[Senate Hearing 119-323]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-323
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF: MR. BRAD-
LEY D. HANSELL TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND SECU-
RITY; MR. EARL G. MATTHEWS TO BE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; MR. DALE R. MARKS TO BE ASSIST-
ANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENERGY,
INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT; AND THE
HONORABLE BRANDON M. WILLIAMS TO BE
UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR NUCLEAR
SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 8, 2025
__________
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
63-039 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JACK REED, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota TIM KAINE, Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JIM BANKS, INDIANA MARK KELLY, Arizona
TIM SHEEHY, MONTANA ELISSA SLOTKIN, MICHIGAN
John P. Keast, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
april 8, 2025
Page
To Consider The Nominations of: Mr. Bradley D. Hansell to be 1
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; Mr.
Earl G. Matthews to be General Counsel of the Department of
Defense; Mr. Dale R. Marks to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Energy, Installations, and Environment; and Hon. Brandon M.
Williams to be Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security.
Members Statements
Wicker, Senator Roger F.......................................... 1
Reed, Senator Jack............................................... 3
Witness Statements
Pfluger, Hon. August, U.S. Representative From Texas, 11th 5
District.
Scott, Senator Rick.............................................. 6
Williams, Hon. Brandon M. to be Under Secretary of Energy for 6
Nuclear Security.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 45
Questions for the Record....................................... 64
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 76
Biographical Sketch............................................ 77
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 78
Signature Page................................................. 85
Hansell, Mr. Bradley D., to be Under Secretary of Defense for 9
Intelligence and Security.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 85
Questions for the Record....................................... 107
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 121
Biographical Sketch............................................ 122
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 123
Signature Page................................................. 128
Matthews, Mr. Earl G., to be General Counsel of the Department of 12
Defense.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 128
Questions for the Record....................................... 138
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 156
Biographical Sketch............................................ 157
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 161
Signature Page................................................. 170
Marks, Mr. Dale R., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for 16
Energy, Installations, and Environment.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 170
Questions for the Record....................................... 186
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 204
Biographical Sketch............................................ 205
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 207
Signature Page................................................. 213
(iii)
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF: MR. BRADLEY D. HANSELL TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY; MR. EARL G.
MATTHEWS TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MR. DALE
R. MARKS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENERGY,
INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT; AND THE HONORABLE BRANDON M. WILLIAMS
TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Roger Wicker
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Senators Wicker, Fischer,
Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cramer, Scott, Tuberville,
Mullin, Budd, Schmitt, Banks, Sheehy, Reed, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Warren, Peters,
Rosen, Kelly, and Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, and I welcome our four
witnesses, and their families. and I thank them for being here
this morning, and a guest or two.
Mr. Brandon Williams has been nominated to be Under
Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security, and the Administrator
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). As the
Administrator, Mr. Williams would be responsible for rebuilding
and modernizing our long, neglected nuclear weapons stockpile.
Failure here is not an option. Over the past several years,
we've watched as Russia, China, and North Korea have rapidly
expanded their nuclear arsenals and developed new types of
weapons, weapons for which we are so sorely unprepared.
The Committee is focused on ensuring that the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the NNSA deliver results. As the
congressional Strategic Posture Commission made clear,
modernizing our country's nuclear deterrent is a national
imperative. I look forward to hearing how Mr. Williams intends
to pursue this objective.
Mr. Bradley Hansell has been nominated to be Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. In addition
to serving as the Secretary of Defense's principal advisor on
intelligence, counterintelligence security, and law enforcement
matters. The Under Secretary is tasked with protecting the
Department's most sensitive information from our adversaries.
This includes ensuring the provision of timely and accurate
intelligence to our forces, overseeing the security clearance
vetting process, guarding against insider threats, and
protecting our industrial base from China's aggressive campaign
of espionage and theft.
Mr. Hansell served as a Naval officer and an Army Green
Beret. During his distinguished career in uniform, he saw
firsthand that quality intelligence is crucial to executing the
mission. That experience and his work in the private sector
gives me confidence he will do an excellent job. I look forward
to hearing Mr. Hansell outline his priorities for our
intelligence and security enterprise.
Mr. Earl Matthews has been nominated to be the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense. He has a distinguished
career as a judge advocate in the Army Reserve and the Army
National Guard, serving as the senior headquarters staff judge
advocate for the DC National Guard. Mr. Matthews also brings
extensive civilian government experience. He worked for
Secretary Mattis in 2017 before moving over to the Army General
Counsel Office where he served as acting General Counsel of the
Army.
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have taken bold in
this series, steps to reform the Department of Defenses. As we
all know, purposeful and thoughtful reform requires purposeful
and thoughtful lawyers. I'm confident that Mr. Matthews
possesses both qualities. I look forward to hearing his opinion
about what the DOD Office of General Counsel is doing right,
and I want to hear his ideas for how he would do things
differently.
Mr. Dale Marks has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment, a role which ensures the operational readiness and
resiliency of the Department of Defense. If confirmed, Mr.
Marks would oversee the management of military installations
and infrastructure; the bedrock of the safety and well-being of
servicemembers and their families.
This critical position will play a key part in the
implementation of several reforms from last year's NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act]. Among them are the
mandate retire requiring the minimum 4 percent plant
replacement value for DOD facilities. Let me repeat that. Among
them are the mandate in the NDAA requiring a minimum 4 percent
plant replacement value for DOD facilities. Leveraging of area-
wide contract authorities, and a review of Biden era green
energy policies that focus more on climate change than on
combat lethality. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Marks
about how he intends to tackle these important issues.
So, we have a lot to talk about today, and I turn to my
friend and colleague, Ranking Member Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen. Congratulations on your nominations.
I'd also like to welcome your families and friends who are here
today in support of you, as they have been throughout your
life. I also want to recognize Representative Pfluger who will
introduce Mr. Marks and Mr. Matthews momentarily. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Williams, you've been nominated to be the Under
Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and Administrator of
the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA. If
confirmed, you'll be responsible for the programs and personnel
responsible for modernizing and overseeing our nuclear
stockpiles and production facilities.
I'm concerned that the Trump administration has already
undermined this mission. Last month, nearly 200 NNSA nuclear
engineers were abruptly fired, then hastily rehired. Another
150 employees took the deferred retirement option. Just last
week, more than 8,500 employees at the Department of Energy,
about half of the entire workforce, were identified by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to be fired, including
500 NNSA employees. The potential damage to the NNSA and the
threat to the safety of all Americans should be alarming.
Mr. Williams is a former Congressman, Navy veteran, and
entrepreneur. I would like to know how you will approach this
challenge, and how you'll work to protect the vital workforce
of the NNSA.
Mr. Hansell, you have been nominated to be Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence and Security. If confirmed, you'll
have a dual-hat role as the principal intelligence advisor to
the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Defense
Intelligence in the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
The complexity of the global threat environment we face is
unprecedented. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many other
actors pose serious challenges on national security, and you'll
be responsible for ensuring the defense intelligence enterprise
is equipped with the resources and capabilities it needs to
meet these challenges. These are immensely complicated networks
that we face, but your experience in the Navy, Army, and the
private sector will be valuable in such a complex position.
Mr. Hansell, I welcome your thoughts about how you intend
to foster your transformation within the intelligence
enterprise, and ensure that the military has timely and
accurate information to defend the Nation.
Military leaders often say that America's network of allies
and partners is our greatest asymmetric advantage over our
global competitors. If confirmed, you'll be in charge of
managing and facilitating our intelligence relationships with
foreign military partners.
I fear that many of the actions taken to the President and
just avoidance such as cabinet members discussing classified
information on Signal to eliminating foreign assistance to
placing tariffs on many of our closest allies undermines these
longstanding relationships, and makes it less likely that they
will trust us with their most sensitive information. I hope
you'll lay out your plan for ensuring that our network of
allies and partners remain strong.
Mr. Matthews you have been nominated by to be the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense. The General Counsel
serves as the chief legal officer of the Department of Defense,
and as the primary legal advisor to the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, you would provide legal advice and counsel on
the full scope of Defense Department missions and
responsibilities. Including the roles and functions of the
military, contracting and acquisitions, military healthcare,
law of armed conflict, military justice, and more. Frankly, I
am concerned about the legality of certain activities the Trump
administration has ordered the military to execute over the
past several months. Public trust in the military can never be
taken for granted, and civilian control of the military is a
sacred duty that must be carried out responsibly.
Mr. Matthews, you have extensive experience as a judge
advocate in the U.S. Army and the Army National Guard, and I
expect you to always exercise independent professional
judgment, and to give your best legal counsel to the Secretary
of Defense even if, or especially, if that advice is not what
they would want to hear. I would like to know how you'll plan
to demonstrate this ethos and represent all servicemembers with
the professionalism they deserve.
Finally, Mr. Marks, you have been nominated to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment. If confirmed, you'll oversee the defense
Department's physical footprint, provide management of military
installations worldwide, and coordinate environmental safety
and occupational health programs.
Your extensive background in the U.S. Air Force, managing
infrastructure, testing, logistics, and other issues should
serve you very well. There are a number of significant
challenges you'll need to address. In particular, military
construction has been underfunded for many years, forcing
servicemembers and defense civilians to manage their missions
with inadequate infrastructure. Similarly, enlisted barracks in
the military housing privatization initiative require greater
oversight to meet the standards that our servicemembers and
military families deserve. These are issues that this Committee
has addressed extensively over the years.
Further, as extreme weather and growing energy demands
impeded readiness, you'll need to pursue new ways to improve
the resilience of military installations and support
operational energy programs to extend the capabilities of our
warfighters. Mr. Marks, I welcome your thoughts on how you'll
address each of these interrelated challenges.
I thank the nominees, again, for your willingness to serve
our Nation. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Reed. I very much
appreciate that. Mr. Matthews, I see that one of my good
friends and colleagues from the House of Representatives August
Pfluger has humbled himself to come over here to the
U.S. Senate and introduce you. We very much appreciate the
effort of Representative Pfluger, and I now turn to him for
whatever remarks he may make.
STATEMENT OF HON. AUGUST PFLUGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TEXAS, 11TH DISTRICT
Representative Pfluger. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and
Ranking Member Reed, and all the distinguished Members of this
Committee for allowing me to be here today.
It truly is an honor to introduce my dear friend and former
colleague from the National Security Council staff, Earl
Matthews. Earl is President Trump's nominee to be the next
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and I
wholeheartedly believe that he is the right person at the right
time with the right skillset to fill this critical national
security role. I would urge his swift confirmation.
I've known Earl for 6 years now, and we first met when he
was the senior director for defense on the National Security
Council, and he took a chance on hiring me. Do not let that in
any way cloud your judgment on him. He is a great person. But
during this time, I've witnessed Earl's successful leadership
capabilities firsthand as he led a handpicked 11-person team of
civilian and military professionals charged with advancing the
President's defense policy agenda through the interagency.
In fact, Earl, was instrumental in establishing the U.S.
Space Force, one of the most visionary and transformative
decisions for our national security. Despite facing significant
resistance within the Pentagon Bureaucracy, Earl led the charge
on behalf of President Trump to make this vision a reality.
Earl's story is one of resilience, one of dedication, and
service. Born in Philadelphia into a family with a proud
generational tradition of military service, he faced adversity
early in life when he lost his mother shortly after his birth.
He was raised by his maternal aunt, Marietta, a retired
Pennsylvania government employee, whose guidance and support
undoubtedly shaped the man he is today.
She is here today alongside her husband and so many of
Earl's family members and friends and they're that they are
here to show their unwavering support. They're directly behind
us. I can't think of a more proud and affirming statement than
to have your own family and your own friends at a confirmation
hearing of this importance.
I can say without a reservation that there is no one more
qualified or more deserving to serve as General Counsel of the
Department of Defense than Earl Matthews, who has served with
character, with integrity, and with dedication that is
worthwhile of our great national security enterprise and of the
Department of Defense.
Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for allowing me to
introduce my good friend, someone who is incredibly qualified
to fill this position. I yield back.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Representative Pfluger. We very
much appreciate it, and thank you for pointing out the friends
and family members who are present. We welcome them and hope
that they enjoy the hearing. So, Representative Pfluger, you
are free to go. You're welcome to stay, but I know you're very,
very busy. We do appreciate your input.
I now turn to my distinguished colleague, Senator Scott,
who I understand will be saying some words of support for Mr.
Marks. Senator Scott, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICK SCOTT
Senator Scott. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and
Members of this Committee. It's a great honor to introduce Mr.
Dale Marks to be the next Assistant Secretary of Defense for
energy installation environment. I'll also like to recognize
his wife Patty and his son Tony, who are here to support Mr.
Marks.
This role is crucial in ensuring the readiness of our
military installations success of our energy policies, and the
resilience of our services. In Mr. Marks, President Trump chose
a leader who could deliver for Americans and for the men,
women, and families of our Armed Forces.
Mr. Marks is a former fighter pilot and a combat wounded
veteran. After his distinguished military career, he continued
his service in a civilian capacity where he rose to the ranks
of the senior executive service. He's currently serving as the
executive director of the 96-Test Wing Air Force Material
Command at Eglin Air Force Base in the great State of Florida.
In and out of uniform, Dale has demonstrated his ability to
build teams, promote accountability, and make decisions,
prioritizing long-term success. The issues that the Department
of Defense face are not just military challenges, they're
leadership and oversight issues. This position is essential to
ensuring that our military installations remain strong, our
energy policies support mission success and our environmental
strategies enhance, not hinder operational readiness and
support peace through strength. At a time when global energy
security and resilient infrastructure are paramount, we need a
leader who understands both the strategic and operational
challenges facing our military and the implications of high-
level decisions to the folks on the ground. Mr. Mark's
professional record, broad expertise, deep experience, and
proven commitment to our Nation, make him exceptionally well
qualified for this position. Working with President Trump, the
Secretary of Defense, and the entire administration, he will
keep our forces ready and prepared to protect and serve.
I urge this committee to fully consider and support his
nomination, and look forward to his testimony today.
