do you think he deserved to be fired?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I have respect for General McMaster,
    as someone who I know.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you think he deserved to be fired?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I don't know on what grounds that
    decision was made.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you think General Keane deserved to be
    fired?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't know what grounds that was made----
        Senator Sullivan. Well, here is the point. Will you commit
    to reinstating people like General McMaster?
        President Biden illegally fired everybody. No one had ever
    done that in the history of the country before, but he decided
    to purge every service academy for what reason?
        The only reason is to politicize the service academy. Do
    you think it is a good idea, you are a West Point grad, to
    politicize the service academies?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator, I don't believe it is good to
    politicize----
        Senator Sullivan. So, will you work, if confirmed, to
    reinstate the people Joe Biden fired?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, if I am confirmed, I will look into
    what authorities--my understanding is that is solely within the
    President's----
        Senator Sullivan. It is not. I just read you the statute.
    It says ``shall.'' That is why you weren't fired by President
    Trump.
        Anyway, let me turn to another issue. But this is an
    important issue, Mr. Chairman, that we haven't done enough to
    look at. It is an important issue. Politicizing the officer
    court of our military academies is something nobody should
    accept and Joe Biden is doing it and you are going to be in
    charge of this.
        The Under Secretary of Defense, in his confirmation hearing
    said one of his goals was to stamp out, quote, systemic racism
    within the ranks of the military.
        Do you believe that the military is systemically racist?
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator.
        I have heard different definitions of that term, but I
    don't believe that the military is fundamentally racist.
        Senator Sullivan. So, one of your tweets said, it is not a
    political statement to say the GOP, that is half the country,
    is racist; it is a moral statement.
        So, do you believe that every Republican in the GOP,
    probably a lot of military members, too, are they all racist?
    That is what you said in 2018.
        Ms. Fulton. No, Senator. I want to repeat what I said when
    I apologized for that tweet earlier. My intent was to say that
    racism isn't Republican or Democratic, that it is not
    political; it is moral.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay.
        Ms. Fulton. The parties should make a statement, because no
    group of people, no whole group of people should be tarnished
    be the actions of one.
        But my words were muddled, confused. I went about it the
    wrong way and I deeply apologized for----
        Senator Sullivan. Let me focus on another group, that for
    whatever reason seems to get the ire of the far left, and it is
    the Marine Corps. I love the Marine Corps. I think it is one of
    the best institutions in America.
        I remember an Obama administration official, I can't
    remember, senior in the Pentagon, she called the marines a
    bunch of extremists.
        You were quoted, stated in 2016, quote, so tired of USMC
    women fighting to keep combat ban because they want so badly
    for the male marines to love them; hashtag, co-opted, hashtag,
    Stockholm Syndrome.
        That is a blatant insult to the women in the U.S. Marine
    Corps. Hey, do you want to apologize to them right now, because
    you are looking to possibly lead them?
        Why the hell would you say something like that?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, the honor, courage, and commitment of
    the Marine Corps is----
        Senator Sullivan. How about women marines?
        Ms. Fulton. Especially women marines.
        Senator Sullivan. So, why are you insulting them?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, that was, I never want to tarnish a
    whole group of people with the actions of one and in that case,
    it was the action of one and----
        Senator Sullivan. No, it wasn't. You said the USMC women.
        Why are you insulting the women in the United States Marine
    Corps and will you, right now, apologize for that tweet or
    whatever the heck it was in 2016?
        Ms. Fulton. I apologize, Senator. I have all respect for
    the Marine Corps. I know a great deal of Marine men and women
    who served honorably, continue to serve honorably, and I have
    served alongside of and worked alongside of, and I have
    tremendous respect for them. I will continue to work with them.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, this nominee is clearly
    unqualified and I hope everybody on this committee votes to not
    move forward her confirmation out of the Armed Services
    Committee. It will be an insult, part of this continuing focus
    on the Biden administration to put officials like you who are
    disingenuous, condescending, dismissive, and insulting of the
    very people you want to lead in the military, and I think it
    has to stop on this nominee. Sorry.
        Chairman Reed. Senator Peters, please?
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to each and every one of you for your willingness
    to serve in tough and challenging jobs, and I appreciate your
    willingness to serve the country.
        Dr. Honey, my first question is going to be for you. If
    confirmed, you will oversee the Defense Advanced Research
    Project Agency, DARPA, and certainly in an era of strategic
    competition against our near-peer threats, there is a renewed
    emphasis on DARPA, and I think rightly so, because of the
    critical work that it does.
        But my question for you is, how do you plan to increase the
    coordination and bring DARPA closer to industry, academia, and
    other government agencies to advance our capabilities in areas,
    particularly, artificial intelligence, microelectronics,
    quantum science. We know now that a lot of some of the cutting-
    edge new technologies coming onboard are happening in the
    commercial sector. They are happening in academia. DARPA
    clearly plays an important role, but that role has to be
    coordinated with all of these other entities.
        If you would elaborate on your thoughts on that, I would
    appreciate it.
        Dr. Honey. So, Senator, I agree, these are all important
    areas, and DARPA's role in, not only leveraging what's going on
    in industry, but creating new areas of research for industry
    and academia, has been very important, at least, I have seen
    it, you know, day-to-day during my two tours at DARPA, over the
    14 years that I spent there. DARPA, and I would say that all of
    the service labs and even more broadly, all of DOD research
    does need these connections, exactly as you described.
        There are a number of ways that can serve to do that. COVID
    has had an impact on, I know, on all of my colleagues in trying
    to do that, and so we have been experimenting with a number of
    ways of, you know, Webex, Zoom meetings, things like that, ways
    to try and better collaborate and coordinate. I do hope,
    though, that as COVID recedes, that we are able to, you know,
    get to more in-person and technical conferences and whatnot. We
    will be able to have greater participation in those venues, as
    well.
        But I think one of the things that is key is from the
    Government's side from DOD, we need to be very forthcoming with
    our partners outside of government on what it is we are
    planning to do and why are we going to do it and what are our
    thoughts on how to do that, and then have means of
    communication back in.
        When I left the Government, I went out to a small defense
    contractor for 2 years. I had no idea how hard it was to
    communicate back into Government until I went there and saw it
    firsthand. So, I commit to you that if I am confirmed, I will
    tackle these issues, because it is very important to have those
    lines of communication if we are to succeed.
        Senator Peters. Well, absolutely. I am glad you had that
    experience so you know what it is on the other side and how
    difficult that can be and that certainly can happen. We need a
    very fluid ecosystem and innovation in our ecosystem.
        Speaking of that, the defense innovation ecosystem,
    generally, has been calling for an expansion of DARPA. What are
    your thoughts of expanding DARPA? Is there a need to do that
    and, if so, why?
        Dr. Honey. DARPA's budget has grown over the years and I
    believe that has been a very worthwhile investment that DARPA
    does deliver tremendous value to the government. Going forward,
    of course, you know, I support the President's budget and will
    look to, if confirmed, when I am in R&E, get a better
    understanding of the research that is going on, not just across
    the Department, overseeing, you know, greater opportunities for
    collaboration with the National Science Foundation, NIH, and
    other departments, as well.
        NIST has a great amount of work going on, the Department of
    Energy with all of its labs. So, figuring out, not just, you
    know, how much money needs to be spent, but where it needs to
    be spent. We have to make sure that we are getting the right
    bang for the buck, deconflicting, where necessary, are all
    activities that, if confirmed, I commit to support.
        Senator Peters. Very good.
        Ms. Fulton, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower
    and Reserve Affairs has purview over review boards that deal
    with bad-paper discharges. Earlier this year, I pressed
    Secretary Austin to quickly and effectively implement the
    Fairness for Veterans legislation that I, along with members of
    this committee, enacted into law.
        Veterans who have been erroneously given a less-than-
    honorable discharge from the military, due to negative behavior
    resulting from mental trauma, such as PTSD or traumatic brain
    injury that wasn't properly diagnosed while they were in
    service, certainly deserve to have their petitions for change
    adjudicated in a timely manner. We find many of these folks,
    the behaviors they had was a direct result of PTSD that wasn't
    diagnosed.
        While I understand that COVID-19 has added obstacles for
    veterans getting their records corrected, my question for you
    is, if confirmed, do you have a commitment, will you make a
    commitment to me to work with my office to ensure that review
    boards are making expeditious decisions and to transmit to my
    office, data and information related to these review boards?
        It was estimated that we may be talking about 30 or 40,000
    veterans in this category and, yet, only, roughly, I believe
    1,500 to 2,000 have actually had changes in those papers as a
    result of those boards. Talk to me about that and please offer
    me your commitment.
        Ms. Fulton. Senator Peters, thank you for that important
    legislation that really recognizes the impact of PTSD on
    behavior, and it is important for our soldiers.
        If I am confirmed, I commit to move out smartly on this and
    do whatever I can to move it along.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Peters.
        Senator Tillis, please?
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Congratulations to the nominees for your nominations.
        Very briefly, Dr. Honey, I would be kind of curious to see,
    with respect to the United States compared to China and Russia,
    how are we doing in the race for quantum information science
    and with respect to China, maybe include in that artificial
    intelligence. Are we ahead, behind, or just keeping up?
        Dr. Honey. Senator, based on what I see, you know,
    published and where the activities going on, our adversaries
    are certainly very interested in these areas and they are
    competing with us, as best as they can. I still believe,
    though, that the U.S. does have the best R&E ecosystem and that
    we are ahead in these areas. But it is a challenge to stay
    ahead and one that we have to keep focused on to remain there.
        Senator Tillis. If confirmed, briefly, what would be your
    top priorities to make sure that we leapfrog ahead?
        Dr. Honey. Senator, my priorities would be supporting the
    DOD ecosystem to make sure that we are, you know, making the
    right investments, that we are getting the value out of it,
    collaborating with the other agencies, but even more
    importantly these days, staying in contact with the commercial
    industry. There is a lot of quantum that is being funded by the
    venture capital community today that previously never would
    have been done, so we need to leverage all of these investments
    to stay ahead.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Ms. Fulton, I have been watching some of the hearing in my
    office and I was in the Banking Committee hearing with a
    nominee who had a long history of incendiary and profane tweets
    about Republicans, about the former President. Yours were not
    profane, but they are questioning.
        I also want to associate myself with some of the comments
    that Senator Sullivan made about his concerns, but rather than
    getting into the specifics of the tweets, they are in the
    record, in an organization that you are going to go into that
    are going to have thousands, tens of thousands of people across
    the political spectrum, why would those who would just object
    to what you have put out there, feel comfortable with you
    having to lead them?
        Ms. Fulton. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        Throughout my career, I have worked side-by-side with
    people, regardless of their political affiliation. One of the
    most critical issues that we faced at the Military Academy was
    a combination of sexual assault and harassment problems and a
    need to recenter character.
        I worked, my closest partner in that was Congressman Steve
    Womack. I worked probably throughout my time on the Board of
    Visitors, my closest working partners on getting things done
    were either appointed by Republicans or were Republican members
    of Congress. I have always worked with people, regardless of
    their political viewpoint. I would continue to strive to do so.
        As I did in the military, what we do is we focus on the
    mission, what is the mission, and we work together to achieve
    that.
        Senator Tillis. What is the thought process, and by the
    way, you have a very impressive career and you should be
    commended for blazing the trail for women in the Army, but you
    know, what would motivate you to take it to that level if, on
    the one hand you just told me that you have worked side-by-side
    and collaborative, why didn't it give you pause before you
    pressed tweet, when you are casting an entire political party
    in the same light?
        There was one tweet that you had out there that I took
    personal offense to, because back in 1996 when I became a new
    partner in Price Waterhouse, I volunteered to create a
    diversity recruiting practice that went across the entire
    spectrum that you are obviously, based on your tweet,
    sympathetic to, and I am too, but just give me an idea of why
    you felt comfortable with doing that if you also have just said
    that you worked across a broad spectrum of people. How could
    that, if they knew that this is what you felt, do you think it
    would undermine your ability to actually work with them?
        Ms. Fulton. Senator, I want to apologize for that tweet. My
    intent was to say that racism isn't Democratic or Republican.
    It is not political; it is a moral issue.
        The parties should make a statement, because a whole group
    of people should never be tarnished with the actions of one or
    a few and----
        Senator Tillis. I just don't recall----
        Ms. Fulton.--but it came across completely wrong and I
    apologize, Senator. It came out completely wrong.
        Senator Tillis. If you could submit, for the record, an
    example of where there is a pattern where you have said that
    you are calling on everybody across the ideological spectrum,
    but it seems to me that at least what I have observed, and
    there could be more that were not submitted to me for
    preparation before the committee, to demonstrate that balance.
        Because, you know, honestly, I hired a lot of people as a
    partner of Price Waterhouse and if this were, and we did a lot
    of searches on social media, I do that in my office, it is a
    deal-killer for anybody to have made a political statement
    about the other party. As a matter of fact, in my office if
    someone says something that is overheard that is the least bit
    critical of someone else on the other side of the aisle, it is
    grounds for termination, based on my business code of conduct.
        So, the reason I would have a concern with supporting you
    is it doesn't even live up to my hiring practices in my office,
    which is highly diverse and, in fact, my nominations to the
    committees, is one of the top four or five in the
        U.S. Senate for diversity. So, I actually do it in a way,
    and in my 20 years in public service, have never taken on the
    party or said or had a single tweet or a public statement,
    where we have a record of several.
        So, it just worries me about your temperament and about the
    confidence people would have and the side of the political
    spectrum that you have, at least, some contempt for.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tillis.
        Senator Rosen is trying to get to her computer, so I will
    take the opportunity to begin my second round.
        Ms. Fulton, you had an extraordinary career: the first
    class of women at West Point, which was very challenging. Not
    only did you survive an experience that most people, and I have
    some experience in this regard, could not have done, and then
    you went on and throughout your public service, and currently
    in the state of New Jersey, working with people from all
    different persuasions, political, theological, ethnic
    differences, and there has been no complaints by any of your
    subordinates or any of your superiors about your work.
        Is that fair?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator, that is true.
        Chairman Reed. So, that, in the performance of your duties,
    you have done it in a way that is based on the principles, and
    I will be somewhat trite, of duty, honor, country, that you
    have a job to do and you must do that job. It is other factors
    which you might, privately, as we all have private thoughts and
    ideas, do not influence your professional activities.
        Is that fair?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, Senator. I strive to live up to the ideals
    of duty, honor, country. I do think about that. I am
    passionate. I am strong-willed. I am a fighter.
        If I am confirmed, I will strive to prove to you and every
    member of this committee, every day, that I am the person of my
    record.
        Chairman Reed. Well, I, you know, obviously, I think the
    record bears that out in the sense that everyone is entitled to
    their opinions, but they have to recognize their opinions and
    deal in the workplace with facts and with the principles, the
    fairness, and responsibility and commitment, in this case, to
    the Constitution and to the laws of the United States. So, I
    think that point has to be emphasized, so I will emphasize
    that.
        I am going to follow-up Ms. Hinderstein, with a question
    and give you a little more time to elaborate, which is securing
    of nuclear materials, again, I have the same concerns as my
    colleagues, with respect to the real danger of these materials
    flowing into the hands of terrorist groups, which are very
    difficult, if not impossible, to deter. What can you add to
    your previous answer?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Thank you, Senator.
        I really am appreciative of this line of inquiry, because I
    do think that nuclear security and anything that we can do to
    reduce the risk that terrorists could acquire nuclear or
    radiological material is extremely important, and it is a risk
    that threatens to kind of fall below the radar while we deal
    with other extremely important national security issues.
        If confirmed, I would seek to support a number of the
    really important programs that the Office of Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation has not only innovated, but implemented, with
    partners around the world, because it is not just about telling
    folks what to do; it is more about giving them the tools, the
    capability, and the sustainability to continue that mission
    globally. Because the United States, we can't just protect
    ourselves here, we have to protect ourselves in any area of
    risk.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much.
        I am informed that Senator Rosen is available. At this
    point, I will recognize Senator Rosen for her questions.
        Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chairman Reed. I appreciate
    it. Thank you, Ranking Member Inhofe.
        I want to thank the nominees for being here today and your
    willingness to serve.
        I want to talk a little bit about Nevada's National
    Security Site. So, Ms. Hinderstein, the Nevada test site, now
    known as the Nevada National Security Site, or NNSS, was ground
    zero for our country's explosive testing between 1945 and 1992
    with a hundred atmospheric and 828 underground tests conducted
    at the test site. NNSS is the only facility in the Nation
    equipped to accommodate subcritical nuclear experiments,
    helping to advance our national security and maintain the
    integrity of our nuclear stockpile.
        Under the direction of the Deputy Administrator for Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation, NNSS hosts a Nonproliferation Test
    and Evaluation Complex, the largest facility for open-air
    testing of hazardous materials and biological stimulants in the
    world, which trains our first responders for nuclear
    catastrophes.
        If confirmed, another Nevada equity, which would fall under
    your direction is the Remote Sensing Laboratory at Nellis Air
    Force Base and Joint Base Andrews, providing radiological
    emergency response teams along the West Coast and the East
    Coast, respectively. They stand ready to provide emergency
    radiological response anywhere in the world with deployable
    teams of experts.
        RSL has been undergoing a number of upgrades to their
    equipment, including helicopters, detectors, communications
    gear. I had the pleasure of touring their headquarters right
    there at Nellis in July.
        So, Ms. Hinderstein, can you speak to importance of the
    Nevada National Security Site and the Remote Sensing Lab and
    the specialized people and equipment they field, and will you
    ensure that, if confirmed, that they have the tools and the
    resources that they need to maintain our nuclear stockpile, to
    think about any potential radiological events, and prepare and
    plan for the things that our country is going to need going
    forward.
        Ms. Hinderstein. Thank you for your question, Senator. I
    agree with you that the capabilities that are resident in
    Nevada and, in particular, at Nellis and at the National
    Nuclear Security Site, are unique to our country.
        Because of the history of the facility, there are
    capabilities in Nevada that we don't have elsewhere and that
    would be nearly impossible, if not actually impossible to
    replicate if we were to try to do so. So, I think it is
    extremely important that we support the mission at Nevada.
    There are profound and important activities that go on there
    that are related to DNN's R&E portfolio.
        If confirmed, first of all, I hope I would get the
    opportunity to see some of those facilities directly. I have
    been to the site once, but I didn't have the opportunity to see
    some of those. I would commit to you to an ongoing conversation
    about the needs of the site to meet our national security
    missions.
        Senator Rosen. Well, that is important, because as you
    mentioned, they have highly specialized nuclear-detection
    equipment found nowhere else. It does need to be maintained and
    upgraded, and it is critical.
        Talking about their infrastructure needs, in general, when
    I last visited the National Security Site, I saw the ongoing
    construction project for the U1a facility for enhanced
    capabilities for subcritical experiments. We call it the ECSE.
    I am expedited that the NNSS will host the most capable weapons
    and radiographic system in the world.
        So, again, Ms. Hinderstein, if confirmed, what additional
    investments in the Nevada National Security Site do you think
    would be prudent to ensure that the site can continue to
    fulfill its counterterrorism and nonproliferation missions in
    the years to come?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Senator, I think it is extremely important
    to coordinate with my counterparts at the Office of
    Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation at NNSA if I were to
    be confirmed, because there are such specific capabilities that
    would benefit both our mission spaces.
        I would not dare to speculate on exactly which investments
    would be needed now, but I would think it would be extremely
    important, if confirmed, that I get up to speed on where the
    capabilities lie, where the gaps may be, and how we can
    strategically invest in the site to meet all of our needs.
        Senator Rosen. Well, thank you. My team and I look forward
    to welcoming you to Nevada, taking you on those tours, and
    having just these very discussions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
        That concludes the hearing. I want to thank the witnesses
    for their testimony. I also want to thank you for your
    willingness to serve the nation. It is deeply appreciated.
        With that, I will adjourn the hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                                    ------

        [Prepared questions submitted to Dr. David A. Honey by
    Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
    follow:]