Congratulations.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very, very much, Senator. We,
appreciate it. Now we will hear opening statements by each of
our nominees, and without objection, we will take them in the
order of Mr. Williams, then Mr. Hansell, then Mr. Matthews, and
finally, Mr. Marks. Mr. Williams, you'll recognized for your
opening statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRANDON M. WILLIAMS TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
ENERGY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY
Mr. Williams. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, thank
you for inviting me to be considered by this Committee for this
important position. Also, thank you, Senator Fischer. I know
that the mission of the NNSA is near and dear to your heart as
well as you Senator King. Thank you, all of the distinguished
Members of this critically important Committee. It's truly an
honor to appear to appear before you today.
I'd like to offer my appreciation to President Trump for
nominating me. I'm honored and grateful to be considered, and
if confirmed, I will work diligently to strengthen the
capability, credibility, and communication of our strategic
deterrence. I share the President's commitment to peace through
strength and look forward to serving on our energy Secretary
Chris Wright's leadership.
I would like to recognize my family who could attend
today's hearing. First, my beloved wife, Stephanie of 32 years
as a Navy Ensign. I asked her father an Army colonel with three
bronze stars and two Vietnam combat tours, if I could have his
daughter's hand in marriage. Stephanie has outranked me ever
since.
As a child, she lived in Germany during her father's
battalion command, which protected the most critical territory
in Europe, the Fulda Gap. Stephanie experienced firsthand the
Soviet threat and the specter of nuclear war. I can say that we
both have a visceral understanding of the importance of
strategic deterrence. I'm pleased also that my son Marshall,
our son Marshall, could be present today.
At the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Nuclear
Security Administration has functioned in relative obscurity
for many decades but has recently been thrust back into the
public consciousness. In my estimation, the men and women of
the NNSA comprise one of the greatest scientific and
engineering organizations in human history. They are
exceptional machinists, technicians, marksmen, logisticians,
engineers, computer and data scientists, physicists, and
weapons designers.
This workforce, since the Manhattan Project, continues to
ensure the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of
our nuclear stockpile. If given the opportunity to lead this
extraordinary organization, I will do so humbly, in the shadow
of great Americans like Admiral Rickover, Ernest Lawrence, and
Robert Oppenheimer.
I have watched many hours of questioning and testimony from
this Committee, and I know that you're aware the hour is late
and the need is urgent to restore our nuclear weapons
enterprise. During your hearings, I've repeatedly heard the
concerns of our military commanders, of our strategic forces.
This Committee has provided critical bipartisan leadership and
keen foresight to respond to the growing threat from China,
Russia, and others.
You have set in motion the necessary modernization efforts.
Respect is also due to my colleagues and my friends in the
House of Representatives. As a Member of Congress, I served as
the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee for the Science Space
and Technology Committee, where I had oversight over our
prestigious DOE National Labs and was privileged to visit many
of them.
Independent of my committee obligations, I actively sought
briefings from NNSA leadership and staff on the challenges and
needs of maintaining and strengthening our strategic deterrence
posture. I am aware of the many historic challenges that NNSA
now faces. Again, it's with humility that I ask to be entrusted
with this important mission.
I am deeply committed to America's strategic deterrence. In
May, 1989, I witnessed firsthand the student protests in
Tiananmen Square, and later that fall, enrolled in an
introductory class on strategic deterrence and soon volunteered
for nuclear submarine duty. During my nearly 6 years of Navy
Service, I made six strategic deterrence patrols in the
Pacific, aboard the ballistic missile submarine, USS Georgia.
On board, I served as the strategic missile officer, nuclear
weapons safety officer, nuclear weapons security officer, and
nuclear weapons radiological controls officer. I was
responsible for the launch codes on Georgia, and for thousands
of hours, I supervised the submarine's nuclear reactor and
engine room operations.
I then completed a master's degree at the Wharton School in
Operations and Finance, and later co-founded a software company
dedicated to modernizing industrial manufacturing. My mission,
if confirmed by this esteemed body, is to accelerate the
restoration of our nuclear weapons enterprise, rebuild trust
with Congress, and within NNSA's customers, the Department of
Defense, STRATCOM, the Department of State and others, and
prioritize strengthening the relationships with our nuclear
assurance partners overseas.
The U.S. Department of Energy and NNSA will continue to
meet the strategic defense mission of this Nation and of our
allies as the world grows more perilous through nuclear
proliferation. If confirmed, I will work to keep nuclear
materials out of the hands of bad actors and to protect
Americans at Home from nuclear terrorism.
I am truly humbled to be considered, and look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of The Honorable Brandon M.
Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement by The Honorable Brandon M. Williams
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, thank you for inviting me to
be considered by this committee for this important position. Also,
thank you, Senator Fischer--I know that the mission of the NNSA is near
and dear to your heart. And thank you to all of the distinguished
Members of this critically important Committee; it is truly an honor to
appear before you today.
I would like to offer my appreciation to President Trump for
nominating me. I am honored and grateful to be considered, and if
confirmed, I will work diligently to strengthen the capability,
credibility, and communication of our strategic deterrence. I share the
President's commitment to peace through strength and look forward to
serving under Energy Secretary Wright's leadership.
I would like to recognize my family who could attend today's
hearing. First is my beloved wife, Stephanie, of 32 years. As a Navy
Ensign, I asked her father--an Army Colonel with three Bronze Stars and
two Vietnam combat tours--if I could have his daughter's hand in
marriage. Stephanie has outranked me ever since. As a child, she lived
in Germany during her father's battalion command which protected the
most critical territory in Europe--the Fulda Gap. Stephanie experienced
firsthand the Soviet threat and the specter of nuclear war. We both
have a visceral understanding of the importance of strategic
deterrence.
I am pleased that our son, Marshall, could also be present today.
At the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security
Administration has functioned in relative obscurity for many decades
but has recently been thrust back into the public consciousness. In my
estimation, the men and women of the NNSA comprise one of the greatest
scientific and engineering organizations in human history. They are
exceptional machinists, technicians, marksmen, logisticians, engineers,
computer and data scientists, physicists, and weapons designers. This
workforce, since the Manhattan Project, continues to ensure the safety,
security, reliability, and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. If
given the opportunity to lead this extraordinary organization, I will
do so humbly, in the shadow of great Americans like Admiral Rickover,
Ernest Lawrence, and Robert Oppenheimer.
I have watched many hours of questioning and testimony from this
committee, and I know that you are aware that the hour is late and the
need is urgent to restore our nuclear weapons enterprise. During your
hearings, I have repeatedly heard the concerns of the military
commanders of our strategic forces. This committee has provided
critical bipartisan leadership and keen foresight to respond to the
growing threat from China, Russia, and others. You have set in motion
the necessary modernization efforts. Respect is also due to your
colleagues and my friends in the House of Representatives.
As a Member of Congress, I served as the Chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, where I
had oversight over our prestigious DoE National Labs and was privileged
to visit many of them. Independent of my committee obligations, I
actively sought briefings from NNSA leadership and staff on the
challenges and needs of maintaining and strengthening our strategic
deterrence posture. I am aware of the many historic challenges that
NNSA now faces. Again, it is with humility that I ask to be entrusted
with this important mission.
I am deeply committed to America's strategic deterrence. In May
1989, I witnessed firsthand the student protests in Tiananmen Square
and, later that fall, enrolled in an introductory class on Strategic
Deterrence and soon volunteered for nuclear submarine duty. During my
nearly 6 years of Navy service, I made six strategic deterrence patrols
in the Pacific aboard the ballistic missile submarine USS Georgia. On
board, I served as the strategic missile officer, nuclear weapons
safety officer, nuclear weapons security officer, and nuclear weapons
radiological controls officer. I was responsible for the launch codes
on Georgia and, for thousands of hours, supervised the submarine's
nuclear reactor and engine room operations.
I then completed a Master's degree at the Wharton School in
Operations and Finance and later co-founded a software company
dedicated to modernizing industrial manufacturing.
My mission, if confirmed by this esteemed body, is to accelerate
the restoration of our nuclear weapons enterprise, rebuild trust with
Congress and with NNSA's customers--the Department of Defense,
STRATCOM, the Department of State, and others--and prioritize
strengthening the relationships with our nuclear assurance partners
overseas. The U.S. Department of Energy and NNSA will continue to meet
the strategic defense mission of this Nation and our allies.
As the world grows more perilous through nuclear proliferation, if
confirmed, I will work to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of
bad actors and to protect Americans at home from nuclear terrorism.
I am truly humbled by this consideration and look forward to
answering your questions.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very, very much, Representative
Williams. Mr. Hansell.
STATEMENT OF MR. BRADLEY D. HANSELL TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Mr. Hansell. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and
distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and for your
consideration of my nomination to be the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence and Security.
I would like to thank President Trump, and Secretary
Hegseth, for the trust and confidence they have placed in me.
Nearly 5 years ago, I was honored by this Committee's
strong bipartisan support for my nomination to be the Deputy
Under Secretary. While the full Senate was not able to hold a
floor vote before the election, I'm here today to earn your
broad support for my nomination as the Under Secretary.
My first inspiration to serve this country started with
those in my family who served before me. For three generations,
my family has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. I
will always recall my grandfather's pride when speaking about
his service as a young sailor in the Pacific. Both of his sons
became Naval officers, and both of my brothers, here today,
currently serve. Michael is a civilian with the Navy, and my
brother Brian, currently commands in the Marine Corps F-35
Squadron.
My commitment and passion for service deepened with my own
as both a Naval officer and an Army Special Forces officer. One
of the most powerful driving factors of my life came from the
privilege of commanding soldiers in combat. I felt there
existed a social contract that some of the most impressive men
and women of our country would do what is asked when it's asked
with incredible risk to their own lives. In return, their
leaders hold the secret responsibility to do everything in
their power to ensure, when necessary, it's the right decision
and every possible advantage is afforded to them.
My role to fulfill this responsibility in uniform ended
after being wounded in Afghanistan. I am beyond grateful for
the opportunity, if confirmed, to work tirelessly in support of
that same contract and with it, the warfighter.
I would like to thank my truly exceptional wife, who's with
me today, who impresses me every day in her own right for her
willingness to sacrifice in support of this cause. As well as
Connor, our 1-year-old son, who we hope someday gets to feel
the joy of serving a cause greater than himself.
I believe the combination of experiences in my career have
made me uniquely qualified to drive meaningful impact in this
role. My deep understanding of intelligence ranges from the
tactical to strategic level. As a Green Beret, my team
conducted the entire intelligence cycle to include the
development and utilization of intelligence sources, which I
then relied on when planning and leading combat missions. I
know the value of getting it right, and the human price of
getting it wrong.
As a senior director on the NSC staff, I leveraged
intelligence in the formulation of policy, and led efforts in
my portfolio to address the responsiveness of the IC
[Intelligence Community] and foundational coordination
challenges between IC components. In the private sector I
leveraged my leadership and business operations expertise to
advise companies on improving performance. As a leader in the
BCG's [Boston Consulting Group] public sector practice. I also
had the opportunity to apply industry best practices to the
very unique government domain, as we partnered with leaders in
both the DOD and the IC to address their challenges.
Effective management of the Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise is essential, and we must align efforts to
maximize effects down range and return on our investment. This
includes ensuring we have the right technology and
organizational structure to enable our personnel--some of
America's best--to increase their impact in today's operational
environment, and to position the enterprise for the rapidly
changing landscape of the future.
We must better enable intelligence to inform Department
investments, effectively matching capabilities with threats.
With program costs incredibly high--and the cost of
misallocation on the modern battlefield even higher--the
premium on intelligence effectively informing the entire
acquisition lifecycle is at an all-time high.
Last, we must ensure the Department has all the tools
required to most effectively compete along the full continuum
of conflict. Our adversaries are increasingly conducting malign
activity below a threshold that has traditionally triggered a
military response. Enhancing our Irregular Warfare capabilities
will allow us to provide risk-informed options to better
compete short of armed conflict and re-establish deterrence in
line with the Secretary's priority. I believe offensive cyber
capabilities and an increased focus on Defense HUMINT [human
intelligence] are areas for opportunity. Finally, offensive
counterintelligence efforts are essential and imposing a cost
on our adversaries.
If confirmed, I look forward to implementing these efforts,
and serving the amazing men and women of the enterprise to
support the Secretary's priorities. In closing, I'm deeply
committed to working with this Committee and with Congress to
provide information needed to carry out oversight
responsibilities.
Thank you for your time today and consideration of my
nomination. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley D. Hansell follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mr. Bradley D. Hansell
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished Members of
this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and for your consideration of my nomination to be the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security.
I would like to thank President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for the
trust and confidence they have placed in me.
Nearly 5 years ago, I was honored by the Committee's strong
bipartisan support for my nomination to be the Deputy Under Secretary.
While the full Senate was not able to hold a floor vote before the
election, I am here today to earn your broad support for my nomination
as the Under Secretary.
My first inspiration to serve this country started with those in my
family who served before me. For three generations, my family has sworn
to protect and defend the Constitution. I will always recall my
grandfather's pride when speaking about his service as a young sailor
in the Pacific. Both of his sons became Naval Officers and both of my
brothers, here today, currently serve. Michael is a civilian with the
Navy; and Brian is currently commanding a Marine Corps F-35 squadron.
My commitment and passion for service deepened with my own, as both
a Naval Officer and an Army Special Forces Officer. One of the most
powerful driving factors of my life came from the privilege of
commanding soldiers in combat. I felt there existed a social contract,
that some of the most impressive and brave men and women of our country
would do what is asked, when it's asked, with incredible risk to their
own lives. In return, their leaders hold a sacred responsibility to do
everything in their power to ensure, when necessary, it's the right
decision and every possible advantage is provided to them.
My role to fulfill this responsibility in uniform ended after being
wounded in Afghanistan. I am beyond grateful for the opportunity, if
confirmed, to work tirelessly in support of that same contract, and
with it the warfighter.
I would like to thank my truly exceptional wife, who impresses me
every day in her own right, for her willingness to sacrifice in support
of this cause. As well as Connor, our 1-year-old son, who we hope
someday gets to feel the joy of serving a cause greater than himself.
I believe the combination of experiences in my career has made me
uniquely qualified to drive meaningful impact in this role. My deep
understanding of intelligence ranges from the tactical to strategic
level. As a Green Beret, my team conducted the entire intelligence
cycle, to include the development and utilization of intelligence
sources, which I then relied on when planning and leading combat
missions. I know the value of getting it right and the human cost of
getting it wrong. As a Senior Director on the NSC staff, I leveraged
intelligence in the formulation of policy and led efforts in my
portfolio to address the responsiveness of the IC and foundational
coordination challenges between IC components. In the private sector, I
leveraged my leadership and business operations expertise to advise
companies on improving performance. As a leader in Boston Consulting
Group's public sector practice, I also had the opportunity to apply
industry best practices to the unique government domain, as we
partnered with leaders in both the DOD and IC to address their
challenges.
Effective management of the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise is essential, and we must align efforts to maximize effects
downrange and the return on our investment. This includes ensuring we
have the right technology and organizational structure to enable our
personnel--some of America's best--to increase their impact in today's
operational environment, and to position the enterprise for the rapidly
changing landscape of the future.
We must better enable intelligence to inform Department
investments, effectively matching capabilities with threats. With
program costs incredibly high--and the cost of misallocation on the
modern battlefield even higher--the premium on intelligence effectively
informing the entire acquisition life cycle is at an all-time high.
Last, we must ensure the Department has all the tools required to
most effectively compete along the full continuum of conflict. Our
adversaries are increasingly conducting malign activity below a
threshold that has traditionally triggered a military response.
Enhancing our Irregular Warfare capabilities will allow us to provide
risk-informed options to better compete short of armed conflict and re-
establish deterrence. I believe offensive cyber capabilities and an
increased focus on Defense HUMINT are areas for opportunity. Finally,
offensive counterintelligence efforts are essential in imposing a cost
on our adversaries.
If confirmed, I look forward to implementing these efforts and
serving the amazing men and women of the enterprise in support of the
Secretary's priorities.
In closing, I am committed to working closely with this Committee
and with Congress to provide the information needed to carry out
oversight responsibilities.
Thank you for your time today, and consideration of my nomination.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Hansell. Thank
you for your service, and as a matter of fact, you were
severely injured in combat in Afghanistan, and it's somewhat of
a miracle that you're here. We commend you for your service,
and we are we commend those caregivers, and medical personnel
that helped you recover. So, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Matthews, you are next, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. EARL G. MATTHEWS TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Matthews. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, good morning. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to serve as the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense. It is a high honor and distinct
privilege to be considered for this role.
I'm sincerely grateful for the kind introductory remarks of
my dear friend, Congressman August Pfluger. I'm also deeply
appreciative of the many friends and family members present
today, in support of my nomination. I do want to recognize my
wife, Tyra, whose love and support is instrumental to me being
here today. I also must give special recognition to my aunt,
Marietta Matthews Alston, my mother's sister, who raised me as
her own child, upon my mother's death when I was less than 1
month old.
I'm deeply grateful to President Trump for the special
trust and confidence he has reposed in me by my nomination. I'm
also thankful to the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, for
his continued support and trust. If confirmed by the Senate, my
lodestar will be to ensure that the military and policy
objectives of the President and the Secretary of Defense are
achieved in a manner consistent with the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
My commitment to you, if confirmed, is that the DOD
enterprise writ large will receive timely and accurate legal
advice and counsel to ensure that all activities and operations
of the Department are conducted in accordance with applicable
law, including the Law of Armed Conflict relative to the
conduct of combat operations.
My commitment to the role for which I have been nominated
is undergirded by my family's long lineage of service to the
United States. Our legacy of military service dates back to the
Civil War. At least one member of my family has served on
Active Duty in uniform during every conflict in which our
country has participated from World War I through the recent
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,
I am named after my maternal grandfather, who was a soldier
in the United States Army. All three of my maternal uncles
served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Both of my
mother's older brothers served in combat during the Vietnam
War. One, my uncle, Norman Matthews, a retired career non-
commissioned officer in our United States Air Force is with us
here today. I spent my summers visiting my Uncle Norman at
various military installations across the United States and
gained an appreciation for military life.
As a boy, however, the male role model most present in my
life and the person who most shaped and influenced the person
that I am today was my uncle, Russell B. Matthews. My uncle
Russ was an 0311 marine who graduated from recruit training at
Paris Island as an 18-year-old in 1966, who served a combat
tour in the Republic of Vietnam.
After his 4 years in the Marine Corps, he returned home to
Philadelphia and spent a full career as an employee of the
United States Postal Service. He instilled in his eldest nephew
a love of books and a love of country. My two uncles and other
combat veterans in my inner city Philadelphia neighborhood
inspired me to want to serve our country as they did. I applied
for a Reserve commission in the Army JAG Corps in 1998 when I
was a third-year student at the Harvard Law School.
I joined our army because I believe in this fundamental
mission to fight and win the Nation's wars. I have been a
member of both the profession of arms and the profession of law
for over 25 years. I spent over four of those years deployed to
combat or hazardous duty zones as a member of the 22d Civil
Affairs Battalion attached to the 3d Infantry Division
(Mechanized).
I crossed the berm from Kuwait into Iraq in March 2003 and
was one of the first Army lawyers to reach Baghdad on April 8th
of that year, 22 years ago today. I spent my first tour in Iraq
working under the Coalition Provisional Authority to rebuild
the Iraqi Judiciary post-Saddam, and I served as a legal
advisor at a detention facility in Baghdad, where I saw Iraqi
and third-country national detainees being treated with
humanity, dignity, and respect as required by the Law of Armed
Conflict, and that is the standard for our forces.
I routinely interacted with the International Committee of
the Red Cross during my time in Baghdad. My first tour in Iraq
enhanced my understanding of the critical role played by DOD
lawyers and expanding and sustaining the rule of law. I remain
firmly and deeply committed to the rule of law.
I have been privileged to serve as a judge advocate during
operational deployments to Bosnia, twice to Iraq, to
Afghanistan, and to the Horn of Africa. Additionally, I have
served a civilian tour in Afghanistan as an intelligence
officer, working closely with interagency partners in support
of the joint warfighter.
I have completed additional assignments as a military
lawyer in both the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG)
of the Army, in the office of the legal counsel to the Chairman
of the Joint Chief of Staff. In the civilian capacity. I have
served as a career DOD attorney at the Defense Intelligence
Agency and as a senior political appointee in my role as
Principal Deputy General Counsel and acting General Counsel of
the Department of the Army, the largest component within DOD.
In my previous roles, I have been privileged to work with
the consummate legal professionals of the Office of General
Counsel of the Department of Defense, and to have collaborate
later collaborated with that office on numerous legal issues. I
have interacted professionally with nearly every person who has
served as DOD General Counsel or acting General Counsel over
the last 22 years. I revere the office and hold its mission
sacrosanct.
If confirmed, it'll be my honor as a temporary custodian to
preserve an advance the DOD OGC mission in support of our
Constitution and laws, in support of the men and women of the
Department, both military and civilian of their families, and
of the American people that Department of Defense exist to
protect.
If confirmed, I'm also committed to working with this
Committee and its staff to ensure that the Congress is fully
and currently informed of the activities, initiatives, and
operations of the Department of Defense.
Thank you again for allowing me to be here today. I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Earl G. Matthews follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mr. Earl G. Matthews
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished Members of the
Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today as President Trump's nominee to serve as the General Counsel
of the Department of Defense. It is a high honor and distinct privilege
to be considered for this role. I'm sincerely grateful for the kind
introduction by my dear friend and former teammate on the National
Security Council staff, Congressman August `Pfoto' Pfluger I have too
many friends present today in support of my nomination to acknowledge
everyone by name, however, you know who you are and I deeply
appreciative of each of you for being here. I do want to recognize my
wife Tyra, without whose love and support I would not be here today. I
must also give special recognition to my aunt, Marietta Matthews-
Alston, my mother's sister. Aunt Marietta raised me as her own child
upon my mother's death when I was a less than 1 month old infant. I
want to recognize her husband, my dear Uncle Ken Alson, his brother my
Uncle David Alston, my uncle Norman Matthews, a Vietnam-Veteran and
retired career non-commissioned officer in the USAF, his wife my Aunt
Brenda Matthews, my aunt Paula Gilmore and her husband Leroy Handy.
I am grateful to the President for the special trust and confidence
he has reposed in me by this nomination. I am also thankful to
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for his support and trust.
I first began working for then candidate Donald J. Trump on the
pre-election Department of Defense transition team in the summer of
2016. I was then and I remain today inspired by the President's America
First, Peace through Strength national security agenda. If confirmed by
the Senate, my lodestar will be to ensure that the military and policy
objectives of the President and the Secretary of Defense are achieved
in a manner consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United
States. My commitment to you, if confirmed, is that the DOD enterprise
writ large will receive timely and accurate legal advice and counsel to
ensure that all activities and operations of the Department are
conducted in accord with the law.
My commitment to the role for which I have been nominated is
undergirded by my family's long lineage of service to the United
States. Our legacy of military service dates back to the Civil War. At
least one member of my family has served on active duty in uniform
during every conflict in which our country has participated from World
War I through the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am named
after my maternal grandfather who was a soldier in the United States
Army. All three of maternal uncles served in the Armed Forces of the
United States. Both of my mother's older brothers served in combat
during the Vietnam War. As a boy, the male role model in my life and
the person who most shaped and influenced the person I am today was my
uncle, Russell B. Matthews. Uncle Russ was an O-3-11 Marine who
graduated from Paris Island as a 18 year old in 1966 and who served a
tour in the Republic of Vietnam. After his 4 years in the Marine Corps,
he returned home to Philadelphia and spent a full career as an employee
of the U.S. Postal Service. He instilled in his oldest nephew a love of
books and a love of country. My 2 uncles and other combat veterans in
my inner city Philadelphia neighborhood inspired me to want to serve
our country as they did. My service as a military officer has been the
realization of a boyhood dream. I applied for a reserve commission in
the Army JAG Corps in 1998 when I was a third-year student at the
Harvard Law School. I joined our Army fundamentally because of
patriotism, because I believe in our Army's foundational mission, to
fight and win the Nation's wars and because, although I abhor war, I
knew that if our country ever did go to war, I wanted to be in it.
I have been a member of both the Profession of Arms and the
Profession of Law for over 25 years. As a member of a forward deployed
civil affairs battalion attached to the 3d Infantry Division
(Mechanized), I crossed the berm from Kuwait into Iraq in March 2003
and was one of the first Army lawyers to reach Baghdad during the first
week of April of that year. I spent my first tour in Iraq detailed as
an Operations Officer assigned to the Coalition Provisional Authority's
Ministry of Justice Advisory Team and as a legal adviser at a major
detention facility in Baghdad. My first tour in Iraq enhanced my
understanding of the critical role of DOD lawyers in expanding and
sustaining the rule of law. This devotion to the rule of law has not
abandoned me since. I have been privileged to serve as a uniformed
judge advocate in deployments to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iraq twice,
Afghanistan, and to the Horn of Africa. I served an additional civilian
tour in Afghanistan as an intelligence officer working closely with
interagency partners in support of the American War fighter Throughout
my military and civilian careers it has been my privilege to serve in
the company of and in direct support of American heroes. I have served
additional stateside tours a uniformed attorney in both the Office of
the Judge Advocate General of the Army and the Office of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a civilian capacity, I have served as
a career DOD civilian attorney at the Defense Intelligence Agency and
as senior political appointee in my role as Principal Deputy General
Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the Department of the Army. I
have additionally served in a non-legal policy coordination role as
Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Defense on
the NSC staff at the White House.
In all of my previous roles, it has been my good fortune to
interact with the highly skilled men and women of the Office of the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense and to have worked with
attorneys in that office closely, especially during my service on the
Joint Staff, the Army Office of General Counsel and the NSC staff.
Indeed the first actual General Counsel of the Department I met was
William J. Haynes in Baghdad in the summer of 2003. I have interacted
in at least some way with nearly every person who has served as DOD
General Counsel since. I revere the office and hold its mission
sacrosanct. If confirmed, it will be my honor to preserve and advance
that mission in support of our Constitution, in support of the men and
women of the Department, both military and civilian, their families and
the American people that the Department exists to protect. If
confirmed, I am also committed to working with this committee and its
staff to ensure the Congress is fully and informed of the activities,
initiatives and operations of the Department of Defense. Thank you
again for allowing me to be here today. I welcome your questions.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Mr. Marks.
STATEMENT OF MR. DALE R. MARKS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Marks. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and
distinguished Members of this Committee, it is an honor to be
considered for the role of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Energy, Installations, and Environment. I'm incredibly humbled
by the opportunity.
Thank you to Senator Scott for his gracious introduction,
unwavering support for the Florida Defense communities where
I've had the privilege of serving for the past 8 years. I'm
deeply grateful to President Trump for his trust and confidence
in me. I especially want to thank Secretary Hegseth for his
laser-focused efforts on behalf of our warfighters.
Three factors motivate me to serve this Nation and its men
and women in uniform. The first is my faith and trust in
Almighty God and the provision of his endless grace in my life.
All glory is his. The second is my family, starting with my
beautiful wife, Patty, who has stood by my side through far
more than anyone should ever ask. My son, Tony, also here
today, who inspires me with his creativity and perseverance
daily. Then my three other children who could not be here
today; Michelle, Kristen, and Robert, and their amazing
spouses. I am continually impressed by the servant leaders they
have become, and then of course, I must mention the blessings
of four grandchildren. I also want to thank my many friends and
colleagues who have helped me in my journey to this moment.
The third factor is a deep and abiding love for our great
Nation. I've spent more than half my life serving our country,
with almost a third of that deployed in combat to some far-off
land, even as the civilian in support of our national defense.
I've had the immense privilege of serving tours at the
Pentagon, combating commands, major commands, and sub commands,
and as I do today, leading at the installation level, I've also
served alongside all our service partners and numerous allies
to defend our Nation.
It is a privilege to be asked to continue to serve in this
capacity. The Department of Defense under President Trump is
committed to achieving peace through strength. This is our
solemn mission. The strength and lethality of our military is
built not only on the weapon systems that defend us, but also
on the readiness of our servicemembers and their families to
accomplish this mission.