                            Questions and Responses
                           duties and qualifications
        Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
    the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering?
        Answer. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering (DUSD(R&E)) is the primary assistant to and senior-most
    official under the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering. The Deputy Under Secretary will assist the Under Secretary
    to perform all duties enumerated in Section 133a of title 10. As a
    Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed official, the Deputy
    Under Secretary is empowered to act on behalf of the Under Secretary on
    delegated topics, and when the Under Secretary is unavailable or
    recused.
        The Deputy Under Secretary also leads efforts supporting the Under
    Secretary's role as the Chief Technology Officer of the Department. The
    Deputy Under Secretary works with the staff to engage industry,
    academia, the Services and other stakeholders to ensure that the Under
    Secretary is provided comprehensive and accurate information and
    advice.
        Question. If confirmed, what additional duties and functions would
    you expect the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense
    for Research & Engineering (USD(R&E)) to prescribe for you?
        Answer. If confirmed as the Deputy Under Secretary, I expect to
    have an exceedingly collaborative relationship with the Under Secretary
    where both of us are working in our strengths, and where my role is to
    enable the Under Secretary to be most effective and impactful in
    driving the technology dominance of U.S. Forces. I expect that on
    behalf of the Under Secretary, I will be deeply engaged with the staff
    on the day-to-day details of accomplishing Research and Engineering's
    mission, and will support the staff in overcoming challenges and
    obstacles. I expect that I will assist the Under Secretary in building
    collaborative relationships across the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense and in supporting Research and Engineering's engagements with
    its other partner organizations. I would also stand ready to support
    the needs of the Department and the Deputy Secretary to represent
    Research and Engineering equities on any Department-wide initiative, if
    so tasked. I look forward to having this dialogue with the Under
    Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, if confirmed.
        Question. What background and experience do you possess that
    qualify you to perform these duties?
        Answer. Over the course of my career, I have served as an officer
    in United States Air Force, a member of the Senior Executive Service in
    the Department of Defense, a senior executive in a small business
    defense contractor, and as a senior executive in the Office of the
    Director of National Intelligence. I have managed research, technology
    and engineering programs on a broad range of technologies. I have
    served as a bench level scientist, a member of United States Air Force
        Scientific Advisory Board, and supervisor of large national
    security research and development efforts, through which I developed a
    broad understanding of the science, technology, innovation ecosystems,
    platform integration, and testing that will be essential to this role.
    As a former B-52 and FB-111 pilot, I have a strong connection to and
    understanding of the needs and benefits of advanced technologies for
    our warfighers. During the 14 years over two tours that I have served
    at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), I have
    experienced creating and leading innovation as a program manager,
    deputy office director, office director, and special assistant to the
    Director. While I have often led projects involving large companies in
    the Defense Industrial Base, I am a strong proponent of our highly
    innovative small business sector and have actively participated in the
    SBIR program, first as a government program manager and later as a
    performer when I worked at a small defense contractor. In all of these
    previous assignments, I have actively participated in the efforts to
    push R&D across the Valley of Death and deliver a competitive edge to
    our warfighters. Having previously served as the Deputy Assistant
    Director of Research (DASD/R) in Research and Engineering while it was
    a part of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
    and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), as the Acting Director of the Strategic
    Capabilities Office, and recently as a senior advisor in Research and
    Engineering, I gained a deep appreciation of what it takes to ensure
    that Research and Engineering will be a valued contributor, and I
    believe that my experiences have well-acquainted me with the demands of
    this position.
        Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
    enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering? Please explain your
    answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I commit to relying on experts within the
    organization as I grow into the role of Deputy Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering, and to be constantly learning. As
    the scope of the threats to our national security evolves, it will be
    an important responsibility for me to stay informed and to seek out a
    diverse set of viewpoints. The research and development landscape is
    also rapidly increasing its pace of change and to be successful, I must
    tap into a wide range of information sources both within and from
    outside of the Department. From a management perspective, my experience
    in the military, the Intelligence Community, and industry have taught
    me the importance of relationships, collaboration, and building
    consensus. Building and continuing the enabling relationships to be
    successful as the Deputy Under Secretary will begin on day one, and I
    am committed to undertaking that important work.
                                 relationships
        Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
    the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering with
    the following:
        The Military Service Science and Technology Executives.
        Answer. The Military Service Science and Technology Executives
    oversee a multi-billion-dollar investment across the Services. It is my
    understanding that in order to ensure unity of effort and coordination
    across the Department of Defense's strategy, budget, and execution
    decisions, that the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering has established a Science & Technology (S&T) Executive
    Committee (EXCOM), under the auspices of the Director of Defense
    Research and Engineering (Research and Technology) that helps the
    Department maximize S&T resources, avoid unnecessary duplication and
    identify strategic opportunities for S&T investment. It is also my
    understanding that the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering is assisted by the Deputy Under Secretary in evaluating the
    plans and programs of this activity.
        Question. The Directors of Department of Defense Laboratories and
    Research Centers.
        Answer. It is my understanding that the S&T EXCOM that has been
    established by the USD(R&E), in addition to maximizing the Department's
    S&T resources, oversees the Department's Laboratories and Research
    Centers through four Laboratory Quality Enhancement Panels (LQEPs). The
    Directors of the Defense Laboratories and Research Centers are active
    participants in all of the LQEPs. It is also my understanding that the
    Deputy Under Secretary would participate in regular briefings by the
    S&T EXCOM and the LQEPS in order to advise the Under Secretary on
    important issues.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA).
        Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    (USD(R&E)) is assigned the responsibility to exercise authority,
    direction, and control over The Director of The Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As the principal assistant to the
    USD(R&E), the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering supports the USD(R&E) in managing this core responsibility.
    If confirmed I look forward to supporting the USD(R&E)'s commitment to
    ensure that DAPRA continues to have the support it needs to conduct
    breakthrough research and accelerate DARPA's innovation into the
    Services.
        Question. The Administrator of the Defense Technical Information
    Center.
        Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    (USD(R&E)) is assigned the responsibility to exercise authority,
    direction, and control over The Director of The Defense Technical
    Information Center (DTIC). As the principal assistant to the USD(R&E),
    the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    supports the USD(R&E) in managing this core responsibility, and in
    helping other organizations within the Department better utilize this
    important resource.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Test Resource Management
    Center.
        Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    (USD(R&E)) is assigned the responsibility to exercise authority,
    direction, and control over The Director of the Test Resource
    Management Center (TRMC). As the principal assistant to the USD(R&E),
    the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    supports the USD(R&E) in managing this core responsibility. If
    confirmed, I look forward to supporting the USD(R&E) as she works to
    ensure that TRMC is able to accomplish its assigned roles and
    responsibilities.
        Question. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Under Secretary of Defense
    for Research and Engineering in her efforts to work with the Director
    of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to enhance the
    effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of DOD systems. I will
    seek to communicate frequently with DOT&E and staff on matters related
    to strategic test and evaluation policy, and other matters of
    overlapping concern where collaboration will help further the mission
    of the Department.
        Question. The Department of Defense Chief Information Officer.
        Answer. As the Principal assistant to the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)), the Deputy Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering supports coordination
    and collaboration with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and staff on
    information technology, information resource, and data management
    matters, in accordance with applicable DOD Information Technology
    policy and law. Other topics for USD(R&E) and CIO coordination and
    collaboration include Fully Networked Command, Control, and
    Communications; cyber security capabilities; artificial intelligence
    and machine learning; as well as information technology infrastructure
    and interoperability.
        Question. The Director of the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy.
        The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    (USD(R&E)) works in close collaboration with the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to ensure the Department of
    Defense's science and technology efforts fit within the
    Administration's policy. As the principal assistant to the USD(R&E),
    the Deputy Under Secretary collaborates closely with OSTP to
    synchronize efforts and advance national science and technology
    priorities and to ensure that the Department's needs are addressed.
        Question. The Director of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO).
        Answer. The Department of Defense Directive establishing the
    Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) states that the Director of SCO
    will coordinate with the Office of the Secretary of Defense Principal
    Staff Assistants, whose responsibilities and authorities are affected
    by proposed actions of the SCO. Due to the shared missions of
    innovation, rapid prototyping, and capability delivery, I expect, if
    confirmed, to collaborate closely with the Director of the SCO to
    partner on shared projects, to further promote technology transfer, and
    to coordinate to remove barriers and ensure no duplication of efforts.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU).
        Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    (USD(R&E)) is assigned the responsibility to exercise authority,
    direction, and control over the Director of the Defense Innovation Unit
    (DIU). As the principal assistant to the USD(R&E), the Deputy Under
    Secretary supports the USD(R&E) in managing this core responsibility.
    If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the USD(R&E) in fulfilling
    her commitment to ensuring that DIU continues to play an important role
    in the Department's innovation ecosystem and bring forth new dual-use
    technologies and products to the Services.
        Question. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
        Answer. If confirmed as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, I
    expect to work closely with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which
    falls under the guidance and direction of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)). While assisting the
    USD(R&E) in the management of the MDA, I expect to collaborate closely
    with the Director of MDA to ensure we maintain a robust multi-layered
    missile defense system capable of defending the Homeland, our forward
    deployed forces, and our allies.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Microelectronics Activity.
        Answer. The Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) plays an
    essential role to enable secure microelectronics for Department of
    Defense (DOD) systems. The Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) was
    previously a component within the Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)). In January 2021, DMEA
    was transitioned to the authority, direction, and control of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)). If
    confirmed, I will work with USD(A&S) and the Director of the DMEA to
    ensure the maintenance sustainment of our legacy systems and to
    facilitate integration of microelectronics quantifiable assurance
    standards developed under the Trusted and Assured Microelectronics
    program under the USD(R&E).
        Question. The Director of the Space Development Agency.
        Answer. The Space Development Agency currently falls under the
    purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    and receives broad guidance and direction from that office. In
    preparation for the agency's transfer to the Space Force in FY23, Air
    Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu are working together to facilitate
    the smooth transition of SDA and prepare the Space Force to support the
    agency's ability to execute its mission. Until that transfer in FY23, I
    will, if confirmed, work to ensure the Space Development Agency
    continues to develop and deliver advanced space-based capabilities in
    support of the joint warfighter.
        Question. The Program Administrator for Department of Defense Small
    Business Innovation Research.
        Answer. It is my understanding the Program Administrator for the
    Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) reports
    to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering through
    the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Research and
    Technology. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that investments
    made through the SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer programs
    provide innovative, technology solutions for our Warfighters.
     office of the under secretary of defense for research and engineering
        Question. What is your vision for the Office of the USD(R&E)?
        Answer. As the nominee for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering, I see my primary function as enabling and
    operationalizing the vision of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)); which I understand includes
    working collaboratively with universities, commercial and defense
    industry, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC),
    University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC), and other Department of
    Defense (DOD) organizations, across the Services and in partnership
    with our Allies to rapidly deliver innovative technical solutions to
    solve the toughest problems for national security, while also fostering
    diversity and inclusive practices. If confirmed, I foresee my role as
    assisting the USD(R&E) in setting the overarching DOD technology
    strategy, and addressing critical warfighting challenges and capability
    gaps.
        Question. If confirmed, what recommendations, if any, would you
    make regarding changes to the organization, management, and resourcing
    of the Office of the USD(R&E) so as better to execute its duties and
    responsibilities?
        Answer. If confirmed I will, as a part of my ongoing duties,
    observe and evaluate the performance of Research and Engineering, and
    its abilities to fulfill its obligations and meet the needs of its
    customers and partner organizations. I will share my observations with
    the Under Secretary and make recommendations on how the organization
    could be better organized in this regard.
        Question. Are there certain additional assets, including staffing
    and resources that you believe the Office of the USD(R&E) requires to
    optimize mission accomplishment?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will endeavor to better understand how well
    Research and Engineering is currently performing with regards to
    meeting its many commitments and obligations. I will share these
    observations with the Under Secretary and recommend ways by which any
    deficiencies can be addressed.
        Question. What do you perceive to be the appropriate role of the
    Principal Directors, designated in accordance with Section 217 of the
    Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, for each
    technology area deemed by the USD(R&E) to be critical for support of
    the National Defense Strategy?
        Answer. Section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2021 requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
    and Engineering (USD(R&E)) to identify technologies it considers
    critical to support the National Defense Strategy (NDS), and designate
    Senior Officials to coordinate research & engineering (R&E) activities
    for each of those areas. The Principal Directors (PDs) have been
    identified as Senior Officials for the current 11 technology areas and,
    as such, are responsible for the Senior Official duties outlined in
    Section 217 to: 1) develop and update research & technology development
    roadmaps, funding strategies, and technology transition strategies; 2)
    conduct annual assessments of workforce, infrastructure, and industrial
    base capabilities/capacity; 3) review the relevant R&E budgets across
    the Department; and 4) coordinate R&E activities of the Department with
    international partners, the interagency, and the private sector, and
    task appropriate intelligence agencies of the Department to compare
    U.S. capabilities to those of our adversaries. USD(R&E) looks to PDs to
    coordinate activities across the department to ensure cohesion and
    unity of effort towards enabling the NDS.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
    confront the next Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering? If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
    challenges?
        Answer. If confirmed, the major challenges I anticipate are the
    ones that Secretary Austin has articulated, to include developing the
    capabilities needed to deter and maintain our competitive advantage
    against China and other persistent threats, defeat COVID-19, address
    the climate crisis, and grow the Department's talent so the Department
    can meet the security challenges of today and tomorrow. Technology and
    innovation will play a key role in addressing these challenges, and if
    confirmed, I will work to ensure the Department leverages our
    partnerships across the commercial and defense sectors, universities,
    Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) and
    University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC), as well as our Allies
    and partners, to rapidly deliver cutting-edge and trusted technical
    capabilities to our warfighters to protect and defend the nation.
    national defense strategy (nds) and interim national security strategic
                                    guidance
        Question. The 2018 NDS outlines the threats confronting the United
    States: a rising China, an aggressive Russia, and the continued threat
    from rogue regimes and global terrorism. In March 2021, the Biden
    Administration issued its Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,
    which sets out the national security priorities for the Administration.
    Among these priorities is the requirement to ``promote a favorable
    distribution of power to deter and prevent adversaries from directly
    threatening the United States and our allies, inhibiting access to the
    global commons, or dominating key regions''. The Administration has
    initiated the process of preparing a new National Defense Strategy,
    planned for issuance 2022.
        Do you believe that the 2018 NDS and the Interim National Security
    Strategic Guidance accurately assess the current strategic environment,
    including the most critical and enduring threats to the national
    security of the United States and its allies?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense has
    initiated a National Defense Strategy review to ensure the Department
    of Defense's strategic priorities are properly aligned to the
    President's interim National Security Strategic Guidance and assess the
    threats across the security environment. If confirmed, I will work with
    the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary to ensure the
    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    is postured to support the Department's defense priorities.
        Question. In your view, what role should the Office of the USD(R&E)
    play in ensuring the Department of Defense can meet the requirements of
    the NDS?
        Answer. I believe the role of the Office of Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) is to prioritize and
    advance the Department's technological and modernization investments
    which underpin the capabilities of our warfighters and enables them to
    meet National Defense requirements. If confirmed, I will work with
    USD(R&E) and other senior leaders to ensure the Department is making
    the right investments, spurring and leveraging innovation from the
    commercial and defense sectors, and strategically maturing technologies
    to more rapidly transition them into fielded capabilities to meet
    National Defense Strategy requirements.
        Question. In your view, how can research and engineering priorities
    best be incorporated in the new NDS for 2022?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has initiated a
    National Defense Strategy 2022 development process. If confirmed, I
    will work with the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering to understand how best to ensure research and engineering
    priorities are incorporated in the National Defense Strategy in such a
    way that executes our strategy and maintain the nation's technological
    edge.
        Question. In your view, what advantages in the domain of research
    and engineering must the United States develop and enhance to enable it
    to prevail in the strategic competition with Russia and with China? If
    confirmed, what approaches would you implement to develop and sustain
    such advantages?
        Answer. I believe our ability to innovate provides the US an
    advantage in any strategic competition with Russia or China. However,
    our ability to transition those innovations into operational
    capabilities faster than Russia or China remains a persistent
    challenge. If confirmed, I will look at the systemic root cause of any
    barriers to transition and will seek to work with our partners to
    overcome them. One area of particular concern is the potential
    displacement of the United States as a leader in the establishment of
    global technical standards by China. Such actions puts our position as
    innovation leader at risk and also greatly limits the technologies and
    infrastructures that the Department needs to rely on in the future. If
    confirmed, I will work with other Department stakeholders and our
    systems engineering and defense standards office to work more closely
    with our allies and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
    to address this problem.
        The 2018 NDS also provides that ``effectively expanding the
    competitive space requires combined actions with the U.S. interagency
    to employ all dimensions of national power. We will assist the efforts
    of the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Homeland
    Security, Commerce, USAID, as well as the Intelligence Community, law
    enforcement, and others to identify and build partnerships to address
    areas of economic, technological, and informational vulnerabilities.''
        Question. If confirmed, what recommendations, if any, would you
    have to better employ all dimensions of national power, including in
    the domain of research and engineering, to expand the competitive
    space?
        Answer. Few technologies or engineering practices are uniquely
    military anymore. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering (USD(R&E)) should maintain early and continuous engagement
    with all U.S. agencies, industry, academia, non-profits, and our
    international partners to synergize our activities not only to
    streamline our programs for efficiencies, but also to leverage the
    talent and expertise that others have and bring those to bear on the
    toughest challenges facing the Nation. While the Department has
    historically had a close research and engineering relationship with
    others in the national security community, I believe the USD(R&E)
    should broaden its engagements with the non-traditional organizations.
                    support for the chief technology officer
        Question. If confirmed, you would be the Deputy to the Chief
    Technology Officer (CTO) of the Department of Defense.
        What do you see as the role of the CTO of the Department of
    Defense?
        Answer. The Chief Technology Officer's (CTO) role is to advise the
    Secretary of Defense on all matters related to research, engineering,
    manufacturing, developmental test and evaluation, technology
    development, innovation, and technology protection activities occurring
    within the Department of Defense, as well as internationally. The CTO
    also serves as a resource upon which other Department offices can rely
    upon for support. Further, the CTO establishes priorities across those
    matters to ensure conformance with Departmental policy and guidance.
        Question. What experience do you have that will enhance your
    ability to serve as the Deputy CTO of the Department?
        Answer. I have had professional roles that include being a United
    States Air Force pilot, bench level scientist, and headquarters staff
    officer; working at a Federally Funded Research and Development Center
    (FFRDC); managing science and technology organizations; serving as the
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research under the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; serving in the
    intelligence community; and working at the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency (DARPA). I have also worked in small businesses and
    understand the scope of how research progresses into a military
    capability. I have experience working interagency research and
    development strategic planning efforts, have co-led a private-public
    partnership, and have participated in a number of planning and
    coordination activities led by the Office of Science and Technology
    Policy (OSTP). My previous assignment as the Director of Science and
    Technology in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and
    my current position as a special assistant to the Director of DARPA
    have each contained many of the roles and responsibilities of a CTO. I
    know from my previous positions that the government, defense industry,
    and military-user interfaces all must collaborate to enable that
    capability delivery. I believe that my experience will allow me to
    advise the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) on these areas and to be a
    particularly strong Deputy where the CTO is unavailable or recused.
        Question. Given the growing role of information technology and
    software in military capabilities, what do you understand to be the
    differences in roles, responsibilities, and authorities between the
    Office of the Chief Information Officer and the CTO?
        Answer. The Chief Technology Officer is the principal advisor to
    the Secretary of Defense on all matters relating to science,
    technology, research, and engineering. Whereas the Chief Information
    Officer is the senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense on matters
    relating to the information enterprise, to include cybersecurity,
    communications, information systems, and more.
        Question. What technologies do you consider the highest priorities
    for development in the DOD, based upon the ability of each to
    contribute to DOD mission accomplishment in the short- and longer-
    terms?
        Answer. Of the 11 modernization priority areas identified by the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Rsearch and Engineering, artificial
    intelligence, autonomy, cyber, directed energy, Fully Networked C3,
    hypersonics, microelectronics, space and 5G stand to transform our
    capabilities in the short-term. The remaining priority areas of
    biotechnology and quantum science hold great promise for the longer-
    term. Beyond the 11 priority areas, significant contribution in the
    short-term from software and high performance processing and virtual
    augmented reality will be beneficial, while advancements in low cost
    materials and cognitive warfare would significantly contribute to
    Department of Defense mission accomplishment. Each of the 11
    modernization areas encompasses a number of important enabling
    technologies which must also be properly supported. If confirmed, I
    will help the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    scan the horizon for new technology areas so that the department can be
    prepared for the future.
                   investment in science and technology (s&t)
        Question. What metrics will you use to assess the appropriateness
    of the size and portfolio of DOD and Military Department S&T
    investments?
        Answer. If confirmed, in order to ensure there is an appropriate
    level of long term Science and Technology (S&T) investment, I will
    assist the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering in
    evaluating the strength of Service S&T investments in light of the
    current Service focus on prototyping and modernization. It is also
    important to understand the current gaps which exist in our operational
    capabilities, and to collaborate with other stakeholders to establish
    the best possible S&T investment strategy.
        Question. What role should the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
    for Research and Engineering play in the development and coordination
    of Military Department and Defense Agency S&T investment strategies,
    programs, and budgets?
        Answer. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering should review the status of the current investments and
    their efficacy towards achieving technology-based capability overmatch
    in the respective Joint Warfighting Domains. If there is not a clear
    path to overmatch, there should be analysis performed to identify
    science and technology investments to advance game changing
    technologies and approaches, and adjustments to investments should be
    made.
        Question. In your judgment, will the level of funding appropriated
    and allocated to S&T affect the Department's ability to meet the
    threats of the future? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. Analysis of science and technology investments should be an
    ongoing activity, in order to determine if they are funded at an
    appropriate level to meet the threats of the future. As the priorities
    of the Department of Defense shift and new security challenges emerge,
    it is critically important to ensure the right S&T investments are
    being made. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this matter with
    the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
        Question. Do you believe that the Department's current S&T
    investment strategy strikes the appropriate balance between funding
    innovative, disruptive technologies and addressing near-term
    operational needs and military requirements? Please explain your
    answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to review current science and
    technology investment strategy to see if it strikes an appropriate
    balance between funding innovative, disruptive technologies and
    addressing near-term operational needs and military requirements.
                                 basic research
        Question. Given the continuing nature of basic research and the
    broad implications and applications of discovery-focused and
    innovation-focused sciences, what criteria would you use, if confirmed,
    to measure the success of these programs and investments?
        Answer. Having clear and established methods to measure and assess
    these programs and investments is important. However, traditional
    metrics involving schedules and planned milestones, while necessary to
    gauge programmatic progress, do not adequately reflect the high-risk
    and exploratory nature of basic research. Regular reviews of such
    programs coupled with independent peer review by an independent group
    can often provide the needed insights. If confirmed, I will assess
    existing and new metrics and measures for basic research success, and
    investigate where those metrics and measures could help the Department
    of Defense better forecast success of the program.
        Question. What concerns do you have, if any, about current levels
    of funding for Department of Defense basic research? If confirmed, how
    would you plan to address those concerns?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to review current basic research
    activities and funding levels with the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering and other department leaders to ensure basic
    research activities are positioned to enable the Department of Defense
    to meet emerging security challenges.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
    increase efforts in unfettered exploration, which has historically been
    a critical enabler of the most important breakthroughs in military
    capabilities?
        Answer. The Department of Defense plays an essential role in
    supporting unfettered scientific exploration. The Department has a
    number of fellowship, sponsorship, and scholarship programs to
    facilitate far-reaching, exploratory research with transformative
    potential. If confirmed, I will support and seek to strengthen these
    programs to ensure the robustness of the Department's science and
    technology ecosystem.
        Question. In your view, how should the Department balance the
    inherent openness and academic freedom that are integral to university-
    based fundamental research with the need to protect our national
    security interests and maintain technological advantages over our
    potential adversaries?
        Answer. The Department of Defense conducts research across a wide
    range of readiness levels, from very basic research to highly
    controlled classified work. The Department uses fundamental research,
    principally conducted at colleges and universities, to provide early-
    stage idea generation that will help spark breakthrough technologies
    that will give the United States an advantage many years into the
    future. This type of research requires an open and collaborative
    mindset, so that groups of talented scientists can come up with
    something no one has thought of before. Once that work has identified a
    clear path forward on an application, then the Department can
    transition the work to a more secure environment to protect it.
                                microelectronics
        Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should
    support efforts to establish commercially viable microelectronics
    production capabilities in the United States? Please explain your
    answer.
        Answer. Yes. If confirmed I will work with and support the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Executive Office of
    the President, the interagency, and Congress in a whole of government
    approach to establish and maintain a commercially viable
    microelectronics production capability in the United States. It is
    critical that the Department of Defense support and leverage the
    efforts of the interagency to establish partnerships with commercial
    industry to enable Department-assured access to state-of-the-art
    microelectronics technologies.
        Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should seek
    to establish a ``trusted foundry'' to support DOD microelectronics
    requirements? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I am not fully briefed on the current status of all of the
    Department of Defense's microelectronics developments efforts. While
    the ``trusted foundry'' model might potentially support some of the
    Department's unique and legacy technology needs, it is very clear that
    new approaches are needed to address Defense demands for state-of-the-
    art microelectronics. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the
    Under Secretary's microelectronics strategy, and to working with the
    Congress on these issues and delivering secure, reliable semiconductor
    technologies for Defense systems.
        Question. What is your opinion regarding whether the Department of
    Defense should invest in the establishment of a robust national network
    for microelectronics research to support the development of next
    generation dual use microelectronics technologies and domestic
    production capabilities? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I fully support the establishment of a robust national
    network for microelectronics research and development, leveraging the
    expertise of academia and industry in an intentional and strategic
    partnership, in order to facilitate moving microelectronics
    technologies from laboratories to fabrication. If confirmed, I will
    support Department of Defense investment in and oversight of
    establishing a national network for microelectronics research.
                                       5g
        Question. In your view, what role should the Department of Defense
    play in the development and deployment of advanced 5G infrastructure
    and capabilities?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) should be instrumental in
    advancing U.S. and partner abilities to produce the most advanced and
    highest quality 5G and NextG products in the world, to ensure that the
    DOD can securely operate in a global 5G environment and take full
    advantage of the improvements offered.
        Question. In your view, what role should the Office of the USD(R&E)
    play in these efforts?
        Answer. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
    and Engineering should facilitate the development of dual-use
    capabilities, the experimentation and evaluation of performance gains,
    the assessment of risks and identification of core security principles,
    and the advocacy of international standards that support Department of
    Defense and U.S. interests.
        Question. The Department's 5G initiative, led by the Office of the
    USD(R&E), promises to help ensure that the U.S. military and commercial
    sectors take a lead in 5G wireless infrastructure and applications. If
    confirmed, how would you intend to continue to prioritize the USD(R&E)-
    led 5G initiative going forward?
        Answer. The 5G initiative should continue to be a priority. The 5G
    initiative should expand its tech horizon to include future
    developments such as 6G and NextG to include Department of Defense use
    cases. Also, the 5G initiative should lead the way in transitioning the
    applications and enhancements being developed to the Services and
    programs of record.
         coordination of defense s&t internally and with other agencies
        Question. If confirmed, how would you integrate the S&T programs of
    the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to reduce redundancy,
    leverage investments, and promote cooperation in order to achieve
    greater efficiency and technological advancement?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established an
    overarching framework in Reliance 21 for the joint planning and
    coordination of the Department's science and technology (S&T) programs.
    The goal of Reliance 21 is to ensure and promote the DOD S&T community
    to provide solutions and advice to the Department's senior-level
    decision makers, warfighters, Congress, and other stakeholders in the
    most effective and efficient manner possible. This is achieved through
    an ecosystem and infrastructure that enables information sharing,
    alignment of effort, coordination of priorities, reduced redundancies
    and support for scientists and engineers across the Department. If
    confirmed, I will endeavor to continue to advocate for collaboration
    and coordination across the Military Departments and Defense Agencies
    and maximize the effectiveness of the existing Reliance 21 framework.
        Question. Do you believe the mechanisms of coordination between
    other federal departments and agencies and the Department of Defense
    are adequate to ensure that the military can best leverage the advances
    of others in the following domains:
          National Science Foundation on defense needs for basic
    science, especially in social sciences
          National Institute for Standards and Technology for
    quantum computing and cybersecurity
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration on
    hypersonics and other space research and the viability and availability
    of testing facilities
          National Institutes of Health on areas in which military
    medical research and vaccine development overlap with civilian medical
    needs
          Intelligence Community in setting defense research
    priorities to prepare for future threat environments
          Department of Homeland Security on homeland defense and
    national security-related science
          The Department of Energy and the National Nuclear
    Security Administration
        Answer. The Department has significant ability to coordinate and
    collaborate with other government agencies through the White House's
    Office and Science and Technology Policy's National Science and
    Technology Council, National Coordination Offices, and other direct
    arrangements (Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)) between specific
    agencies. A few examples of these include the National Quantum
    Coordination Office and the MOU with the Department of Energy and the
    National Nuclear Security Administration. If confirmed, I will assess
    where the Reliance 21 framework can better leverage other Departments
    and Agencies and make recommendations to modify the framework as
    necessary.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
    engage with these other federal agencies and the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy to improve coordination?
        Answer. I would reaffirm the Department's commitment to
    collaboration and coordination with other federal agencies and the
    White House Office of Science and Technology Policy through direct
    engagement with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
    and through a thorough review and update of our existing MOUs to ensure
    that the Department is deriving the maximum benefit from existing
    collaboration efforts.
                              technology strategy
        Question. What do you believe to be the key attributes of a sound
    technology strategic plan that could be used effectively to justify DOD
    programming and budgeting?
        Answer. Technology strategic plans should not only identify
    technology goals and objectives, they also need to integrate the
    policy, workforce, infrastructure, and prototyping and experimentation
    required to enable their development and successfully socialize the
    transition into service. Off ramps for tech transition and expected
    levels of technology readiness and the relationship to manufacturing
    readiness should also be included. All stakeholders and partners should
    participate in the creation, evaluation and updates of these plans.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
    ensure that such strategic plans are used during the DOD planning,
    programming, and budgeting process?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that technology strategic plans
    fully inform the budget, planning, and programming process. I believe
    that the strategic plans should be guiding the activities of the
    Services and Agencies at every level. Ensuring these plans are adopted
    at the grass-roots level by researchers, engineers, and program
    managers and emphasizing these plans as a programming priority in
    defense-wide planning guidance will help ensure the strategy's
    objectives are moving forward and enable us to achieve the technology
    modernization we need.
        Question. How should a Department of Defense-wide technology
    strategy inform the activities of the Military Departments and Defense
    Agencies, in your view?
        Answer. The Department-wide technology strategy should inform the
    activities of the Services and Agencies at multiple levels, beginning
    fundamentally with the researchers, engineers and program managers
    responsible for developing the technology. This technology needs to be
    incorporated into current and future program architectures, in
    alignment with the full weight and direction of the defense-wide
    planning guidance; which will help garner support from respective
    Service and Agency programmers. Having these technology plans
    incorporated at the grass-roots level by researchers, engineers and
    program managers will smooth the transition from legacy systems to the
    modernized systems we need in the future.
                             technology transition
        Question. What is your evaluation of the effectiveness of current
    technology transition processes and systems?
        Answer. Technology transition is a very demanding activity and my
    sense is that the Department of Defense is successfully transitioning
    many important technologies into programs of record, and many programs
    emphasize transition rate as a key metric. In my experience, the
    highest likelihood of successful technology transition occurs when such
    planning occurs early in the research and development lifecycle. All of
    the stakeholders, such as the acquisition offices, the users and the
    test community must be engaged throughout. The research and development
    community must be proactive in communicating its plans, progress and
    remaining risks to be mitigated. While transition is very important, I
    believe the Department also requires programs that explore higher-risk
    technologies as a hedge against future needs. If confirmed, I will
    continue to place emphasis on appropriate transition rates that
    emphasize getting technologies across the ``Valley of Death,'' without
    creating a risk-averse culture that marginalizes disruptive innovation
        Question. What do you perceive to be the most significant in
    technology transition within the Department of Defense?
        Answer. Close coordination between technology developers, Service
    programs of record, the test community, and warfighters is critical
    from the start. As one example, the Advanced Capabilities directorate
    within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering, which oversees prototyping and experimentation activities,
    transitions approximately 80% of its prototypes to the military
    services or the warfighter. This success is based on working intimately
    with the Services' acquisition Program Managers (PMs) before a
    prototype is initiated, to ensure the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense (OSD) understands whether the PM is truly invested in the
    results of the prototyping activity. If confirmed, I will continue to
    emphasize this approach with my acquisition counterparts at OSD and the
    Services.
        Question. What would you do, if confirmed, to address these
    challenges?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the current portfolio of
    mutually supportive research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)
    programs, while looking for ways to make them even more impactful. This
    would include efforts like an emphasis on continued outreach across the
    U.S. innovation ecosystem, maintaining a decentralized but federated
    mix of RDT&E programs that maximizes innovation by reducing
    bureaucracy, and promoting a clear understanding of the Services'
    interests in new technologies so we have a clear-eyed understanding of
    transition risks. Facilitating meaningful communications between the
    various stakeholders so that all are kept informed of new technical
    developments, changes in the threat, or emerging requirements is a key
    responsibility for the research community in meeting expectations and
    obligations. I believe that thoughtfully balancing these sorts of
    priorities will enable us to deliver the capabilities needed for us to
    maintain our technological edge.
        Question. Do you believe that we need to change the manner in which
    we fund technology transition in the Department? If so, what changes
    would you recommend?
        Answer. I am aware of the Deputy Secretary of Defense's recently
    announced initiatives to reform the innovation communities of the
    Department of Defense, and to focus specifically on rapid
    experimentation, in order to demonstrate technologies in operationally
    relevant environments, enabling technologies to transition to the
    acquisition process and get into the field more quickly. This is an
    important initiative which I would fully support, if confirmed.
    Successful transition is also highly dependent on the technology
    recipient's readiness, funding profile, and adequate preparation within
    the appropriate program of record. Ensuring program outreach and
    adoption of transition plans early on are keys to success. If
    confirmed, I will review these processes with the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering and ensure the Department is
    making full use of existing authorities to address the valley of death.
           using commercial technology for national security missions
        Question. If confirmed, what changes would you pursue to current
    research and engineering, experimentation, and prototyping processes to
    make better use of commercial technologies?
        Answer. The Department of Defense must access all sources of
    innovation, particularly from non-typical defense suppliers, small
    businesses, and purely commercial entities in order to remain
    competitive. I would work with Research and Engineering's Advanced
    Capabilities Directorate, the Small Business Innovation Research
    program, the Defense Innovation Unit, and other prototyping
    stakeholders to ensure we are maximizing their outreach initiatives to
    access commercial technology and transition it to the users. If
    confirmed, I will review all these programs and authorities, and make
    recommendations to the Under Secretary.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you effectively transition the
    outputs of such processes to major defense acquisition programs or
    capabilities that are fielded at scale within the Military Departments?
        Answer. Developing technologies that provide joint solutions and
    applying a mission focus at the entry point helps ensure that the
    Department's technology investments have the highest chance of
    transitioning. Close coordination with the Office of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, as well as with
    the Service Acquisition Executives, and with the Joint Staff is
    critical to ensure that the outputs of these efforts can get fielded at
    scale. Additionally, when the Services or combatant commands have a
    stake in agreed-upon transition plans, and have jointly co-funded
    development, this helps guide the technology into fielding at scale.
        Question. Many of the Military Departments have created their own
    organizations to make use of commercially available technologies. If
    confirmed, how would you ensure these organizations coordinate with the
    Office of the USD(R&E), and with each other, such that unnecessary
    overlaps in investment are avoided?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the coordination mechanisms
    between the Department of Defense's commercial technology outreach
    organizations to optimize efforts and prevent duplication.
        Question. If confirmed, what processes would you encourage to allow
    commercial companies to become prime contractors and systems
    integrators for defense programs?
        Answer. Having greater participation as a prime contractor by new
    entrants from the commercial world could significantly increase
    marketplace competition and benefit the Department. If confirmed, I
    will review our prototyping strategy and practices to ensure that there
    is no undue bias toward traditional prime contractors or system
    integrators, and that qualified commercial companies (both large and
    small) are considered for these functions. Improving participation by
    commercial companies in prototyping will give them valuable insight
    into the Department's needs, and will also allow the Department's
    workforce to become more familiar with new concepts.
                                 manufacturing
        Question. How should the Department of Defense use investments in
    advanced manufacturing capabilities to support achieving the goals of
    the NDS?
        Answer. Translating innovation into fielded capability is
    critically dependent upon the ability of the Department of Defense and
    the industrial base to make system designs producible and manufacture
    those systems at scale and speed of warfighter relevance. Advanced
    manufacturing enables the ability to apply new designs and materials to
    warfighting challenges while reducing the cost and time to produce
    current and emerging designs. If confirmed, I will ensure our advanced
    manufacturing investments continue to address the most critical
    industrial base and supply chain needs of the department.
                      systems engineering and prototyping
        Question. In your view, does the Department of Defense have
    sufficient systems engineering expertise in its current military and
    civilian workforce? In its contractor base?
        Answer. Ensuring that the Department of Defense and its contractor
    base have sufficient engineering expertise is critically important
    throughout all parts of a weapons system's lifecycle. Developing
    engineers with sufficient systems engineering expertise takes
    continuous learning and training as well as experience and mentorship.
    If confirmed, I will work with Research and Engineering's partners to
    understand the scope of any current or future gaps and will support the
    development of the necessary systems engineering expertise to meet
    future mission needs.
        Question. What changes, if any, do you believe should be made in
    the Department's systems engineering organization and practices?
        Answer. The Department of Defense's system engineering organization
    and practices need to be continuously evaluated and then strengthened
    where needed. New opportunities may exist in the areas of digital
    engineering and model-based systems engineering. Ensuring the continual
    modernization of system engineering processes will facilitate rapid and
    iterative ``design-test-fix'' cycles and improve flexibility. If
    confirmed, I will identify opportunities to strengthen and resource the
    Department's systems engineering organization and practices.
        Question. What are your views on the vesting of technical data
    rights? What rights should the Department retain from the prototyping
    phase into development?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) needs to acquire
    appropriate technical data rights to enable the conduct of business
    that will ensure systems will remain functional, sustainable,
    upgradable, and affordable. Program managers need to consider and
    acquire the appropriate technical data rights necessary to support the
    operation, maintenance, modernization, and sustainment of programs. The
    Department needs to consider and use all available techniques and best
    practices, including modular open systems approaches when cost
    effective and feasible. Acquiring technical data rights early in the
    acquisition process helps protect core DOD interests over the entire
    life cycle.
                           venture capital strategies
        Question. What role do you believe that venture capital firms
    should play in the Department's investments in developing technologies,
    including in the Small Business Innovation Research program?
        Answer. Venture capital firms can be powerful allies for the
    Department by sharing development costs, accelerating time to market,
    and in identifying dual use opportunities. The Department can enhance
    venture capital participation by signaling areas of interest that may
    spur strategic and timely investment through its National Security
    Innovation Capital program. Venture Capital can be an essential partner
    in the Small Business Innovation Research program by helping small
    companies find new sources of investment, accelerate product
    development, and efficiently bring dual use capabilities to the
    marketplace.
        Question. What advantages and disadvantages do you see in the use
    of venture capital strategies?
        Answer. Advantages are that venture capital strategies provide
    start-ups with access to critical resources, industry and customer
    connections through extensive business networks, and guidance as the
    companies grow. Venture capital can help the Department of Defense
    accelerate product development and efficiently deliver breakthrough,
    war-winning capabilities while reducing technical, financial and
    schedule risk.
        Disadvantages include the potential for companies to lose autonomy,
    since investors may want to participate in company decisions. Also,
    without strong demand signals from the government, venture capital may
    not accept investment risk and this could force shifting of development
    priorities to more profitable projects or shorter-term pay-offs.
                       international research cooperation
        Question. In your view, how should increased globalization of
    defense technology affect the Department of Defense's research and
    technology development and investment strategy?
        Answer. The Department of Defense's (DOD) research and technology
    development and investment strategy should consider the increasingly
    global and interdependent research, development, and manufacturing of
    defense technology, including the global competition for talent.
    Identifying critical DOD programs and technologies will focus our
    investment, protection, and exploitation activities on the technologies
    critical to military capability. DOD must also work to apply the
    appropriate protection based on the maturity of the technology and
    establish procedures to reinforce the integrity of our research
    enterprise. DOD can share improved threat awareness, inform necessary
    controls, and collaboratively develop best practices with the broader
    national science and technology community and with select allies and
    partners, while supporting the free exchange of ideas critical for
    technological advancement. If confirmed, I will support the Under
    Secretary in addressing the increased globalization of defense
    technology and ensure the Department's investment strategies strike the
    proper balance between promoting and protecting critical technologies.
        Question. In your view, what are the obstacles to more effective
    international cooperation, and, if confirmed, how would you address
    those obstacles?
        Answer. I am unaware of any substantive issues facing the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering's (USD(R&E)) ability
    to pursue international science and technology collaboration. I
    understand that USD(R&E)'s ``DOD International S&T Engagement
    Strategy'' establishes a framework for guiding its international
    cooperation activities. If confirmed, I will review this Strategy,
    examine any barriers that may impede its implementation, and work to
    continue the USD(R&E)'s efforts to expand international science and
    technology collaboration with Allies and partners.
        Question. How would increased international technology cooperation
    affect our domestic defense industrial base, in your view?
        Answer. The Department of Defense's (DOD) international partners
    invest their own research and development funds to achieve their
    defense and security objectives and increase their military
    capabilities. By increasing technology cooperation with these partners,
    DOD can pool its investments and leverage expertise and ideas that both
    benefit and enhance U.S. military capabilities and the U.S. domestic
    defense industrial base. Participation in international armaments
    cooperation programs also provides our partner with greater insight and
    appreciation of U.S. industry. If confirmed, I will support the
    continued close collaboration between the Under Secretary of Defense
    for Research and Engineering and the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition and Sustainment on these and other international efforts.
                               test & evaluation
        Question. What role should the Office of the USD(R&E) have in
    ensuring the acquisition programs undertake sufficient developmental
    test & evaluation?
        Answer. I believe the research and engineering enterprise needs to
    continue to execute sufficient and appropriate developmental testing to
    ensure warfighters are equipped with affordable, effective, suitable,
    and survivable systems. Such testing must be commensurate with the
    urgency of deploying a capability. I believe testing should be thought
    of as a continuum--breaking down the stovepipes that have traditionally
    constituted Contractor Testing, Developmental Testing, and Operational
    Testing. Research and Engineering must communicate to the other
    stakeholders the value of early mission-based developmental testing and
    evaluation, which will be a critical enabler to reduce ``Operational
    Testing discovery'' and provide more confidence for successful
    Operational Testing completion. If confirmed, I look forward to working
    with the committee to assure acquisition programs undertake sufficient
    and appropriate developmental test & evaluation activities.
        Question. What is your assessment of the developmental test &
    evaluation capabilities of the Department of Defense?
        Answer. I am not fully briefed on the Department of Defense's test
    and evaluation capabilities. However, as we face new and evolving
    threats it is incumbent upon the Department to ensure our acquisition
    programs are able to address them. I have been involved in test
    activities relevant to the research & engineering enterprise throughout
    my career, and I fully understand that early developmental testing of a
    system in a mission-based environment is critical in informing
    acquisition decision making, identifying opportunities for application
    of additional engineering and risk mitigation resources, and ensuring
    overall system readiness. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
    the Committee to assure our developmental test activities, such as
    cyber resiliency testing and robust early modeling and simulation
    testing, are aligned with the new Adaptive Acquisition Framework and
    properly structured to test and evaluate new capabilities and emerging
    areas such as artificial intelligence-enabled autonomous systems and
    software intensive systems.
        Question. What is the value of robust developmental test &
    evaluation activities, in your view?
        Answer. I have been involved in test activities relevant to the
    research & engineering enterprise throughout my career, and I fully
    understand that thorough and robust developmental testing and
    evaluation is a critical enabler to the success of our acquisition
    programs. Robust development test and evaluation activities are
    critical to informing acquisition decision making, identifying
    programmatic opportunities for application of additional engineering
    and risk mitigation resources, establishing readiness for operational
    testing, and ultimately ensuring delivery of relevant, timely
    capability.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your plan to develop and
    implement best practices for effective testing of new and emerging
    technologies and systems?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current enterprise test and
    evaluation processes and best practices and take necessary action to
    further implement those that support effective testing of new and
    emerging technologies and systems. This focus is especially critical as
    more Department of Defense acquisition programs are executing system
    development within a digital engineering environment, including
    significant application of Model-Based Systems Engineering. I believe
    the test community at both the Office of the Secretary of Defense level
    and within the Military Departments must develop and use best practices
    throughout program development to ensure testing produces actionable
    information to inform programmatic decision making and provide
    confidence in the intended capability being delivered to the
    warfighter. If confirmed, I would support efforts to implement best
    practices for effective testing of new and emerging technologies and
    systems.
        Question. What modifications would you recommend to current test
    and evaluation processes in the Department of Defense to efficiently
    develop and deliver operationally effective and suitable technologies
    and systems to the warfighter?
        Answer. I am not familiar with all of the Department's current test
    evaluation processes, but if confirmed, I will support the Under
    Secretary in reviewing and making recommendations to test planning and
    execution processes for which Research and Engineering is a
    stakeholder. In developing these recommendations, I will coordinate
    closely with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, the
    Undersecretary of Acquisition and Sustainment, and other partner
    organizations.
        Question. What role do you believe the Office of the USD(R&E)
    should play in developmental test and evaluation processes within the
    Department of Defense and what type of organizational structure and
    staffing would be required to effectuate this role?
        Answer. I believe the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering has a critical role in developmental testing,
    in that successful developmental test is integral in validating
    incorporation of critical technologies and capabilities into Department
    of Defense programs to ensure robust capability delivery against
    increasing capabilities of the threat. If confirmed, I will assist the
    Under Secretary in reviews of the organizational structure help her
    ensure that the developmental test and evaluation function within the
    research and engineering enterprise is properly staffed and resourced
    and given the right authorities.
                             small business issues
        Question. The $1 billion+ annual Department of Defense Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program has shown great success in
    investing in innovative technologies and small businesses and
    transitioning products to acquisition programs and into operational
    use.
        If confirmed, how would you ensure that the SBIR program serves a
    useful purpose in meeting the Department's research goals?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) Small Business Innovation
    Research (SBIR) program has shown great success in investing in
    innovative technology in the Nation's small business community. If
    confirmed, I would continue to leverage the over $1 billion annual
    investment in America's innovative small businesses via the SBIR and
    Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to help achieve the
    Department's priorities. Through the Department of Defense SBIR/STTR
    program, small businesses are already contributing to important areas
    of research and modernization. I would also ensure that SBIR/STTR
    technologies are considered and incorporated, where appropriate, in the
    DOD's technology roadmaps.
        Question. What recommendations would you suggest to the SBIR
    program to improve the transition of S&T capabilities into acquisition
    programs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support efforts to improve and
    incentivize Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) / Small Business
    Technology Transfer Program (STTR) technology transition into programs
    of record. I would also support modifications to the SBIR/STTR program
    that would allow the Department of Defense more flexibility in further
    maturing technologies so that they can be inserted and integrated into
    a program of record or fielded system.
        The Department of Defense struggles to keep up with the pace at
    which technology advances and evolves. Given the Department's lengthy
    budget cycle, certain technologies can be out of date or less-efficient
    by the time they are funded.
        Question. If confirmed, what recommendations would make to the SBIR
    program to ensure innovative technologies can be integrated into
    existing Programs of Record to equip the warfighter with the most up-
    to-date equipment and technology?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend that the Small Business
    Innovation Research (SBIR) program assist R&E and the Service
    Acquisition Executives with reviewing existing projects in the SBIR/
    Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) pipeline to determine
    which ones should receive non-SBIR/STTR funding in order to be
    integrated/inserted into programs of record or fielded systems. SBIR/
    STTR technologies are often looked at too late for incorporation into
    existing programs of record. Reviewing projects on an ongoing basis
    would better raise awareness of insertion opportunities and better
    facilitate transition.
        Question. What recommendations would you suggest to the SBIR
    program to improve its ability to attract non-traditional defense
    contractors, such as small startup companies, into the program?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would recommend that the Small Business
    Innovation Research program establish a mechanism for educating and
    preparing firms to do business with the Department of Defense. For
    example, assistance with understanding proposal submission
    requirements, assistance with pre-contracting activities, assistance
    with addressing cybersecurity requirements, and any other assistance
    that may be provided prior to a contract award.
                              defense laboratories
        Question. What is your overall assessment of the technical
    capabilities and quality of Defense laboratories relative to their
    Department of Energy, Federally Funded Research and Development Center
    (FFRDC), industry, academic, and foreign peers?
        Answer. While I have limited insight into the technical
    capabilities of the Defense and other federal laboratories, my overall
    impression is that the defense laboratories are competitive with peers
    in other federal agencies in specific technical areas. However, I do
    believe that the Department of Defense needs to continually assess its
    technical capabilities and quality of the defense laboratories as it
    sees competitive pressure on the laboratory system due to factors such
    as aging infrastructure and greater competition for talent.
        Question. What do you perceive to be the most effective management
    approaches for personnel at DOD laboratory facilities?
        Answer. Establishing the most effective management approaches is
    critically important if the Department of Defense's (DOD) laboratories
    are to succeed in recruiting and retaining top notch talent. While I am
    not familiar with current DOD laboratory personnel management
    practices, there may be a need to provide greater management control at
    the local level. If confirmed, I will assist the Under Secretary in
    working with DOD laboratory leadership to better understand these
    issues and make recommendations. Other approaches for consideration
    could include direct hire, enhanced pay, and other personnel
    authorities. I would assist the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
    and Engineering to review these and support expansion of these
    authorities where appropriate.
        Question. What are your views on the most effective ways to ensure
    that the defense laboratories have appropriate research infrastructure
    and equipment?
        Answer. Ensuring that the Department's laboratories have the needed
    infrastructure and equipment requires a long-term, sustained and
    strategically-aligned effort on the part of the Military Departments
    and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering. All of the stakeholders must collaborate to ensure that
    the research, development, test, and evaluation infrastructure needs
    are adequately communicated to the appropriate decision-makers. If
    confirmed, I will assist the Under Secretary in ensuring that defense
    laboratory infrastructure modernization is appropriately prioritized.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
    improve the quality, technical capabilities, and mission performance of
    the Defense laboratories?
        Answer. The defense laboratories are vital elements of the
    interconnected academic and industrial base necessary to keep our
    military the most technologically advanced, lethal, and protected force
    in the world. If confirmed, in addition to ensuring a continual
    assessment of the quality, technical capabilities, and mission
    performance of the defense laboratories, I would continue to advocate
    for the enhanced flexibilities available to the defense laboratories
    that have allowed them to remain a competitive and high-performing
    organizations for the Department of Defense.
        Question. What is the appropriate balance for the Department of
    Defense in leveraging commercial R&D and government-exclusive R&D?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) needs to maintain a balance
    between leveraging commercial research and development (R&D) and
    government exclusive R&D for research areas where the DOD is not the
    primary driver of the technology. If confirmed, I will assess whether
    the current Reliance 21 framework includes assessments of areas where
    the Department can better leverage commercial and other federal agency
    investment, and how best to do so.
        Question. Do you believe there are research areas of which the
    Department should divest itself? If so, what are those areas and how
    can the Department best leverage associated commercial efforts, in your
    view?
        Answer. I understand that the Department has an established
    governance structure (Reliance 21) by which the Office of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering interfaces with the
    Science & Technology Executives (S&T EXCOM) from across the Services
    and agencies. Reliance 21 provides a mechanism to continually evaluate
    the Department's S&T portfolio and assess areas for adjustment in
    emphasis. If confirmed, I will assist the Under Secretary in assessing
    those areas where the Department has sufficient investment and those
    areas that the Department should consider divestment and leverage
    commercial efforts instead.
                              personnel management
        Question. If confirmed, which particular research and engineering
    workforce challenges would you focus on first?
        Answer. While I have not been briefed on the extend of these
    challenges, several of the Department's senior technical leaders have
    stated that retaining experienced cyber and artificial intelligence
    experts is a continual challenge. If confirmed, I would assist the
    Under Secretary in assessing the current and projected research and
    engineering workforce challenges and focus on identifying any skills
    gaps, and ways by which they should be addressed.
        Question. Should the Office of the USD(R&E) and organizations under
    the purview of the USD(R&E) be permitted to apply the same hiring
    flexibilities as those of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    or the Defense laboratories, in your view?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the personnel
    policy and management communities within the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense and the Military Departments to ensure that personnel
    flexibilities are delegated to the lowest appropriate level?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) has benefitted from many
    personnel flexibilities authorized by Congress. If confirmed, I will
    explore the role that the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering plays with respect to the Department's technical community
    and continue to advocate and work with the other DOD offices to ensure
    that additional personnel flexibilities are available and delegated to
    the rest of the Department's technical community to attract top talent.
        Question. In your view, does the Department of Defense have
    adequate technical expertise within the government workforce to execute
    its designated acquisition and technical development missions?
        Answer. The Department of Defense needs to continually grow its
    technical expertise to address near and long term needs. If confirmed,
    I will continue to emphasize recruitment, retention, and training
    efforts in order to keep up with the changes in threats and emerging
    technologies.
       defense advanced research projects agency, strategic capabilities
                      office, and defense innovation unit
        Question. What do you believe is the proper mission for DARPA? For
    SCO? DIU? For the National Security Innovation Network (NSIN)?
        Answer. The proper mission for Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA) is to pursue high-risk/high-payoff technical and
    scientific challenges of extreme difficulty, at the cusp of discovery
    and invention, and thereby cultivate what may develop into
    transformational capabilities several or even many years later. The
    Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) mission is to pursue new
    prototyping opportunities that will impose cost on our adversaries
    through novel strategies, technologies, and concepts of operation,
    often relying on repurposing or leveraging existing technologies in the
    defense inventory. The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) accelerates the
    adoption and harnessing of commercial technology across the DOD, and
    has several sub-offices, including National Security Innovation Capital
    (NSIC) and the National Security Innovation Network (NSIN). NSIC
    accelerates targeted dual-use hardware into the DOD, catalyzing private
    investment by de-risking development and signaling potential DOD
    demand. NSIN works to source new talent at universities, to
    commercialize technology from DOD labs, and to develop novel solutions
    for DOD challenges through programs like Hacking 4 Defense.
        Question. What, in your view, is the appropriate relationship
    between each of these offices and the Military Departments' S&T
    programs?
        Answer. These offices should interact regularly with the Military
    Departments' science and technology (S&T) organizations to both inform
    them of current projects and plans and be informed about technologies
    being performed by the Services. While it is important for leadership
    in these organizations to coordinate regularly, it is more important
    for interactions to occur at the program manager level where Service
    laboratory subject matter experts can support specific programs, and be
    a proponent for Office of the Secretary of Defense S&T organization-
    developed technology to the respective Service acquisition community.
    These offices also face similar technology transfer obstacles and
    should collaborate on mutually beneficial solutions to this problem.
        Question. What, in your view, is the appropriate relationship
    between each of these offices and the Military Departments'
    laboratories?
        Answer. The Department's laboratories offer many infrastructure
    resources and subject matter experts which can help the offices in
    program formulation, source selection, test and evaluation and
    technology transfer. These offices should view the Department's
    laboratories as an important source of peer review and continue to
    involve them as contracting officer's technical representatives. Since
    many of the technical personnel in the offices serve on a rotational
    basis, the Department's laboratories should be viewed as an important
    source of highly qualified future recruits.
        Question. What, in your view, is the appropriate relationship
    between each of these and the Military Departments' acquisition
    programs?
        Answer. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the
    Strategic Capabilities Office, and the Defense Innovation Unit should
    coordinate frequently with senior Military Department leadership to
    inform them of ongoing programs. Individual science and technology
    program management should meet with appropriate acquisition program
    managers early, often, and deeply to assure the technology being
    developed meets their needs and to structure a path to transition to a
    program of record. Memoranda of Agreement/Memoranda of Understanding
    should be generated to establish each organization's interest and
    responsibilities. These organizations should also coordinate with the
    combatant commands to better understand the warfighter needs and
    conduct demonstrations and experiments at scale with them in the
    intended operational environment.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you oversee and support the
    transition of capabilities from these offices into acquisition programs
    or operational use?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would place a high emphasis on working with
    the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and
    other stakeholders to identify barriers to the transition process and
    to foster an effective working relationship with these offices.
    Collectively these offices all strive to decrease the time to
    transition innovative technology to the warfighter, and if confirmed, I
    would welcome the opportunity to work with these offices to improve the
    transition process.
       science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education
        Question. In your view, what role should the Department play in
    supporting STEM education, including for military dependents?
        Answer. The Department of Defense is the largest employer of
    Federal scientists and engineers and, therefore, understands the
    importance of providing meaningful science, technology, engineering,
    and math (STEM) education opportunities for dependents of
    servicemembers through formal and informal STEM activities. If
    confirmed, I will seek to understand the future STEM needs of the
    Department and our industrial base, and will advise the Under Secretary
    on ways to meet these needs. STEM education for military dependents
    should be strongly supported by the Department and there may be ways to
    leverage the scientists, engineers, laboratories, and engineering
    centers across the DOD research and engineering enterprise, to include
    our academic and industry partners, to appropriately support STEM
    opportunities for military children.
        Question. In your view, what role should the Department play in
    supporting STEM education opportunities for transitioning
    servicemembers?
        Answer. Departing servicemembers represent a valuable and unique
    resource through which the Department's future technology needs could
    be met. A key way to leverage this talent pool would be to provide
    support for STEM education and provide these veterans with new
    opportunities to contribute to the national security mission with which
    they are already familiar. If confirmed, I will seek to better
    understand the current status of these efforts and advise the Under
    Secretary on opportunities for improvement.
                            health of r&d enterprise
        Question. What is your assessment of the current health of the
    Department of Defense's R&D enterprise as a whole?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) has a robust and largely
    successful research and development enterprise consisting of the
    defense laboratories, the academic community, the small and large
    businesses, the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and
    University Affiliated Research Centers, and other government agencies.
    Success, now and in the future is not a given, and I believe that the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering needs to
    continue to foster and develop the relationships with all entities
    across the DOD research and development enterprise. This should be
    accomplished through greater communication, ease of access, shared
    understanding of purpose, and breaking through barriers and silos that
    will allow the research and engineering enterprise to continue to be
    agile and responsive to the Department's needs, and ensure that DOD
    retains technological superiority.
        Question. Are the statutory authorities, rules, and regulations
    currently in place to govern the Department's R&D conducive to a
    healthy enterprise? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. Coming from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA), I have seen how the statutory authorities, rules, and
    regulations of DARPA allow for a fast paced, healthy, and highly
    innovative environment that permits the undertaking of high-risk, high-
    reward endeavors for the future warfighter. If confirmed, I will seek
    to work with the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering and other Component leaders to review applicable
    authorities, rules, and regulations to assure that the enterprise
    fosters a healthy research and development environment and identify
    necessary changes.
        Question. The Department has recently taken criticism for not
    devoting enough funding to constructing and upgrading facilities,
    especially those related to testing and R&D. If confirmed, how would
    you address that issue?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Under Secretary in
    evaluating the health of the Department of Defense's research,
    development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) facilities to determine
    modernization requirements, and in collaboration with the Military
    Departments, work to ensure these RDT&E modernization priorities are
    appropriately represented in the annual budget deliberations.
                               sexual harassment
        Question. In responding to the 2018 DOD Civilian Employee Workplace
    and Gender Relations survey, 17.7 percent of female and 5.8 percent of
    male DOD employees indicated that they had experienced sexual
    harassment and/or gender discrimination by ``someone at work'' in the
    12 months prior to completing the survey.
        What is your assessment of the current climate regarding sexual
    harassment, gender discrimination, and other harassment in the Office
    of the USD(R&E)?
        Answer. Any occurrence of sexual harassment, gender discrimination,
    and other harassment within the Department of Defense is deeply
    disturbing and unacceptable. Such actions foster a climate that is
    inconsistent with the dignity and respect that our workforce deserves.
    The Department must continue its work to eliminate sexual harassment,
    gender-based discrimination, and any other form of harassment or
    discrimination. If confirmed, I would assist the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) in reviewing previous
    workforce assessments including climate surveys, Office of Personnel
    Management Federal employee viewpoint survey results, and any other
    documentation that would give me insight into the USD(R&E) organization
    and help the USD(R&E) make informed decisions on next steps to
    mitigate, and hopefully eliminate, sexual harassment, gender-based
    discrimination, and any other harassment within the Office of the
    USD(R&E).
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
    receive or become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment,
    discrimination, or other harassment from an employee of the Office of
    the USD(R&E) or an employee of an organization over which the USD(R&E)
    exercises authority, direction, and control?
        Answer. I would take the complaint seriously and immediately
    contact the appropriate office to initiate an investigation to gather
    all facts, conduct the necessary interviews, collect appropriate
    information, and address the complaint within the specified guidelines
    of Department of Defense regulations and policies. If confirmed, I
    would assist the Under Secretary in reiterating to the workforce of the
    importance of equality and diversity, as well as our support for the
    Department's zero tolerance for harassment. Additionally, I would
    further reiterate my expectations of professional conduct to all
    employees, and to contractor employees.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this committee, its
    subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive
    timely testimony, briefings, reports, records--including documents and
    electronic communications, and other information from the executive
    branch.
        Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
    to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
    other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
    yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
    of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
    briefings, reports, records--including documents and electronic
    communications, and other information, as may be requested of you, and
    to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
    basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
    reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
    and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
    or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
    Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
    materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
    records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
    information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
    with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
    request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
    and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
    a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
    you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
    this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
    retaliation any military member, federal employee, or contractor
    employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
    subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
    answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                                microelectronics
        1. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, the trusted foundry model has not met
    our military's needs for advanced microelectronics. That model relied
    on a single vendor providing leading-edge technologies rather than
    leveraging competition in the commercial marketplace. What steps will
    you take to ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) is using
    commercial state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities and not forcing
    vendors to use processes and steps that force them to increase costs
    and deviate from commercial state-of-the-art practices?
        Dr. Honey. In order to meet the needs of our warfighters, DOD
    contractors must have assured and secure access to commercial state-of-
    the-art fabrication, packaging and test facilities. The DOD program
    offices recognize the need for this type of access and the Defense
    Industrial Base (DIB) believes that this is required in order to
    produce the highest-performing and most cost-effective weapons systems.
    In my previous and current positions, I have been a participant in
    interagency working groups seeking to address this issue as it is a
    concern in other departments besides DOD. Solving this problem for all
    U.S. critical infrastructure needs will require bringing together all
    of the stakeholders from both inside and outside DOD to formulate a
    comprehensive solution. If confirmed, I would look forward to the
    opportunity to buildupon the important relationships that the DOD and
    interagency groups have established with the commercial semiconductor
    industry to make their state-of-the-art capabilities available in a
    secure manner to the DIB.