To that end, it confirmed, three fundamental principles
will guide me. I'm a fighter pilot. I have to keep it simple.
The first is to protect the mission. The second is to take care
of our people, and the third is to partner for success.
Protecting the mission means addressing a wide range of
emerging threats to the Homeland and our energy supply. We
cannot reliably provide the energy and fuel emission requires
and expect to modernize our facilities as well. If we continue
to do things the same way we always have.
Holding the status quo got us to where we are today. So,
it's going to take a new mindset and a new collective approach
to see different results. Many people believe change is hard,
and I would submit change is hard because resistance to change
is too easy. We must tackle these incredibly difficult
challenges to mission assurance with expanded opportunities to
enhance our readiness and resilience while faithfully
stewarding the natural resources entrusted to us.
The second is taking care of our people. This is more than
just quality life. This, to me, is a readiness issue. I know
firsthand that our warfighters cannot deliver 100 percent of
their effort to the mission if they're required to deal with
safety and health challenges in their homes. They cannot wonder
if the buildings they work in have functioning plumbing or that
the cyber-systems and electricity are going to fail. I'm
committed to fixing these things now to ensure our critical
installation assets globally serve as a force enabler,
providing a distinct advantage to our warfighters over our
adversaries.
Third is partnering for success. The DOD exists in over 800
locations around the globe. This means we need to be good
community partners. Working with both our civic and business
leaders to improve the resilience of our military installations
inside and outside the fence line. These partnerships promote
the value of military installations and strengthen communities
and states through collaborative planning and implementation in
support of America's military.
I commit that, if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to
apply these principles to prioritize limited resources to
enhance the warfighting capacity and lethality that will deter
and if called upon defeat our adversaries. Finally, if
confirmed, I will work with this Committee and this Congress to
provide our Armed Forces with the capabilities needed to defend
and protect our homeland.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dale R. Marks follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mr. Dale R. Marks
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished members of
this Committee, it is an honor to be considered for the role of
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment.
I am incredibly humbled by this opportunity. Thank you, Senator
Scott, for your gracious introduction and unwavering support for the
Florida defense communities where I have had the privilege of serving
for more than 8 years.
I am deeply grateful to President Trump for his trust and con.dence
in me. I especially want to thank Secretary Hegseth for his laser-
focused efforts on behalf of our war.ghters.
Three factors motivate me to serve this Nation and its men and
women in uniform. The .rst is my faith and trust in Almighty God and
the provision of His endless grace in my life. All glory is His.
The second is my family, starting with my beautiful wife, Patty,
who has stood by my side through more than anyone should ever ask; my
son Tony, also here today, who inspires me with his creativity and
perseverance daily; and then my three other children who could not be
here today: Michele, Kristen, Robert and their amazing spouses. I am
continually impressed by the servant-leaders they have become. And
then, of course, I must mention the blessing of four beautiful
grandchildren.
The third factor is a deep and abiding love for our great nation. I
have spent more than half my life serving our country, with almost a
third of that deployed in combat to some far-off land, even as a
civilian, in support of our National Defense. I have had the immense
privilege of serving tours at the Pentagon, Combatant Commands, Major
Commands, and sub-commands, and as I do today, leading at the
installation level. I have also served alongside all our Service
partners and numerous allies to defend our Nation.
The Department of Defense, under President Trump, is committed to
achieving Peace Through Strength. This is our solemn mission. The
strength and lethality of our military is built not only on the weapon
systems that defend us but also on the readiness of our servicemembers,
and their families, to accomplish this mission.
To that end, and if confirmed, three fundamental principles will
guide me--I'm a fighter pilot so I have to keep it simple. The first is
to take care of our people, the second is to protect the mission, and
the third is to partner for success.
Taking care of our people is more than just quality of life--this,
to me, is a readiness issue. I know firsthand that our warfighters
cannot deliver 100 percent of their effort to the mission if they are
required to deal with safety and health challenges in their homes. They
cannot wonder if the buildings they work in have functioning plumbing
or if the cyber-systems and electricity are going to fail. I am
committed to fixing these kinds of issues now to ensure our critical
installation assets globally serve as a force enabler, providing a
distinct advantage to our warfighters over our adversaries.
The second is protecting the mission. This means addressing a wide
range of emerging threats to the Homeland and our energy supply. We
cannot reliably provide the energy and fuel the mission requires, and
expect to modernize our facilities as well, if we continue to do things
the same way we always have. Holding to status quo got us to where we
are today, so it is going to take a new mindset and a new collective
approach to see different results. Many people believe change is hard.
I would submit change is hard because resistance to change is far too
easy. We must tackle these incredibly difficult challenges to mission
assurance with expanded opportunities to enhance our readiness and
resilience, while faithfully stewarding the natural resources entrusted
to us.
Third is partnering for success. The DOD exists in over 800
locations around the globe. This means we need to be be good community
partners, working with both our civic and business leaders to improve
the resilience of our military installations inside and outside the
fence line. These partnerships promote the value of military
installations and strengthen communities and states through
collaborative planning and implementation in support of America's
military.
I commit that if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to apply these
principles to prioritize limited resources to enhance the warfighting
capacity and lethality that will deter and, if called upon, defeat our
adversaries.
Finally, if confirmed, I will work with this Committee and this
Congress to provide our armed forces with the capabilities needed to
defend and protect our Homeland. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you to all of our witnesses for
their opening statements, and again, we very much thank the
family, and friends who have come to give you support.
We now must ask all of you a series of standard questions,
this Committee poses to all civilian nominees. So, if you would
all turn on your speakers and just answer together verbally.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Wicker. Have you assumed any duties or taken any
actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
[Witnesses answer in the negative.]
Chairman Wicker. Exercising our legislative and oversight
responsibilities 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 for this Committee
when requested?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Wicker. Do you agree to provide records,
documents, and electronic communications in a timely manner
when requested by this Committee, its subcommittees, or other
appropriate committees of Congress, and to consult with the
requester regarding the basis for any good faith delay or
denial in providing such records?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Wicker. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with the deadlines established by this Committee for the
production of reports, records, and other information,
including timely responding to hearing questions for the
record?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Wicker. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Wicker. Finally, will those witnesses and briefers
be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
Chairman Wicker. All right. That concludes those questions,
and I would note for the record, satisfactory answers on the
part of all four of our witnesses.
Okay. I got 5 minutes. Let's see how well I can do here.
Mr. Marks you mentioned facilities. Thank you for doing that. I
assume you noticed that I stressed the 4 percent requirement
contained in the most recent NDAA, and that I mentioned it
actually twice. Did you notice that?
Mr. Marks. I did sir.
Chairman Wicker. Do you think there's a reason that I read
that twice?
Mr. Marks. Senator, it's vitally important, and I
appreciate the conversation we had in your office as well.
Chairman Wicker. Okay. Well, if you're confirmed, and I'm
sure you will be, will you make sure, and will you commit to
this Committee that you're going to follow that requirement and
actually tend to this?
Mr. Marks. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Wicker. I very much appreciate that.
Now, let's see. Mr. Hansell, let's talk about economic
warfare and irregular warfare. You might tell us what your view
is of exactly what that is. But I assume you believe that we
have a lot more to do in on this issue with regard to our
pacing challenge that the Chinese--but do believe it's time for
one person to have the coordinating responsibility for all of
this economic warfare and irregular warfare?
Mr. Hansell. Senator, I appreciate the question. It's a
rather large one. I certainly acknowledge that economic
security is national security, but relevant to my portfolio.
What I think you're referencing is the aggressive malign
activity, short of armed conflict, that China is conducting. Is
the reason of why I've outlined in my opening statement, one of
my priorities of providing the Secretary more risk-informed
options to compete along the full continuum of conflict. That
would certainly entail an increased focus on irregular warfare.
As to the structure, I'm not yet in the Department and
can't speak authoritatively about the best structure, but I can
tell you from my Government experience and the threat that the
Chinese activity is incredibly adept at exposing the seams in
our Government structure. I think we need very aggressive
integrated coordination in order to best leverage our
capabilities. I think that, certainly, economic warfare, that
would be an interagency whole-of-government approach.
But within DOD itself, I do believe that, if confirmed, my
office would be--I would advocate for my office to have a
leadership role in such coordination.
Chairman Wicker. Very good.
I'm glad you'll look at that, and you, of course, you
cannot assume what you'll find when you get in there. But let
me just observe that the DOD has more than a dozen players in
this space. I would hope that perhaps your shop could take a
lead role in coordinating all the activities among more than a
dozen organizations.
Now, Representative Williams, you've got one thing to
concentrate on, and that is modernizing our U.S. nuclear weapon
stockpile. Working with Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member
King in making this the largest civil works project in the
history of our Government work.
I hope you will stay away from ill-advised attempts to
undermine the autonomy of the NNSA. Can I have your personal
assurance that you'll focus on modernizing the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile, and oppose any moves to undermine the
independence of NNSA, or distract from its core mission, which
I just outlined?
Mr. Williams. Chairman Wicker, thank you for the question.
Yes, I will certainly endeavor, should I be confirmed, to
produce the weapons of our strategic deterrence. I'm deeply
committed to that. I've been a customer of those and care
deeply about that mission.
Since the Atomic Energy Commission, going back to the
beginning, right after the Manhattan Project, civilian control
and independence of our nuclear weapons enterprise has been
essential. I think it's a part of American beliefs that there
should be that separation. I will endeavor, should I be
confirmed, to keep that independent.
Chairman Wicker. That's helpful.
Let me take a bit of liberty here. Mr. Matthews, there's
been a problem in the past with DOD OGC, and I certainly hope
you're going to help us rectify this. We make requests, we get
responses very late from various components of the Department,
unnecessary redactions of sentences, long passages in documents
that we receive.
If confirmed, how would you use your role as General
Counsel to ensure that the DOD responds to this Committee, as
you now promised to do, in full, transparent, and timely
manner, and avoid this practice of incomplete, late, and
redacted responses?
Mr. Matthews. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I
can say that, if confirmed, I'm going to return your phone
calls, Mr. Chairman, and those of Ranking Member Reed, or any
Member of this Committee. I view the Congress of the United
States as the Board of Directors for the Department of Defense,
and I consider it my responsibility, if confirmed, to be
responsive.
Chairman Wicker. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. You know,
we can have a hearing Senator Reed down in the classified SCIF,
if we need to, but once we get down there the redactions need
to be lifted. So, I'll leave it at that, and I thank my
colleagues for indulging me.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams you will be the senior lawyer in the
Department of Defense. Secretary Hegseth has made it very clear
in multiple ways that he has not much respect for lawyers.
Among his first actions, he dismissed the JAGs for the Army,
Navy, and Air Force. These officers are absolutely critical to
guide the Department, particularly in complying with the Law of
Armed Conflict and ensuring that the military shares
restrictions and rules including that would touch upon any type
of domestic deployment.
Mr. Matthews, do you commit to following the rule of law
and the Constitution even if you the Secretary disagrees?
Mr. Matthews. Unreservedly, sir? Yes, I do.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Do you commit to always exercising your professional legal
judgment free of political influence?
Mr. Matthews. I do, Senator
Senator Reed. Federal law states clearly that no DOD
employee may interfere with the provision of independent advice
by TJAGs to military service leadership and by JAG officer to
commanders. Do you commit to fostering and continuing and
protecting this independence?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, Senator. I will always follow the law.
Senator Reed. Will you ensure that the acting IG [Inspector
General] will not be influenced or interfered with as he
conducts his duties, including the evaluation of Signalgate?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, Senator, yes, I do.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Williams you've been charged with a very challenging
assignment; leading NNSA. As I indicated in my opening remarks,
in mid-February, 177 employees were laid off, and 153 took
early retirement. Now, 150 of those, of the 177 returned, they
were called back because they realized, they couldn't function
without them. But NNSA has been chronically understaffed for
the years. Now, as I mentioned too, there they've declared that
DOE will shed 8,500 employees, and that boils down to about 500
civilians at NNSA.
How can you make the organization function when morale has
been spiraling downwards because of these personnel changes and
simply the lack of personnel?
Mr. Williams. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Reed. I have read those reports, although I have no firsthand
direct knowledge of any of those decisions within the
Department of Energy or within NNSA. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, the men and women of NNSA are an exceptional
organization, I think, actually in human history. They will be
essential to accomplish the scope of the task that's been
outlined by this Committee the resources that have been
entrusted over the last decade of a, of a real rebuilding of
it. I can assure you that I will advocate for the men and women
of NNSA that we can accomplish that mission together.
Senator Reed. Well, I hope you do, because if you lose 500
personnel, you'll be sitting up at night not just worrying, but
also watching our weapons.
Mr. Hansell, you as the USDIS are responsible for carrying
out section 714 of title 10, which authorizes the Secretary of
Defense to provide protection and personal security in the
United States to designated individuals who are under a serious
and credible threat to their safety.
The most recent annual threat assessment of the U.S.
Intelligence Community (IC) in March of this year stated Iran
seeks to target former and current U.S. officials it believes
were involved in the killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard,
Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani in January, 2020, and
previously has tried to conduct lethal operations in the United
States.
There are two former Defense officials, Secretary Esper and
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley, who have had their
protection removed. Do you believe that decisions related to
whether or not this protection should be based on the
assessment of the threat by the Intelligence Community?
Mr. Hansell. Thank you for the question, Senator. I'm very
aware of the specific 714 language, and specifically, it's new
ability for this Secretary to delegate this responsibility to
the Under Secretary for Intelligence Security versus the prior
restriction to the Deputy Secretary.
I am very familiar with the regulation, and that there's
two categories, one, that of folks that can receive this
benefit because the nature of the position. Second is a
population mostly DOD, and DOD retired. That is based on
circumstances; one of those being serious, credible threats,
the other being overwhelming operational circumstances, and
that the law says that that determination shall be made based
on a threat assessment.
So, to answer your question specifically, the law is clear
that a threat assessment should inform that. I am also aware of
the congressional notification requirements in that law. If
confirmed, would intend to follow it as written, and I think
additionally, make an overall assessment of the program to
ensure we have a sustainable resource, sustainable framework
that allows us to mitigate risk to force in a standardized way.
Senator Reed. So, your view is that the threat assessment
should be the predicate for removing or providing protection.