        2. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, Research and Engineering's (R&E)
    current microelectronics strategy leverages advanced commercial
    facilities. Do you believe that the commercial sector's existing
    security and verification processes can protect appropriate national
    security information and intellectual property?
        Dr. Honey. Protecting national security information and
    intellectual property are important concerns for DOD. In conversations
    I have had with the commercial industry, they are now keenly aware of
    the threats our adversaries pose to their economic well-being and are
    increasingly interested in partnering with the DOD on these issues. In
    my experience, DOD's information protection practices can protect its
    equities when appropriately used in a commercial setting. Some of DOD's
    information protection best practices are being leveraged by our
    commercial partners to protect their intellectual property from theft
    or destruction.

        3. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, if not, what changes do you think are
    needed to ensure that protection?
        Dr. Honey. In similar situations I have previously encountered, DOD
    often possesses unique and important threat information which when
    shared appropriately, motivates our industrial partners to adopt
    effective countermeasures. In addition, DOD has connections to subject
    matter experts who can often provide cost-effective advice and program
    protection strategies. If confirmed, I would look forward to building
    these relationships and ensuring that the protection of national
    security information and intellectual property remains a high priority
    for R&E.

        4. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, security is a top concern from DOD's
    perspective and the trusted supplier program, which has not resulted in
    U.S.-manufactured leading-edge technologies, has relied on commercial
    facilities operated by people with security clearances. Must the path
    to getting secure access to leading edge microelectronics rely on
    facility and personnel security clearances at design and production
    facilities?
        Dr. Honey. The trusted supplier program has had many challenges
    which must be overcome if DOD is to have access to leading-edge
    technologies, and at the same time, meet its security requirements. In
    my experience, not enough emphasis has been placed on understanding the
    nature of the threat and performing a risk/benefit analysis of
    different acquisition approaches, for example. This in turn has led to
    the existing practices, which have made it difficult for DOD to meet
    its needs. In my current position, I participate in an interagency
    working group that is concerned with this problem, and there has been
    interest from the leading-edge commercial sector in collaborating with
    DOD on this issue. These discussions are still early in their
    development, and if confirmed, I would look forward to working with the
    interagency and the commercial sector to explore, evaluate, and
    implement new approaches, simultaneously giving DOD access to leading
    edge technologies while also meeting its security requirements.

        5. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, what are the benefits and pitfalls of
    such an approach?
        Dr. Honey. Securing the DOD supply chain can best be achieved
    through new approaches to overcoming the threat posed by our
    adversaries. Sharing DOD's unique information where appropriate,
    educating our commercial partners on proven best practices and
    supporting them during implementation can deliver an effective,
    affordable and scalable solution. However, to be successful, this new
    approach will require an unprecedented level of collaborative
    engagement and commitment by DOD, the interagency, and commercial
    industry. R&E leadership in particular would play a key role and if
    confirmed, I would look forward to tackling this issue.

        6. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, would building a trusted enclave that
    is responsible for sensitive military technology make this a bigger
    target to attackers than a traditional commercial facility? Why or why
    not?
        Dr. Honey. Having encountered this issue during my time in DOD and
    in the Intelligence Community, it is very clear that the threats to our
    supply chain are increasing exponentially and often in unexpected ways.
    The key to tackling this problem is understanding the nature of the
    threat, how it will evolve in the future and exploring a range of
    effective, affordable and scalable counter-measures. Given the very
    diverse nature of DOD's acquisitions, it is unlikely that there is a
    one--size-fits-all approach to this problem, which means that a case-
    by-case analysis will often be required. If confirmed, I would look
    forward to working with the stakeholder community to develop and deploy
    the best available solutions.

        7. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, DOD has many microelectronics
    requirements to support capabilities that are currently in acquisition,
    operations, and sustainment needs. The current focus of activity seems
    to be on next generation capabilities and science and technology
    programs. What is your plan and funding to support all parts of the DOD
    microelectronics ecosystem and meet near and mid-term defense systems
    requirements?
        Dr. Honey. In my experience as a DOD program manager and
    contractor, it is often the case that state-of-the-art microelectronics
    do not meet all of the DOD's needs, especially in cases such as legacy
    systems, power electronics, radio frequency, and other applications. If
    confirmed, I do commit to advancing a balanced research program that
    prioritizes those technologies that provide the best solutions so as to
    address all parts of the DOD microelectronics ecosystem at all times
    during each weapons systems' lifecycle.

        8. Senator Reed. Dr. Honey, Congress has mandated that DOD
    establish a national network for microelectronics research that will
    serve to connect university researchers, small businesses, defense
    contractors, and commercial manufacturers and users of advanced
    microelectronics into an integrated enterprise to promote rapid
    innovation and development of dual-use domestic microelectronics
    production capabilities. What is your vision for this network and what
    steps will you take to establish this network?
        Dr. Honey. I strongly support the proposed national network, and
    have seen in my earlier DOD assignments the many benefits that such
    collaborations can deliver. The key to ensuring success of such an
    endeavor lies in understanding the differing and unique characteristics
    that each community requires in the development of dual-use
    capabilities. While the final applications may differ, finding common
    ground on the underlying technology developments will bring together
    the best of commercial and DOD interests. It is paramount that the full
    spectrum of commercial and DOD industrial developers participate and
    conduct their own unique experimentation and prototyping, so as to
    ensure all tech transfer and Valley of Death challenges are
    appropriately addressed. As the leader of such an effort, it is
    important that R&E build source selection teams with representatives
    from the Service Laboratories, program offices, user community,
    prototyping and experimentation organizations, and other DOD
    acquisition offices. R&E should also, to the maximum extent
    practicable, engage Service contracting offices and rely upon Service
    Contracting Technical Representatives to oversee this effort, thus
    building support for and understanding of the program's goals and
    objectives. If confirmed, I would look forward to building the
    stakeholder community and guiding the implementation and operation of
    this network.
                                   __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Angus S. King, Jr.
                             advanced manufacturing
        9. Senator King. Dr. Honey, over my time in public service, I have
    been fortunate enough to work with researchers and scientists at the
    University of Maine and have witnessed firsthand the innovative
    research and development projects they are conducting at the
    University's Advanced Structures and Composites Center. As you may
    know, the Advanced Structures and Composites Center boasts the world's
    largest 3D printer, and has developed a wide range of capabilities--
    from offshore wind technology to the world's first 3D printed boat.
    There are numerous opportunities that exist for the Department to
    leverage these capabilities in future warfighting. Can you expand on
    how you think the Department should prioritize and further develop
    emerging technologies like advanced manufacturing, and how we can
    continue to partner and cooperate with cutting-edge research
    institutions like the University of Maine?
        Dr. Honey. Emerging technologies are the foundation upon which
    future DOD capabilities are developed. They provide new ways to more
    efficiently tackle existing challenges, and create opportunities for
    the development and deployment of unanticipated capabilities for our
    warfighters. An excellent example can be found in additive
    manufacturing, which offers DOD supply chain agility while also
    enabling the defense industrial base to affordably sustain
    technologically advanced weapons systems. Prioritizing and supporting
    the development of emerging technologies is an area where R&E can make
    a significant contribution. Because so many emerging technologies are
    the direct result of breakthroughs in basic and applied sciences, our
    university-based research community is often the best place to pursue
    such developments. In addition to engaging universities directly
    through R&D programs, linking these developments to commercial
    companies through activities such as the DOD's Manufacturing Institutes
    can further accelerate adoption of these important technical
    advancements.
                    procurement technical assistance center
        10. Senator King. Dr. Honey, the Procurement Technical Assistance
    Center (PTAC) is a wonderful program having a huge impact assisting
    Maine businesses with navigating Department of Defense (DOD)
    contracting. PTAC organizationally is shifting from oversight under the
    Defense Logistics Agency to the Under Secretary of Defense (USD) for
    Research and Engineering (R&E) as directed by Congress. Can you give an
    update of the status of this move, and how can we continue to utilize
    programs like this to ensure we are leveraging our assets properly in
    emerging technologies?
        Dr. Honey. The Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs),
    which form a nationwide network acting on the behalf of DOD, are a key
    resource for DOD in ensuring broader access to new industrial
    suppliers. Many of the most impactful emerging technologies are
    increasingly being developed outside of the normal channels to which
    DOD has had access, so the PTACs are important means by which DOD can
    meet its developmental needs. While I am not at this time aware of the
    plans or the details of the shift in oversight responsibilities, I do
    commit if confirmed to get briefed on this issue and to provide an
    update on its status. It is important that this transition occur
    smoothly and with minimal disruption to the program.

        11. Senator King. Dr. Honey, while programs like PTAC are great for
    helping to alleviate some of the current stop gaps and chokepoints in
    the acquisition process, they would not be necessary if we were able to
    get at the root of the problem. We have had plenty of testimony before
    this Committee acknowledging the fact that we are not currently
    operating in a way that most efficiently and effectively allows the
    Department to acquire and develop technology. But we haven't yet been
    able to identify and implement concrete solutions. This will be
    especially important as we seek to keep pace with China in accordance
    with our new strategy of ``integrated strategic deterrence''. If
    confirmed, what specific changes to these processes would you seek to
    implement?
        Dr. Honey. In my experience, both in the DOD and in the private
    sector, the DOD has missed opportunities to prevent these types of
    problems when it fails to proactively engage its industrial partners on
    a timely and continuing basis. Often our partners find out much too
    late the challenges that DOD faces and the types of solutions it is
    considering, which in turn precludes new and innovative solutions.
    There are many opportunities for DOD to initiate quality dialog and
    inform the R&D community what has been learned about the threat, US
    capability gaps, and new opportunities for solutions. If confirmed, I
    would support DOD conducting these types of activities, and would look
    forward to hearing ideas from interested parties on investments the DOD
    should pursue, as well as how best to organize and benefit from the
    changing landscape of new potential partners.

        12. Senator King. Dr. Honey, what do you see as the biggest causal
    factor, and how can we go about rectifying this in the coming years?
        Dr. Honey. In my experience, the DOD must do a better job of
    expeditiously informing our partners the details of the threats we face
    and our capability gaps. Too often the DOD focuses on its preferred
    solutions, and in doing so, shuts down any offering of the innovative
    solutions that would otherwise be submitted. The DOD must commit to
    sharing its information with its industrial partners as much as
    possible, and must remain open to receiving new ideas, objectively
    evaluating these ideas, and providing feedback in order to meet its
    most pressing challenges. Encouraging organizations at all levels to
    engage in experimentation, prototyping, and risk-taking will help
    create the enterprise-wide culture needed to succeed.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
                                 small business
        13. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, I was pleased to hear you mention
    your previous engagement with the Small Business Innovation Research
    program at the Department of Defense (DOD); I believe DOD hasn't been
    as successful in the past as they could be with engaging with small
    businesses. If confirmed, how do you plan to increase small business
    participation under your jurisdiction, specifically in rural areas of
    our country?
        Dr. Honey. Having previously worked at a small business which
    participated in the DOD Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
    program, I have seen firsthand the challenges such businesses face. It
    is an even bigger challenge for those performers who are in more rural
    areas and are not in close proximity to either DOD facility or larger
    tech transfer partners. To address these issues, the DOD must get more
    creative in using its existing tools, and in establishing and
    supporting Private-Public-Partnerships (PPPs). For example, DOD and its
    contracting officers must understand the constraints under which small
    businesses operate. Most small businesses do not have the production
    line of a large contractor to generate significant revenue, which means
    that the various DOD organizations must be aggressively responsive in
    fulfilling payments to small businesses. In some cases, the needs of
    the small business community should be prioritized ahead of larger
    contract actions in order to ensure that these smaller companies do not
    experience financial hardship. It can also be a challenge for small
    businesses to obtain and maintain a facility clearance in order to
    perform classified R&D, and the DOD must commit to solving these types
    of problems. It is also important that DOD continue to be very
    proactive in its participation in and support of the Procurement
    Technical Assistance Program (PTAP), the Procurement Technical
    Assistance Centers (PTACs) and the local business organizations which
    serve as a bridge between the DOD and its small business partners.

        14. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, have you worked with the Office of
    Small Business Programs at DOD in the past, and if so can you tell me
    about that experience? I ask because I included language in this year's
    National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to streamline small business
    engagement underneath that office to ensure DOD is coordinating
    outreach.
        Dr. Honey. I have in the past worked both with the Office of Small
    Business Programs at DOD and with other small business offices at other
    locations. I have always been impressed with enthusiasm and devotion of
    the staffs in all of these organizations. The staff in these offices
    are very effective advocates for small business and go above and beyond
    in order to help these companies succeed. While I am not familiar the
    specific NDAA language referenced, I am aware that the Committee also
    believes there is room for improvement. If confirmed, I will get
    briefed on this activity to better understand how it can help the small
    business community.
                            research and development
        15. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, you mention in your testimony the
    ``Valley of Death'' that exists between research and development (R&D)
    programs and programs of record that make their way into the hands of
    the warfighter. How do you plan to address this problem generally for
    the R&D programs in each of our Services?
        Dr. Honey. In my experience, programs that successfully navigate
    the Valley of Death do so because tech transition was a key part of the
    planning and funding from the earliest stage of the R&D effort. All of
    the stakeholders must be participants at every stage, and it must truly
    be a team effort if it is to succeed. The researchers must be able to
    explain the technology, how it works, the development and testing
    schedules, the plan for manufacturing, anticipated performance, and the
    sustainability issues. The test community must ensure that the
    researchers get adequate feedback, and that the acquisition and user
    communities have confidence in the results. It is imperative that the
    program offices plan for the tech adoption, that the industrial partner
    has early samples for integration studies, and that the users consider
    how the new technology can benefit their operational concepts. R&E in
    particular should serve as the organizer of these teams, and facilitate
    their formation and ongoing activities. The stakeholder community today
    is keenly aware of the need to use new technologies to gain a
    competitive edge for the warfighter, and if confirmed, I would look
    forward to help lead these teams.

        16. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, I am particularly worried that we
    are losing our competitive advantage on Artificial Intelligence (AI).
    The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has a
    number of funding recommendations through the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Office of Naval Research's Adaptive
    Future Force program are two programs I am following very closely. Are
    you familiar with these programs specifically, and if not can you
    commit to be briefed on them within 60 days of your confirmation?
        Dr. Honey. The National Security Commission on Artificial
    Intelligence (NSCAI) has performed a great service in conducting this
    study. I look forward to, and do commit, to getting a detailed briefing
    on these programs within 60 days if confirmed.
                                 cybersecurity
        17. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, in your advance policy questions,
    you mention the transformative nature of cyber technology development,
    the need for increased cyber resiliency, and the efforts we must take
    to maintain cyber expertise in our manpower. Specifically, how do you
    plan to use your position, if confirmed, to ensure our military
    maintains and widens our cyber capability versus threats such as China,
    Russia, North Korea, and cybercrime organizations?
        Dr. Honey. The cyber domain is already a heavily contested
    environment in which we must compete and dominate if we are to ensure
    our national security. For our adversaries, these activities not only
    give them an opportunity to undermine our efforts, it also provides
    them with many of the tools they need to subdue their own populace. It
    is imperative that DOD maintain a robust cybersecurity development
    portfolio which includes research, product development, and an
    aggressive plan of continual testing and red-teaming. These efforts
    must be informed by intelligence reports and estimates from across the
    Intelligence Community. The tools that are developed must leverage the
    best that Artificial Intelligence has to offer, as the scope of our
    adversaries' efforts exceed our ability to use solely human operators
    as an effective countermeasure. If confirmed, I would use my position
    in R&E to bring together the stakeholder community to better share
    information, resources, and solutions to ensure that the DOD acts
    jointly and effectively.

        18. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, do you view this role as strictly
    developing hardware for use in the cyber domain, or do you plan to
    pursue software development as well?
        Dr. Honey. The contested cyber domain that we face today and into
    the future is one in which both hardware and software are intrinsically
    linked. We cannot focus on just one or the other and expect to succeed.
    This domain poses unique systems and mission integration challenges
    which require a detailed knowledge of the interactions of hardware and
    software together as a system.

        19. Senator Manchin. Dr. Honey, as you pursue these goals in the
    cyber domain, do you plan to reach out to the operational experts like
    Lieutenant General Stephen Fogarty and his successor at Army Cyber
    Command?
        Dr. Honey. If confirmed, I plan to engage all of the stakeholders
    across DOD, to include U.S. Army Cyber Command. I would also seek to
    engage our partners in the Intelligence Community and other inter-
    agency organizations.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Thom Tillis
                                microelectronics
        20. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, as foreign sources of
    microelectronics increase, the risks across the supply chain multiply,
    diminishing visibility into the design, manufacturing, packaging,
    testing, and distribution of these devices with consequences for
    security, safety, and reliability. The Department of Defense needs
    access to the best microelectronics ecosystem without fear of
    disruption from nefarious actors, foreign adversaries, or natural
    disasters, which is why Congress included section 224 in the Fiscal
    Year 2020 NDAA. Under section 224, the Department of Defense must
    establish trusted supply chain and operational security standards for
    the purchase of microelectronics through a risk-based approach, a
    requirement that has not yet been implemented. Wouldn't you agree that
    excluding the majority of the devices that the Department of Defense
    uses from trusted supply chain and operational security standards
    undermines the effectiveness of the section 224 requirements contrary
    to congressional intent?
        Dr. Honey. I am in complete agreement that excluding these devices
    undermines the effectiveness of Section 224. From my time in DOD and in
    the Intelligence Community, I am keenly aware of the threats to our
    supply chain, and I am grateful for Congress's attention to this
    critical national security issue.