Can Congress get the copy of the threat assessment that was
used in the decision to take away this protection?
Mr. Hansell. Senator, I have no information about
historical. I'm not in the Department now, about historical
decisions, but if confirmed and if delegated this
responsibility, I would have access to those threat assessments
and accordance with regulations, would share those.
Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
gentlemen for all putting yourselves forward to serve your
country. We deeply appreciate that.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA,
designs, builds, stores, and disposes of our Nation's nuclear
weapons. Our stockpile remains safe, secure, effective, and
credible thanks to the hard work done every single day by NNSA
and our National Security Laboratories.
Mr. Williams, I appreciate our earlier conversations and
agree that NNSA faces immense challenges. After the end of the
cold war, NNSA infrastructure recapitalization efforts were
abandoned, and now we must modernize most of the enterprise
without interrupting the production of new nuclear weapons.
Many of these facilities are truly one of a kind, and must be
custom designed and built to safely process plutonium, uranium,
tritium, lithium, anti-high explosives.
Fortunately, we are not starting from a blank State. The
NNSA has produced an enterprise blueprint that shows all the
facilities that need to be built over the next 25 years, and
then sequences them in priority, linking them to a new warhead
production effort. We also have an opportunity as we build new
infrastructure to replace old facilities, some of which date
back to the Manhattan Project, to incorporate modern
manufacturing processes. We can produce nuclear weapons faster,
more efficiently, and reduce risk in that process.
Mr. Williams, if confirmed, how would you approach the
challenges of recapitalizing NNSA's infrastructure?
Mr. Williams. Well, Senator Fischer, thank you for that
question. That is the key question. I think as I have studied
the problem, and read the stockpile reports, and read the
blueprint enterprise that you mentioned, as well as the GAO
[Government Accountability Office] reports, CRS [Congressional
Research Service] reports, I think the scope and scale is, as
you describe. We have to deliver the program of record, the
lifetime extensions of our existing stockpile, as well as
rebuild the infrastructure to modernize.
A lot of that comes, I think, through reassessing our
relationship with risk. The reevaluating the risk that we take,
I think we have to make sure we have the workforce that we
retain, the workforce that we have. As I mentioned it's not
just a weapon scientist, it's machinist, its technicians.
It's every level of the organization that is needed to keep
the very special qualities and skills that we have acquired
that we can't afford to lose. Then I think it will require
leadership focused on the mission. I think one of the things
that drives all of us, it certainly drove the Manhattan
Project, is understanding the current threat.
I think that it's very sobering and awakening for all of us
to suddenly be talking about strategic deterrence, talking
about threats that we thought perhaps as a nation had gone away
30 years ago, and of course, the men and women, the NNSA never
believed that, nor the Combat Commanders of STRATCOM.
I think there's a focus of the mission and leadership. I
think there's innovation, and I think it's focused on the
workforce as well as keeping Congress informed that you'll
continue to support this mission.
Senator Fischer. I hope, if confirmed, that you will look
at that leadership, look at the workforce, be able to look at
some of the complex construction projects that are out there,
and figure out how to improve the management of those as well.
Mr. Williams, there are seven life extension programs and
major altercations currently underway. These nuclear weapons
must be delivered on schedule, and several are synced to new
delivery systems that are currently under development by the
Department of Defense. So, maintaining that close connection
between NNSA and the Department of Defense on these programs,
that is key to the success for all the programs that are
involved here.
If confirmed, how will you ensure that NNSA fully
understands the Department of Defense's requirements for these?
Mr. Williams. Senator Fischer, thank you for that question.
Of course, I'll be participating in the Nuclear Weapons
Council. I would like to come out to STRATCOM, meet with the
leaders, General Cotton, and the leaders of STRATCOM. They are
the most important customer of NNSA. If confirmed, I would very
much like to hear their input and have a very transparent
conversation with them. There are a great number of details and
classified information that I've not been privy to, that I look
forward to immersing myself in to make sure I understand all
the details of delivering what, frankly, our strategic forces
require to deter our enemies.
So, very committed to work with you and with this committee
to make sure I'm following through on all of those, should I be
confirmed.
Senator Fischer. Your role in that Nuclear Weapons Council
is important in that process, if you are confirmed. So, thank
you for that.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer.
Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all of our nominees. I ask the following two
initial questions of all nominees before any of my committees
to ensure the fitness to serve. So, we'll start with Mr.
Matthews, and we'll go right down the line. 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? Please, down the line.
[Witnesses answer in the negative.]
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
[Witnesses answer in the negative.]
Senator Hirono. For Mr. Marks, several military training
areas very critical to INDOPACOM. These landless leases in
Hawaii are set to expire in 2029, right around the corner.
These leases, as I mentioned, are critical to ensuring U.S. and
allied military forces can adequately train in the Pacific.
However, the lands involve also hold cultural significance to
the Native Hawaiian community.
If confirmed, will you ensure that these negotiations,
which will expire, is conducted in a manner that respects local
communities and the environment, while still prioritizing
military readiness?
Mr. Marks. Senator, thank you for that question. I know
this is critically important to you, and, yes, Senator, if
confirmed, I will work not only with the military services, but
the local community. Hawaii plays a very strategic role for
INDOPACOM, and I would want to ensure that both the respect of
the communities as well as the incredible importance of those
training areas is recognized and we find the best possible
solution.
Senator Hirono. In fact, the DOD has recognized the
importance of these negotiations, and there is a person name
and Noa Kalupi who is charged with making sure that these
negotiations include the voices of the community. So, it's good
that you are aware or that you will be aware of the necessity
of how we're going about things. I would also note that it is
very important to the community that these negotiations occur
as transparently as possible so that the community feels as
though the military is acting in good faith, and listening to
their voices.
Again for you, the DOD stakeholders are coastally
coordinating with the EPA. Hawaii State agencies, and the
public to complete the closure of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel
Storage Facility. You probably are aware that the, the spills
that occurred at the Red Hill facility resulted in some 93,000
people being impacted. They had to go to hotels and find other
arrangements. This led to a questioning by the community of how
the Navy, basically, but to the community, the Navy, the
military was conducting it itself.
So, will you commit to overseeing the safe, timely closure
of Red Hill, which will require taking a transparent role with
the public to restore the confidence and the trust of the
community in the military?
Mr. Marks. Senator, thank you. The transparency is vital to
partnership. Good partnership is built on trust and good
relationships. So, Senator, if confirmed, I will commit to work
not only with the Navy as this moves forward, to ensure we're
taking the proper steps for both mission capability and what is
in the best interest of the community.
Senator Hirono. The closing of Red Hill is not over in that
there are remediation and environmental issues that still must
be addressed. I would ask that you address them in a timely
manner with the resources that will be required.
Mr. Marks. Yes, Senator, absolutely, and in fact, it was
just a couple weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting with
the Hawaii coordination cell so that they could begin to get me
up to speed, so that I could understand the issue more
thoroughly. I do appreciate it more deeply.
Senator Hirono. I also want to mention that our military
base, our installations, I should say, are in various states of
disrepair, frankly, and especially in Hawaii, which have aging
facilities, energy vulnerabilities, and poor infrastructure.
So, I'm putting into the NDAA a requirement that all of our
services conduct or put together a 30-year infrastructure
improvement plan so that we have something going forward that
will more properly ensure that our infrastructure needs are
being addressed and met. So, would you support such a planning
process for our services?
Mr. Marks. Senator, as a strategist, I believe in long-term
planning, and so, I appreciate the initiative that you've
introduced. If confirmed would want to work not only with you,
this Committee, but the services on a way to achieve how we get
a greater future look at the investments on our infrastructure.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one question
of Mr. Matthews?
Chairman Wicker. Oh, sure.
Senator Hirono. This won't take long. So, I'm glad that you
testified that you will follow the rule of law and the
independence of the JAG officers. That's very important. Do you
have any concerns about the fact that the military services
senior JAG attorneys were fired?
Mr. Matthews. Good morning, Senator Hirono. Thank you for
the question. Not being in the Department, I wasn't privy to
the reason for the decision of Secretary Hegseth to request
nominations for the Judge Advocates General. I will say that
from my understanding, the Navy TJAG had resigned before the
beginning of the Administration. So, I don't believe it was
actually said he was fired. I think the Secretary requested
nominations for the Army and the Air Force Advocate General, I
think he acted according to law when he did so. I would say
that I share your concern about the independence of legal
advice.
Senator Hirono. You can imagine we have some concerns about
what happened because no reasons were given. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Perhaps you can followup also on the
record, Senator Hirono. Thank you very much. Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the nominees and their families. By the
way, some really, really impressive group of nominees, all
veterans, all served in incredible capacities, Purple Heart
recipients. This is very impressive. So, thank you to all of
you. I'm not going to quiz you on the great Billy Mitchell,
father of the U.S. Air Force who said that Alaska was the most
strategic place in the world. I know you already know all that.
I just want from each nominee your commitment to come to
Alaska, to see this strategic place and see our wonderful
military forces there. Can I get each of you to commit to that
starting with you, Mr. Matthews?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, Senator, it's my first trip.
Senator Sullivan. Excellent. Well, that's a great answer.
Can anyone else top that?
Chairman Wicker. Doesn't have to be the answer.
Senator Sullivan. That's a great answer. Maybe you can come
before you're confirmed. No, I'm kidding. Good answer.
Mr. Hansell. Senator, as I testified to you 5 years ago
about the increased importance in economic national security of
the area, I think that trend will continue and thus
appropriately. I look forward to visiting.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. Senator, I'd be honored. Would likely be in
July or August with my fishing gear.
Senator Sullivan. No. You're coming in February, where it's
40 below 0.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. That's so long as we can visit Adak. I've
always heard about it.
Senator Sullivan. Okay. Well, I'm getting to Adak here in a
minute.
Mr. Marks. Senator, as we discussed it, as goes Alaska, so
goes defense of the Homeland. It'd be at an honor to visit
Alaska.
Senator Sullivan. Right. Thank you, and, again, I really
appreciate all the great opening statements. Mr. Matthews, your
statement and your family's service. Just remarkable. It's
super impressive. I'm glad so many of your family members are
there. You and I had a good discussion. You're very smart
lawyer. You have a great background. Just to be clear, as we
discussed, your loyalty, of course, in this job is to the
Constitution, correct?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, sir. To the constitutional laws of the
United States.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Perfect, and you've been doing that
your whole career, loyalty to the Constitution and the United
States?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Excellent. Let me go to you, Mr. Matthews
and Mr. Marks. I want to talk just briefly about the 8(a)
contracting program that we talked about in my office.
I was recently in the great State of Alabama, Huntsville,
Alabama. There's a lot of 8(a) contractors there. You know,
this is a program that's been in law for decades. It helps
economically disadvantaged communities. But where I don't think
it gets a lot of press is just how effective, efficient--I
mean, our military, our Pentagon needs effective, efficient
ability to deliver services.
These companies in Huntsville, I saw a company, it was
Alaska Native company that took a--the request for an armored
wheeled vehicle, a Navy harpoon anti-ship system to combine
them together. They did it in 2 weeks, the design. Then, they
had manufacturing done where this new system was out on the
beaches of Taiwan in less than a year. The government gets to
keep the IP. All done in Huntsville, Alabama. It was
unbelievable. The OEMs, the big primes, it would take them 10
years to do something like that.
So, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Marks, can I get your commitment
to work with this Committee? You know, there's some people out
there--oh, these are DEIs [diversity, equity, and inclusion].
This has nothing to do with DEI. This is efficient, effective,
good for the Pentagon work, and I just want to make sure you
guys agree with me on that. Can I get your commitments on that?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, you have my firm commitment. I think
we should not paint broad brush Alaska Naval corporations
particularly have played a unique role in support of the
national defense, and we can't ignore that
Senator Sullivan. Made it much more effective and efficient
and deadly. Correct?
Mr. Matthews. Exactly, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Marks?
Mr. Marks. Senator, if confirmed, you have my commitment.
Anything that can get capability into the hands of the
warfighter more quickly, that helps us defend our Nation is a
vital importance, and we should support that.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me very quickly talk about
Adak. The INDOPACOM Commander, NORTHCOM commander, CNO of the
Navy have all recently testified either in classified or
unclassified hearings saying, look, you look at a map, you look
at the Russians and the Chinese, how aggressive they're being
in the North Pacific, in the Arctic. We need to reopen that
base. There was a Navy team that was there just last week, and
can I get your commitment to work with me on that? Looking at
that really, really critical base that used to be a sub base.
Senator Hirono was talking about Red Hill. Adak has one of the
largest fuel storage depots anywhere on the planet Earth. It's
all infrastructure is still ready available. Can I get your
commitment to work with me on that?
Mr. Marks. Yes, Senator, you have my commitment, if
confirmed.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all the
nominees.
I want to echo Senator Sullivan's comments. Extraordinarily
well qualified in the work you have done to serve this country
prior to this day as exceptional. I want to express my
appreciation and recognition of that. I also, and want to have
to go back to our wonderful chairman, John McCain, and remind
the Senator that Billy Mitchell was court-martialed, but that's
another story.
Senator Sullivan. But I think he got his rank back after
that.
Senator King. This is something that's been going on for 10
years in this Committee.
Chairman Wicker. Turns out he knew what he was talking
about.
Senator Sullivan. He did. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Okay. Mr. Williams, I know Senator Reed
raised this question, but I'm gravely concerned about this memo
that was mentioned on Friday of the possibility of 500 people
in the NNSA as non-essential. That's 20 percent of the
workforce, and the testimony was, it's one of the greatest
scientific and engineering organizations in human history. I
just don't understand how that wonderful organization, which is
that's true, 20 percent are non-essential?
By the way, I did a little calculation. That's two-tenths
of 1 percent of the NNSA budget is those 500 people. So, what's
to be gained by reducing the staff by 20 percent of this
essential agency in this moment of the rebuilding of our
nuclear triad?
Mr. Williams. Senator King, thank you for that question,
and for your attention on the workforce, which I think is
absolutely critical. If confirmed, I commit to you that I will
stand up for the men and women of NNSA that I will advocate for
them. We're facing a moment in history where NNSA must perform,
and I think there's opportunities for us to innovate at NNSA,
to deliver on the program of record and the expectations that
this committee has set and that will stand up to our
adversaries.