        21. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, do you commit to ensuring section
    224 implementation covers design, fabrication, package, and test for
    custom chips, printed circuit boards, commercial off the shelf chips,
    and guaranteed long term access strategies?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to ensuring Section 224
    implementation covers design, fabrication, package, and test for custom
    chips, printed circuit boards, commercial off the shelf chips, and
    guaranteed long term access strategies.

        22. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, in recent years, research and
    engineering (R&E) has narrowly focused on microelectronics using state-
    of-the-art lithography, ignoring the overwhelming majority of
    microelectronics end uses for defense systems to the detriment of our
    national defense. R&E has failed to take a holistic approach that
    considers the best technologies for applications irrespective of node
    size, many of which like power and radio frequency (RF) do not and
    cannot perform effectively at single digit nodes. Defense systems
    require the best size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) solutions
    regardless of lithography generation. If confirmed, will you commit to
    advancing a balanced research program that prioritizes the technologies
    that provide the best size, weight, power, and cost solutions
    irrespective of lithography node?
        Dr. Honey. I agree that state-of-the-art microelectronics does not
    meet all of the DOD's needs, especially in cases such as legacy
    systems, power electronics, RF, and other applications. If confirmed, I
    do commit to advancing a balanced research program that prioritizes the
    technologies that provide the best size, weight, power, and cost
    solutions irrespective of lithography node.

        23. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, do you commit to leveraging and
    upgrading systems that use differentiated microelectronics built using
    a range of lithography processes?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to leveraging and upgrading
    systems that use differentiated microelectronics built using a range of
    lithography processes.
                             quantifiable assurance
        24. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, the Research and Engineering office
    has been promoting something called ``zero trust'' or ``quantifiable
    assurance'' for microelectronics. Unlike in software and cybersecurity,
    this concept is not yet proven for hardware and microelectronics. It is
    not clear that people know how to do this yet. Even if further
    developed, quantifiable assurance would be a tool that adds a layer of
    security, not a standalone solution because of its inability to address
    the location and workforce aspects of the supply chain. Unfortunately,
    prematurely changing the way DOD buys microelectronics could drive
    massive increases to acquisition programs without adding any value.
    What is your view on the maturity of quantifiable assurance?
        Dr. Honey. I am in complete agreement with these concerns and have
    been quite vocal about these very issues in previous inter-agency
    meetings, especially while serving in my most recent tour in the
    Intelligence Community. While I am not presently engaged with the
    development of quantifiable assurance and so cannot speak to its
    current status, I have not yet seen any empirical data or other
    evidence which suggests it is ready for deployment. I will, if
    confirmed, make this one of my highest priorities because a self-
    inflicted misstep in this area could have dire consequences.

        25. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, will you commit to work closely with
    the acquisition community to understand the cost of systems?
        Dr. Honey. Yes, if confirmed I commit to working work closely with
    the acquisition community to understand the cost of systems. In my
    experience, one of the biggest cost drivers has been lack of technology
    readiness and R&E can help the acquisition community to overcome these
    types of problems.

        26. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, since quantifiable assurance is
    still in multi-year development and not yet proven or implemented, how
    will the Department of Defense ensure warfighter access to
    microelectronics immediately and without delay?
        Dr. Honey. In my current and previous assignments, I have been
    engaged with inter-agency organizations to address this problem, and if
    confirmed, I will make this one of my highest priorities because a
    self-inflicted misstep in this area could have dire consequences. The
    inter-agency has uncovered strong interest in addressing this problem
    from a variety of commercial vendors, and if confirmed, I commit to
    organizing the stakeholders to facilitate these types of partnerships.
    I would also welcome the opportunity to further discuss this critically
    important issue with the Committee.
                               supply and access
        27. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, this country is finally starting to
    wake up to the need for robust domestic microelectronics manufacturing
    capacity. The United States' defense systems cannot be reliant on chips
    manufactured in countries like China. Is it acceptable for Defense
    National Security systems to be assembled with parts from potential
    adversaries?
        Dr. Honey. No, it is not acceptable. If confirmed, rectifying this
    issue will be one of my highest priorities.

        28. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, if depending on potential
    adversaries is not right, what actions will you take to reduce
    dependence on foreign produced chips and promote a robust domestic
    industrial base?
        Dr. Honey. In my previous and current positions, I have been a
    participant in inter-agency working groups that have been trying to
    solve this problem. Strong DOD leadership is needed to address this
    issue, and if confirmed, I will work to organize and support all of the
    stakeholders to secure and promote a robust domestic industrial base.

        29. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, are you committed to changing the
    way R&E operates?
        Dr. Honey. Yes, I am strongly committed to changing the way R&E
    operates. Having served three times in R&E, to include when it was part
    of OUSD(AT&L), I am keenly aware of what it takes to make R&E a valued
    team member and contributor. If confirmed, I will consult with and
    support Under Secretary Shyu in making any necessary changes.

        30. Senator Tillis. Dr. Honey, instead of looking for the lowest
    cost by having chips fabricated in foreign foundries subject to
    significant geopolitical risks or natural disasters, are you committed
    to R&E increasing fabrication in the United States and supporting the
    strength, security, and resiliency of our domestic industrial base?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. I am absolutely committed to R&E increasing
    fabrication in the United States and supporting the strength, security,
    and resiliency of our domestic industrial base, and if confirmed, this
    will be one of my highest priorities.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
                             armed forces readiness
        31. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Honey, over several years this Committee
    has worked tirelessly to restore military readiness--across each of our
    Services--to levels that would enable our success in a conflict. We've
    had some success, but there is still a lot of work to do. If you have
    not done so already, I recommend that every senior defense leader read
    T.R. Fehrenbach's ``This Kind of War'', which provides a cautionary
    tale of our Nation's failure to adequately fund and train our Armed
    Forces before the Korean War. The consequences were steep and American
    servicemembers paid with their lives. If confirmed, all of you--based
    on your positions--will invariably make decisions that directly or
    indirectly impact readiness. Accordingly, will you commit--if
    confirmed--to work with this Committee and within the Department on
    further bolstering military readiness to ensure the failures we endured
    in the Korean War never happen again?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to doing so.
                             strategy driven budget
        32. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Honey, Ms. Fulton, the National Defense
    Strategy (NDS) Commission report, the two previous Senate-confirmed
    Secretaries of Defense (SECDEF), and the previous and current Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) have all stated the need for
    sustained 3-5 percent annual real growth to the defense budget to
    implement the NDS, increase readiness, and advance long-overdue
    modernization. Further emphasizing the need for consistent and
    increased funding, the NDS Commission report stated, ``America is very
    near the point of strategic insolvency, where its `means' are badly out
    of alignment with its `ends'.'' This critical situation is negatively
    compounded by the Biden administration's dismal defense topline that
    does not keep pace with inflation. With these facts in mind, and
    understanding your ability to influence the budget will be limited to
    future year submissions, will each of you commit to advocating for a
    strategy-driven budget vice a budget-driven strategy?
        Dr. Honey. Answer for Dr. Honey: Yes. I commit to advocating for a
    strategy-driven budget, and will base my recommendations on the gaps we
    face in our capabilities and on the solutions that best make use of the
    resources at our disposal.
                                missile defense
        33. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Honey, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
    stated that, ``[d]efense of the Homeland is a key priority for DOD and
    missile defense is a central component of this mission.'' Deputy
    Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks agreed by saying, ``[d]efense of
    the Homeland is a top priority for DOD and the Homeland missile defense
    system is an essential component to that mission.'' Do you agree with
    the statements made by Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. I agree with and support the statements made by
    Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks.

        34. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Honey, do you support robust funding for
    missile defense modernization?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. I support robust funding for missile defense
    modernization.

        35. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Honey, how does missile defense
    contribute to our national security?
        Dr. Honey. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is a key pillar of our
    national security enterprise. It provides unequaled value through its
    mission to develop and deploy a layered Missile Defense System to
    defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends from
    missile attacks in all phases of flight. MDA and its capabilities serve
    as a powerful deterrent to our adversaries.

        36. Dr. Honey, in Admiral Philip Davidson's statement for the
    record--presented to this committee during the U.S. Indo-Pacific
    Command (INDOPACOM) posture hearing--he highlighted that, ``. . . North
    Korea will remain our most immediate threat.'' Admiral Davidson went on
    to State, ``Pyongyang maintains a diverse and growing missile
    inventory, and North Korea unveiled several new ballistic systems . . .
    including two SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missile] and an ICBM
    [intercontinental ballistic missile].'' He concluded that,
    ``Pyongyang's missile research and development efforts . . . are
    consistent with the regime's stated objective of being able to strike
    the U.S. Homeland.'' Provided this characterization, and the very real
    and growing missile threat posed by North Korea, will you commit to
    prioritizing and accelerating modernization and fielding of our
    Homeland missile defense systems to include the next generation
    interceptor?
        Dr. Honey. If confirmed, I commit to prioritizing and accelerating
    modernization and fielding of our Homeland missile defense systems, to
    include the next generation interceptor.
                              cyber survivability
        37. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Honey, earlier this year, Dr. Raymond
    O'Toole testified before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on
    Readiness. In his statement for the record, he highlighted that
    ``virtually none of the programs assessed in fiscal year 2020 were
    survivable against relevant cyber threats.'' This is deeply concerning
    to me given the role of cyber in today's and tomorrow's strategic
    environment. If confirmed, how will you assist the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Research and Engineering in addressing this critical
    national security issue?
        Dr. Honey. Assuring that all of our weapons systems can safely and
    effectively operate through a sustained cyberattack is a key challenge
    for the DOD, and building the capability to do so must be a part of
    every R&D effort right from the start. If confirmed, I will assist
    Under Secretary Shyu in assuring R&D stakeholders have the relevant
    threat information, and that each effort endeavors to build in the
    right protections at the beginning of the development program. I will
    also assist in ensuring Department test and evaluation capabilities
    meet the needs of this critical challenge.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
                         oak ridge national laboratory
        38. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Honey, what are some near-, mid-, and
    long-term capabilities that you want to see to emerge out of ongoing
    quantum information science (QIS) research within our national labs?
        Dr. Honey. QIS is an important area of research for the DOD and a
    near-, mid-, and long-term portfolio approach is best suited to this
    topic. From a long-term basic science perspective, it is important that
    we invest in new advances in fundamental, material science and device
    fabrication in order to overcome environmental and performance
    limitations of the current state-of-the-art. Given the performance of
    existing components and subsystems, our mid-term goals should focus on
    implementation and understanding the performance, limitations, and
    future directions of systems integration and engineering. In the near-
    term, the results from prototyping and experimentation with existing
    systems and algorithms focused on real-world problems will help inform
    the next series of investment choices for DOD's basic science programs.

        39. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Honey, how closely linked is DOD to the
    overall QIS research ecosystem and where do you see its role within our
    national security enterprise?
        Dr. Honey. In my experience, DOD is deeply engaged with the broader
    QIS research ecosystem and has previously been responsible for many of
    the key investments in this field. DOD must stay engaged in promoting
    research in this area, following the efforts of other US agencies and
    also must maintain awareness of developments by non-US entities.

        40. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Honey, where is the United States in
    relation to China and Russia in the race to develop and deploy QIS?
        Dr. Honey. QIS R&D is an active area of investment worldwide. While
    the United States continues to operate at the forefront, our
    adversaries are very active and will continue to press for leadership
    in this important capability.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Josh Hawley
                                     taiwan
        41. Senator Hawley. Dr. Honey, Admiral Philip Davidson, former
    Commander of Indo-Pacific Command, and Admiral John Aquilino, current
    Commander of Indo-Pacific Command, have warned that China might attempt
    a fait accompli against Taiwan much sooner than previously anticipated,
    potentially as soon as 2027. Yet many of the Department's modernization
    efforts aren't expected to pay off until the 2030's. Do you agree with
    Secretary Austin, Deputy Secretary Hicks, and every other DOD leader
    that I've asked that we must maintain our ability to deny a Chinese
    fait accompli against Taiwan?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. I agree asked that we must maintain our ability to
    deny a PRC fait accompli against Taiwan.

        42. Senator Hawley. Dr. Honey, do you agree that this is something
    we have to be worried in this decade, not just in the 2030's and
    beyond?
        Dr. Honey. Yes. I agree that this is something we have to be
    worried about in this decade, not just in the 2030's and beyond.

        43. Senator Hawley. Dr. Honey, if confirmed, what specifically will
    you do to accelerate the DOD research enterprise's work on solutions
    for this decade, not just the 2030's and beyond?
        Dr. Honey. If confirmed, I would assist Under Secretary Shyu in
    analyzing the performance gaps in our war plans, identifying those gaps
    for which solutions could be rapidly developed, and help construct
    research, experimentation, and prototyping plans to accelerate
    deployment of the highest priority capabilities. I would also assist
    Under Secretary Shyu in forming the stakeholder teams so as to ensure
    that the right solutions are accelerated, the acquisition community is
    ready to accept them, and forces supporting U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
    are able to train and deploy these new weapons systems.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of Dr. David A. Honey, follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The biographical sketch of Dr. David A. Honey, which was
    transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
    referred, follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. David A.
    Honey in connection with his nomination follows:]

       [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the Committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the Committee's executive files.]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nomination of Dr. David A. Honey was reported to the
    Senate by Chairman Reed on October 21, 2021, with the
    recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
    was confirmed by the Senate on February 16, 2022.]
                                    ------

        [Prepared questions submitted to Ms. Brenda S. Fulton by
    Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
    follow:]

                            Questions and Responses
                           duties and qualifications
        Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
    the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
    (ASD(M&RA))?
        Answer. It is my understanding that, if confirmed as the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, I will serve as
    the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary
    of Defense for Personnel and Readiness on all matters regarding
    military and civilian personnel programs and policies, Reserve
    Component affairs and integration, military community and family
    policy, and Total Force manpower issues. The ASD(M&RA) also has direct
    oversight and responsibility for the Defense Commissary Agency and the
    Department of Defense Education Activity.
        Question. What background and experience do you have that qualify
    you for this position?
        Answer. Across my career, I have accumulated a breadth of
    leadership experience, having served in the military, worked in the
    private sector, launched and led nonprofit organizations, and, in my
    present capacity, served in State government.
        In my current job, we transformed a hidebound, primarily analog
    system where customers ``stand in line to stand in line'' for in-person
    services to a mostly automated regime where about 80 percent of
    transactions are available online, and in-person services are governed
    by appointments, text reminders, and an automated queuing system.
        I have worked with senior military leaders in every branch on
    multiple initiatives to increase diversity in the force, expanding
    opportunities for women, LGBT Americans, and Black Americans. In every
    case, my guiding light was an effort to improve our ability to fight
    and win wars.
        In my 8 years on the West Point Board of Visitors, five of them
    serving as Chair or Vice Chair, I had the good fortune to work with Lt.
    Gen. Bob Caslen, my friend Rep. Steve Womack, and other Board members
    in fighting sexual harassment and assault; expanding the diversity of
    our entering classes; and most of all, centering character development
    as a way to deliver the Army the best leaders possible.
        As an Army veteran and West Point graduate, I deeply love our Armed
    Forces and the values we represent, and will strive to continue to make
    those forces stronger, smarter, and more effective--the envy of the
    world.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
    the ASD(M&RA), and how would you address them, if confirmed?
        Answer. Our military faces an incredibly dynamic threat
    environment, with disruptive technologies and powerful adversaries. I
    believe that the primary challenge in this role will be to deliver a
    smarter force. That means attracting smart people--and retaining our
    best talent.
        We know from research that smart, talented, innovative people want
    to work in places where they are (a) given challenging, meaningful
    opportunities that align with their talents; (b) part of a diverse and
    inclusive environment; and (c) led by leaders of character.
        That means we must also make significant progress in ending sexual
    harassment and assault in the military.
        And if we are to retain those people, especially in the military
    ranks, we must do a better job taking care of their families.
        I believe these are our greatest challenges, and if confirmed, I
    will do everything within my power to succeed against them.
                        civilian control of the military
        Question. If confirmed, how would you use your position to adhere
    to and further the fundamental principle of civilian control of the
    armed forces?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will serve as a principal advisor to the
    Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
    and Readiness on matters regarding military and civilian personnel
    programs and policies, Reserve Component affairs and integration,
    military community and family policy, and Total Force manpower issues.
    I will, if confirmed, strive to provide sound guidance and
    recommendations regarding the impact of policies and decisions on the
    Department's workforce, both civilian and military, the Reserve
    Component and our military families.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure your inclusion in the
    discussion, debate, and resolution of U.S. defense and national
    security issues?
        Answer. Our military and civilian personnel are vital to achieving
    the Department's mission. Since nearly all decisions made regarding
    U.S. defense and national security impact them, it is necessary to
    include the ASD(M&RA) when discussions or debates related to personnel
    occur. If confirmed, I will actively engage on matters within my
    portfolio and provide the best information and advice possible.
                        personnel policy implementation
        Question. If confirmed, what personnel policies and processes would
    you implement to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of human
    resources management--both military and civilian--across the
    Department?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would first seek to learn much more about
    the pressing challenges that face our people before taking any action.
    We must always strive for a smarter, stronger, more effective force; it
    is my opinion that we attract and retain talent by taking care of our
    people and their families, by offering challenging and meaningful
    opportunities, fostering a diverse and inclusive environment, and
    putting leaders of character in place at every level. However, I
    believe in making decisions based on evidence and data, and if
    confirmed, I would seek the best information before pushing for change.
        Question. What is your understanding of your responsibility, if
    confirmed, to inform and consult with this Committee and other
    appropriate committees of Congress, on the implementation of personnel
    policies directed by law?
        Answer. My understanding is that, if confirmed, I will implement
    all personnel policies in my area of responsibility as directed by law,
    and be responsive to this and other congressional committees on
    requests for information and reporting requirements, as appropriate.
                         non-deployable servicemembers
        Question. In your view, should servicemembers who are non-
    deployable for more than 12 consecutive months be subject either to
    separation from the service or referral to the Disability Evaluation
    System, as is current Department policy?
        Answer. I understand that it is Department policy to maximize the
    lethality and readiness of the joint force and all Servicemembers are
    expected to be deployable. It is also my understanding that
    Servicemembers who are considered non-deployable for more than 12
    consecutive months require a retention determination from their
    Military Department, not mandatory separation. In my view these
    individuals should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if
    continued service is appropriate.
        Question. Under what circumstances would the retention of a
    servicemember who has been non-deployable for more than 12 months be
    ``in the best interest of the service''?
        Answer. I would expect the Secretaries of the Military Departments
    to evaluate each individual on a case-by-case basis. Considerations
    should include the individual's ability to perform appropriate military
    duties commensurate with his/her office, grade, rank or skill as well
    as the likelihood that the Servicemember will resolve the condition or
    reason that is the underlying cause of the non-deployable status.
        Question. In your view, how should this policy be applied to
    servicemembers with HIV?
        Answer. In my view, Servicemembers should be evaluated individually
    on a case-by-case basis; impartial treatment, regardless of the medical
    condition at issue, is critical.
        The new Department of Defense policy on service by transgender
    persons, as set forth in DOD Instruction 1300.28, provides that ``any
    determination that a transgender Servicemember is non-deployable at any
    time will be consistent with established Military Department and
    Service standards, as applied to other Servicemembers whose
    deployability is similarly affected in comparable circumstances
    unrelated to gender transition.''
        Question. Please provide an example of a ``comparable
    circumstance'' that would be used to determine deployability of a
    transgender servicemember.
        Answer. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate at this
    time as this is a very individualized policy. If confirmed, I am
    committed to ensuring Servicemembers are treated fairly, in an
    environment affording everyone dignity and respect.
        Question. On average, how long should a commander of a
    servicemember undergoing a gender transition expect that servicemember
    to be non-deployable?
        Answer. I do not think it is appropriate to speculate on the
    timeline as every case is highly individualized. If confirmed, I look
    forward to working closely on this matter with the Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Health Affairs and medical professionals within the
    Department.
        Question. In your view, should a servicemember's readiness to
    perform the required specific missions, functions, and tasks in the
    context of a particular deployment also be considered in determining
    whether that servicemember is deployable?
        Answer. I do not have enough information to provide a thorough
    assessment at this time. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
    Military Departments to review policies and procedures as appropriate
    to ensure the lethality and readiness of the joint force.
        Question. What are your ideas for addressing the challenges of
    medical non-deployability in the Reserve components?
        Answer. I do not currently have access to DOD data regarding the
    challenges of medical non-deployability in the Reserve components. If
    confirmed, I will work with my colleagues in the Military Departments
    to address any challenges that are identified.
                            diversity and inclusion
        Question. In general, what is your assessment of the diversity of
    the U.S. armed forces and of the DOD civilian workforce?
        Answer. It is my understanding that, although there is room for
    improvement, the Department and the Military Departments continue to
    work toward improving diversity through a number of ongoing
    initiatives. If confirmed, I will continue to support and, where
    necessary, expand diversity initiatives to achieve greater
    representation in the Armed Forces and the DOD civilian workforce.
        Question. According to researchers at the RAND Corporation, African
    American and Hispanic youth are less likely to be eligible for military
    service than white and Asian Americans. Why do you think this is the
    case?
        Answer. I am not familiar with the referenced RAND study. I
    believe, however, that although eligibility standards should be based
    on operational requirements, these standards should be as broad and
    inclusive as possible.
        Question. In your judgment, should military accession and
    commissioning standards be modified to achieve racial diversity goals?
    Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I believe the qualification standards should ensure our
    military force remains unmatched in the world and that individuals who
    join can meet the high standards and demands the mission requires.
    These standards should ensure we are able to recruit the best and
    brightest of America's youth while also ensuring our armed forces are
    diverse and representative of the society they serve.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you increase diversity and
    inclusion in the armed forces, and work toward the goal of ensuring
    that the Nation's military, at all levels, especially within the senior
    officer ranks, reflects the broad diversity of the nation?
        Answer. I understand that the diversity and inclusion initiatives
    that the Department and the Military Departments are currently working
    on underscore the Department's commitment to diversity, including in
    senior ranks. I believe these initiatives will provide a framework to
    remove barriers and facilitate greater diversity in all ranks. If
    confirmed, I will continue to support and, where necessary, expand
    these initiatives to help improve the diversity among senior leaders.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you increase diversity and
    inclusion within the Department's civilian workforce, especially at the
    senior General Schedule and Senior Executive Service levels?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support and seek to expand, if
    necessary, current diversity initiatives to achieve greater
    representation at the senior General Schedule and Senior Executive
    levels.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
    increase geographical diversity in the armed forces, especially from
    areas of the country and local communities that are currently
    underrepresented?
        Answer. Unfortunately, many of today's youth do not have family or
    other mentor connections to the military that promote an understanding
    of what military service offers. This is particularly true in more
    remote and isolated communities. I believe broad, expansive
    communication efforts and strategic messaging are a crucial part of
    educating all youth about the opportunities that come with military
    service. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure proactive engagement
    with community leaders to ensure accurate perceptions of military
    service and the significant opportunities it provides.
                                   extremism
        Question. What is your view of the prevalence and effect of
    extremism within the armed forces?
        Answer. It is my view that the majority of military personnel and
    civilian employees take their Oath to the U.S. Constitution seriously
    and serve our Nation honorably. Unfortunately, there may be a small
    number of individuals who choose to align themselves with extremist
    ideologies and have an outsized impact among the Force. This has no
    place in our military and should not be tolerated.
        Question. If confirmed, what would you direct the Military Services
    to do to eliminate extremism within the ranks?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will put into action the recommendations
    and best practices from the Department's review of this issue this past
    summer. As I understand, that work focused on improvements to policy,
    training and education, and screening processes to prevent and respond
    to any emergent threats.
        The current DOD policy on ``Handling Dissident and Protest
    Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces'' prohibits servicemembers
    from ``active participation'' in organizations ``that advocate
    supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes;
    including those that attempt to create illegal discrimination based on
    race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin . . .
    .''
        Question. Do you believe that servicemembers who are active
    participants in religious or political groups that advocate for
    socially conservative changes to laws related to marriage and gender
    should be punished, counseled, or prohibited from military service?
        Answer. I believe that Servicemembers, as long as they act within
    the confines of Federal law and DOD policy, should be allowed to
    exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and to observe the
    tenets of their religion.
                           military service academies
        Question. What is your assessment of the diversity of cadets and
    midshipmen in the Military Service Academies? What measures can be
    taken to increase diversity in the Academies?
        Answer. Diversity within the officer corps is essential to both the
    Department's current mission and to developing our future leaders.
    Accordingly, it is imperative to ensure diverse talent is found within
    the applicant pool and student population of our accession programs,
    such as the Military Service Academies. While I was on the Board of
    Visitors for West Point, I was a strong advocate for increasing
    diversity in the incoming classes. I understand the value of increasing
    DOD's minority and female accession rates to maintaining a strong and
    lethal force. If confirmed, I will strive to improve DOD's marketing,
    recruitment, and community partnership efforts to help the Military
    Service Academies establish a more diverse pool of applicants.
        Question. What is your assessment of the efficacy of the policies
    and processes in place across the Military Service Academies to prevent
    sexual assault and sexual harassment, and to ensure that cadets and
    midshipmen who do report assault or harassment are not subject to
    retaliation--social ostracism and reputation damage--in particular?
        Answer. Unfortunately, the Department has more work to do in the
    prevention of sexual assault and harassment, as well as stopping all
    forms of retaliation, including from peers and supervisors. If
    confirmed, I will continue the work of the Department to ensure victims
    feel comfortable coming forward to report sexual assault and harassment
    without fear of retaliation. Furthermore, if confirmed I will work to
    ensure the Military Service Academies appropriately address and prevent
    all forms of unacceptable behaviors, including retaliatory behaviors.
        Question. What is your assessment of the efficacy of suicide
    prevention programs at each Military Service Academy?
        Answer. I know, from my time in the U.S. Army and my work with West
    Point cadets, junior officers, and enlisted members, our youngest
    troops are often at highest risk. We must carefully consider the cadet
    and midshipmen population in the Department's efforts to address
    suicide. I am committed to the welfare of our military community, which
    includes the future leaders at our Military Service Academies. If
    confirmed, I will work with my colleagues who oversee the suicide
    prevention programs and assess their efficacy in my endeavor to care
    for the military community at large, including cadets and midshipmen.
        Question. Do you believe the current 5-year minimum Active Duty
    service commitment for Military Service Academy graduates is sufficient
    return on investment for the U.S. military and the American taxpayer?
        Answer. As a graduate of West Point, I am familiar with the 5-year
    minimum Active Duty service obligation for Military Service Academy
    graduates that has been in effect for many years. If confirmed, I will
    assess the existing service obligation policies to evaluate if the U.S.
    military and American taxpayers are receiving an acceptable return on
    their investment.
        Question. In your view, do the Military Service Academies
    contribute to the pool of military officer accessions commensurate with
    their attendant costs? Why or why not?
        Answer. I firmly believe the Military Service Academies produce
    high-quality commissioned officers and leaders. If confirmed, I will
    examine the resources provided to the Military Service Academies to
    ensure they are efficiently used and maximized to the greatest benefit
    for the Department and the Nation.
        Question. Under what conditions would you deem it appropriate, if
    confirmed, to permit a military officer to play professional sports
    prior to completing at least two consecutive years of commissioned
    service following graduation from the United States Military Academy?
        Answer. I am aware that there has been a relatively small number of
    talented cadets and midshipmen who have received approval to
    participate in professional sports prior to serving at least two
    consecutive years of commissioned service following their graduation
    from a Military Service Academy. If confirmed, I will analyze the
    current policy on professional sport participation for Military Service
    Academy graduates, and will work with Department leadership to
    determine if there is a need to propose changes to the Secretary
    concerning the current policy.
                senior reserve officers' training corps (srotc)
        Question. In your view, does the Senior Reserve Officers' Training
    Corps (SROTC) program remain a viable source of officer accessions?
        Answer. It is my understanding that SROTC is the largest source of
    commissioned officers. If confirmed, I will evaluate the Department's
    policies and procedures to maximize efficiencies.
        Question. What is your assessment of the diversity in our ROTC
    programs? What measures can be taken to increase diversity in the ROTC?
        Answer. SROTC units are hosted at a number of geographically and
    culturally diverse institutions across the United States. It is my
    understanding that these civilian institutions facilitate a diverse
    cadet and midshipmen pool. If confirmed, I will evaluate those
    institutions that draw from diverse and underrepresented populations
    and strive to improve DOD's marketing, recruitment, and community
    partnership efforts to encourage a more diverse applicant pool.
        Question. In your view, should the Military Services continue to
    operate SROTC units at colleges and universities that fail to meet
    their minimum annual commissioning requirements? If not, please explain
    the factors you believe should be used to determine which units should
    be terminated.
        Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review our policies concerning
    SROTC units that may be having difficulty meeting annual commissioning
    requirements, as well as examining the conditions and challenges faced
    by such units. In consultation with Congress, I will explore ways to
    get the best out of current SROTC programs and not lose representation
    in certain geographical areas.
        Question. How would you modify the SROTC scholarship program to
    attract the top talent that our armed forces need to meet national
    defense?
        Answer. There are SROTC programs at some of the top-rated colleges
    and universities in the United States. If confirmed, I will stress the
    importance and value of recruiting efforts at every participating
    college and university. In addition, I will encourage an increased
    effort at some of the underused locations.
                             military compensation
        Question. Do you agree that the primary purpose of a competitive
    military pay and benefits package is to recruit and retain a military
    of sufficient size and quality to meet national defense objectives?
        Answer. Yes. Military pay and benefits have to be competitive with
    salaries and benefits in the private sector so the Department can
    recruit and retain the high-quality men and women the Nation needs to
    the fill the ranks of its military.
        Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of the current
    military pay package in achieving this goal?
        Answer. It is my understanding that today's military compensation
    package is considered robust and compares very favorably with the
    private-sector. If confirmed, I will continuously evaluate the full
    range of pay and benefits to ensure they are adequate to recruit and
    retain the most talented people our country has to offer for service in
    the Armed Forces.
        Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the current
    military pay and benefits package, if confirmed?
        Answer. I do not have any specific changes to military pay and
    benefits that I'd recommend at this time. However, if confirmed, I will
    be eager to work with Congress on issues surrounding military pay and
    benefits and will be more than open to considering potential options
    for change. Above all, however, my goal would be that we only seek
    changes that maintain readiness, as well as our ability to recruit,
    retain, and sustain the All-Volunteer Force.
        Question. What specific recommendations do you have for controlling
    rising military personnel costs, including entitlement spending?
        Answer. I am aware that recent growth in military personnel costs
    is an ongoing source of concern. I believe we have to look for
    processes that improve efficiencies and support controlling costs. If
    confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure any future military pay
    or benefit change is justified and enhances our ability to recruit,
    retain, and sustain the Force while remaining cost-efficient.
                            recruiting and retention
        Question. In your view, what are the main reasons that less than 30
    percent of 17 to 24-year-olds are eligible for military service, and
    how would you propose increasing the size of that pool?
        Answer. I am aware that some of the main reasons today's youth are
    ineligible for military service are medical issues, such as obesity,
    drug use, and past conduct issues, to include illegal activity and
    associated proceedings. I believe that the low eligibility rates are a
    national, not just a DOD, concern. If confirmed, I will work to improve
    the recruiting pool. I believe the Department can improve the
    propensity for military service among today's youth by working to
    eliminate misperceptions, and reaffirming the value of military service
    through positive messaging and strategic engagements.
        Question. Similarly, why do you believe that the propensity of
    youth to serve continues to drop and is at its lowest level (about 10
    percent according to DOD data) in years?
        Answer. My understanding is that the low propensity to serve is due
    in large part to the increasing disconnect between civilians and the
    military, misperceptions and lack of knowledge about military service,
    and the shrinking Veteran population. If confirmed, I will focus on
    shifting the views and perceived value of military service.
        Question. Do you believe that non-native English speakers are
    disadvantaged in qualifying for military service by the current testing
    process?
        Answer. The ability to communicate and understand the English
    language is critical for success in the military. I understand that the
    Military Services use recruiting programs directed at non-native
    English speakers, providing them with the highest potential for
    success. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Military
    Services to ensure the Department utilizes the most modern assessment
    tools that provide the broadest possible opportunity for today's youth.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you address any such
    disadvantages to increase the pool of eligible and interested youth?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department utilizes modern
    marketing and advertising methods to reach a diverse and qualified pool
    of eligible applicants and that eligibility standards result in optimum
    fit between service demands and member capabilities.
        Question. In your view, should existing medical and other
    qualification standards be reconsidered to accommodate youth willing to
    enlist for service in certain high--demand specialties, such as
    remotely piloted aircraft pilots or the cyber workforce?
        Answer. I am not familiar with the specific qualification standards
    for military service but, if confirmed, I will work with the Military
    Services to ensure that qualification standards are appropriate, while
    still ensuring that Servicemembers can complete their required training
    and deploy worldwide on a moment's notice to fight and win our Nation's
    wars.
             military accessions vital to national interest program
        Question. In your view, did the benefits of the Military Accessions
    Vital to National Interest Program (MAVNI)--recruiting and utilizing
    those with critical skills vital to the national interest--outweigh the
    costs to the Department associated with conducting security,
    suitability, and reliability screenings of applicants?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the MAVNI program mostly
    provided the Military Services with critical language speakers and
    those with various medical specialties. I am also aware that
    legislation enacted in recent years greatly limits the use of such a
    program, but the Department recruits large numbers of Lawful Permanent
    Residents each year, greatly contributing to the diverse language
    capabilities of the Department.
        Question. In your view, was the program effective in helping the
    Department to recruit for certain hard-to-fill specialties?
        Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the
    program to answer this, but understand that lawful permanent residents
    positively contribute to the Military Services and fill important
    positions that are challenging for the Military Services to fill.
        Question. If confirmed, would you recommend reactivating the MAVNI
    program and authorize the enlistment of new applicants? If so,
    conditions would you impose on program operations, particularly as
    regards applicant security, suitability, and reliability screening?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the history of the program and
    look for ways in which we can effectively fill critical but
    challenging-to-recruit vacancies within existing authorities. I am
    aware that legislation enacted in recent years greatly limits the use
    of such a program.
                               reserve components
        Question. In your judgment, what has been the effect of increased
    operational tempo on Reserve component recruiting and retention?
        Answer. I understand the members of our Reserve Components have
    responded admirably to the numerous missions they have supported around
    the world and here at home; however, I am unaware of the impact of
    those operational requirements on recruiting and retention. If
    confirmed, I will work closely with the Military Departments and
    Services to ensure the Department can recruit and retain an effective
    Reserve force.
        Question. In your view, do the Reserve components serve as an
    operational reserve, a strategic reserve, or both? In light of your
    answer, should the Reserve components be supported by increased
    training, improved equipment, and higher levels of overall resourcing
    for readiness?
        Answer. In my view, the Reserve Component is no longer solely a
    strategic force and is increasingly relied on as part of the total
    operational force. If confirmed, I will work with the Military
    Departments and the Military Services to ensure the Reserve Component
    is appropriately and equitably resourced with the equipment,
    facilities, and training needed to meet total force requirements.
        Question. In your view, what actions can be taken to improve
    permeability between the active and Reserve components?
        Answer. In my view, providing a continuity of service option
    between the Active and Reserve Components improves recruiting and
    retention of talent. If confirmed, I will review the current policies
    to transition between the Active and Reserve Components to identify any
    shortfalls and successes, and work with the Military Departments and
    Services, as well as Congress, as appropriate, to improve permeability.
        Question. In your view, are the current requirements for becoming a
    Joint Qualified Officer appropriate for Reserve component officers? If
    not, how should requirements be revised to better meet the needs of
    Reserve component officers?
        Answer. It is my understanding that officer careers are closely
    managed to meet Military Department requirements. If confirmed, I will
    work to ensure joint qualification requirements for both active and
    Reserve component officers are reasonable and enhance an officer's
    professional abilities.
        Question. In your view, is the current professional military
    educations system appropriate for the Reserve components? If not, what
    changes would you recommend?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the State of the professional
    military education system for the Reserve Components to ensure that for
    any areas not appropriate for Servicemembers in the Reserve force, we
    work to make the necessary changes to the system. My review would also
    seek to ensure that there are processes that allow for the continuous
    improvement of professional military education system to meet the
    unique considerations of Servicemembers in the Reserve Component.
                            military quality of life
        Question. If confirmed, what qualify of life and morale, welfare,
    and recreation (MWR) programs would you consider to be a priority?
        Answer. If I am confirmed, programs that enhance the well-being and
    resilience of Servicemembers and their families will be among my top
    priorities. I support critical programs such as spouse education and
    employment support; military family life counseling; MWR and resale
    programs; fitness; and quality child care. In my view, these programs
    enrich military family readiness, which is crucial to mission
    readiness.
        Question. What metric would you apply in determining which MWR and
    quality of life programs should be sustained or enriched and which
    should be eliminated or reduced in scope as ineffective or outmoded?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the metrics and measures for
    essential MWR and quality of life programs. I will also review MWR
    programs and funding policies to ensure they are adequately funded and
    meet the needs of Servicemember and families. I believe these programs
    are an essential part of maintaining Total Force fitness, because they
    impact the readiness, recruitment, and retention of personnel and lead
    to increased physical and mental well-being.
                     military family readiness and support
        Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
    readiness issues for servicemembers and their families?
        Answer. My understanding is that spouse employment and child care
    are two of the most important family readiness issues for
    Servicemembers and their families. The lack of child care availability
    and spouse unemployment, or underemployment, can have significant
    negative impacts on the financial readiness of Servicemembers and their
    families. In addition, these readiness issues may also lead to
    retention problems, as they impact a family's satisfaction with
    military life. If confirmed, I will work to address these crucial
    issues.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific actions would you take to
    ensure that military families are provided with accessible, high-
    quality childcare, at an appropriate cost?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure our military families
    have access to affordable, quality child care. Child care is a critical
    mission readiness issue and important to ensuring the economic
    viability of military families. I will work with Department leadership,
    as well as continuously seeking feedback from our military families, to
    determine where challenges exist and find ways to improve this mission
    critical service.
     department of defense education activity, dod schools, and dependent
                               education (dodea)
        Question. What is your assessment of the overall quality of DOD
    schools?
        Answer. In my view, DODEA schools provide an excellent education
    that rivals the best public schools in the country. This should never
    change because military dependents deserve the best education the
    Department can provide.
        Question. In your view, are DODEA's administrative overhead costs,
    meaning its funding and employment above the school level, comparable
    to those found in high quality public school districts in the United
    States?
        Answer. It is my understanding that DODEA has been subject to
    Headquarters staffing reviews and reductions more than once. Although I
    do not presently have access to the analysis, I am aware that DODEA's
    overhead is now lower than that of comparable public school systems.
        Question. Should the eligibility requirements for military
    dependents to attend DOD schools be modified in any way, in your
    opinion? If so, what modifications would you propose, if confirmed?
        Answer. I do not currently know enough about DODEA eligibility
    requirements to offer an informed opinion on potential modifications.
    If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress to ensure that DODEA
    has the resources and authorities that may be needed in the future.
        Question. What lasting impacts, if any, do you believe the COVID-19
    pandemic will have on the way DOD schools are run and how DOD
    dependents who attend those schools learn?
        Answer. I am aware that DODEA was able to quickly adapt its
    education program during the COVID-19 pandemic by incorporating remote
    learning nearly immediately. If confirmed, I will build on this
    momentum for using technology and adaptive curriculum to meet every
    student's needs and support success no matter where they are located.
        Question. Do you believe that DODEA should further expand its
    capabilities to deliver online education in the future?
        Answer. Yes. I am aware that the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2021 directed DODEA to conduct a pilot program to
    expand access to its virtual school. If confirmed, I look forward to
    learning more about DODEA's implementation of this pilot.
        Question. How can these programs be improved?
        Answer. I have not reviewed the performance goals and metrics for
    DODEA. I look forward to doing so if confirmed, after which I may have
    additional thoughts.
        Question. What is your assessment of the preparedness of DOD
    schools to respond and react appropriately to active shooter
    emergencies?
        Answer. The Department must ensure that all students and staff are
    ready for an active shooter incident. Training and procedural
    compliance will be key in preparing for such an event. If confirmed, I
    will ensure DODEA continues to monitor security threats and update
    response plans as needed.
        Question. How do you assess current class sizes (student to teacher
    ratios) throughout DODEA schools, and do you recommend they be
    adjusted? If so, why?
        Answer. I do not have enough information to make such an assessment
    at this time. I believe the Department must be a good custodian of
    taxpayer resources and it also has an obligation to invest deliberately
    and responsibly in the students it serves. I believe that means if a
    school system is to maintain high levels of student achievement, it
    must be well-resourced and have an appropriate number of teachers in
    each school. If confirmed, I will review the resource requirements of
    DODEA to ensure the Department meets these obligations.
        Question. Are you confident that DODEA has in place the policies
    and processes to ensure that:
        Allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment by a student in
    locations under the jurisdiction of DODEA are properly investigated?
        Answer. I am aware that DODEA uses effective tracking and reporting
    processes which assist the organization to prevent and, when necessary
    to respond to unlawful discrimination throughout DODEA schools. If
    confirmed, I plan to continue to work to ensure that all such
    allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment are appropriately
    addressed.
        Question. Information documenting such misconduct, if
    substantiated, is recorded in the permanent record of the offending
    student and that any school to which that student subsequently
    transfers is made aware of that information, as appropriate?
        Answer. Although I do not know the details, I am aware that DODEA
    requires the documentation of substantiated misconduct be included in a
    student's record. If confirmed, I will thoroughly review DODEA's
    process and make appropriate adjustments if necessary.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you direct to ensure
    that DODEA takes all appropriate actions to hold its teachers, other
    employees, and students accountable for acts of sexual assault, sexual
    harassment, and unlawful discrimination?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the policies currently in
    place, making any needed adjustments to ensure sexual assault, sexual
    harassment, and unlawful discrimination, are not tolerated in DODEA.
    When allegations are made, they will be investigated and, if
    substantiated, the responsible individual(s) will be held appropriately
    accountable.
        Question. In your view, should the quality and availability of
    local public education factor into Department and military service
    basing decisions?
        Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will thoroughly examine how the
    quality and availability of local public education are considered in
    basing decisions. I will work with stakeholders to implement any needed
    actions required to ensure access to high quality education for
    military dependents.
           community support for military families with special needs
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that servicemembers
    with special needs family members relocate to new duty stations where
    services are available to address the special needs of members of that
    family?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will thoroughly examine this important
    issue. Supporting all our Servicemembers and families is critical to
    the recruitment, readiness, and retention of the force. I will review
    policies and procedures to better understand the process in which
    Servicemembers with special needs family members are assigned to new
    duty stations and see where we can improve this process for special
    needs families.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure outreach to those
    military families with special needs dependents so they are able to
    obtain the support they need?
        Answer. I do not have enough information at this time to adequately
    comment on the current outreach efforts of the Department. However, if
    confirmed, I am committed to providing support to military families
    that have family members with special needs. This includes making sure
    all families know about the support services available to them. If
    confirmed, I will work to better understand how the Department is
    meeting the needs of these important members of our military community
    and in which areas we can improve.
                        morale, welfare, and recreation
        Question. If confirmed, what challenges do you foresee in
    sustaining MWR programs in the constrained fiscal environment of the
    Department?
        Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the funding
    support for both appropriated and nonappropriated funds that I believe
    are integral to the successful sustainment of MWR programs. I will
    review the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on MWR programs,
    and I will study the long-term fiscal challenges impacting the ability
    to deliver products and services efficiently and effectively to
    Servicemembers, retirees, and their families.
                    commissary and military exchange systems
        Question. What is your view of the need for modernization of
    business policies and practices in the commissary and exchange systems?
        Answer. I fully support the modernization of commissary and
    exchange policies and business practices to ensure they are timely;
    relevant to the environment in which we operate; responsive to changes
    in that environment; and effective in meeting the needs for which they
    were developed. If confirmed, I will ensure the commissary and exchange
    systems are utilizing cutting-edge policies and practices, as the
    resale system is an important non-pay benefit contributing to the
    readiness of our military members and their families.
        Question. What are the most promising avenues for change to achieve
    these modernization goals?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Department recently
    completed an update of its Business Case Analysis involving the
    commissary and exchange systems. If confirmed, I look forward to
    reviewing the results and promoting even greater levels of
    collaboration and modernization in the commissary and exchange systems.
        Question. What should the Department do to make the commissary
    system more self-sustaining?
        Answer. The commissary system is an invaluable benefit to our
    Servicemembers and their families, which proved even more critical
    during the COVID-19 pandemic. If confirmed, I will assess and support
    efforts to better balance the delivery of the commissary benefit with
    funding sources in accordance with Department guidance.
        Question. What is your view of proposals to consolidate, eliminate,
    or privatize commissaries and exchanges in certain areas where they are
    duplicative of services readily available at reasonable cost in the
    community?
        Answer. It is my understanding that military members and their
    families consider the commissary and exchange benefits to be two of the
    most valuable benefits the Department provides. If confirmed, I look
    forward to reviewing the information on such proposals, so I can
    carefully consider any impacts or risks before commenting on any
    proposals regarding consolidation, elimination, or privatization.
                department of defense civilian workforce matters
        Question. How would you describe the current State of the
    Department's civilian workforce, including its morale and the
    Department's ability to successfully recruit and retain top talent?
        Answer. I have not been in a position to become aware of the
    civilian workforce's morale, or the Department's ability to
    successfully recruit top talent. If I am confirmed, this will be an
    important focus of my portfolio and I will work closely with other DOD
    leaders to address it, as appropriate.
        Question. In your judgment, what are the biggest challenges facing
    the DOD in effectively and efficiently managing its civilian workforce?
        Answer. Although I am not aware of all the possible challenges
    facing the DOD in managing its civilian workforce, I expect that, like
    for many complex and technical organizations, the competition for
    highly skilled talent is a major undertaking. If confirmed, I will work
    closely with stakeholders across the Department to assess workforce
    challenges, and develop the strategies to address them where necessary.
        Question. What is your view of both the favorable and adverse
    effects that borrowed military manpower can have on participating
    military personnel and on the performance of civilian functions?
        Answer. I believe it is important for the Military Departments to
    have the flexibility they need to successfully execute their missions,
    and borrowed military manpower can be a part of that equation. My
    primary concern about this practice is the potential impact on
    operational readiness if it were relied upon too often to fill gaps. If
    confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments to ensure that
    their end strength is adequate to accomplish all assigned missions.
        Question. Would there be any value to the Department, in your view,
    in eliminating the moratorium on the use of A-76 public/private
    competitions that has been in effect since 2009?
        Answer. I am not yet familiar with the A-76 process or the
    reasoning behind the moratorium, but it is my understanding that the A-
    76 process itself is widely considered flawed by both the public and
    the private sectors. I believe it is important for the Department to
    have flexibility to meet its mission requirements in a manner that
    optimizes its resources. If confirmed, I will work with my counterparts
    in the Department to understand the impact of the moratorium and gauge
    if there is a need to reconsider its usefulness.
        Question. The Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act
    required the Department of Defense to implement a probationary period
    of at least 2 years for new civilian employees. How does this
    requirement benefit the Department, in your view?
        Answer. I do not currently have access to the details regarding the
    Department's implementation of this provision, or how it has benefited
    the Department. If confirmed, I will review current personnel policies
    to assess their effectiveness and propose changes where necessary.
        Question. In your view, what role should the Office of the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower & Reserve Affairs play in
    establishing the ``return to work'' policies for DOD civilians who have
    been operating in a ``telework'' environment for lengthy periods of
    time due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
        Answer. With its responsibility for directing policies affecting
    the DOD workforce, I believe the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Manpower & Reserve Affairs should play a critical role in
    developing ``return to work'' and ``telework'' policies, while
    considering the input of DOD leaders and employees in shaping the right
    policies for the Department.
        Question. In your view, what challenges will this ``return to
    work'' effort engender and how would you address each of these
    challenges, if confirmed?
        Answer. While I am not currently aware of the challenges that might
    arise from a ``return to work'' effort, I will, if confirmed, work
    closely with DOD leaders and stakeholders to assess any challenges, and
    develop strategies to address them, as appropriate.
                                cyber workforce
        Question. What is your view of the appropriate mix between the
    uniformed cyber workforce and civilian employees?
        Answer. I believe that there is no specific optimal ``mix'' of
    military and civilian personnel for the cyber workforce, and that any
    such mix should be based on the requirements, nature of the work, and
    cost factors that are unique to an organization and the mission it
    performs. If confirmed, I will work with my counterparts in the
    Department to ensure that leaders in cyber and other functional
    workforces have the authorities and flexibilities needed to optimize
    the mix of military and civilian personnel to achieve success.
        Question. In your view, how effective is the Cyber Excepted Service
    Workforce authority under section 1599f of title 10, United States
    Code, in meeting the requirements for a highly qualified and competent
    cyber workforce?
        Answer. I do not have enough information at this time to comment on
    the effectiveness of the Cyber Excepted Service, but I understand that
    the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) has a role in overseeing its
    implementation and evaluation. If confirmed, I will work with my
    colleagues in the DOD CIO's office to ensure the Department is meeting
    requirements for a highly qualified and competent cyber workforce.
        Question. What actions would you take, if confirmed, to mitigate
    any gaps between cyber workforce capacity and capability?
        Answer. To mitigate any cyber workforce capacity and capability
    gaps, if confirmed, I would work with my colleagues in the Office of
    the DOD CIO to assess workforce data, identify staffing and competency
    requirements to meet current and future mission needs, and develop
    talent management strategies and policies to build workforce capacity
    and capability where identified gaps exist.
                              technical workforce
        Question. In your view, what are the pros and cons of having Active
    Duty military personnel (as compared to civilian employees) trained and
    working as scientists, engineers, software coders, and in other
    technical positions across the DOD research, development, and
    acquisition enterprise?
        Answer. I believe it is critical to have Active Duty military
    personnel trained and working in STEM and other technical positions
    across the Department. Active Duty military personnel bring knowledge,
    skills, and perspectives to such efforts that their civilian
    counterparts may not possess. If confirmed, I will work with my
    counterparts across the Department to ensure that the talents of our
    Active Duty and Reserve Component personnel are being harnessed
    appropriately in concert with their civilian counterparts.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the directors of
    national labs under the purview of DOD have the civilian workforce
    management tools they need to shape their science, technology, and
    engineering workforces?
        Answer. I understand that DOD's science, technology, and
    engineering workforce, including those in the DOD laboratories, are
    critical to the advancement of the Department's research and
    development mission. If confirmed, I would work with my colleagues in
    the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research &
    Engineering, as well as the Military Departments, to ensure all
    civilian workforce management tools and flexibilities are available to
    the Directors of DOD laboratories to the greatest extent possible for
    their use in attracting, retaining, and shaping their science,
    technology, and engineering workforces.
                            senior executive service
        Question. Given that competent and caring leadership is one of the
    most significant factors in shaping a high-performing DOD civilian
    workforce, if confirmed, what factors and characteristics would be most
    important to you in selecting candidates for appointment to the Senior
    Executive Service?
        Answer. I believe that those selected for appointment to the Senior
    Executive Service must be innovative, capable of managing complex
    systems and organizations, and possess the ability to lead and develop
    a globally relevant workforce for the future. If confirmed, I will
    ensure the Department's leadership models are focused on these core
    principles for shaping a high-performing civilian workforce.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that SES under your
    authority are held accountable for both organizational performance and
    the rigorous performance management of their subordinate employees?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will communicate to the SES members under
    my authority clear and measurable performance expectations that include
    standards for both organizational outcomes and effective leadership for
    achieving a high performing subordinate workforce.
                             acquisition workforce
        Question. In your view, in what ways can DOD better train military
    personnel to be acquisition professionals?
        Answer. I believe that a highly trained acquisition workforce is a
    key component of keeping the Department competitive and on the cutting
    edge in the 21st century. It is my understanding that this issue
    primarily falls under the purview of the Office of the Under Secretary
    of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, but if confirmed, I will
    work with my counterpart in that office to ensure that they have the
    personnel-related authorities and flexibilities they need to succeed in
    building the acquisition workforce.
        Question. What role should the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Manpower & Reserve Affairs play in developing, executing,
    and overseeing such training, in your view?
        Answer. It is my understanding that training military personnel,
    including acquisition professionals, falls primarily under the purview
    of the Military Services to organize, train, and equip. If confirmed, I
    will work with my counterparts in the Services to ensure they have the
    authorities and flexibilities they need to be successful in continuing
    to build a world-class acquisition community.
        Question. How can acquisition workforce management policies be
    modified to make leaders accountable for cost overruns on procurement
    contracts?
        Answer. I understand that matters regarding cost overruns on
    procurement contracts fall under the purview of the Office of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. If confirmed, I
    will work with my colleagues in that office to assess the effectiveness
    of acquisition workforce management policies in holding leaders
    appropriately accountable.
        Question. In your judgment, what factors should program offices
    consider in determining which tasks are best accomplished by civilian
    employees, military personnel, or support contractors?
        Answer. I believe it is important for program offices to consider
    the nature of specific functions when applying statutory and regulatory
    criteria to determine the appropriate workforce mix. If confirmed, I
    will work with my counterparts across the Department, and especially
    with leaders in the fields of Acquisition and Sustainment, to ensure
    that these considerations are fully integrated into the Department's
    workforce decisionmaking processes.
       laboratory, science and technology, and test range stem personnel
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure the maximum use of
    personnel flexibilities provided by Congress to improve the quality of
    the Department of Defense's STEM workforce?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work with my colleagues in the Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, as well
    as the Military Departments, to provide awareness and training for
    supervisors and human resources staff on personnel flexibilities
    provided by Congress that are available for the improvement of the DOD
    STEM workforce.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
    such personnel flexibilities can be employed at the lowest appropriate
    level?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work with my colleagues to encourage
    and develop policies that would allow for the delegation of
    flexibilities for use by managers and supervisors at the lowest
    appropriate level.
             stem educational opportunities for military dependents
        Question. In your view, what role should the Military Departments
    play in supporting STEM educational opportunities for military
    children?
        Answer. I understand that OSD and the other DOD Components,
    including the Military Departments, are invested in developing current
    and future STEM talent throughout DOD to meet its unique mission. If
    confirmed, I will work with my colleagues across the Department to
    ensure and expand STEM opportunities for military children.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Department of
    Defense research and development organizations to increase STEM
    educational opportunities for children of military personnel?
        Answer. The exceptional scientists and engineers in the Department
    of Defense are the reason the United States of America is a world
    leader in science and technologies that are critical to our national
    security. I understand that the Department is cultivating the future
    STEM workforce by providing unique education opportunities to students
    and educators of all ages and across all demographics throughout the
    country. If confirmed, I will support these efforts which are vitally
    important to maintaining our Nation's competitive advantage, ensuring
    we are prepared for the ever-changing global landscape.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this committee, its
    subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive
    timely testimony, briefings, reports, records--including documents and
    electronic communications, and other information from the executive
    branch.
        Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
    to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
    other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
    yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
    of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
    briefings, reports, records--including documents and electronic
    communications, and other information, as may be requested of you, and
    to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
    basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
    reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
    and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
    or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
    Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
    materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
    records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
    information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
    with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
    request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
    and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
    a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
    you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
    this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
    retaliation any military member, Federal employee, or contractor
    employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
    subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
    answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
                                   personnel
        1. Senator Manchin. Ms. Fulton, the pacing threat from China is a
    constant reminder that we need a strong and All-Volunteer Force that is
    both physically fit, mentally adapt, technical in skill, and capable of
    critical reasoning. As a country, we spend a significant amount of
    money training and equipping our Forces to meet these challenges.
    However, that training and experience is worth significantly more money
    in the civilian sector than it is in the current military pay scale. As
    our Forces become more equipped with advanced technologies, how do we
    balance physical standards without inadvertently pushing away those
    with these critical skills?
        Ms. Fulton. We know that smart, creative people will seek out and
    thrive in an environment that is challenging, inclusive, diverse, and
    led by leaders of character. We offer that; so we have to tell that
    story--and we have to deliver on that promise.
        We also have to retain that talent. Where it makes sense, we should
    look at reviewing standards to ensure they align with the needs of the
    service; broadening opportunities; and increasing flexibility in our
    talent management systems. If confirmed, attracting and retaining
    talent will be a top priority for me.

        2. Senator Manchin. Ms. Fulton, General David Berger, the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps, spoke about promotion reform in his
    planning guidance. What are your thoughts on his views or how would you
    restructure promotion in order to better retain those who are lured
    into the civilian sector?
        Ms. Fulton. If confirmed, I will work with each of the Military
    Departments to ensure that they have the authorities required to
    improve the overall retention of their highly trained professionals. If
    restructuring of any of the current promotion processes (within the
    Marine Corps or the other Services) is required to better retain
    personnel, I will work with the Services to examine ways to improve the
    processes.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
                             armed forces readiness
        3. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, over several years this Committee
    has worked tirelessly to restore military readiness--across each of our
    Services--to levels that would enable our success in a conflict. We've
    had some success, but there is still a lot of work to do. If you have
    not done so already, I recommend that every senior defense leader read
    T.R. Fehrenbach's ``This Kind of War'', which provides a cautionary
    tale of our Nation's failure to adequately fund and train our Armed
    Forces before the Korean War. The consequences were steep and American
    servicemembers paid with their lives. If confirmed, all of you--based
    on your positions--will invariably make decisions that directly or
    indirectly impact readiness. Accordingly, will you commit--if
    confirmed--to work with this Committee and within the Department on
    further bolstering military readiness to ensure the failures we endured
    in the Korean War never happen again?
        Ms. Fulton. I read ``This Kind of War'' recently--a remarkable
    story with many important lessons. I can make that commitment.
                             strategy driven budget
        4. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, the National Defense Strategy
    (NDS) Commission report, the two previous Senate-confirmed Secretaries
    of Defense (SECDEF), and the previous and current Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) have all stated the need for sustained 3-5
    percent annual real growth to the defense budget to implement the NDS,
    increase readiness, and advance long-overdue modernization. Further
    emphasizing the need for consistent and increased funding, the NDS
    Commission report stated, ``America is very near the point of strategic
    insolvency, where its `means' are badly out of alignment with its
    `ends'.'' This critical situation is negatively compounded by the Biden
    administration's dismal defense topline that does not keep pace with
    inflation. With these facts in mind, and understanding your ability to
    influence the budget will be limited to future year submissions, will
    each of you commit to advocating for a strategy-driven budget vice a
    budget-driven strategy?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes. If confirmed I commit to advocating that we are
    strategic in our funding decisions, in-line with SECDEF direction and
    Defense Planning Guidance.
                       military academy board of visitors
        5. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, President Biden recently purged
    the military academy boards of all members appointed to their
    respective positions by the previous administration. To me, as a
    currently serving member on the United States Naval Academy (USNA)
    Board of Visitors, this is a very troubling precedent. Many of the
    forced resignations, or firings, imposed by President Biden targeted
    imminently qualified individuals to include General Jack Keane, USA
    (ret.) and LTG H.R. McMaster, USA (ret.). As I understand, President
    Obama appointed you to the West Point Board of Visitors and you served
    for a total of 8 years. I also understand that you completed your term
    under the Trump administration. Do you believe that any service academy
    board appointed by a prior administration should be removed when a new
    administration comes in?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe the Boards of Visitors provide great value to
    the Service Academies and was honored to serve on the U.S. Military
    Academy Board. Though I followed the events described through the news,
    I am not familiar with them in detail, nor relevant policies. I
    hesitate to agree or disagree with an absolute statement given my
    limited knowledge of this issue, especially in light of the President's
    broad discretion in making appointments. If confirmed, I would be happy
    to look into the issue further.

        6. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that diverse
    perspectives and experiences are an asset for service academy board
    members?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.
                               suicide prevention
        7. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, U.S. Army Alaska has experienced
    numerous suicides from 2016 through 2021, mostly at Fort Wainwright,
    Alaska. Army leadership has taken steps to improve the quality of life
    for soldiers in Alaska and to provide more mental health resources, but
    suicides continue. If confirmed, will you commit to making suicide
    prevention a top priority for your office, especially in remote
    locations like Fort Wainwright?
        Ms. Fulton. Suicide is a tragedy, and the Department as a whole
    must make every effort to prevent these losses. If confirmed, I will
    support all activities across the Department and coordinate with my
    colleagues at the Defense Suicide Prevention Office (DSPO) and Health
    Affairs (HA) for their roles in this area. Further, I would also ensure
    that offices within Manpower & Reserve Affairs that can support policy
    or programmatic suicide prevention efforts led by DSPO or HA do so
    whenever appropriate. I recognize the importance of this issue and
    ensuring we get it right, particularly at locations that are more
    remote such as Fort Wainwright.

        8. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, what ideas do you have to decrease
    the number of suicides in Alaska and across the all the services?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe strengthening relationships with stakeholders
    and continuing collaboration efforts in this area are essential to
    implementing policies and programs that address problems that
    contribute to suicide. Suicide is often the result of several factors.
    If confirmed, I would support efforts that align with evidence-informed
    best practices to prevent suicides across the military.
                               ``gop is racist''
        9. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, on January 12, 2018, you stated on
    Twitter, ``Let's be real. When one of our two national political
    parties is unable to call out racism, our system is broken. It's not a
    political statement to say the GOP is racist; it's a moral statement,
    and one backs up by an increasing mountain of evidence #FixThis.''
    Please detail for me the context and reasoning behind this statement.
    If it was specific to an individual, please name that individual and
    explain why you chose not to specifically identify them.
        Ms. Fulton. I apologize to the entire committee for that tweet. I
    intended to say that racism is neither Democratic nor Republican, not
    political but moral; and the party should make a statement because a
    whole group of people should never be tarnished by the actions of one.
    But I went about it all wrong--my words were muddled and confused. And
    the idea that people I love and respect--especially those who are
    Republicans, especially those I have worked with on important military
    issues--were hurt by my words, is devastating to me. Throughout my
    career I've worked in a bipartisan and nonpartisan way to make our
    military stronger, smarter, and better. I know that when we talk about
    race, we have to do it in a way that opens and expands the conversation
    rather than shutting it down, and in this case, I failed miserably, and
    I'm deeply sorry.

        10. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, with regard to the same statement
    outlined above, did you at any point clarify, retract, or apologize for
    this comment prior to appearing before the Senate Armed Service
    Committee on October 7, 2021?
        Ms. Fulton. I apologized for this tweet in several of my meetings
    with Senate Armed Service Committee members and staff prior to the
    meeting.
                             ``steal our election''
        11. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, on December 9, 2016, you stated
    on Twitter, ``I've said this before. I can't believe we let a hostile
    foreign power steal our election without national outrage.'' Please
    detail for me the context and reasoning behind this statement.
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the specific context and reasoning
    behind this tweet, but may been reacting to documented evidence of
    Russian interference in the 2016 election.

        12. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, with regard to the same statement
    outlined above, did you at any point clarify, retract, or apologize for
    this comment prior to appearing before the Senate Armed Service
    Committee on October 7, 2021?
        Ms. Fulton. No.
                                ``#usmc women''
        13. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, on December 19, 2016, you stated
    on Twitter, ``So tired of #USMC women fighting to keep combat ban b/c
    they want so badly for the male marines to love them.
    #CoOpted#StockholdSyndrome.'' Please detail for me the context and
    reasoning behind this statement. If it was specific to an individual,
    please name that individual.
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall specifically my reasoning behind this
    tweet, but I applaud the progress the Marine Corps has made on
    including women and would be happy to work with the Marine Corps to
    continue that progress if confirmed.

        14. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, with regard to the same statement
    outlined above, did you at any point clarify, retract, or apologize for
    this comment prior to appearing before the Senate Armed Service
    Committee on October 7, 2021?
        Ms. Fulton. No.
                                ``#hobbylobby''
        15. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, on June 30, 2014, you stated on
    Twitter, ``One again, `religious freedom' twisted to mean conservative
    Christians can dictate their beliefs to the rest of us. #HobbyLobby
    #repealRFRA.'' Please detail for me the context and reasoning behind
    this statement.
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context or my reasoning behind this
    tweet, though I apologize if I spoke in overly broad terms that
    ascribed to a larger group the actions of a few of its members.
    Americans are lucky to have freedom to openly practice their religious
    beliefs, and as a Christian I treasure that freedom. If confirmed, I
    would respect and protect servicemembers', including chaplains, and
    civilians' religious freedom in accordance with applicable law and
    policy.

        16. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, with regard to the same statement
    outlined above, do you still believe the Religious Freedom Restoration
    Act (RFRA) should be repealed?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        17. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, with regard to the same statement
    outlined above, did you at any point clarify, retract, or apologize for
    this comment prior to appearing before the Senate Armed Service
    Committee on October 7, 2021?
        Ms. Fulton. No.
                              leader of character
        18. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Fulton, with regard to the statements/
    tweets outlined above, do you believe these comments reflect a leader
    of character who values inclusivity and diversity of thought?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that leaders of character who value diversity
    can have many diverse personal opinions. I strive to be a leader of
    character every day, and my record reflects that I treat all those with
    whom I work positively, fairly, and compassionately.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
                           military fitness standards
        19. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that gender-
    neutral military physical fitness standards benefit our force and
    quantifiably increase the lethality of our military?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes. Gender-neutral baseline military physical fitness
    standards benefit our force and increase the lethality of our military
    as job-specific standards for Servicemembers irrespective of gender.

        20. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Fulton, what impact do you assess non-
    binary standards implemented across DOD would have on female
    recruitment, retention, and promotion?
        Ms. Fulton. It is currently unknown how non-binary standards will
    impact female recruitment, retention, and promotion. As the role of
    female Servicemembers in the military has expanded and restrictions on
    female Servicemembers serving on active duty, including in combat, have
    been eliminated, DOD efforts in recruiting and retaining women are
    important in order to reflect the Nation's population and ensure strong
    military leadership.
                                   christians
        21. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Fulton, per this quote you gave the
    Windy City Times--``The U.S. has a powerful right-wing, anti-gay, anti-
    abortion lobby that purports to represent Christians . . . These
    ``radicals''--I can't bring myself to call them Christians, since their
    language and actions hold no resemblance to the Jesus I know from the
    Bible.''--if confirmed, how would you treat these so-called
    ``radicals'' within your organization?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that leaders of character who value diversity
    can have many diverse personal opinions. I strive to be a leader of
    character every day, and my record reflects that I treat all those with
    whom I work positively, fairly, and compassionately.