Senator King. You're absolutely right. This is a no fail
mission. In fact, because of the modernization program that
we're in the midst of, the demands on NNSA have never been
greater, probably since the founding of the agency. So, I hope
you will stand up for that workforce. By the way, there's an
issue here, not only of the people, 500 people being said,
they're non-essential. The effect on morale in the workforce, I
think is something to be considered.
So, I hope you can address this early in your tenure and be
sure that the workforce is protected, and that the morale, and
the esprit of the agency can be maintained. Will you commit to
that?
Mr. Williams. Mr. King, if confirmed, I will certainly
commit to that. I will tell you that my commitment to this
deterrence really did begin in Tiananmen Square in May 1989, an
observation of the student protest there. I was in the Pacific
on a nuclear submarine during the third crisis of the Taiwan
Strait, when the Communist Chinese first launched missiles in
the modern age that dropped short and flew over Taiwan in a
show of force.
In the aftermath of that, as I recall, we sailed a carrier
battle group through the Strait of Formosa to show our resolve.
We can't do that today, that concerns me. This program is of
historic importance.
Senator King. I couldn't agree more. Mr. Hansell, I always
ask intelligent officials the same question. Will you tell the
President the truth, even if it's something he doesn't want to
hear?
Mr. Hansell. Absolutely. I would do so, and I think the
President and the Secretary would require me to do so.
Senator King. The former Director of National Intelligence
(DNI) Dan Coats put it very succinctly. He said, ``The job of
the Intelligence Community is to find the truth and tell the
truth.'' Just parenthetically, who started the war in Ukraine?
Mr. Hansell. Senator, it's a military fact that Russia
invaded Ukraine, both in 2014 and 2022, as recently outlined in
the unclassified ATA, Annual Threat Assessment.
Senator King. You just earned my vote. Thank you, sir. Mr.
Williams, I'm going to overlook the Harvard Law School
experience. I think several other Senators on this committee
labor under that disability. Can you recall an occasion in all
of your career as a lawyer for the military, when you said no
to an officer, that they--to something, an order that they
wanted to pursue that you told them was contrary to the
Constitution or the laws of this country?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, I typically try to avoid that
situation by providing advice in advance. But I can recall
experiences where there were violations of the Law of Armed
Conflict, which I had to point out when I was in Afghanistan 1
year when we had platoon leader who was--had some detainees,
and he was making them walk in front of the formation over
across Improvised Explosive Device (IED) infected land. It was
a violation of Law of Armed Conflict. It's not how we do it. We
separate our prisoners and speed them to the rear. So, that was
something that I had to point out.
Senator King. You made it clear and reversed the decision?
Mr. Matthews. Oh, there was an investigation. That's
correct, sir.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator King. Senator
Tuberville.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here, and your willingness
to serve. Mr. Marks, I want to talk a little bit about an issue
that affects many of our installations across the country,
including my home State, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville. The
issue is military construction, better known as MILCON. We need
to move fast, and traditional military construction process is
way too slow. You know, back at Redstone Arsenal, there are two
out warehouses, as we speak, that are going up. One military
corps engineers is building, and the other is by the FBI
[Federal Bureau of Investigation].
These warehouses are roughly the same size, but the FBI
facility has a lot more bells and whistles, yet the military
warehouse is going to take double the amount of time to build
and 150 percent over the cost of what it's cost in the FBI
building. How on earth does this make sense? It is a disaster,
and I'm sure we're having those problems across the country.
Can I get your commitment to go and look at this situation?
Lieutenant General Chris Mohan, the AMC Commander down there is
really looking into this, and I think he could help us with
some of this in the future. We need to cut back on the time and
the cost on a lot of these buildings, Mr. Marks.
Mr. Marks. Senator, thank you for that question, and I
couldn't agree more. We absolutely need to look at additional
best practices on ways to speed up our MILCON to include how it
aligns with our programs. If confirmed, I absolutely would want
to dig deeper with you on this to ensure that I see how we can
potentially go faster.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you.
Another quick question for you, Mr. Marks. You recently
discussed drone incursions with my staff. Can you tell the
Committee about that conversation and your experience?
Mr. Marks. Senator, thank you. What we have seen across the
country, and especially there at Eglin, is an increase in drone
activity, and in fact, activities surrounding our
installations, whether that is foreign national turnarounds or
other investments, things that we need to make.
So, Senator, in the local area at the installation I
currently serve at, we've increased our investment to include
increased detection capability, so that we can then use the
authorities that we have been provided at the installation
level to defend those installation. Senator, if confirmed, I
would want to see it expanded so that we can work with the
combatant commanders to ensure we are defending our local
installations here in the Homeland.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you. Very much needed.
Mr. Hansell, as you know, one of the organizations you will
oversee is USD(I&S). If you are confirmed, is the Missile and
Space Intelligence Center (MSIC), which is a component of the
Department of Intelligence. It's located in Huntsville,
Alabama. MSIC provides world-class analysis and performance of
foreign weapons systems.
Mr. Hansell, can you talk a little bit about how important
it is for our warfighters to assess the kind of foreign
material data that MSIC provide?
Mr. Hansell. Yes, Senator. I'd first highlight the
importance of MSIC, as the important relative to the growing
importance of the space domain. It becomes ever more critical
to our national security, as well as, I think critical intel
from MSIC should be used to inform the Golden Dome architecture
design at every stage of the milestone.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you.
Mr. Williams, NNSA has been plagued by cost overrun
schedule delays, project cancellation related to construction
of nuclear facility, including Ukraine, uranium processing
facility, the Savannah River Plutonium Processing facility, and
others. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
ensure that these project management failures are not repeated
in the future?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Senator, and that is right at the
heart to the plutonium pit production that you mentioned in
Savannah River, as well in Los Alamos, you know, is the
critical path to restoring our ability to make new nuclear
weapons and to ensure the long-life extension of our existing
stockpile. There's a number of classified details that I've not
been briefed on in that, but that is, I commit to you, should I
be confirmed, that is absolutely a commitment to get that back
and to deliver for the weapons programs.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, what role would you have in
advising the President and the Secretary on reforming the JAG
Corps?
Mr. Matthews. Thank you, Senator, for the question. If
confirmed, I would be a legal advisor to the Secretary of
Defense and not to the President unless he asked me. But if the
President were to ask me, I would render--I would consider the
question he asked, and in light of the facts and information
available to me, I would make a recommendation. The JAG Corps,
the Judge Advocate General Corps, the Joint Force, JAG play an
important role in ensuring the delivery of military justice,
ensuring compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict, a whole
myriad of activities, and so, it's important that we get it
right.
Senator Tuberville. Thank you.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Mr. Marks
are you going to visit Huntsville before or after you visit
Alaska.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Wicker. Just take that for the record. Senator
Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to all of our nominees.
So, after a 2018 Reuters investigation found that military
families were living in homes that were filled with mold, pest
infestations, and other safety hazards, this committee opened
an inquiry and instituted a slate of reforms in 2019 to hold
private military housing contractors accountable.
One of these reforms was the creation of a Tenant Bill of
Rights to ensure that military families have the quality
housing that they deserve. Another was the creation of a public
data base for military families to report when their landlords
failed to provide that quality housing. So, I'm glad that the
DOD finally created that data base called the Housing Feedback
System last year. I'm sorry that servicemembers had to wait 5
years for it. DOD needs to do better to rebuild trust with
military families.
Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, it will be your job to
make sure that servicemembers and their families have safe,
high quality, and affordable housing. So, will you commit to
preserving and using DODs Housing Feedback System to hold
private military housing contractors accountable?
Mr. Marks. Senator, thank you for that, and as someone who
has been a military housing resident, I greatly appreciate the
additional oversight to include that data base, which has been
implemented. I've watched that rollout at the local
installation level. If confirmed, you have my commitment we
will continue to build transparency and trust with our
residents. We owe them that.
Senator Warren. Good, I appreciate that, and I appreciate
your strong response here.
So, while the reforms we've put in place are an important
start, military families are still being treated like second-
class citizens by unscrupulous landlords. At Fort Belvoir, the
housing conditions in these private homes were so reprehensible
that families couldn't even live there, but the families had to
continue paying rent for their unlivable homes while they may
do in temporary housing.
Mr. Marks, do you agree that military families deserve the
same tenant protections provided to their civilian neighbors?
So, for example the right to terminate their leases if their
landlord fails to address safety hazards, or the right to sue
their landlord for relief if their family got sick because of
poor conditions in the home?
Mr. Marks. Senator, we owe our residents the highest
standards of quality in homes and to continue to make robust
the both informal and formal dispute resolution processes. If
confirmed, I would want to work with you in this Committee to
see what we can do.
Senator Warren. My question is, should our military
families have the same rights that their civilian neighbors
have to insist under local and State laws to get protection?
Mr. Marks. Senator, I understand there are some laws to
include the Enclave Act that needs to be addressed, and so,
what I would want to do is, if confirmed, dig deeper to see how
we could address that. I do believe that residents do need to
have robust rights to include where they live.
Senator Warren. Well, you know, we already have a pretty
bad example here because these families at Fort Belvoir tried
to file claims under the Virginia Consumer and Housing
Protection Laws, and their complaints were dismissed because of
the Enclave doctrine. This is the doctrine that says on Federal
lands, tenants may not be entitled to the same rights as other
members of the State or community.
I want to work with my colleagues to address this in the
NDAA, but DOD also recently provided a response to a letter
that I sent with Senators Ossoff and Kaine, that said the
military services already have the authority to require private
military housing companies to take corrective action and can
negotiate to provide families with additional rights.
So, let me ask you, Mr. Marks. Will you work with this
Committee and the military services to fight for and enforce
military families housing protection rights, and ensure they
receive the safe and quality, high quality housing they're
entitled to
Mr. Marks. Senator, if confirmed, you have my commitment to
work with this Committee, you and others, and the services on
behalf of our residents. We owe them that for the service that
they give our great Nation.
Senator Warren. I appreciate that, and I hope this is
something we'll take up in the NDAA. We have a duty to make
sure that military families' homes are safe so they can stay
focused on the mission of keeping the rest of us safe.
Substandard housing conditions hurt military readiness. That's
a problem we could fix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Warren. Senator
Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansell, currently, there's discussions within the DOD
about whether the NNSA and the U.S. Cyber Command should be
dual-hatted. Do you believe all of the prior reviews of this
arrangement, including one just 3 years ago, that have found
substantial benefits to that structure, or do you feel that
this should be reconsidered, and an open question? What's your
recommendation for the future arrangement of a dual-hatted
arrangement?
Mr. Hansell. Thank you for the question, Senator. Without
being in the Department, having the most current information, I
can't make a full assessment, but I did testify on this 5 years
ago. I'm very aware in the time, in a seating time how robust
the capabilities that U.S. CYBERCOM have become and how the
criticality of the cyber domain for national security. I am
very aware of all the lengthy amount of thought that has gone
into this to date, the Dunford Commission and the current SSG
[Staff Sergeant] implementation guide that Secretary Austin put
in place, and would certainly leverage all thinking to date in
any analysis.
Although I don't have a specific recommendation on this, I
do believe just like in the private sector, that every
organization to include the defense intelligence and security
enterprise has to constantly assess itself to make sure it's
aligned with the right tools in our organizational structure to
maximize effects.
I would just note that I'm very aware of this committee's
language that any recommendation to change the dual-hat comes
with a need for the both the Secretary and the Chairman to
certify no degradation in operational capability to CYBERCOM
for our national security. Certainly, if confirmed, and I
conduct a review, would advise the Secretary accordingly to
that.
Senator Gillibrand. Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (OUSD) is one of the full-time participants of the
DOD's cross-functional team for anomalous health incidents. A
DOD Inspector General report from March 2023 recommended a
review and update any applicable counterintelligence guidance
and policy documents to address AHI-related information and
counterintelligence. To my knowledge, this has still not been
completed. Will you commit to reviewing and implementing the
recommendations of the DOD IG report?
Mr. Hansell. I will, Senator, I think it is absolutely
critical. I know firsthand the importance of taking care of
those that are willing to put themselves on the line in the
service of our country. If confirmed, I would ensure that the
defense intelligence enterprise continues to make AHI a
counterintelligence-reportable event so that we can determine
any relatedness to foreign intelligence service activities.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews, Secretary Hegseth just took the unbelievable
action of firing the Judge Advocates General of the Military
Departments. The senior military lawyers were put in place to
provide independent legal advice. The law currently states no
officer employee of the Department of Defense may interfere
with the ability of a Judge Advocate General to give
independent legal advice.
I know Senator Reed asked you a similar question and you
said that you will follow the law, and you will work to
maintain independence. How are your JAGs supposed to feel about
this, and how are you going to assure them that they will not
be subject to political pressure?
Mr. Matthews. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for the
question, and thank you for your work on military justice
reforms throughout the years. You know, many, JAGs, Senator,
it's hard to control them. Because you came up with the special
trial council concept and they opposed it. So, when they have
an issue, they will not hesitate to speak up, and they will. It
is been my experience. The Judge Advocates and the Joint Force
are willing to they have options. They can leave Government
service, they can become lawyers at corporate law firms or
corporations. So, they're going to do the right--they're not in
these jobs for money. So, they're going to do the right thing
regardless, Senator. So, I think their moral fiber, their
courage, they've been trained to do, to choose the harder
right, over the easier one.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, we are counting on them to exert
their independence, and their legal acumen, and to really
strengthen the military justice system, which has not been
working well. So, it's on you to make sure they feel supported,
to make sure they have the tools and resources they need to
make sure they don't feel that they are being politically
bullied to certain outcomes.
I'm also very concerned that Secretary Hegseth is
considering downgrading the Judge Advocate General from 3-stars
to 2-stars. I'm sure you are aware that we have 20 years of
precedent that put that change in place so that they would have
independence. Do you think this rank reduction is appropriate?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, I think that this Congress gave the
Secretary the discretion to determine what grade they serve at.