        22. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Fulton, should Christians within the
    Office of Manpower & Reserve Affairs be concerned about how your
    predispositions will impact their ability to continue working in public
    service?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that leaders of character who value diversity
    can have many diverse personal opinions. I strive to be a leader of
    character every day, and my record reflects that I treat all those with
    whom I work positively, fairly, and compassionately.

        23. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Fulton, in light of your ``repeal RFRA''
    tweet in 2014, a reference to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
    please articulate why you should be entrusted with the responsibility
    to oversee the implementation of religious accommodation in the
    military services.
        Ms. Fulton. Americans are lucky to have freedom to openly practice
    their religious beliefs, and as a Christian I treasure that freedom. If
    confirmed, I would respect and protect servicemembers', including
    chaplains, and civilians' religious freedom and accommodations in
    accordance with applicable law and policy.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Josh Hawley
                   concerning statements and related matters
        24. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on January 12, 2018, an account in
    your name posted ``It's not a political statement to say the GOP is
    racist; it's a moral statement, and one back up by an increasing
    mountain of evidence.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        25. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe this happened around the time that the
    President made a comment about ``s--hole nations.''

        26. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I apologize to the entire committee for that tweet. I
    intended to say that racism is neither Democratic nor Republican, not
    political but moral; and the party should make a statement because a
    whole group of people should never be tarnished by the actions of one.
    But I went about it all wrong--my words were muddled and confused. And
    the idea that people I love and respect--especially those who are
    Republicans, especially those I have worked with on important military
    issues--were hurt by my words, is devastating to me. Throughout my
    career I've worked in a bipartisan and nonpartisan way to make our
    military stronger, smarter, and better. I know that when we talk about
    race, we have to do it in a way that opens and expands the conversation
    rather than shutting it down, and in this case, I failed miserably, and
    I'm deeply sorry.

        27. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who may identify as
    members of the GOP?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately.

        28. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, is it your view today that ``the
    GOP is racist''?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        29. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you formally apologized to
    anyone for this tweet or otherwise expressed remorse? Please provide
    appropriate citations.
        Ms. Fulton. Yes. I apologized several times in meetings with SASC
    staff and members prior to my hearing; and several times during the
    hearing.

        30. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and,
    though I apologize for the tweet, believe that removing it would have
    only made it harder for the Committee to find it, rather than
    adequately clarify my feelings about it.

        31. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what ``evidence'' did you have in
    mind when you posted your tweet?
        Ms. Fulton. I intended to say that racism is neither Democratic nor
    Republican, not political but moral; and the party should make a
    statement because a whole group of people should never be tarnished by
    the actions of one. But my words were muddled and confused, and for
    that I apologize.

        32. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on January 21, 2018, an account in
    your name posted, ``Let's be clear: minority and women servicemembers
    were ordered to stand behind Pence as a backdrop for his political
    speech. Unethical and unacceptable.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I did not write this.

        33. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this tweet.

        34. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, at the time, did you have any
    specific evidence to support this claim?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall any specific evidence.

        35. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, at the time, was this post informed
    by racial or sexual stereotypes about the political preference of
    servicemembers?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        36. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you decline to associate with
    individuals that you know or have reason to believe may be conservative
    or supportive of Vice President Pence?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        37. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        38. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on January 2017, an account in your
    name posted, ``Funniest overheard at #WomensMarch: `I see a lot of
    women I'm looking forward to meeting in Pence's mandated conversion
    camps.' '' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        39. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I was at the Washington Women's March, and I found many
    of the signs funny. This one was a crude reference to the many lesbians
    at the March and Vice President Pence's support for conversion therapy
    while he was Governor of Indiana.

        40. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I found the sign humorous.

        41. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, why did you find this funny?
        Ms. Fulton. It contained a crude reference to the many lesbians at
    the March and Vice President Pence's support for conversion therapy
    while he was Governor of Indiana.

        42. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you have any friends or
    colleagues who hold traditional views on marriage?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        43. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who may hold
    traditional views on marriage?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, and in line with my own
    Christian beliefs, I treat all those with whom I work positively,
    fairly, and compassionately.

        44. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        45. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on August 29, 2017, an account in
    your name posted, ``The vast majority of white evangelical leaders are
    utterly unmoored from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Matthew 23 applies.''
    Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, I believe that I did.

        46. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this quote.

        47. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall what I meant by this. At this point in
    time, I would say I was very wrong to say ``vast majority.'' I do not
    believe a whole group of people should ever be tarnished by the actions
    of one or a few.

        48. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what were you implying by citing
    Matthew 23?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall, but I have always believed in this
    verse that leaders should not demand many sacrifices from others, but
    few from themselves.

        49. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who are white and/or
    evangelical?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, and in line with my own
    Christian beliefs, I treat all those with whom I work positively,
    fairly, and compassionately.

        50. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        51. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on May 19, 2017, an account in your
    name posted, ``Pence has repeatedly lied to cover up the Trump regime
    misdeeds. He's not clean in this.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I did not write this.

        52. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this post.

        53. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this post.

        54. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that this post makes
    you appear to be partisan?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that it makes me appear to have personal
    political opinions.

        55. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who support Vice
    President Pence?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, and in line with my own
    Christian beliefs, I treat all those with whom I work positively,
    fairly, and compassionately.

        56. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        57. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on December 9, 2016, an account in
    your name posted ``I've said this before. I can't believe we let a
    hostile foreign power steal our election without national outrage.''
    What was the context for this post? Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.
        I do not recall specifically the context behind this tweet, but
    there was significant documented evidence of Russian interference in
    the 2016 election.

        58. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall specifically the context behind this
    tweet, but there was significant documented evidence of Russian
    interference in the 2016 election.

        59. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this? Did you
    write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.
        I do not recall specifically the context behind this tweet, but
    there was significant documented evidence of Russian interference in
    the 2016 election.

        60. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that President Trump
    was legitimately elected President in 2016?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        61. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        62. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on March 20, 2017, an account in
    your name posted ``GOP focus on leaks highlights their terror that
    we'll get details of Trump campaign colluding with Russia to win an
    election. Patriotism??'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        63. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall specifically the context behind this
    tweet, but there was significant documented evidence of Russian
    interference in the 2016 election, and interaction between the campaign
    and Russian leaders.

        64. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall specifically the context behind this
    tweet, but there was significant documented evidence of Russian
    interference in the 2016 election, and interaction between the campaign
    and Russian leaders.

        65. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who support
    President Trump?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately.

        66. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        67. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on December 19, 2016, an account in
    your name posted ``So tired of #USMC women fighting to keep combat ban
    b/c they want so badly for the male marines to love them. #CoOpted
    #StockholmSyndrome.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I did not write this.

        68. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe I wrote this post in reference to discussions
    about whether the Marine Corps would lift the combat exclusion for
    female servicemembers.

        69. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall specifically my reasoning behind this
    tweet, but I applaud the progress the Marine Corps has made on
    including women and would be happy to work with the Marine Corps to
    continue that progress if confirmed.

        70. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, why did you think it was
    appropriate to silence or minimize the voice of female armed
    servicemembers?
        Ms. Fulton. That was not my intent, and it is not appropriate to
    silence the voices of servicemembers.

        71. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you support the ability of women
    to express their views on matters of public policy, even if they differ
    from your own?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        72. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, what steps would you
    take to make sure that women felt free to express their opinions where
    they conflict with your own, without fear of being silenced or
    intimidated?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately.

        73. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who advocated for
    the policy targeted in your tweet?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately, even those I disagree
    with, regardless of their own opinions or beliefs.

        74. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        75. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on December 14, 2017, an account in
    your name posted ``Worth discussing whether the military's slow-to-
    change culture, however frustrating, might be a virtue in highly
    polarized political environment.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write this.

        76. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall the context.

        77. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that I meant, as I have always believed, that
    the military's deliberate, careful culture helps it to avoid
    politicization.

        78. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that we are
    currently living in a highly polarized political environment?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        79. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, why did you subsequently write, on
    the same day, ``And I'm gonna regret saying that''?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall.

        80. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on June 26, 2019, an account in
    your name posted a photograph captioned with ``this look from some
    white dude.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I did not write this.

        81. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know.

        82. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know.

        83. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, why did you think it was
    appropriate to identify the photographed individual by his race?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall my intention behind this tweet or words
    chosen.

        84. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe it is ever
    appropriate to judge an individual on the color of his skin, rather
    than the content of his character?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        85. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you regret reducing the
    photographed individual to his race and sex?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not believe that by referencing the individual in
    that way that I ``reduced'' him.

        86. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        87. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on June 27, 2017, an account in
    your name posted ``The only way to understand today's GOP is that their
    core principle is hatred of Obama, Hillary, and Democrats. Nothing else
    matters.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write that.

        88. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this tweet.

        89. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall what I meant by this, but it is
    reductive and unfair, and I apologize.

        90. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you stand by this
    characterization?
        Ms. Fulton. No. This statement is reductive and does not reflect
    the complexity and nuance of the issue.

        91. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe there is any merit
    to the principle that America should be governed according to the
    principle of limited government?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        92. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe there is any merit
    to the principle that some may want to elect a president who will
    appoint textualist and originalist judges to the Federal judiciary?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        93. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you knowingly decline to
    associate with co-workers or neighbors that you believe or suspect to
    be members of a different political party than yourself?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        94. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you say to the many members
    of our armed services that you will be supervising who identify as
    members of the GOP?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately, even those I disagree
    with, regardless of their own opinions or beliefs.

        95. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If not,
    why?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        96. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on May 2, 2017, an account in your
    name posted ``In any case, most Repubs still shamefully quiet-on lies,
    corruption, incompetence, treason. They've betrayed their oath to the
    Constitution.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write this.

        97. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this post?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this tweet.

        98. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall what I meant by this tweet.

        99. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, you reference ``most Repubs''.
    Please identify by name all the Republicans that you believed
    ``betrayed their oath the Constitution'' or committed ``treason''.
        Ms. Fulton. Since I cannot recall the intent behind this tweet, I
    am unable to name individuals who I was describing, but regret my
    overly broad language.

        100. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, please provide the evidence you
    had at the time that these individuals committed treason.
        Ms. Fulton. Since I cannot recall the intent behind this tweet, I
    am unable to provide evidence, if any existed, to substantiate it.

        101. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you stand by your
    characterization that Members of Congress have committed treason?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I do not believe, nor did I intend to State, that
    Members of Congress committed treason.

        102. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you intend on
    accusing members of the armed services of committing ``treason''?
        Ms. Fulton. If confirmed, I would not have a law enforcement or
    legal role that would routinely involve assessments of criminal conduct
    and related charging decisions. However, if I discover evidence of
    treasonous acts committed by individuals in the Department of Defense,
    I will handle them in accordance with relevant law and policy.

        103. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, what is the standard
    you will use to determine whether someone in the Department has
    committed treason?
        Ms. Fulton. If confirmed, I would not have a law enforcement or
    legal role that would routinely involve assessments of criminal conduct
    and related charging decisions. However, if I discover evidence of
    treasonous acts committed by individuals in the Department of Defense,
    I will handle them in accordance with relevant law and policy.

        104. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on February 9, 2016, an account in
    your name posted ``Calling the President a traitor is extremist. Rubio
    & other `mainstream' GOP candidates are no better than the rest.'' Did
    you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        105. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall what I could have meant by this. The
    tweet doesn't seem to make sense.

        106. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe Senator Rubio is a
    political extremist?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        107. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that Senator
    Rubio's Republican colleagues are political extremists?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        108. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you apologized to Senator
    Rubio and his colleagues for this tweet or otherwise expressed remorse?
    If so, please provide appropriate citations.
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        109. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If
    not, why not?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        110. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on March 20, 2014, an account in
    your name posted ``Bound to happen: right-wing anti-everyone nutjobs
    falling in love with a dictatorship. #FoxLovesPutin #madefor each
    other.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        111. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    post?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall the context of this post.

        112. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that I might have meant that Fox News support
    for Vladimir Putin meant that there were some extremists who watch Fox
    News who also admired him.

        113. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, did you believe conservative or
    Republican Americans support dictatorship?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        114. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if so, do you still believe
    conservative or Republican Americans support dictatorship?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        115. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, did you believe that Fox News
    Channel is an agent of the Government of the Russian Federation?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        116. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if so, do you still believe Fox
    News Channel is an agent of the Government of the Russian Federation?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        117. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you apologized for this tweet
    or otherwise expressed remorse? If so, please provide appropriate
    citations.
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        118. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you removed this post? If
    not, why not?
        Ms. Fulton. No. I believe the Committee deserves transparency and
    believe that removing it would have only made it harder for the
    Committee to find it, rather than remove it from existence.

        119. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, in a 2011 interview, you stated to
    a reporter, ``The United States has a powerful right-wing anti-gay,
    anti-abortion lobby that purports to represent Christians . . . These
    radicals--I can't bring myself to call them Christians since their
    language and actions hold no resemblance to the Jesus I know from the
    Bible--have succeeded in gaining essential veto power over any
    political action. They demonize their political opponents, then cry
    `discrimination! bigotry!' when they incur the slightest criticism.''
    What was the context for this statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context.

        120. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe I was characterizing political engagement by
    certain individuals, but apologize for doing so in a way that was
    callous and overly broad.

        121. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you expressed these views in
    other statements?
        Ms. Fulton. Not that I am aware of.

        122. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe Christians are at
    liberty to engage in political activity?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        123. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe anyone can
    arbitrate who and who does not identify as Christian?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        124. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe anti-Christian
    discrimination violates constitutionally provided freedom of religion?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        125. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you apologized for these
    statements or otherwise expressed remorse? If so, please provide
    appropriate citations.
        Ms. Fulton. I believe I discussed these statements during my
    confirmation hearing.

        126. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, in a 2017 interview, you stated to
    a reporter, ``What people fail to understand is that chaplains give up
    some of their rights as ministers when become military chaplains . . .
    if your responsibility is to God and not the Army, you need to get out
    of the Army.'' What was the context for this statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe the context of this statement was that some
    chaplains at the time refused to abide by their responsibilities as
    Army officers.

        127. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do military chaplains surrender
    any rights as ministers? If yes, please specify which and provide
    appropriate citations.
        Ms. Fulton. Yes, unlike civilian ministers who have no obligations
    to those not of their faith, military chaplains must provide support to
    all servicemembers who come to them, or find someone who can.

        128. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, should soldiers whose first
    responsibility is to God ``get out of the Army''?
        Ms. Fulton. No. However, all soldiers must follow lawful orders and
    comply with Army regulations as required, regardless of their religious
    beliefs.

        129. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on November 14, 2017, an account
    in your name posted ``These are not Christian pastors. They are members
    of an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-women's-equality cult that claims
    speak for actual followers of Jesus.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I did not write this.

        130. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know the context, or to whom I was referring.
    This appears to be a reply or a ``quote-tweet'' and I do not know what
    the original tweet was.

        131. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know.

        132. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you expressed these views in
    other statements?
        Ms. Fulton. Without knowing who this refers to, I cannot say.

        133. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, who are ``actual followers of
    Jesus''?
        Ms. Fulton. My reference is to those who try to abide by the
    teachings of Jesus.

        134. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe anyone can
    arbitrate who and who does not identify as Christian?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        135. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on March 2, 2016, an account in
    your name posted ``This is a stunning essay. I wish every Christian who
    `opposes abortion' would read this and understand the reality.'' What
    was the context for this statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know the context. This appears to be a reply
    or a ``quote-tweet'' and I do not know what the article was.

        136. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know, but I probably felt that it reflected
    compassion for women in crisis pregnancies.

        137. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you expressed these views in
    other statements?
        Ms. Fulton. I have expressed my personal views that women in crisis
    pregnancies should be treated with compassion, and the government
    should not make their decisions for them.

        138. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, why did you place the words
    ``opposes abortion'' in quotation marks?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall.

        139. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do Christians who oppose abortion
    fail to ``understand the reality''?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that there are differences of opinion on what
    women with crisis pregnancies experience.

        140. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on June 30, 2014, an account in
    your name posted ``Once again, `religious freedom,' twisted to mean
    conservative Christians can dictate their beliefs to the rest of the
    us. #HobbyLobby #repealRFRA'' What was the context for this statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall exactly, but it likely relates to the
    Hobby Lobby decision.

        141. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was your view of the Hobby
    Lobby case?
        Ms. Fulton. My personal opinion is that birth control is essential
    health care for women, and should be covered in health care insurance.

        142. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was your view of the
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
        Ms. Fulton. I recall that I objected to its application in ways
    that restricted access to health care.

        143. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what does religious freedom mean,
    and should it protect conservative Christians?
        Ms. Fulton. Religious freedom means the right to practice your
    religion without interference from the government. It should protect
    everyone, while being appropriately balanced with the rights of others.

        144. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on June 26, 2015, an account in
    your name posted ``Anti-gay `Christians' weeping because they lost . .
    . nothing. But people they hate gained something precious. And that's
    enough.#NotMyGod.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        145. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context of this tweet.

        146. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall.

        147. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on September 4, 2017, an account
    in your name posted ``4/ If getting a Supreme Court judge who'd outlaw
    abortion makes all this `worth it' to you, your religion has nothing to
    do with Jesus.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write this.

        148. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. It appears to be part of a lengthier series of tweets,
    but I do not know what the other tweets are.

        149. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I suspect that ``all this'' refers to other things that
    I believed were not in keeping with Christian values, but I am not
    sure.

        150. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you expressed these views in
    other statements?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know without knowing the context of the other
    tweets.

        151. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe anyone can
    arbitrate who and who does not identify as Christian?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        152. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on August 5, 2015, an account in
    your name posted ``Kasich: `God wants America to succeed , [sic] and He
    wants America to lead.' This is so un-Biblical I don't know where to
    start. #GOPDebate'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        153. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe this was during one of the Republican
    Presidential debates.

        154. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't specifically recall.

        155. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on July 13, 2016, an account in
    your name posted ``For our Armed Forces, `we choose the best. The
    best--not the best of 1 gender, religion, race, or orientation--just
    the best.' @stenyhoyer'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I did not write this.

        156. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not recall the context.

        157. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that it indicates that we should seek out the
    best talent regardless of gender, religion, race, or orientation.

        158. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever treated a colleague
    differently on the basis of gender, religion, race, or sexual
    orientation?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        159. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe the Armed Forces
    should ``choose the best,'' independent of gender, religion, race, or
    sexual orientation?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        160. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on December 15, 2017, an account
    in your name posted ``Every time someone claims `the best person for
    the job' to excuse their bias for white males and against diverse
    candidates, remind them of the data.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write this.

        161. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall specifically, but I have experienced
    colleagues saying someone is ``the best person for the job'' when they
    really weren't, but they were hesitant to hire a woman or person of
    color.

        162. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall specifically, but I have experienced
    colleagues saying someone is ``the best person for the job'' when they
    really weren't, but they were hesitant to hire a woman or person of
    color.

        163. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe the armed services
    should commission and promote the best people for the job?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        164. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe the armed services
    should commission and promote leaders on the basis of gender, religion,
    race, or sexual orientation?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        165. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on September 17, 2017, an account
    in your name posted ``I've said it before--we'd all be better off if
    black queer women ran the world.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write this.

        166. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I am confident this was said in jest.

        167. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall, but I am confident it was said in jest.

        168. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, would the Department of Defense be
    better off if ``black queer women'' ran it?
        Ms. Fulton. Not necessarily. This was not a serious statement.

        169. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on April 18, 2013, an account in
    your name posted ``@marcorubio @SenatorTimScott This Army vet says
    shame on your for your gutless vote against background checks
    #LACKOFLEADERSHIP'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe that I didn't write this.

        170. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe this was about a vote for background checks
    on guns.

        171. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I personally strongly favor background checks for gun
    purchases.

        172. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, is it still your view that
    Senators Rubio and Tim Scott are gutless?
        Ms. Fulton. No, I intended to characterize their actions, not them
    as people.

        173. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that Second
    Amendment advocates cannot be leaders?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        174. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on August 6, 2015, an account in
    your name posted ``I feel bad for Marco Rubio's stuttering problem. Can
    someone get him some water? #noShame #GOPDebate'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        175. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe this was probably regarding Senator Rubio's
    State of the Union response.

        176. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I don't recall, but I am confident this was said in
    jest.

        177. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe disability-based
    harassment is acceptable conduct?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        178. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you apologized to Senator
    Rubio?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        179. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on October 28, 2015, an account in
    your name posted ``Jeb, when Kasich out-charisma's you , [sic] it's
    time to quit the race. #RubiosBitch #CNBCGOPDebate'' Did you write
    this?
        Ms. Fulton. I have no reason to believe I didn't write this.

        180. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe this was in the context of a Republican
    Presidential debate.

        181. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I'm confident this comment was made in jest.

        182. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe gender-based
    harassment is acceptable conduct?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        183. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe someone who has
    committed gender-based harassment is qualified to manage military
    personnel policy?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        184. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever committed gender-
    based harassment against a colleague or employee?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        185. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on October 25, 2017, an account in
    your name posted ``The Nation slowly and uncomfortably realizing that
    John Kelly may be as dishonest, sexist, and racist as the rest of the
    Trump admin.'' Did you write this?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        186. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what was the context for this
    statement?
        Ms. Fulton. This was in the context of former General John Kelly
    making negative statements about Congresswoman Frederica Wilson in
    Florida that turned out to be false.

        187. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what did you mean by this?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe I meant that former General Kelly's attacks
    on the Congresswoman were unfair.

        188. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe the members of the
    Trump administration were dishonest, sexist, and racist?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not believe that a whole group of people should
    ever be tarnished by the actions of one or a few.

        189. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe supporters of the
    Trump administration supported dishonestly, sexism, and racism?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not believe that a whole group of people should
    ever be tarnished by the actions of one or a few.

        190. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, are you familiar with critical
    race theory?
        Ms. Fulton. Not really. I have heard many definitions, but I have
    never studied it.

        191. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you consider yourself a
    proponent of critical race theory?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        192. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever expressed support or
    advocated for critical race theory? Please provide a list with
    appropriate citations.
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        193. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever published statements
    expressing support or advocating for critical race theory? Please
    provide all such records.
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        194. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you commit to
    ensuring that you will not support or advocate for inserting critical
    race theory into any departmental policy?
        Ms. Fulton. I have heard many definitions for critical race theory,
    but I have never studied it. However, I feel strongly that our training
    should support building strong teams and cohesive units, based on the
    core values of integrity and respect. If confirmed, I will abide by all
    relevant laws and regulations regarding critical race theory.

        195. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you commit to
    ensuring that you will not support or advocate for requiring any
    employee to attend training sessions that include critical race theory?
        Ms. Fulton. I have heard many definitions for critical race theory,
    but I have never studied it. However, I feel strongly that our training
    should support building strong teams and cohesive units, based on the
    core values of integrity and respect. If confirmed, I will abide by all
    relevant laws and regulations regarding critical race theory.

        196. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, when, in your view, is it ever
    appropriate to consider a Federal employee's race?
        Ms. Fulton. If this question asks about hiring the best individuals
    for the job, as with previous questions, the answer is no. However,
    there are cases where under law and policy, employees' race should or
    must be considered, such as in evaluating a discrimination complaint,
    collecting statistical data, or administering medical care.

        197. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you agree or disagree with the
    statement that ``the United States of America is the least racist
    country in the history of the world''? If not, please explain.
        Ms. Fulton. The United States of America is not fundamentally
    racist. I do not have the scholarly background to assess the United
    States against every country in the world.

        198. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, in your view, has any country in
    the history of the world done more to eradicate slavery and promote
    liberty across the world than the United States? If so, please identify
    such a country.
        Ms. Fulton. The United States of America has been instrumental in
    eradicating slavery and promoting liberty around the world. I do not
    have the scholarly background to assess the United States against every
    country in the world.

        199. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, yes or no, do you believe that
    America is systematically racist?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        200. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, are you proud to be an American?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        201. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, are you familiar with the term
    ``birthing people''?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        202. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever used the term
    ``birthing people''? If so, please list and identify the context for
    each.
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        203. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you agree that women but not
    men may become pregnant? If not, please explain.
        Ms. Fulton. Transgender men may become pregnant.

        204. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever expressed any views
    on the inclusion of transgender individuals in U.S. military? If so,
    please provide copies.
        Ms. Fulton. I strongly supported the Obama administration and the
    Biden administration in allowing transgender people to serve. I co-
    authored a document on implementing legal transgender service, which I
    will provide.

        205. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what, in your view, is the
    importance of the separation of powers?
        Ms. Fulton. Though I am not a constitutional scholar, I believe it
    is crucial that the three branches of our government check and balance
    each other.

        206. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what role does Congress have in
    exercising control over diplomatic and military policy of the United
    States?
        Ms. Fulton. Though I am not a constitutional scholar, I believe
    that Congress has significant powers to authorize policies and
    programs, fund them, advise and consent on nominees, ratify treaties,
    authorize the use of armed force, and perform oversight, among others.

        207. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what historical examples inform
    your responses to the previous question?
        Ms. Fulton. I cannot cite specific examples that inform my
    response, but have likely learned about Congress exercising most or all
    of these powers through academic study or in the news.

        208. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you commit to
    providing Congress timely access to information and testimony?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        209. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you commit to
    notifying the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately if you
    witness or have reason to believe a servicemember's religious liberty
    has been violated?
        Ms. Fulton. I commit to following all relevant laws and policies
    regarding violations of servicemembers' religious liberty.

        210. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you commit to
    notifying the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately if you
    witness or have reason to believe that critical race theory is being
    espoused in the U.S. military?
        Ms. Fulton. I commit to following all relevant laws and policies
    regarding espousal of critical race theory.

        211. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that an unborn
    child is a human being?
        Ms. Fulton. I support women's right to terminate their pregnancies
    in a safe, timely manner based on their own individual beliefs and
    needs.

        212. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you respect the opinion of your
    fellow citizens and servicemembers who believe that life begins at
    conception?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        213. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what evidence can you point from
    your past that you will respect your fellow citizens and fellow
    servicemembers who hold the belief that life begins at conception?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately, regardless of their own
    opinions or beliefs.

        214. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe it is appropriate
    for Federal taxpayer dollars to be used to fund or facilitate
    abortions?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        215. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, please describe, in your own
    words, the importance of religious tolerance in the military.
        Ms. Fulton. All military servicemembers have a right to their own
    religious beliefs, without being discriminated against or singled out
    because of those beliefs. As long as those beliefs do not prevent the
    servicemember from obeying lawful orders and following military
    regulations as required, it is critical that all servicemembers feel
    that their religious beliefs are acceptable and that they are
    respected.

        216. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what experience can you cite to
    support your claim that you will be tolerant of servicemembers'
    religious beliefs?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately, regardless of their own
    opinions or beliefs.

        217. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that radical
    Islamic terrorists present the greatest counter-terrorism threat today?
    If not, please identify what you believe is a greater threat and why.
        Ms. Fulton. I am not a terrorism expert, but U.S. law enforcement
    agencies have identified domestic violent extremists as the greatest
    threat currently.

        218. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that individuals
    have implicit bias?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe that some people have biases of which they
    are not conscious.

        219. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever taken a test that
    measures an individual's implicit biases? If so, what were the results?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        220. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, against what individuals or groups
    do you have an implicit bias?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know.

        221. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what steps do you take to ensure
    that you do not act on an implicit bias?
        Ms. Fulton. As my record reflects, I treat all those with whom I
    work positively, fairly, and compassionately, regardless of their own
    opinions or beliefs.

        222. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what, in your view, is more
    important, the military's preparedness or promoting diversity and
    inclusion initiatives?
        Ms. Fulton. Military preparedness is primary; however, if we fail
    to develop a diverse and inclusive force, our readiness will suffer.

        223. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that the
    Department's focus on diversity and inclusion compromised the
    military's ability to execute its missions in Afghanistan?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        224. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, what steps will you
    take to ensure that the military's mission is always placed above the
    promotion of woke initiatives?
        Ms. Fulton. Military preparedness is primary; however, if we fail
    to develop a diverse and inclusive force, our readiness will suffer. We
    must develop strong teams and cohesive units that share the core
    military values of integrity and respect in order to accomplish the
    mission. My No. 1 priority if confirmed will always be a smarter,
    stronger, more effective force.

        225. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, what role will
    diversity and equity play in your job?
        Ms. Fulton. A diverse, inclusive, fair environment makes the force
    stronger, smarter, and more effective. Diverse teams are better
    problem-solvers. A fair and inclusive workplace attracts talent, and
    retains the best people.

        226. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what initiatives on diversity and
    equity do you plan to promote?
        Ms. Fulton. A diverse, inclusive, fair environment makes the force
    stronger, smarter, and more effective. Diverse teams are better
    problem-solvers. A fair and inclusive workplace attracts talent, and
    retains the best people. If confirmed, I would want to consult with
    Department experts before proposing any specific initiatives, but I
    would ensure they promote the above-discussed values.

        227. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what initiatives, policies, or
    guidance do you plan to revoke or reconsider?
        Ms. Fulton. A diverse, inclusive, fair environment makes the force
    stronger, smarter, and more effective. Diverse teams are better
    problem-solvers. A fair and inclusive workplace attracts talent, and
    retains the best people. If confirmed, I would want to consult with
    Department experts before proposing any specific revocations or
    reconsiderations, but I would ensure they advance the above-discussed
    values.

        228. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, in your view, what are the three
    greatest global terrorist threats in the world and why you identified
    these?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not feel qualified to make this assessment based
    on my experience and, if confirmed, would defer to experts in the
    Department to make these assessments.

        229. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you now or have you ever
    downloaded TikTok onto your personal or work devices?
        Ms. Fulton. I downloaded TikTok to my personal device a year or so
    ago.

        230. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you believe is the most
    probable origin of the COVID-19 virus?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not know.

        231. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, on what evidence do you base your
    belief?
        Ms. Fulton. I have not paid a lot of attention to the origin of the
    virus.

        232. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever shamed or publicly
    accosted an individual for not wearing a mask?
        Ms. Fulton. I have never shamed or accosted anyone for not wearing
    a mask, but as the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission,
    I have asked employees to wear a mask inside State buildings as
    required.

        233. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, how often have you done so?
        Ms. Fulton. I have never shamed or accosted anyone for not wearing
    a mask.

        234. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what were the circumstances of
    each of these incidents?
        Ms. Fulton. I have never shamed or accosted anyone for not wearing
    a mask.

        235. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that Americans
    should be vaccinated against their will?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        236. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that servicemembers
    should be vaccinated against COVID-19 if they have sincerely held
    religious objection to receiving the vaccine?
        Ms. Fulton. Administering COVID vaccinations is a national security
    imperative that will increase the readiness of our forces. If
    confirmed, I would implement vaccination requirements in coordination
    with the Military Departments and in accordance with relevant law and
    policy, which include an exemption based on sincerely held religious
    beliefs.

        237. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, do you commit to
    ensuring that every servicemember may apply for an exemption for any
    vaccine, including for COVID-19, that violates a sincerely held
    religious belief?
        Ms. Fulton. If confirmed, I would implement vaccination
    requirements in coordination with the Military Departments and in
    accordance with relevant law and policy, which include an exemption
    based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

        238. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what professional accomplishment
    are you most proud of?
        Ms. Fulton. I am proudest of the transformation of the New Jersey
    Motor Vehicle Commission from a hidebound, primarily analog system
    where customers ``stood in line to stand in line'' for in-person
    services, to a system upgraded across the board, where about 80 percent
    of transactions are available online, and in-person services are
    managed with a state-of-the-art queuing system, text notification, and
    readily available appointments--all accomplished during a historic
    pandemic.

        239. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you believe that someone's sex
    is a biological fact that can be determined by reference to objective
    criteria or is a subjective determination up to each individual? Please
    explain and include citations to any scientific evidence on which you
    base your opinion.
        Ms. Fulton. Sex, as opposed to gender, is biological.

        240. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what role do you believe
    ``equity'' should play in the office to which you have been appointed?
        Ms. Fulton. A fair and inclusive workplace attracts talent, and
    retains the best people.

        241. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, have you ever donated to the
    political campaign of the current President of the United States?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        242. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if so, how much and on what
    occasions?
        Ms. Fulton. 3/4/20 $2,800

        243. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, other than at your hearing before
    the Senate Armed Services Committee, have you ever testified under
    oath? If this testimony is available online or as a record, please
    include the reference below or as an attachment.
        Ms. Fulton. I have, the references are included in a separate
    attachment.

        244. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, in the course of considering your
    candidacy for this position, has anyone at the White House or
    Department of Defense asked for you to provide your views on the
    following: systemic racism, critical race theory, critical race
    studies, and/or transgender individuals in the military?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        245. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, at any point during the pendency
    of your nomination, have you held any cryptocurrencies? Please list the
    amounts, coins, and dates of holdings.
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        246. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, at any point during the pendency
    or your nomination, have you held any shares in the following
    companies: Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and/or Twitter?
        Ms. Fulton. No.

        247. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, please describe your understanding
    of the duty of candor, if any, that nominees have to State their views
    on their judicial philosophy and be forthcoming when testifying before
    the Senate Armed Services Committee. See U.S. Const. art. II, Sec.  2,
    cl. 2.
        Ms. Fulton. I have no views on this question as asked, but have
    been and will remain forthright with the committee and will abide by
    all relevant laws and regulations.
                                     taiwan
        248. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, do you strongly and unequivocally
    support the right of the people of Taiwan to live free from military
    coercion by the Chinese Communist Party?
        Ms. Fulton. Yes.

        249. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what evidence in your record can
    you cite to substantiate your support for the people of Taiwan?
        Ms. Fulton. I do not believe I am on the record on this issue
    anywhere.

        250. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, what do you believe is the
    geopolitical importance of ensuring Taiwan is free from, or at least
    able to resist, military coercion by the Chinese Communist Party?
        Ms. Fulton. Though I support the right of Taiwan to live free of
    and resist coercion by the Chinese Communist Party, I do not feel
    qualified to make geopolitical assessments on the matter and would
    defer to experts in the Department if confirmed.

        251. Senator Hawley. Ms. Fulton, if confirmed, what steps would you
    advocate to ensure that Taiwan remains free from, or at least able to
    resist, military coercion by the Chinese Communist Party?
        Ms. Fulton. I believe my responsibilities if confirmed would only
    impact this issue indirectly, but, if confirmed, I would strive to
    ensure we have a ready, lethal, effective force.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of Ms. Brenda S. Fulton,
    follows:]

                                     ______

        [The biographical sketch of Ms. Brenda S. Fulton, which was
    transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
    referred, follows:]

                                     ______

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by Ms. Brenda S.
    Fulton in connection with her nomination follows:]

                                     ______

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the committee's executive files.]

                                    ------

        [The nomination of Ms. Brenda S. Fulton was returned to the
    President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6
    of the Standing Rules of the Senate on January 3, 2022.]
                                    ------

        [Prepared questions submitted to Ms. Corey A. Hinderstein
    by Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
    follow:]

                            Questions and Responses
                           duties and qualifications
        Question. What background and experience do you possess that
    qualify you to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator for
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA)?
        Answer. I have more than 25 years of experience focusing on nuclear
    nonproliferation, nuclear security and the nuclear fuel cycle. My
    experience includes close working relationships with the DOE, NNSA and
    other key elements of the U.S. national security enterprise, including
    the national laboratories and the State Department. I have developed
    and implemented international projects working with partners and allies
    and had oversight and governance responsibilities for such projects. In
    short, I have devoted my career to the issues that fall in DNN's
    portfolio and, if confirmed, I would be prepared to step into this
    important role, working closely with the DOE and NNSA leadership, the
    career staff at DNN and stakeholders across the U.S. interagency, the
    Congress and the international community.
        Question. If confirmed, do you believe that there are any steps
    that you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties
    of the Deputy Administrator?
        Answer. The Deputy Administrator is responsible for substantive and
    strategic leadership, management of a diverse team, and stewardship of
    a large budget on behalf of the American taxpayers. If confirmed, I
    would balance early action with learning. I have been out of government
    since December 2017, and it would be presumptuous to think I could
    start on day one with all the knowledge needed to execute this
    important mission. In close collaboration with the NNSA and DOE
    leadership, and the career staff, it will be important to come up to
    speed quickly and begin to provide strategic guidance. The threats and
    challenges that DNN works are not on hold, but it is also important to
    act from a position of information and good judgement. If confirmed, I
    also would have a responsibility to the federal and contractor
    workforce of DNN and will want to understand their issues and
    challenges so that I can help them be more effective meeting the
    mission.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
    the next Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
        Answer. We face a complex and dynamic strategic environment that
    poses significant challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear
    security, and arms control regimes. These challenges include strategic
    competition from such adversaries as Russia and China, states seeking
    to improve their nuclear capabilities, such as Iran and North Korea,
    the potential for terrorist acquisition of nuclear or radioactive
    materials, and staying ahead of emerging technologies and new uses of
    existing technologies that could lower barriers to proliferation.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you address these challenges?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would begin by reviewing and understanding
    DNN's current and planned activities and then identify opportunities to
    accelerate work to match the threat environment or begin new
    initiatives to address these challenges.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your main priorities?
        Answer. If confirmed, my main priorities would be maintaining and
    build upon DNN's core technical competencies so that DNN is ready to
    play our unique role in meeting not only the enduring challenges, but
    also those we may face in the future. In order to do this, we may also
    need to develop our current workforce and plan for future needs.
    Orienting DNN towards our most pressing national security challenges
    will require taking a ``one house'' approach with colleagues in other
    parts of the Department, such as the offices of science and nuclear
    energy, and with the rest of NNSA. If confirmed, I would also seek
    close coordination with the interagency and with Congress.
        Question. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) includes a diverse
    portfolio of nonproliferation programs, subprograms, and activities.
    What criteria would you apply and what processes would you follow to
    establish priorities and evaluate tradeoffs in investment between the
    various DNN commitments?
        Answer. The President has established the priority to renew U.S.
    nonproliferation leadership and reduce the dangers posed by the
    proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the threat of nuclear
    terrorism. DNN programs are a critical component of achieving this
    goal. If confirmed, I would base program prioritization decisions on
    the contributions of activities to the President's goals, as described
    inter alia in the Interim National Security Strategy. I would closely
    evaluate DNN's strategic plans, and adhering program planning in this,
    and future, fiscal years to a forward-looking nonproliferation strategy
    as well as DOE/NNSA's established programming, planning, budgeting, and
    execution processes. I also would maintain a focus on pragmatic and
    deliverable program activities that make a specific impact on the
    security environment.
                            relations with congress
        Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
    between the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
    and the Senate Armed Services Committee, in particular, and with
    Congress in general?
        Answer. I understand that DNN has always had a strong relationship
    with its Congressional stakeholders. If confirmed, I would commit to a
    transparent and responsive relationship with the Committee and the
    Congress, and expect to continue the excellent support DNN reports that
    it has received over the years.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
    productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
    the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would engage regularly with DNN's
    stakeholders and partners in Congress, be responsive to requests for
    information, and provide regular updates on DNN's efforts and vision
    for the future. Recognizing the difference in responsibilities between
    the Congress and the executive branch, I would also seek input and
    feedback from the Congress as DNN develops and implements critical
    programs.
                       international norms and agreements
        Question. In what ways do you see the United States exercising its
    global leadership on nonproliferation issues, and, if confirmed as
    Deputy Administrator, what would you do to advance and balance both
    U.S. interests and the global nonproliferation regime?
        Answer. The United States has been, and continues to be, a global
    leader in nuclear nonproliferation. A strong global nonproliferation
    regime is in the United States' interest and serves our overarching
    goals of supporting the peaceful uses of the atom to benefit the
    environment, support global health, and underpin the U.S. commercial
    sector. The Department's role in support of these objectives has grown
    over the years through its world class science, global partnerships,
    and innovative policy approaches. If confirmed, I would seek to carry
    that tradition forward by supporting the Biden-Harris Administration's
    desire to re-engage with our global partners in the nonproliferation
    regime. This would include strengthening our work with the
    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), working toward a successful
    Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference in 2022, evolving our global
    partnerships to meet the changing landscape, and investing into our
    nonproliferation, safeguards, security, and verification assets -
    especially at the DOE's complex of labs, plants, and sites.
        Question. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
    (NPT) regime has been challenged since the Treaty entered into force in
    1970, and the divisions between the nuclear weapons states and the non-
    nuclear weapons states are becoming more apparent, as exemplified by
    the conclusion of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty which now has entered
    into force without the signature of nuclear weapons states.
        What are your views with respect to the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty?
        Answer. I do not support the ``Ban Treaty.'' I share the position
    of this and previous Administrations that it is incompatible with U.S.
    extended deterrence relationships, which are still necessary for
    international peace and security, and reinforces divisions that hinder
    the international community's ability to work together to address
    pressing proliferation and security challenges.
        Question. What do you see as your role, if confirmed, in
    strengthening support for the NPT and the nuclear nonproliferation
    regime, as compared to the tenets of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would lead DNN to engage with the U.S.
    interagency and allies to revisit the real-world impacts of the Ban
    Treaty. I want to help supporters of the treaty understand that the Ban
    Treaty poses significant threats to the nonproliferation regime, the
    NATO alliance, and it may have a negative impact on the NPT Review
    Conference. NNSA should continue to work in coordination with the
    Departments of State and Defense, to engage with allies on this issue,
    emphasizing that becoming a party to the TPNW could also potentially
    impact security cooperation with the United States.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your role in mitigating the
    international perception that the United States is not committed to its
    NPT Article VI commitments in the context of modernizing its nuclear
    deterrent?
        Answer. The United States is in full compliance with its NPT
    obligations, including Article VI. The United States has significantly
    reduced its nuclear stockpile since its peak, consistent with its
    national security needs. If confirmed, I would support a continued U.S.
    Government participation in the P5 process, and other bi- and
    multilateral fora affirming our commitment to the shared goal of
    nuclear disarmament and emphasize the importance of the NPT as a
    central element of the nonproliferation regime.
        Question. What are your views on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
    (CTBT)?
        Answer. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is the
    security of the United States, and its entry-into-force would benefit
    all countries. It is a key step to diminishing the world's reliance on
    nuclear weapons and reducing the risk of another nuclear arms race,
    goals consistent with President Biden's Interim National Security
    Strategy.
        Question. The CTBT Organization (CTBTO) has, among its
    organizational goals, achieving universality of the treaty.
        Do you agree with this goal? If yes, and if confirmed, how might
    you support attainment of this goal as Deputy Administrator? If not,
    what do you think the United States' role should be in continuing to
    work with the CTBTO?
        Answer. I agree with the U.S. Government's support for the CTBT and
    the commitment to achieve its entry-into-force, recognizing the
    significant challenges that lie ahead in reaching this goal. If
    confirmed as Deputy Administrator, I would work with my U.S.
    interagency colleagues, the CTBTO PrepCom, non-governmental
    organizations, and the international community to promote the CTBT and
    encourage ratification by the Annex 2 countries necessary for the
    Treaty to enter into force. NNSA and the U.S. Government provide strong
    support to the CTBTO PrepCom, and recognize that the United States
    derives significant benefit from the effective functioning of the
    CTBTO's monitoring and verification system. If confirmed, I would look
    forward to helping to continue and grow that support.
        Question. What are your views on the zero yield standard to which
    the United States adheres, as compared to the interpretation by other
    CTBT signatories such as Russia and China?
        Answer. The U.S. zero yield standard, consistent with the CTBT and
    the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium, does not allow any supercritical
    nuclear explosive testing that produces a self-sustaining chain
    reaction. I understand from the latest Compliance Report to Congress in
    April 2021 that the United States finds that Russia, since declaring
    its testing moratorium in 1996, has conducted nuclear weapons
    experiments that have created nuclear yield and are not consistent with
    the U.S. zero yield standard. I also understand that the United States
    has concerns regarding China's adherence to the United States zero
    yield nuclear weapons testing moratorium. If I am confirmed as Deputy
    Administrator, I look forward to learning more details about the
    concerns regarding activities in both countries and working with my
    departmental colleagues, including Defense Programs, and the U.S.
    interagency to address them.
        Question. For the past several years, the Intelligence Community
    and the Department of State have highlighted U.S. concerns that Russia,
    and especially China, are conducting nuclear tests that may be
    inconsistent with this standard. In your view, should countries that
    conduct tests producing nuclear yield face repercussions? If so, what
    actions would you recommend the international community take in
    response to these alleged activities on the part of China and Russia?
        Answer. I am aware that the United States Government has raised
    concerns about Russia and China's nuclear testing and potential
    inconsistency with the zero yield standard. The United States has
    publicly challenged Russia and China to explain their actions and
    encouraged the international community to join in condemnation of any
    inconsistency with their self-declared moratoria or their obligations
    as signatories to the CTBT. If confirmed as Deputy Administrator, I
    look forward to learning more details about the concerns with both
    countries and helping to develop appropriate responses. One significant
    contribution of DNN is to support the U.S.' ability to detect and
    characterize nuclear explosions wherever they may occur globally. If
    confirmed, I would look forward to working with the team to understand
    our capabilities and remaining gaps.
        Question. What do you view as the purpose of Iran's nuclear
    program?
        Answer. Iran has consistently cast its nuclear activities as being
    for exclusively peaceful purposes, yet it has regularly sought to
    expand and increase its nuclear material production capabilities beyond
    those justified by Iran's civilian need. I am deeply concerned by this.
        Even if current activities are for civilian purposes, the existence
    of a nuclear weapons research and development effort prior to 2004, as
    reported in the unclassified 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and
    validated by the IAEA's December 2015 report, means that we cannot
    exclude the possibility that one purpose of the program is to retain
    the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to develop nuclear
    weapons if a decision is made to do so.
        Question. In your assessment, do Iran's nuclear program and
    ballistic missile program indicate a desire by the Iranian government
    to have a nuclear weapons capability?
        Answer. According to the Office of the Director of National
    Intelligence's unclassified Annual Threat Assessment, Iran is not
    currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities
    the intelligence community judges would be necessary to produce a
    nuclear device. As I previously stated, we cannot exclude the
    possibility that Iran seeks to retain a latent capability to develop
    nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so.
        Question. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
    (JCPOA), the limitations on Iran's uranium enrichment expire between
    2026 and 2031.
        If the United States rejoins the JCPOA, do you assess that Iran
    will be legally able to increase its uranium enrichment after 2031?
        Answer. Yes. According to the terms of the JCPOA, in 2031 Iran is
    permitted to enrich uranium above 3.67%, increase its enriched uranium
    stockpile above 300 kg, and conduct enrichment at facilities other than
    Natanz. Iran has already exceeded these key limits in response to our
    withdrawal from JCPOA. It is worth noting that Iran's obligations to
    accept IAEA monitoring and verification of its nuclear activities never
    expire under the JCPOA.
        Question. If Iran acquires enough fissile material to produce a
    nuclear weapon, what is the risk of other countries in the region
    seeking a nuclear weapons capability, in your assessment?
        Answer. Iran's acquisition of a sufficient stockpile of enriched
    uranium for a nuclear weapon is a significant threat. I understand that
    this is a key reason for the stated intent of the Biden administration
    to pursue a diplomatic strategy to return to the JCPOA stockpile limits
    and the intrusive verification and monitoring of their nuclear
    activities.
        Question. In 2018, Israel's Mossad released a series of Iranian
    nuclear files, which included information about at least three uranium
    enrichment facilities that Iran had hidden from the International
    Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
        Do you agree that providing the IAEA access to those sites is
    essential to ensuring oversight of Iran's nuclear program?
        Answer. I have not reviewed these documents or collateral
    information. That said, I support the IAEA using all of its authorities
    to the fullest extent possible to be able to assure us and the
    international community that Iran's nuclear activities are exclusively
    peaceful. According to the most recent IAEA report in September, Iran
    is not being responsive to requests to resolve these outstanding issues
    and I believe they must do so under their existing legal obligations.
        Question. Given the existence of these sites (and possibly others),
    do you assess that returning to the 2015 JCPOA would effectively
    constrain Iran's nuclear program?
        Answer. I believe that returning to the JCPOA is a critical first
    step to effectively constrain Iran's nuclear program and again provide
    the IAEA with the tools it needs to monitor all of Iran's nuclear
    activities.
                          fissile material disposition
        Question. The fissile material disposition program, under which the
    United States and Russia each committed to dispose of 34 metric tons of
    surplus weapons-grade plutonium, has been plagued by numerous problems
    and delays. Construction of the MOX fuel fabrication facility is now
    canceled, and a dilute and dispose approach substituted, with final
    disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
        In your view, is the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement
    still viable and relevant? If yes, what steps would you take to
    preserve and implement it, if confirmed? If not, what would be your
    plan for the excess plutonium once subject to the Agreement?
        Answer. The United States remains committed to the disposition of
    34 MT consistent with its international obligations and consistent with
    the PMDA. As you are aware, Russia unilaterally withdrew from the PMDA
    in 2016, and, therefore, dialogue has not continued with Russia on this
    topic. I believe NNSA should continue to take the necessary steps to
    transition to the Dilute and Dispose strategy for the permanent
    disposition of the excess plutonium subject to the Agreement, as this
    decision was deemed to be in the United States national interest
    regardless of the unfortunate decision that Russia has made to
    withdraw.
        Question. The Office of the Deputy Administrator for Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation is now working with Department of Energy
    officials overseeing the WIPP in developing the dilute and dispose
    strategy. If confirmed, what steps would you deem necessary in order
    move forward with the final disposal of significant quantities of
    plutonium at the WIPP?
        Answer. The key next steps necessary to move forward with the
    disposition of significant quantities of plutonium at the WIPP, all of
    which I understand are already underway, are finalizing of the National
    Environmental Policy Act analysis of the program and completing of
    construction of the necessary facilities to dilute and dispose all 34
    MT of excess plutonium.
            international atomic energy agency (iaea) and safeguards
        Question. Timely and consistent IAEA access and monitoring is
    integral to verifying Iran's compliance with the provisions of the
    JCPOA. The Department of Energy and the NNSA are considered the
    Executive Branch's technical experts for verification and assessment of
    adherence to the JPCOA.
        What is your understanding of role of the Deputy Administrator for
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in supporting IAEA capability and will
    to execute its mission regarding JCPOA, while at the same time
    maintaining IAEA independence and without making it reliant on any one
    member state?
        Answer. I understand that DNN is responsible for developing and
    maintaining verification and monitoring capabilities for a range of
    nonproliferation missions, including IAEA safeguards and JCPOA
    monitoring. Where the United States can offer unique capabilities to
    the IAEA that serve the national security interest of our country and
    our allies, I believe we should do so. That said, while DNN should
    provide significant financial and in-kind support to the IAEA
    Department of Safeguards, it cannot be a ``one stop shop'' for the
    IAEA's needs. If confirmed, I would support DNN's efforts to encourage
    the Secretariat to seek a diverse pool of donors beyond just the United
    States and take advantage of the technical and financial resources of
    the international community.
        Question. What is your assessment of recent actions by Iran to
    increase enrichment levels as well as actions Iran has taken with
    respect to its heavy water reactor?
        Answer. According to IAEA reports, since May 2019, Iran has
    expanded its nuclear activities above and beyond JCPOA limits. Iran has
    been clear and consistent in its public messaging that it would reverse
    these steps if it receives sanctions relief. These activities are,
    however, concerning. Specifically, Iran's operation of advanced
    centrifuges and efforts to produce uranium metal could result in
    knowledge gains that cannot be reversed even if the machines are
    uninstalled and the metal reconverted. The return of the verification
    and monitoring regime in Iran would be critical in any resumption of
    JCPOA constraints to gain confidence that Iran does not resume these
    activities or benefit from their knowledge to expand nuclear
    activities. Regarding the heavy water reactor, I understand from the
    IAEA reports that the conversion effort has slowed but that there has
    not been an attempt to resume construction of the reactor under the
    old, more dangerous design. If confirmed, and if there is a return to
    the JCPOA, I would support DNN experts again contributing to the
    reactor conversion effort so that the facility is permanently unable to
    operate under the old design.
        Question. Nuclear fuel reprocessing programs in East Asia,
    particularly Japan, have created a glut of fissile material in the
    region and have added to the IAEA's safeguard burden.
        Do you believe the IAEA is adequately resourced to effectively
    apply safeguards on reprocessing programs?
        Answer. The IAEA verification budget has remained essentially flat
    while its workload has increased as new facilities around the world
    come online and the quantity of spent nuclear fuel and separated civil
    plutonium grows. The Agency has augmented its regular budget with
    extrabudgetary contributions (primarily from the United States) but
    this approach is not sustainable as its workload continues to increase.
        Question. What is your understanding of the role of the Deputy
    Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in regard to IAEA's
    development of safeguard techniques and technologies applicable to
    reprocessing programs?
        Answer. I understand that DNN has programs that develop and test
    safeguards techniques and technologies that are used as part of IAEA
    safeguards verification and could be used for reprocessing facilities.
        Question. What other concerns, if any, do you have with
    reprocessing and plutonium accumulation in East Asia and elsewhere?
        Answer. NNSA supports U.S. efforts to limit the spread of uranium
    enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies that pose risks of
    nuclear weapons proliferation. These sensitive technologies should be
    restricted to help minimize the spread of enrichment and reprocessing
    activities around the world. Ever increasing plutonium stockpile can be
    both proliferation risks and nuclear security risks. Both of these
    concerns need to be addressed, and plutonium accumulation, even in
    civil programs, should be discouraged.
        Question. In your view, what are the other emerging challenges for
    the international safeguards regime/IAEA safeguards and how might the
    Office of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
    contribute to addressing or be leveraged to meet those challenges?
        Answer. The major challenges facing the IAEA safeguards regime
    include ongoing noncompliance issues from states such as Iran, DPRK,
    and Syria, stagnant verification budgets paired with increasing
    workload, understanding the threats and opportunities presented by
    emerging technologies, and the lack of universality of the highest
    standard of IAEA safeguards verification (e.g., the Additional
    Protocol) to enable the IAEA to provide assurances that all nuclear
    material remains in peaceful use. The DNN office can contribute to all
    of these challenges through technical investment and innovations, and
    must collaborate with the IAEA and our partners to prioritize needs and
    find efficiencies.
                           nuclear material security
        Question. What is your view of the strategy, if any, that NNSA has
    developed for prioritizing its nuclear security activities so that
    material that poses the highest risk is identified and addressed first?
        Answer. I support a risk-informed approach to secure material of
    concern. If confirmed, I would want to understand how DNN applies their
    risk prioritization models to take into account information relevant to
    the threat environment, existing security vulnerabilities, and material
    consequences. I would also advocate for DNN with the intelligence
    community and other government agencies to get all the relevant
    information needed to make good decisions, if DNN is not already
    getting this information. This information allows DNN to effectively
    prioritize its risk reduction work and then build the necessary
    relationships in order to secure these materials and improve
    interdiction capabilities.
        Question. United States nuclear security cooperation programs with
    Russia are currently inactive after years of joint investment between
    our two countries to ensure our stockpiles of fissile materials have
    adequate protection.
        What are your views with respect to the state of safeguards
    currently in place in Russia and the level of risk of diversion of
    Russia's fissile material?
        Answer. Russia has the technical expertise among its nuclear
    security professionals to protect its most sensitive nuclear material
    and weapons. I understand that many of the best practices and lessons
    of the two decades of joint activity under the Cooperative Threat
    Reduction Agreement have been codified into their regulations. However,
    since 2014, the United States' influence and insight into the state of
    nuclear security in Russia has diminished. Considering the large
    quantity of nuclear materials and facilities in Russia and renewed
    emphasis on the nuclear enterprise, one could imagine a need for
    renewed focus on nuclear security in and around Russia. If confirmed, I
    would seek early briefings on this subject.
        Question. What visibility should the Deputy Administrator for
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation have on Russian efforts to sustain the
    equipment and technology the United States has provided? If confirmed,
    what more would you do to sustain those investments?
        Answer. Given the complexities of the relationship, there is little
    to no direct information about the state of the investments that the
    United States made to nuclear security in Russia. Ultimately, it will
    be necessary to re-engage with Russian counterparts where appropriate,
    to discuss nuclear security issues. Even when the relationship is
    fraught, this dialogue would serve U.S. national security interests.
        If the broader political relationship were to evolve to be more
    favorable, this might include a cooperative re-engagement, as peers, to
    increase awareness and insight. Failing that, if confirmed, I would
    seek multilateral opportunities to create information exchanges with
    Russia on the sustainability of investments and try to learn from
    ongoing track 1.5 and track 2 efforts.
        Question. What, in your view, are the other areas of nuclear
    security and nonproliferation cooperation that could be sustained or
    initiated with Russia in the next five years?
        Answer. The United States and Russia possess 90 percent of the
    world's useable materials and control the largest nuclear stockpiles
    and complexes. The reality is that it is difficult to address global
    nuclear security without such a significant player at the table. It
    would be in the United States' national interest to re-engage at a
    basic level with Russia to discuss nuclear security issues. If given
    the opportunity, there are a number of bilateral areas related to
    nuclear and radiological security and nonproliferation associated with
    fuel cycle activities that could be explored with Russia. It is not
    conceivable nor necessarily desirable that there would be a return to
    the same level of assistance on nuclear security of the past, but there
    may be opportunity and reason to engage on a peer-to-peer basis on
    common and global nuclear security challenges on a mutually-beneficial
    basis. The United States and Russia have successfully collaborated,
    even in recent years, to reduce nuclear security risks in third
    countries. If confirmed, I would continue this cooperation.
        Question. Significant progress has been made over the past two
    decades to improve security over vast amounts of vulnerable nuclear
    material and to consolidate fissile material to fewer, more secure
    locations. Yet, some countries remain unwilling or reluctant to
    cooperate with U.S. nuclear material security programs.
        Do you agree with the assertion by some that efforts to secure
    fissile material around the world have run their course? Please explain
    your answer.
        Answer. I believe that the challenge to secure fissile material is
    enduring, and there is still much work to do. The threat environment is
    constantly evolving and our nuclear security efforts must anticipate
    and stay ahead of emerging threats. There are remaining inventories of
    materials to convert or remove, new facilities being built, and regimes
    falling into instability. These are all factor that alter our nuclear
    security calculations.
        Question. How do you believe the United States should address
    countries that, to date, have been unwilling to cooperate with these
    efforts? What would you do differently, and what new strategies would
    you employ to this end, if confirmed?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support a continued, multi-pronged
    strategy which seeks bilateral relationships but also leverages
    multilateral relationships to support its efforts. In the cases in
    which NNSA does not have a direct bilateral relationship with a
    partner, its multilateral efforts with the International Atomic Energy
    Agency (IAEA) and/or regional organizations are vital to supporting
    best practices and international norms for nuclear security. For those
    countries the United States cannot engage on nuclear security, NNSA
    should place special emphasis on providing layered defenses to counter
    smuggling of radioactive and nuclear materials that might originate
    from those countries. Building capacity in partners along high-risk
    pathways provides for risk reduction when NNSA cannot work with
    specific countries of concern.
        Question. With the end of the Nuclear Security Summits, what are
    your thoughts on how international consensus building and dialogue on
    nuclear security can continue between the United States and senior
    leadership of key foreign governments? What models or mechanisms would
    you propose, if confirmed?
        Answer. The Nuclear Security Summits were valuable engagements to
    highlight the important nuclear security work that had been done, but
    more importantly they highlighted the magnitude of work left to be
    completed. I was honored to lead the Department of Energy's
    participation in the 2016 Summit, so I saw the process and challenges
    firsthand. I believe it is necessary to sustain awareness at the
    highest levels while also working on practical, tangible projects and
    collaborative approaches at the working level. If confirmed, I would
    support advocacy for nuclear security in international fora, in
    bilateral engagements with NNSA and DOE leadership and their
    counterparts, and through senior representation at key opportunities,
    such as the upcoming first Review Conference on the Convention on the
    Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and its Amendment.
        Question. This administration has emphasized working with other
    countries on a bilateral basis. In your view, what are the top five
    countries with which the United States needs to work most closely on
    nuclear security technical and policy issues, and what are the most
    pressing issues that need to be addressed with each of those countries?
        Answer. I would include Belarus, India, Russia, South Africa, and
    Ukraine in my top five list of countries to engage on nuclear security
    because of either large volumes of proliferation-sensitive materials
    present in-country and/or nuclear security conditions in-country.
        In alphabetical order:
          Belarus--In addition to the historical upgrades that DOE/
    NNSA completed at the Joint Institute for Power and Nuclear Research
    (JIPNR) in Belarus and the successful removal of all fresh and spent
    HEU fuel from the Pamir research reactor, my understanding is that
    since 2016 NNSA has been engaging with JIPNR on nuclear security
    culture and gradually expanded the cooperation to include insider
    threat mitigation, response training, and performance evaluation. DNN
    must also continue efforts to remove the remaining highly enriched
    uranium in the country.
          India--India has a well-developed nuclear program
    including a growing nuclear power program with a complete nuclear fuel
    cycle and a weapons program. We have developed and delivered training
    jointly through the Global Center for Nuclear Energy Partnership
    (GCNEP). We will continue to prioritize cooperation on nuclear security
    topics including: accounting for nuclear material, advanced modelling
    to improve physical security, transportation security for radiological
    sources, and emergency response.
          Russia--Considering the large quantity of nuclear
    materials and facilities in Russia we need a renewed focus on nuclear
    security with Russia, despite the very real and appropriate constraints
    on working with them.
          South Africa--South Africa is involved in every part of
    the nuclear fuel cycle. South Africa is the only country to have
    declared and denuclearized a full nuclear weapons program, and there
    are large amounts of HEU still located there. As South Africa seeks
    additional nuclear power generation and advanced reactor technologies,
    a strong partnership with South Africa on nuclear security will only
    grow in importance.
          Ukraine--Ukraine continues to be an important partner for
    nuclear security. Two key power plants, Zaporizhzhia and South Ukraine,
    are located near the Line of Conflict, the border between Ukraine and
    the areas under Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists. Priority areas of
    work with Ukraine should include: protective/response force training,
    physical protection upgrades at South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plants and
    physical security upgrades at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
        I would add honorable mentions, in alphabetical order, for both
    China and Pakistan, but don't feel that I have all the relevant
    information to make specific recommendations. Both were active
    participants in the Nuclear Security Summit process, but I no longer
    have good insight into their activities. If confirmed, I would seek
    briefings on these two countries' nuclear security situations urgently.
        Question. In your view, what are the guidelines and objectives that
    should be part of developing nuclear security cooperation with China?
    India? Pakistan?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the White House and
    interagency on key principles for engaging with these countries in
    service of U.S. national security. I would not seek engagement for the
    sake of engagement. China represents a significant challenge that is
    changing rapidly, and engagement with China on nuclear issues is
    entangled in the broader strategic relationship. India is a key nuclear
    security partner, and, if confirmed, I would like to continue to mature
    and deepen this collaborative relationship, especially on nuclear
    security. Pakistan is an important country for bilateral engagement on
    nuclear security and I would seek early information on their current
    situation. Given that India and Pakistan are high-priority countries,
    it is important to continue to carry out and implement bilateral
    nuclear security cooperation through existing mechanisms, but it is
    also vital to develop creative strategies to further engage with India
    and Pakistan through track 2 dialogues to provide a platform for open
    and continued dialogues on nuclear security topics.
        Question. What is your understanding of the role of NNSA-sponsored
    Centers of Nuclear Security Excellence in engaging such countries, and
    what tangible results have you observed from the programs sponsored by
    those centers?
        Answer. The NNSA-sponsored Centers of Nuclear Security Excellence
    (COE) have been instrumental in improving nuclear security worldwide.
    In particular, these centers provide venues for training and
    professional development activities in support of sustaining nuclear
    security at the national and regional levels where none were before.
    Further, the COEs are a part of the IAEA's network that further expands
    and sustains IAEA's influence at the international and regional level
    for the important elements of a nuclear security regime. If confirmed,
    I would request information about the specific and tangible results
    from each of the COEs, and seek ways to improve their reach and
    effectiveness, if possible.
        Question. Historically, efforts to minimize, inventory/account for,
    and secure nuclear materials have focused on civilian stockpiles, to
    the exclusion of military stockpiles. Crossover between civilian/
    military nuclear programs is problematic.
        What to you envision as the role, if any, of the Deputy
    Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in addressing the
    dangers posed by military fissile material stockpiles?
        Answer. DNN's role is to engage with any partner who maintains
    fissile material stockpiles - either by civilian entities or by the
    military. If confirmed, I will look for increased opportunities to
    engage in this area and to strengthen our engagement with weapons
    states. Vulnerable nuclear material is vulnerable nuclear material, and
    it does not matter what its intended purpose is.
        Question. As with other nuclear materials security programs, DNN
    has significant accomplishments in terms of converting research
    reactors to run on low-enriched uranium. However, a number of highly
    enriched uranium-fueled reactors continue to operate around the world,
    and converting some of these reactors presents greater technological
    and other challenges than NNSA has previously encountered in other
    reactor conversions, including strong political resistance to such
    conversions.
        In your view, how should the Deputy Administrator for Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation approach these challenges?
        Answer. There are technical and political challenges in converting
    the remaining high performance HEU research reactors to LEU fuel. If
    confirmed, I will approach these challenges by advocating for continued
    funding for the qualification of high-density LEU fuels necessary to
    convert these reactors, and by working closely with our international
    partners to address any political challenges that arise in the process.
    Part of that task is understanding the role and purpose of the
    remaining HEU-fueled reactors and seeking ways to build confidence that
    the missions can be met after conversion to LEU.
        Question. The Office of the Deputy Administrator sponsors an
    ongoing program to replace Cesium-137 blood irradiators in hospitals,
    but this program is modest and faces limitations.
        Do you believe the Office of the Deputy Administrator has the
    requisite capacity for a more comprehensive program?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would need to understand the capacity
    limits of the program and the lab experts supporting it to know if
    there is a need to expand the program. A more comprehensive program
    could expand beyond just cesium-137-based blood irradiators. There are
    irradiators used for other applications that have viable alternative
    technologies available now and the program should expand their focus to
    those other applications. The program is on track to replace all
    cesium-based blood irradiators by 2027 as called for in the 2019 NDAA.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you plan on overcoming the
    current program's limitations?
        Answer. The program's main limitation is the number of irradiators
    that it can safely recover in year. If confirmed, I will look for ways
    to increase the rate of yearly recoveries including optimizing the use
    of existing transportation containers.
        Question. The fall of Mosul in Iraq revealed that ISIS was in close
    proximity to many sources of Cesium-137 used for commercial and medical
    purposes.
        What are your views on the way forward in securing nuclear
    materials in the Levant?
        Answer. I think there should be a focus on permanent risk reduction
    in all regions where the risk is high that a terrorist could access
    nuclear or radioactive materials. DNN's approach, as I understand it,
    is sound - working with bilateral partners to focus on transitioning to
    alternative, non-radioisotope technologies and removing the radioactive
    sources. In September 2021, DNN removed three cesium-based devices from
    Lebanon and replaced them with x-ray devices. I understand that DNN is
    in discussions for similar activities with partners in Iraq. In order
    to address concerns about vulnerable material in the Levant,
    cooperation with multiple partner agencies on counter nuclear smuggling
    is of highest importance. NNSA must look to build layered defenses
    throughout the region, working with border security partners, law
    enforcement agencies, and security services to build capacity detect
    materials outside regulatory control and to return those materials to
    control and accounting systems. Current DNN efforts with Lebanon,
    Israel,
        Jordan, and Turkey reflect this approach. If confirmed, I would
    seek additional information about these efforts and the overall risk
    environment to inform prioritization.
        Question. Former Soviet states that border Russia have historical
    trade and smuggling routes that stretch from the Russian border to the
    Levant.
        What are your perceptions of the extent of nuclear smuggling in
    these regions?
        Answer. These are definitely areas of concern, but my current
    information is anecdotal. If confirmed, one of my first tasks will be
    to review the current intelligence on nuclear smuggling and seizures in
    these regions.
        Question. If confirmed, what do you believe NNSA should or should
    not be doing to control nuclear smuggling in this region and along
    these routes?
        Answer. NNSA has a crucial role in this region to support partner
    country systems already deployed and to build additional layers of
    defense, particularly with law enforcement, internal security, and
    regulatory agencies. I believe NNSA should continue its commitment to
    sustaining baseline capacity, including building indigenous capacity
    for training, operations, maintenance, policies, and assessments.
    Further, NNSA should help enhance partner capabilities not just at
    official points of entry but also along frontier regions and in the
    interior of countries. This should be complemented with investigation
    support to help partner countries translate detections into
    prosecutions. By building layered defenses and long-term security
    partnerships in this region, NNSA can provide an enduring benefit to
    U.S. national security.
               nuclear cooperation agreements and export controls
        Question. The United States is working on a nonproliferation
    agreement with Saudi Arabia under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act.
        Do you believe that Saudi Arabia should be required to adhere to
    the IAEA additional protocols?
        Answer. Yes, consistent with longstanding United States policy
    supporting universal adherence to the Additional Protocol (AP), I
    believe that Saudi Arabia should have an AP in force. U.S. policy is to
    encourage all states, particularly those with civil nuclear programs,
    to bring into force an Additional Protocol to their safeguards
    agreements with the IAEA.
        Question. Do you believe Saudi Arabia should be allowed to
    reprocess spent nuclear fuel or have the ability to enrich uranium?
        Answer. The introduction of reprocessing or enrichment technology
    into Saudi Arabia could be destabilizing, which would not serve United
    States national security interests. One of the pillars of United States
    nonproliferation policy is to encourage foreign partners to make the
    sovereign decision to rely upon the strong and reliable international
    nuclear fuel industry for their fuel supplies, and not pursue domestic
    enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. I believe this is the right
    approach for Saudi Arabia.
        Question. What proliferation risks do you see as arising from any
    nonproliferation agreement with Saudi Arabia, and if confirmed, what
    would be your role in and approach to managing these risks?
        Answer. A well-crafted nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi
    Arabia can address key nonproliferation risks and concerns. Such an
    agreement would address nuclear safeguards and the possibility of
    enrichment and reprocessing. If such an agreement with Saudi Arabia
    were possible, it would also serve United States interests by
    supporting United States industry, providing a channel for sharing high
    safety, security and nonproliferation standards, and reduce the chances
    that Russia or China would provide nuclear technology with lower
    requirements than those that come with United States technology.
        Question. To what extent do you believe the likelihood of reaching
    such an agreement could be affected by reports of Saudi Arabia's
    conclusion of agreements for uranium exploration with two Chinese
    entities, one of which is China's primary nuclear weapons
    infrastructure construction provider?
        Answer. I don't think that Saudi Arabia's mining of uranium
    presents obstacles for a 123 Agreement with the United States. In fact,
    because of the Chinese presence in these activities, it is even more
    important that the United States emphasize in its bilateral engagements
    the need for a strong export control regime, in-line with Nuclear
    Suppliers Group principles, so that any mined uranium from Saudi Arabia
    is used only for peaceful purposes.
        Question. In spite of process improvements, the Deputy
    Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation has faced criticism
    from the nuclear industry for its implementation of 10 C.F.R. Part 810
    regulations controlling the export of civilian nuclear technology.
        What ideas do you have for improving the implementation of Part
    810, and how would you go about implementing them, if confirmed?
        Answer. This is an area where I will need more information, if
    confirmed. I know that DNN has an on-going Process Improvement Plan for
    its implementation of Part-810, and that it remains dedicated to
    constantly working to improve response times and authorization
    determinations. If confirmed, I will work closely with interagency
    partners on best practices and improving efficiency. I support
    reviewing and enhancing DNN's 810 system so that it is useful and
    effective for U.S. exporters, and is not a barrier to industry efforts.
        Question. In the debates surrounding Part 810, which implements
    section 57(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, there is disagreement as to the
    extent to which some of the controlled technologies--such as some types
    of light-water reactor technology--pose a proliferation risk. To what
    extent do you believe that export controls should cover such
    technologies?
        Answer. It remains U.S. nonproliferation policy to protect
    information and know-how related to production of special nuclear
    material, which could aid in the development of weapons usable
    material. Based on my current understanding, I believe this technology
    is appropriately controlled under 10 CFR Part 810 because all nuclear
    reactors (including light water reactors) have the ability to produce
    plutonium. If confirmed, I would seek to understand the concerns in
    this area, as appropriate.
        Question. In your view, how does one ensure enforcement through
    export control licenses and conditions when it is increasingly common
    for end users to change affiliations?
        Answer. Review of export licenses by the USG is an effective tool
    to mitigate the risk of transferring sensitive goods and technologies
    to proliferant entities and networks, but it is not a silver bullet. I
    believe DNN has a responsibility to make the process as robust as
    possible. DNN applies a rigorous license review process including a
    comprehensive technical review and an end user review. This process
    builds confidence that the goods being exported are appropriate for the
    stated end use and also identifies other potential end uses would be
    consistent with proliferation-related activities. The end user review
    portion consists of an open-source review and an all-source
    intelligence review. The end user review identifies any present or past
    proliferation activities as well as any known association of the entity
    to other organizations of concern including military, government,
    proliferation networks and changed affiliations. Periodic updates
    support the assessment of whether the end user reviews remain relevant.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you address the challenges posed
    by increasingly sophisticated illicit procurement networks that can
    circumvent export controls with apparent ease?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will continue DNN's support to U.S.
    interdiction efforts, evaluate the end-user review process, and
    continue participating in interagency activities to strengthen the
    Export Administration Regulations.
        I also would continue DNN's partnership with the intelligence
    community so that issues related to attempts to circumvent Part 810
    export controls are understood and addressed in a timely manner to
    maintain our strong nonproliferation regime.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you go about substantiating the
    claim that the United States must maintain a leadership role in the
    global nuclear industry in order to maintain leadership in global
    nonproliferation efforts?
        Answer. I would not seek to substantiate the claim that the United
    States must maintain a leadership role in the global nuclear industry
    in order to maintain leadership in global nonproliferation efforts.
    Rather, if confirmed, I would seek to understand (and request
    indicators of) how U.S. engagement in the nuclear industry can support
    economic goals while also bolstering nonproliferation and nuclear
    security priorities. It is true that providing access to peaceful
    nuclear technology establishes a multi-decade relationship with partner
    countries. Through this relationship, the United States may influence
    critical thinking in partner countries about the importance of
    nonproliferation. The global nuclear market has become very competitive
    with Russia and China seeking to use access to cheap financing to turn
    traditional partners and new partners away from the United States,
    undermining our nonproliferation efforts. In spite of Russian and
    Chinese efforts, most of the world still recognizes that the United
    States can supply the safest and most advanced nuclear technology. If
    confirmed, I will work with my departmental colleagues, including the
    Office of Nuclear Energy, and the interagency to facilitate robust
    civil nuclear cooperation to support the President's climate change
    agenda while protecting nonproliferation leadership and innovation.
        Question. How does this argument frame the role of the Nuclear
    Suppliers Group (NSG) in maintaining global standards?
        Answer. As the global standard bearer for the supply of peaceful
    nuclear technologies, the NSG is an important part of the
    nonproliferation regime. The role of the NSG becomes more important as
    the global marketplace becomes more competitive as it requires members
    to include minimum of nonproliferation requirements in all
    transactions, including the application of IAEA safeguards, physical
    protection, and peaceful uses. This puts all suppliers on a basic, even
    playing field. If confirmed, I will seek to work with our partners in
    U.S. industry and academia as well as with other NSG Participating
    Governments to increase understanding and effectiveness of current
    controls and to identify new technologies of proliferation concern that
    may warrant control through the NSG.
        Question. If confirmed, what ideas and approaches would you apply
    to strengthening the NSG export guidelines?
        Answer. The NSG has been at the forefront of the export control
    regimes in terms of innovation in its policies and practices. Much of
    this innovation has come from the work that the Department and its
    national labs have done over the years to understand how global
    regulators and global industry can interact effectively and
    efficiently. Broadening the engagement of the NSG directly with the
    global industry may a vital next step for the regime. I believe
    adoption of the IAEA Additional Protocol as a formal condition of
    supply should also be vigorously pursued.
        Question. NNSA has previously advocated for India's membership in
    the NSG, which has in turn led Pakistan to advocate for its membership.
        Do you support India's and/or Pakistan's membership in the NSG?
        Answer. I support the U.S. policy of considering all NSG membership
    applications on their individual merits on a case-by-case basis. The
    United States continues to support India's NSG membership.
        Question. If you are confirmed, what would you perceive to be your
    role in advocating for or against membership by India and Pakistan?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support the United States' policy of
    considering all NSG membership applications on their individual merits
    on a case-by-case basis, and would help DNN bring to bear its expertise
    to contribute to a technically-informed evaluation process for any
    membership applications.
                   nonproliferation research and development
        Question. North Korea enriches and reprocesses fissile material for
    its nuclear weapons program.
        In your view, what areas of research and development do you believe
    are needed to further assess the advances North Korea has or is making
    in its nuclear weapons program?
        Answer. DNN has a strong R&D program in place with a focus on
    detecting and characterizing foreign nuclear weapons programs like that
    in North Korea. Results from this R&D program are transitioned to
    partners across the interagency but, in particular, the intelligence
    community and Department of Defense. In the case of North Korea, R&D to
    improve our ability to not only detect, but to characterize underground
    tests, such as the one conducted in 2017, is critical. DPRK is also a
    difficult access problem and R&D is needed that can provide technical
    remote monitoring solutions. For example, next generation AI tools may
    help us extract more information from the data we do get from watching
    North Korea remotely. Research and development in the areas of remote
    detection and recognition of processing signatures could help the
    United States better assess North Korea's fissile material processing
    activities. In addition, R&D of onsite verification technologies can
    prepare U.S. verification teams to implement negotiated measures in
    support of any denuclearization agreement.
        Question. If North Korea were to freeze its nuclear weapons
    program, what additional safeguards do you believe would be needed to
    verify such a freeze?
        Answer. Deploying on-site verification teams (U.S., IAEA, or
    another model) will be the best way to independently verify the
    comprehensiveness and completeness of a freeze. Specific onsite
    monitoring actions would have to be tailored to each technical process
    that would be suspended. DNN has experience designing technical
    approaches and deploying expert teams to cover a range of activities in
    North Korea.
        Question. Future arms control agreements may propose a cap on the
    total number of nuclear warheads in each country. This would require
    significant portal monitoring of locations where such warheads are
    stored or employed.
        What is your assessment of the capabilities of portal monitoring
    technologies to accurately identify nuclear warheads and their types?
        Answer. There are different options for monitoring and verifying
    different types of potential warhead limits. In general, portal
    monitors could potentially play a role in future monitoring and
    verification, but their capability will depend on the exact use case
    and the specific configuration of the portal monitoring system and
    associated implementation procedures. While I am familiar with some
    past studies of portal monitoring for arms control monitoring, if
    confirmed I would need to increase my understanding of this issue to
    judge the applicability to future regimes.
        Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others
    have reported on issues affecting the nonproliferation research and
    development capacity in the NNSA nuclear security enterprise, including
    deteriorating facilities, stagnant or diminishing production capacity,
    a retirement-driven ``brain drain,'' and a constrained resource
    environment with many competing priorities.
        In your view, what complex-related priorities should NNSA focus on
    to ensure continued capability and advancement in the nonproliferation
    area?
        Answer. The Nonproliferation Stewardship Program (NSP) within DNN
    R&D is sharply focused on many of these issues. The design of the NSP
    is to provide targeted infrastructure and S&T activities so that DNN
    has a cadre of nonproliferation expertise capable of meeting future
    nonproliferation threats and challenges. The U.S. can no longer rely
    only on a robust nuclear weapons development enterprise or a civilian
    nuclear power industry to provide future expertise. NNSA must be
    intentional and targeted in identifying and developing needed
    nonproliferation competencies. That said, it is important for DNN and
    Defense Programs to align human capacity development and expertise to
    benefit NNSA as a whole. If confirmed, I would seek to engage my
    counterpart in DP to assess our collective human capital needs. NNSA
    must focus on building and retaining a diverse, highly skilled,
    flexible workforce capable of addressing complex, multifaceted
    nonproliferation challenges. Recruiting the ``best and the brightest,''
    and providing them with world class facilities in which to work, should
    be a key priority for NNSA.
                    budget execution and program management
        Question. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2022 for
    NNSA nonproliferation programs is $2.26 billion.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to prioritize resources to
    ensure the maximum programmatic benefit?
        Answer. If confirmed, my initial focus would be on reviewing DNN's
    mission activities to evaluate whether they reflect the appropriate
    balance of efforts to address the President's goals, as described in
    the Interim National Security Strategy, of renewing U.S.
    nonproliferation leadership and reducing the dangers posed by the
    proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as by the threat of nuclear
    terrorism. Further, I would work to align DNN's financial resources,
    and future fiscal year budget requests, to support activities that
    provide clear benefit to the U.S. national security. I would also
    emphasize through DNN the responsibility to use its financial resources
    efficiently.
        If confirmed, I would assess DNN's programs to identify any
    possible efficiencies or areas that could be bolstered by additional
    resources. I would work with and welcome insights from members of this
    committee on how to best align DNN's budget to those priorities.
        Question. Other agencies, such as the Department of Homeland
    Security, also have nuclear forensics programs that are carried out by
    the NNSA nonproliferation program. Should these programs be
    consolidated under the NNSA, in your view? Why or why not?
        Answer. I recognize the increased level of effort and the
    leadership role that the NNSA has assumed since technical nuclear
    forensics since I was last in the Department. If legislative change
    were enacted, I believe NNSA is well suited to accept the interagency
    coordination and expertise development responsibilities currently
    assigned to DHS. Technical nuclear forensics supports the broader
    mission of attribution. Attribution is, by necessity, an interagency
    effort relying on law enforcement, intelligence, technical, diplomatic,
    and others from across the government to provide the best determination
    and advice to the President in the event of an unclaimed nuclear
    attack. While the NNSA laboratories are clearly the centers of
    excellence for nuclear forensics, if confirmed, I would seek
    information from other departments and agencies to determine if they
    need additional support for their attribution responsibilities.
        Question. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation has made progress in recent years in providing
    transparency to the cost and schedule for some programs by issuing an
    annual strategic plan to reduce global nuclear threats. However,
    because of international agreements, the DNN has been identified as
    maintaining carry over accounts for extremely long periods of time.
        In your view, what is the appropriate degree of program management
    that DNN should exercise to ensure its programs can demonstrate
    performance against cost and schedule commitments, while also
    acknowledging the uncertainty of its operating environment--for
    example, its dependence on international partners to accomplish its
    mission?
        Answer. DNN faces unique challenges in budget planning and
    execution that relates to both technical constraint, partner support
    and the uncertainty that comes from implementing a substantially
    international program. Despite these challenges, I believe DNN must
    track budget and cost execution, relying on DOE/NNSA's project
    management practices, as precisely possible to make efficient use of
    taxpayer resources. Further, future fiscal year budget requests need to
    take into account existing and updated funding projections. Finally, I
    believe DNN programs need the latitude to pivot to take advantage of
    unanticipated program execution opportunities when they arise. If
    confirmed, I would take program stewardship seriously, and look forward
    to engaging with this Committee and other stakeholders if questions
    arise.
        Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you support a
    requirement for all DNN programs to establish life-cycle cost and
    schedule baselines and measure performance against those baselines in
    its annual report?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support appropriate reporting of
    performance against program cost and schedule baselines. I would
    welcome this committee's input on how DNN might better communicate its
    performance to budget.
                               sexual harassment
        Question. In April of 2021 the General Accountability Office
    released a report ``Sexual Harassment: NNSA Could Improve Prevention
    and Response Efforts in Its Nuclear Security Forces'', which in
    addition to the examination of the NNSA Security Forces gave
    recommendations for the NNSA and the DOE in how they surveys, assess
    and trains to prevent sexual harassment.
        What are your views on the GAO report's findings and
    recommendations? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I have read the GAO report and understand that DOE/NNSA has
    concurred with all five recommendations. If confirmed, I would request
    an update on the status of addressing the recommendations. I am
    committed to working with DOE/NNSA to prevent and respond to incidents
    of sexual harassment.
        Question. What is your assessment of the current climate regarding
    sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the Office of the Deputy
    Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
        Answer. This is an important issue in any workplace, and one I take
    seriously. The only way for a workplace to be both ethically robust and
    mission effective is for everyone to be respected and protected. I
    understand that DNN already has a robust Diversity, Equity, Inclusion,
    and Accessibility (DEIA) effort underway that is coordinated with
    broader NNSA efforts and includes addressing all forms of
    discrimination and harassment. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
    more about this effort and working to address and eliminate all forms
    of discrimination and harassment in DNN.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
    receive or become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment or
    discrimination from an employee of the Office of the Deputy
    Administrator?
        Answer. First, if confirmed, I would identify the appropriate
    reporting procedure and make sure that it is communicated to all DNN
    employees and contractors. If there were a report, I would take all
    possible steps to make sure it is addressed fairly to all parties and
    in a timely manner, in accordance with NNSA policy.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this committee, its
    subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive
    timely testimony, briefings, reports, records--including documents and
    electronic communications, and other information from the executive
    branch.
        Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
    to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
    other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
    yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
    of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
    briefings, reports, records--including documents and electronic
    communications, and other information, as may be requested of you, and
    to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
    basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
    reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
    and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
    or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
    Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
    materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
    records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
    information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
    with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
    request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
    and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
    a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
    you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
    this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
    retaliation any military member, federal employee, or contractor
    employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
    subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
    answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If confirmed, do you agree to provide to this Committee
    relevant information within the jurisdictional oversight of the
    Committee when requested by the Committee, even in the absence of the
    formality of a letter from the Chairman?
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator Angus S. King, Jr.
                     nuclear security and non-state actors
        1. Senator King. Ms. Hinderstein, as we discussed at the hearing,
    deterrence does not work with terrorists. I would appreciate you
    expanding upon your comments at the hearing regarding your thoughts on
    how we address the issue of nuclear security and the danger of non-
    State actors acquiring nuclear material, an entire nuclear weapon, or
    the technology to develop a nuclear weapon.
        Ms. Hinderstein. While the overall probability of a terrorist group
    acquiring a nuclear weapon is low, the consequences are unacceptably
    high. For that reason, I believe that the United States and the Office
    of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) should continue to prioritize
    permanent threat reduction through material elimination and facility
    conversion, strengthen nuclear security standards and practices
    globally, and use a strategy of defense-in-depth. This strategy
    emphasizes preventing access to nuclear or radiological materials at
    their source and impeding access to the necessary expertise and
    equipment or technology required to build a device, such as through
    export controls and interdiction efforts. As a further barrier, it is
    important to strengthen partner capabilities to detect, interdict, and
    investigate smuggled nuclear or radiological materials. As a final
    barrier, we should create real consequences for those who do illegally
    obtain these materials, expertise, or equipment through penalties,
    sanctions, and support for criminal prosecutions. If confirmed, I will
    work to ensure that DNN maintains the R&D work, international
    partnerships, and technical capabilities required for this defense-in-
    depth strategy.
        If confirmed, I would also welcome the opportunity to travel to
    some of NNSA's sites with members of this committee to learn more about
    NNSA's contribution to nonproliferation efforts against non-State
    actors.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
                                   iran deal
        2. Senator Manchin. Ms. Hinderstein, your professional biography
    states that you led the Department of Energy's Iran Task Force, and
    that you were responsible for the implementation of the Joint
    Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the ``Iran
    Deal.'' I opposed this deal because I believed that Iran should earn
    sanctions relief by demonstrating goodwill, rather than rewarding them
    and hoping that they stay compliant. Realizing that you didn't have
    authority to approve or deny the finer points of the Iran Deal, do you
    generally believe that we should relax sanctions on Iran in the future
    before they demonstrate that they can be a stable nation in the
    international community?
        Ms. Hinderstein. I would defer to my colleagues in the interagency
    on policy questions related to sanctions on Iran, but would prioritize
    the provision of technical tools and analysis so that they can make
    informed decisions about the nuclear risk as they make those judgments.
    Developing and implementing any approach for Iran requires the
    expertise of NNSA, the Department of Treasury, and other agencies in
    support of the State Department's efforts. If confirmed, my goal would
    be to ensure that NNSA's sound, technical expertise is available to
    inform policymakers regarding the technical status and implications of
    Iran's nuclear program, technical opportunities to limit Iran's
    capabilities, and verification and monitoring approaches