As you well know, Senator, when Senator Graham led the fight to
have the Generals serve at the 09 level, it was required that
they be at the 09 level. That was changed. We all have agreed
that there was two there. Pentagon, it's too top heavy with
stars. I think there's an overall assessment of the rank
structure within the Department at the headquarters of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force.
It may be that other principal staff officers on the Army,
Navy and Air staffs also lose their grades. I think the quality
of the legal advice is not impacted by the grades that an
officer serves at. When I joined the Army, and the Judge
Advocates General were 2-stars, and they gave frank advice.
Commanders are always going to rely upon their Judge
Advocates because they want to stay out of trouble. So, they
play a vital role at the commanding commander at the 06 level.
So, I think that rank Is important, but more important is the
quality of the legal advice that they're going to be issuing.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Matthews.
We will be counting on you to bring a military justice
system that is worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women who
serve.
Mr. Matthews. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Wicker. Mr. Matthews, you've made a very frank and
honest answer to that question, and I appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand. Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman.
Well, first off, congratulations, each of you on your
nominations. I know, I think every one of you is going to do a
great job. Let me start with Mr. Matthews. I've always had
concerns about how much influence JAG officers have. I'd be a
little bit different than my colleague has just talked about.
But in the combat, we have people that are responsible for our
men and women in uniform to lead them in battle.
How much influence does it have a JAG officer on their--I
mean, I understand the JAG officers give them legal advice, but
ultimately, they're not the decision-maker. You keep hearing
stories that the lawyers are making--are running every time
that we have to go. We put men and women in harm's way. If
we're going to put men and women in harm's way, I want somebody
that's a warfighter rather than a JAG officer to be the one
that's making the final decision. So, how it actually works?
Mr. Matthews. Thank you for the question, Senator. A couple
of things. One JAG officers are warfighters. We who wear a
uniform, we're part of the Joint Force, we're soldiers. We want
to destroy the enemy just like anybody else. JAG officers are
running the command, that's a command failure in my opinion,
because we're advisors. We only advise the commander. The
policymakers should be making decisions that would be as if the
counsel to the Senator is telling the Senator what to do.
That's not how it works. We can only advise, and so, that's my
response, Senator.
Senator Scott. So, the decision, the tactical decisions are
not made by JAG officers?
Mr. Matthews. They should not be. Now, I will say, Senator,
in 20 years of counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism
operations, we have exercised a great deal of restraint and
conduct of combat operations and lethal activities, and so, the
law of war is quite permissive, but the ROE [Rules of
Engagement], which is policy not a legal requirement, has been
quite restrictive.
That's impacted our ability to get after the enemy.
Sometimes, we should always adhere for the law of war, of
course, distinction and proportionality, military necessity,
humanity. But I think we live in a risk-adverse culture.
Commanders are always concerned about getting relieved about
getting a 15-6 investigation where they killed somebody in a
civil incident, and that's going to impact their ability to be
promoted. So, that's an issue that I think you properly
identified, Senator.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Hansell, in 2019, we
experienced a tragic church attack at the Pensacola Naval Air
Station. After that tragic day, I fought hard as Florida's
Senator to get legislation passed to ensure we properly vet
every foreign national, regardless of the country of origin, or
any partnerships we have with these countries. I was glad that
we were able to make this get this become law, but we have to
remain vigilant.
Can you discuss how we can continue to expand security
armed bases and protect the brave individuals of our military
forces and their families?
Mr. Hansell. Absolutely. Senator, being from the Panhandle,
very aware of the incident and your fight for the legislation
after it. If confirmed, part of my----
Senator Scott. Because you know what was happening, it was
the military wasn't deciding who was allowed on our base. The
State Department was making the decision about who was allowed
on our base, not the Department of Defense, which made no sense
at all.
Mr. Hansell. As I testified before, and I assume I will
more today, is it's these seams in government that we have to
really be careful of. I think after this legislation though,
it's very clear about the vetting requirements needed for
international military students. I would say as disturbed as I
am about the status of our vetting security clearance, vetting
capabilities in the Department right now, there can be no
exception about the application of them in securing our
personnel.
I would just say in addition to, since that incident,
there's been new threats arising. One that is of a concern of
mine is this threat of UAS on our installations, and would
certainly work with my colleagues in policy and the Counter UAS
Task Force to best address that.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Marks, you know, constantly we get reports that our
military's not ready to go to battle today. If something
happened today, they're not ready to go to battle. So, what are
the things that you can do to make sure that our men and women
are prepared?
Mr. Marks. Senator, I greatly appreciate that question. One
of the greatest ways that, I believe, that we can help our
servicemembers is to ensure that the places that they live and
work are of a high enough standard in quality, so that they're
not distracted by the things that would keep--take them from
their mission preparedness to ensure that they're 100 percent
ready to go do the work that they need to do.
Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking
Member Reed for holding this hearing.
I want to thank Congressman Williams for meeting with me
last week. Thank you. I'm going to direct my questions to you,
Congressman. You know, the Nevada Test Site, now known as the
Nevada National Security Site, NNSS, but we really still call
it the Test Site Nevada--so, I'll defer to that--it is larger
than all NNSA sites combined, and to the Ranking Member, our
site, it's equivalent to the size of the State of Rhode Island.
So, but----
Senator Reed. High tide or low tide?
[Laughter.]
Senator Rosen. We'll strike that from the record. There you
go. Anyway, the Nevada's Test Site played a critical role in
nuclear weapons development. It was ground-zero for the
majority of the United States explosive nuclear testing from
1951 to 1992, when 100 atmospheric and 828 underground tests
were conducted during this era, which we must not ever return
to. Millions of people and acres of land were contaminated by
radiation.
Since President George H. W. Bush signed the moratorium in
1992, the NNSA has utilized the Stockpile Stewardship Program
in Nevada's underground laboratory to conduct subcritical
experiments to certify the reliability, safety, and
effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. What we're doing in
Nevada is working. For decades, the directors of the National
Laboratories, the commanders of U.S. Strategic Command, the
Secretaries of Defense and Energy, including through the
entirety of the first Trump administration, have annually
certified the military effectiveness of our stockpile.
Nonetheless, some in President Trump's orbit have suggested
that the U.S. should resume explosive nuclear testing. Can you
imagine that? Despite no evidence supporting this position, and
if it is above ground explosive testing, the amount of exposure
and destruction would be felt worldwide.
So, in addition to placing Nevadans at risk, experts warn
that breaking the moratorium would likely prompt Russia and
China to follow, as they have more to gain from testing than we
do. Given our superior scientific and computer modeling
capabilities, this could ignite a dangerous, deadly, and costly
nuclear arms race for no reason.
So, Congressman Williams, if President Trump were to ask
your advice about returning to explosive nuclear tests, how
would you counsel him on the national security implications,
and what would you recommend?
Mr. Williams. Senator Rosen, thank you for that question.
Thanks very much for hosting me and that conversation. It's
very insightful and very much appreciated. As you pointed out
we have 928 nuclear tests that we performed, more than any
other nation, and we collected more data than anyone else. It
is precisely that data that has underpinned our scientific
basis for confirming the stockpile since the moratorium in
1992. The decision whether to continue testing, critical
testing, super critical testing, would certainly be above my
pay grade, should I be confirmed, as the Administrator----
Senator Rosen. Would you recommend explosive nuclear
testing in place of our subcritical testing that we do at the
U1A tunnel effectively in all of these years?
Mr. Williams. Sorry, to get to my answer is, I would not
advise thank you testing, and I think we should rely on the
scientific information.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I'm going to stay on this because
resuming explosive testing at the Nevada National Security Site
would risk severe economic and environmental impacts, not just
in Nevada, but primarily in Nevada, placing more than 2 million
people at risk who live in Las Vegas. Not to mention the down
winders states going East. We know that at least 32 accidental
venting accidents occurred during the last period of
underground testing. That's why there's strong statewide
bipartisan opposition to testing, including from our Republican
Governor.
So, again, Congressman Williams, how would the risk of
radiological release and groundwater contamination posed by
underground nuclear testing, along with the risk to Las Vegas
economy, feature in your advice to the president, if he were
even to indicate interest in resuming, even below ground or any
type of explosive nuclear testing?
Mr. Williams. Senator, thank you. The question, my primary
concern would be for our deterrents. That we're deterring our
enemies, and the environmental impact, of course, would be very
important and impactful to the citizens of Nevada. I think
before those kinds of activities were to take place,
particularly so close to a populated area like Nevada, those
would be very important considerations.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much. Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansell, as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
and Security, you would be responsible for the overall security
of classified information. Recent reporting has highlighted
that foreign governments are increasingly trying to exploit
recently fired probationary Federal employees for classified
information. As you know, some of those probationary employees
have actually worked for DOD for some period of time. If they
were promoted, they go to the probationary status.
Our national security secrets are more at risk now,
because--this is my view on this--because of this
Administration's sledgehammer approach to our Federal
workforce. This is not about the loyalty of our civilian
service, but rather about the careless manner in which they
were being fired.
While this isn't a new problem, this administration's
actions have made it a bigger one. So, already, we're aware of
an ongoing effort by the PRC [People's Republic of China] to
contact and recruit members of the U.S. military to learn how
our military operates so effectively in certain areas.
Certainly, combat aviation is one of those. We have an edge
because of our training and our tactics and our, you know, long
history, especially in combat aviation, but in other areas as
well.
We should not be making this information available to our
adversaries. So, last year, I introduced a piece of legislation
called the No Work with Adversaries Act with Senator Cotton to
help try to tackle this problem. I'm going to be introducing
this legislation again next year. So, if confirmed, Mr.
Hansell, how do you plan to shore up our military's defenses
and ensure servicemembers and DOD civilians are alerted to the
threat that's out there from the PRC and our adversaries?
Mr. Hansell. I appreciate the question, Senator, and I'm
certainly aware of the magnitude and breadth of TTPs, and the
agility of the TTPs being used by our adversaries, namely
Chinese espionage in this situation. Specifically, very aware
of the legislation you've introduced regarding training of some
of our fighter aircraft pilots.
From outside in, not yet, having been in the Department, I
would say is my hypothesis that far--is most veterans and
servicemembers don't have any malice intent. This, I bet the
bad apples are far and few between. I think this is an example
where we need to have clear guidance that's understood by
servicemembers, and develop the tools that enable them to
navigate the commercial space at a speed of relevance. I'm very
concerned about the Department's ability in foci identification
and mitigation, along a slew of variables in the industrial
base. But this would be a perfect example. You know, reading
the legislation not only pass through entities, but the amount
of subsidy that triggers the legislation is something that I
think we have a burden to provide the servicemembers, the tools
to do the right thing. Which I think is their natural instinct.
Senator Kelly. Yes, I agree with you. Most servicemembers
do not have any intent to share information, though. Just one,
the right person with the right knowledge can do significant
damage to our national security. I think it's also important
that everybody understands that the risk is out there, and the
PRC is actively trying to recruit.
You know, my understanding is there have been times where
folks think they're working for one company and they're
actually working for the PRC. So, getting the information out
there is incredibly important. So, I hope you work with us on
that.
Mr. Williams, recent efforts to eliminate Federal workers
and contractors could have significant consequences for NNSA's
mission. So, how do you assess the impact of potential
workforce reductions on stockpile sustainment, non-
proliferation, and modernization programs? Briefly, I don't
want to go over my 30 seconds.
Mr. Williams. Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator, and
thanks also for working with me on NEPA reform issues under the
NDAA. I think it was a little over a year ago. If confirmed, I
will speak up for the men and women of the NNSA and advocate
for them. I think we know how critical they are to restoring
our nuclear deterrence, our nuclear weapons enterprise. So, all
of the discussions about personnel, we're rising to meet a
historic demand right now. I think innovation is key to that. I
think efficiency is key to that, but we need the specialized
workforce that has been developed at NNSA.
Senator Kelly. All right, and I encourage you to push back
against any further cuts to our NNSA workforce when it could
undermine, especially, the nuclear security mission. Thank you.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly.
Senator Slotkin.
Senator Slotkin. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Matthews, I mean, to all the nominees, congratulations.
Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, you will be the senior most lawyer
in the Department of Defense, an incredibly important job. When
the Secretary of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief want to
employ and deploy the Department of Defense, it will come to
you to decide whether the requests meet those legal standards.
I'm concerned that Secretary Hegseth is looking to chart
his own path on legal issues. As I understand it, in March, he
brought in his personal lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, to oversee
sweeping reforms of the JAG Corps, those thousands of military
lawyers in the Department of Defense who meter out how military
lawyers are trained, and the decisions that they make. If
confirmed, would you be Timothy Parlatore's boss, or would he
be your boss? Can you turn on your mic for us?
Mr. Matthews. Thank you for question, Senator. Senator,
President Trump nominated me to be the chief legal officer of
Department of Defense. I will be the chief legal officer of the
Department of Defense and the principal staff assistant to the
Secretary on all legal matters. I've been reading newspaper
articles about Mr. Parlatore, but I don't know him. He just
became a judge advocate, so, I'm not aware of these efforts,
but I'll be the chief legal officer of the Department of
Defense. Senator, I'm not an empty suit. I'm a serious guy, and
I have to speak up.
Senator Slotkin. That's what we want. We want the Senate-
confirmed official to be the senior lawyer. I hope that his
personal lawyer doesn't start to employ sweeping reforms given
what the Secretary has already done with the JAG Corps.
In that role, which we want you to serve, you'll be asked
to meter out really big decisions for the Department of
Defense. There are times when Presidents and Secretaries of
Defense ask for things that violate the Constitution. You are
standing in the breach making those tough calls, as we
discussed in, in our office. Can you just confirm for me that
and a couple of things that if you are told that Active Duty
military is being asked to bring--to come in to suppress
nonviolent protests in violation of Posse Comitatus, will you
determine and advocate that that not be a way the Department of
Defense is employed?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, I will advise on the law, and I'll
tell my clients what the law is.
Senator Slotkin. Well, I think the law is pretty clear
about Active Duty suppressing nonviolent protests in violation
of Posse Comitatus. What about U.S. military holding U.S.
citizens indefinitely without charge or access to courts? Will
you push back on any attempt to use those unlawful powers?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, you raised a hypothetical scenario,
which is extraordinary. I'm not aware of that occurring today,
or----
Senator Slotkin. I hope it never happens. We hope it never
happens, but it's clearly illegal, right? I mean, the----
Mr. Matthews. I can imagine no situation where a U.S.
citizen could be held indefinitely without any access to court
or due process. I don't see that, Senator.