        3. Senator Manchin. Ms. Hinderstein, if you were consulted on
    future negotiations for an agreement with Iran, would you be of the
    opinion that the U.S. Government should also hold them accountable for
    their terrorism operations abroad, and conventional weapons development
    in addition to preventing their development of nuclear weapons?
        Ms. Hinderstein. Yes, Iran should be held accountable for all its
    actions. I support U.S. efforts to impose unilateral sanctions (most of
    which were never lifted or waived under the JCPOA), as well U.N.
    Security Council actions, in response to international terrorism, human
    rights, and ballistic missile activities, among other problematic and
    provocative activities.
                           nonproliferation resources
        4. Senator Manchin. Ms. Hinderstein, in your advance policy
    questions you noted that strategic competition from Russia and China,
    and nuclear capability increases by Iran and North Korea were some of
    the most pressing concerns for you if confirmed. Do you believe the
    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is currently properly
    funded and equipped to counter those threats?
        Ms. Hinderstein. If confirmed, I will review DNN's mission
    activities to evaluate whether they reflect the appropriate balance of
    efforts to address the President's goals, as described in the Interim
    National Security Strategy, of renewing U.S. nonproliferation
    leadership and reducing the dangers posed by the proliferation of
    nuclear weapons as well as the threat of nuclear terrorism. I would
    focus on aligning DNN's financial resources, and future fiscal year
    budget requests, to support activities that provide clear benefit to
    the U.S. national security and take into account a changing security
    environment. If shifts or increases in resources would be warranted, I
    would look forward to discussing the threat environment and the
    contribution DNN could make with this Committee and other relevant
    congressional stakeholders. In all cases, I believe DNN must track
    budget and cost execution, relying on DOE/NNSA's project management
    practices, as precisely as possible to make efficient use of taxpayer
    resources.

        5. Senator Manchin. Ms. Hinderstein, while you were previously at
    NNSA, how did your policy affairs position adequately prepare you to
    deal specifically with nonproliferation?
        Ms. Hinderstein. My experience at NNSA included working closely
    with the DOE, NNSA and other key elements of the U.S. national security
    enterprise, including the national laboratories and the State
    Department. I developed and implemented international projects working
    with partners and allies and had oversight and governance
    responsibilities for such projects. If confirmed, this familiarity with
    DNN, NNSA and DOE will be important to developing and delivering
    technical approaches for nonproliferation challenges and providing the
    best guidance to NNSA, DOE and USG policy development processes. In
    addition, from a substantive perspective, my time at DNN (in addition
    to my other background) helped me gain deep knowledge in international
    safeguards and verification, nonproliferation and export control policy
    and regimes, and bilateral and international nonproliferation
    relationships. As effective nonproliferation policy requires building
    and sustaining partnerships, not just developing national approaches,
    if confirmed, this experience will also help me meet U.S. national
    security objectives.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator M. Michael Rounds
                    nuclear proliferation in the middle east
        6. Senator Rounds. Ms. Hinderstein, I believe it is critical we
    prevent a cascade of nuclear proliferators in the Middle East, though
    of course I'm most concerned about the imminent threat posed by Iran.
    Beyond the Iran nuclear problem, can you provide some detail about your
    next biggest nuclear proliferation concerns in the Middle East?
        Ms. Hinderstein. The Middle East represents a significant challenge
    as well as a significant opportunity for our nonproliferation goals.
    Many countries in the broader Middle East have indicated varying levels
    of interest in pursuing civil nuclear programs which could bring with
    them new dual-use capabilities and possibilities for increased tension
    and unpredictability in an already volatile region. With the possible
    introduction of new advanced reactor technologies, we may have a window
    of opportunity to influence states' decisions to bring carbon free
    energy to the region while mitigating proliferation concerns. If
    confirmed, I will want to work with my colleagues in the Office of
    Nuclear Energy to identify which advanced reactor technologies could be
    deployed to the Middle East so as to mitigate the proliferation
    concerns, which I share with you. We should not cede the region to
    nuclear suppliers who may not require the same nonproliferation and
    nuclear security commitments of their partners that the United States
    does, but we should also be careful about whether and how U.S.
    technology is introduced so we do not undermine our own
    nonproliferation objectives. If confirmed, I also will work closely
    with the IAEA and existing DNN programs to identify and bring more
    resources to the region to ensure the security of nuclear sites and
    nuclear materials and to enhance regulatory and safeguards regimes.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
                             nuclear proliferation
        7. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Hinderstein, was the Obama
    administration's JCPOA designed to be verifiable over the long term,
    and why did it fail in this regard?
        Ms. Hinderstein. The nuclear constraints placed on Iran under the
    JCPOA were designed to be verifiable by the International Atomic Energy
    Agency (IAEA) over the long term, and the IAEA has demonstrated that
    they are verifiable. Until Iran restricted its cooperation with the
    IAEA, the verification was the most intrusive anywhere in the world,
    including daily access to all enrichment sites, and utilizing the most
    advanced technical tools available. As a result, the IAEA was able to
    immediately identify when Iran began to violate its uranium enrichment
    limits after the U.S. left the deal. In addition, several of the
    enhanced transparency and verification measures of the JCPOA would
    never expire. Iran has failed to live up to its obligations under the
    JCPOA, however, in my opinion, that is not a failure of the
    verification system which is designed to detect, not prevent, such
    activities.

        8. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Hinderstein, if a nation is nefariously
    stockpiling nuclear addition supplies and equipment and not disclosing
    it properly, what should be the United States' response?
        Ms. Hinderstein. If a country is engaged in any nefarious or
    illicit procurement of nuclear commodities, I believe that the United
    States has demonstrated the ability to work both directly with that
    country to roll back nuclear capability, and to work through the
    appropriate entities in the nonproliferation regime to address and
    correct the situation. Options include engaging directly (like the
    George W. Bush administration did in Libya), working with the IAEA and
    U.N. Security Council to resolve safeguards violations, or
    collaborating with other suppliers in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to
    identify and prevent illegal attempts at procurement. All three
    approaches have been used in the past. DNN has an important role in
    providing information to prevent, identify, and assess these activities
    and to develop approaches for the recovery/disablement of these illicit
    nuclear commodities if detected.

        9. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Hinderstein, is Iran's failure to comply
    with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) safeguards
    agreement a violation of its obligations as a Nonproliferation Treaty
    signatory?
        Ms. Hinderstein. The legal determination of a treaty violation is
    in the purview of lawyers at the State Department, but Iran's failure
    to provide substantive or technically credible responses to the IAEA's
    questions related to possible undeclared nuclear materials and
    activities is cause for serious concern. If confirmed, I will strongly
    support the IAEA in their efforts to resolve these outstanding issues,
    and engage members of the Board of Governors to take action if Iran
    fails to cooperate. The resolution of outstanding safeguards
    inconsistencies is separate from the JCPOA, and must be addressed
    regardless of whether all parties return to that agreement.

        10. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Hinderstein, as you know, the Taliban
    had established a Minister of Atomic Energy. If confirmed, what steps
    would you take to prevent a nuclear Taliban?
        Ms. Hinderstein. I have noted the news that the Taliban has
    appointed a new leader of the Minister of Atomic Energy in Afghanistan.
    This was a role that already existed in recently ousted Afghan
    government, and at that time was a partner in efforts to improve
    regional nuclear security. I am not aware of the intent of the new
    leadership with regard to any civil or non-civilian nuclear programs.
    That said, we must approach this situation with caution. We know that
    areas of instability pose significant challenges for nuclear security.
    The United States must build the international partnerships necessary
    to help detect and interdict illicit movements of nuclear materials,
    equipment and technologies in the region. If confirmed, I would
    prioritize getting up to speed on our current assessment of the
    situation in Afghanistan and any connections the Taliban-led government
    might have with other countries that may pose proliferation risks. I
    would also commit to come back to this Committee, perhaps in another
    setting, to discuss the risks and what tools we might have to mitigate
    them.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Josh Hawley
                     nuclear arms control and proliferation
        11. Senator Hawley. Ms. Hinderstein, under what conditions do you
    think the United States should tolerate or even support nuclear
    proliferation to friendly nations, for instance, to bolster regional
    deterrence against China?
        Ms. Hinderstein. The proliferation of any nuclear weapons
    technology anywhere in the world represents a potential threat to the
    United States, and may bring unintended consequences that could create
    bigger national security problems beyond countering China. The most
    important steps we can take in the Asia Pacific to deter China are to
    shore up our alliances in the region and make sure that our nuclear
    deterrent commitments are robust. Consistent with the Atomic Energy
    Act, any expansion of defense relationships that include a nuclear
    component would require a decision by the President and consultations
    with Congress.

        12. Senator Hawley. Ms. Hinderstein, would you agree that nuclear
    modernization is essential not just for ensuring our nuclear deterrent
    remains safe, secure, and reliable, but also for providing the United
    States with additional options for incentivizing Russia and China to
    accept restrictions on their nuclear forces as part of future arms
    control negotiations?
        Ms. Hinderstein. I agree that nuclear modernization includes
    important updates to critical NNSA infrastructure and our nuclear
    forces, and may influence future arms control negotiations. Continuing
    to demonstrate a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent is
    essential for U.S. national security and may further incentivize
    Russian and Chinese engagement on security matters, including arms
    control.

        13. Senator Hawley. Ms. Hinderstein, what role do you think arms
    control should play in our response to China's rapid buildup of its
    nuclear arsenal?
        Ms. Hinderstein. China's expansion of its nuclear arsenal and
    nuclear material production is a concern to the United States. I
    support efforts to seek clarity from the Chinese regarding the purpose
    and intention of their buildup. A meaningful dialog with China is a
    critical first step that may lead to formal arms control measures or
    informal confidence building measures in the future that would
    ultimately strengthen U.S. national security. Verifiable arms control
    measures can provide stability and predictability, and serve as a
    critical tool to help mitigate threats to the United States.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of Ms. Corey A. Hinderstein,
    follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     ______

        [The biographical sketch of Ms. Corey A. Hinderstein, which
    was transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
    referred, follows:]
                            ms. corey a. hinderstein
        Corey Hinderstein is vice president of International Fuel Cycle
    Strategies at the Nuclear Threat Initiative based in Washington, DC.
    where she focuses on international nuclear fuel cycle and
    nonproliferation policy, global nuclear security, and arms control and
    nonproliferation monitoring and verification. From February 2015
    through November 2017, Ms. Hinderstein was senior coordinator for
    nuclear security and nonproliferation policy affairs at the Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation office of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). At NNSA, she
    led the DOE's preparations for the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit and
    worked on other projects related to nuclear security and illicit
    trafficking, Iran's nuclear program and international monitoring and
    verification. Prior to her service at DOE, Ms. Hinderstein had been
    with NTI since 2006 and earlier was deputy director of the Institute
    for Science and International Security.
        Ms. Hinderstein is a past president and Fellow of the Institute of
    Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) and serves on the board of
    directors for the World Institute for Nuclear Security. She also has
    served in advisory capacities for multiple national laboratories and
    has published widely on nuclear nonproliferation, verification and
    monitoring and nuclear security. Ms. Hinderstein graduated from Clark
    University in Worcester, MA where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.
                                     ______

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by Ms. Corey A.
    Hinderstein in connection with her nomination follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the committee's executive files.]

       [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nomination of Ms. Corey A. Hinderstein was reported to
    the Senate by Chairman Reed on October 21, 2021, with the
    recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
    was confirmed by the Senate on November 30, 2021.]

                                     [all]