Senator Slotkin. Great. I hope you'll push back on that.
What about if you are asked to punish military personnel for
expressing lawful political views outside of their official
duties, would you advocate for military punishment in that
case?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, the General Counsel of Department of
Defense, if I'm confirmed, we don't punish anybody. I'm a
lawyer. I provide legal----
Senator Slotkin. Well, make a recommendation. Your
recommendation.
Mr. Matthews. What's the scenario, again, Senator?
Senator Slotkin. That a member of the military expresses a
lawful political view outside of their official duties.
Mr. Matthews. I think lawful political view is in the eye
of the beholder, Senator. As you know, members of the Joint
Force or the Armed Forces have truncated First Amendment
rights. So, if they're making disparaging remarks about Members
of the Senate or of the Commander-in-Chief, that's an issue
that we need to study.
Senator Slotkin. So, if in their private life they express
a view that they might consider voting for a Democrat, is that
something you would recommend advocating some sort of reprimand
for?
Mr. Matthews. Senator, I don't have anything against
Democrats. Not to be flippant, but no ?-it's a hypothetical,
but I can't imagine a scenario like that, Senator.
Senator Slotkin. Well, I mean, we, we see 4-star Generals
being fired because of their alleged views, right? We're seeing
people remove JAGs. People, I am assuming you've served with,
for years, be removed for doing their jobs, because they don't
comport with the political views of the Secretary of Defense.
So, it's not a hypothetical to ask whether someone's going to
be punished for their political views outside of work.
Mr. Matthews. Senator, I haven't seen any evidence that the
JAGs were removed because of political views. I've not seen
that. Maybe you have access to stuff I haven't seen.
Senator Slotkin. Well, I think it's--can we agree? It's
highly unusual to remove that many JAGs at once. Have you ever
seen in your career the removal of that many JAGs at one time?
Mr. Matthews. Again, Senator, one----
Senator Slotkin. Have you ever seen it? You've been there
for a long time.
Mr. Matthews. I have not seen it in my career, but I'll
tell you this, that one of the persons of those Advocates
General resigned before the Administration even started. So,
we're talking about two people Senator, and the actions taken
by the Secretary were lawful, to my understanding.
Senator Slotkin. I'm out of time, so I yield back.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Slotkin, and Senator
Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marks in response to an advanced policy questions that
was posed to you, you've indicated that you would, ``continue
to aggressively address PFAS [Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances] in a comprehensive manner across the Department.''
I'm certainly glad to hear that, and, certainly, I am glad to
hear because it's the top priority for me. Particularly with
the number of sites that we have in Michigan that need to be
addressed, and I'm hopeful we can agree on some expectations.
So, I'm going to ask you four questions, and if you can
just answer yes or no, this would be incredibly helpful when it
comes to PFAS cleanup. First off, yes or no, would you be
willing to remediate where PFAS exceeds Federal or State
standards?
Mr. Marks. Senator, I would adhere to the laws of the
standards, and we would remediate to those, if confirmed.
Senator Peters. Both Federal and State, cleaning up to the
extent that meets both Federal and State PFAS standards to
ensure PFAS Safety?
Mr. Marks. Senator, again, we want to clean up to the
standards as indicated by law and policy?
Senator Peters. Next ensuring remediation is completed
efficiently and effectively?
Mr. Marks. To the degree possible. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Peters. Finally, improving transparency and
engaging with community stakeholders throughout the process?
Mr. Marks. Senator Transparency is key, and yes, if
confirmed, we would want to uphold that.
Senator Peters. Great, and transparency is essential. The
one of the frustrations we've had is the communications in our
local communities, and I would hope that would be different, if
you are confirmed.
Mr. Marks. Again, Senator, you have my commitment, if
confirmed, we'll work hard on transparency.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Hansell, congratulations on your nomination. I'm glad
that we were able to meet in my office prior to this meeting,
and talk about priorities related to technology acquisition
process in the Intelligence Community. As we discussed, if you
recall in my office, the bulk of new information technology
development in the commercial sector the DOD's traditional
acquisition practices. We think they need to be updated and
streamlined to quickly adapt and to integrate to commercial
technologies that are advancing a whole lot faster than we're
seeing in the traditional sources.
But this kind of change is particularly challenging for the
IC community given the needs for additional safeguards and
classification. So, my question for you, sir, is if confirmed,
how will you work to speed up commercial technology adoption?
Mr. Hansell. Senator, thank you for the question. I'm very
aware of it. In my private sector experience, I've seen the
challenges highlighted in the FoRGED Act. As advisor to DOD IC
clients, I saw firsthand the opportunity cost of not enabling
decisive action. In advising private sector clients trying to
do business in the Intelligence Community, Defense Department,
I saw the loss of effects of not being a good customer and not
cutting the red tape.
I agree with you, in areas with more classification, these
problems are exasperated. I think we certainly--the first thing
I would do is in line with the FoRGED Act, I think we need to
be more aggressive, is make sure there's not an over
classification. I've seen too many times where folks are using
over classification as a barrier entry to deter competition and
that is not getting the best effects down range for the
warfighter. We have to stop that.
Another example. The red tape is, when between an FCL
[Facility Clearance] accreditation, SCIF [Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility] accreditation, security
clearance backlog, when in the private sector, it's sometimes
is better to buy a company for accreditation than to go through
the process. I think we can agree the process is extremely
broken. What I would do, I think, top two things I would do is,
one, I think that there's incredible amount of people out there
that want to provide services to the Intelligence Community,
Defense Department, but don't understand the problems which
exist because we've overed them. So, I would work to build
bridge with leaders inside industry.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, I look forward to working with
you, if confirmed, on all of that.
Mr. Hansell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Peters. There's a lot to do there.
Mr. Williams, the National Nuclear Security Administration,
which you have been nominated to head, is responsible for a lot
of very big things, as you know. First and foremost,
maintaining, enhancing the safety, security, and effectiveness
of our nuclear stockpile. It's a big job. Yet, we have Elon
Musk and his DOGE that have made, unfortunately, this agency a
top target for staffing cuts, which to me, and I think many
Americans believe is reckless.
Mr. Williams, how can the National Nuclear Security
Administration protect our most sensitive nuclear assets and
meet its additional responsibilities without sufficient staff?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think
of course, I'm not in the Department, so I'm not really
familiar with what the plans are. I'm not familiar other than
the news reports. However, I will commit to you that, should I
be confirmed, that I will be an advocate for the men and women
of the NNSA. They comprise a unique workforce at a unique
period of time when we have to meet the mission of
reconstituting our nuclear weapons enterprise. So, that's my
commitment, Senator. That I'll be an advocate on behalf of the
men and women of the NNSA.
Senator Peters. I'm out of time, but just real quick. If
confirmed, will you allow DOGE to dictate staffing decisions in
your agency, if confirmed, or will you push back?
Mr. Williams. Senator, I'm not aware of how DOGE operates,
but the NNSA Act by Congress puts personnel issues under my
authority, should I be confirmed as the administrator, and I
will be certain to protect and exercise that authority that's
given by Congress.
Senator Peters. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
all of the nominees this morning.
Mr. Marks, the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire
was one of the first places where PFAS was discovered after the
base had been closed. It contaminated the water supply for the
city of Portsmouth, and the Air Force was very responsive in
coming and helping the city deal with that, putting carbon
filters on the wells so that the water was cleaned up, and now
they have been cleaning up the groundwater since then. So, I
was reassured to hear your responses to Senator Peters about
your commitment on PFAS.
But I am concerned with reports that I'm hearing from New
Hampshire, from those people who are part of the Restoration
Advisory Board that DOD's travel policy restrictions are
hindering public participation in community PFAS engagement
meetings. So, again, I was reassured when you committed to
supporting community engagement on this issue. But do you agree
that there is a responsibility to meet regularly with those
restoration advisory boards, and if possible, to do that in
person where possible so that it increases transparency and
engagement with communities?
Mr. Marks. Senator, thank you for that. I'm unfamiliar
directly with that part of the issue. However, partnership is
exactly what needs to take place in communities to be
successful. If confirmed, I would want to work with the
services to better understand why they were not allowed to
travel.
I understand the orders that have come forth on that, but
my understanding is also that mission can go forward. So, I
would like to dig deeper, if confirmed, to understand more, but
it would be my encouragement to have those in-person meetings.
I think they're the most effective methodology.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and I
agree, and I would just point out that because of the early
recognition of PFAS contamination, Pease was the site where the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which is now
being cut, did a health study that is still ongoing. It's about
to wrap up with, I think, about 9 sites around the country to
determine the long-term health effects of PFAS.
But for us in New Hampshire, the impact from the former
Pease Air Force Base has been significant. Because there were
two childcare centers that were affected by the contamination,
and parents were very concerned about what that impact will be
long-term on their children.
Mr. Matthews, I understand you were present in meetings at
the Department of Defense on January 6th, and that you
subsequently wrote a report outlining fallacies in previous
testimoneys to Congress. I appreciate that. But I'd like to
know how you intend to ensure that all DOD attorneys provide
legal advice that's free from political influence.
Mr. Matthews. Thank you, Senator. Senator, I think that
that's the standard. That's the expectation that they will be
free from political influence. It's your job, and so, I will
reinforce that requirement throughout the Department to the
extent I can ask that, if confirmed.
Senator Shaheen. You are a member of the Army JAG Corps, is
that correct?
Mr. Matthews. I'm a Reserve officer in the Army JAG Corps.
Yes, ma'am.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I'm sure you're aware that the
Secretary of Defense fired the Army and Air Force JAGs at the
beginning of May, starting at the beginning of May. A number of
my colleagues on this panel have requested answers for why that
happened. But do you have any knowledge of that?
Mr. Matthews. I wasn't at the Department. I have no special
insight, ma'am. I do know that the--my understanding was that
Secretary Hegseth announced that the President will be
accepting nominations for those positions. Air Force, and Army,
and Navy Judge Advocate General, and that the incumbents for
the Army and Air Force did resign after it was announced that
nominations were being sought. But I have no insight into why
that occurred.
Senator Shaheen. But just to be clear, do you consider your
job as a JAG officer to be political in any way?
Mr. Matthews. No, ma'am.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews. People in uniforms should stay out of
politics, ma'am. That's my view.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope that
that's a value that the Department of Defense and Secretary
Hegseth will continue to reinforce.
Mr. Williams, I just want to followup on Senator Peter's
question about the firings at NNSA, because as he pointed out,
there are fewer qualified, experienced personnel now who are
safeguarding our nuclear weapons. That when the first firings
happened at NNSA of 3,000 people who were deemed non-essential,
that people had to be hired back because the firings were not
targeted enough to recognize who was essential and who wasn't.
I would hope that if you are confirmed, that you would be
very clear about what personnel are essential to ensuring that
our nuclear stockpile is safe.
Mr. Williams. Senator Shaheen, thank you for that question.
Thanks also for visiting the Air Force Research Lab in Rome,
New York, where you and I were together a little over a year
ago. So, thanks for showing interest in the former Griffith Air
Base. I just wanted to tell you that
Senator Shaheen. I don't think that was me, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Was it not?
Senator Shaheen. It was not.
Mr. Williams. I wish it had been.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. To answer to your question. The mission of
NNSA is so critical right now in our national history. The
workforce is absolutely critical to meeting the needs right
now. If confirmed, I would work very carefully and closely to
see what changes, if any, in personnel and scope would be
necessary.
Honestly, I would welcome analysis and evaluation of, are
we innovating? Are we spending money in NNSA in an optimal way?
But those decisions, as I've said, I will advocate for the men
and women of NNSA, and know that they have special skills and
special experience that cannot be easily replicated.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Mr. Reed,
further questions?
Senator Reed. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. This concludes today's hearing. I want to
thank our witnesses for their testimony, and again, thank their
friends and families for joining us, and for staying with us.
For the information of Members and staff, questions for the
record will be due to the Committee within two business days of
the conclusion of the hearing. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to The Honorable Brandon M.
Williams by Chairman Wicker prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and qualifications
Question. In accordance with title 42, U.S. Code, section 7132(c)),
the Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security serves concurrently
as the Administrator for Nuclear Security of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), as set forth in title 50, U.S. Code,
section 2402. The Under Secretary must have an extensive background in
national security, organizational management, and appropriate technical
fields, and be well-qualified to manage the nuclear weapons,
nonproliferation, and materials disposition programs of the NNSA in a
manner that advances and protects the national security of the United
States.
What background, experience, and expertise do you possess that
qualify you for appoint as the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
Administrator for Nuclear Security, National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)?
Answer. As a Veteran of the United States Navy Nuclear Submarine
Service, I believe my experience completing six strategic deterrent
patrols aboard the USS Georgia (SSBN 729B) while serving as the
Strategic Missile Officer, Nuclear Safety Officer, Nuclear Weapons
Radiological Controls Officer, and Nuclear Weapons Security Officer,
has never been more important at NNSA. My Nuclear Navy experience
qualifies me to supervise the operation of two naval nuclear reactor
designs (5SW and S8G), which I have thousands of hours of supervisory
experience, and which I was designated as the naval courier for the
receipt of nuclear weapons and materials for USS Georgia. After leaving
the Nuclear Navy, I pursued a graduate degree from the Wharton School
of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. Following which, I
founded a software company focused on modernizing and securing
industrial controls for process manufacturing industries. Most
recently, I served as a Member of Congress for New York's 22d
congressional District, in which capacity I was named Chairman of the
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Energy Subcommittee,
which I had oversight authority of DOE National Labs. If confirmed, I
believe this background, experience, and expertise will best equip me
for the role that I have been nominated for.
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security? Of the duties and functions
of the Administrator, NNSA?
Answer. If confirmed, as Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, I
will report directly to Energy Secretary Wright. My role will be to
inform and execute his and the President's vision on nuclear security
and the Department of Energy's (DOE) mission. If confirmed, as NNSA
Administrator, I will be responsible for executing NNSA's missions of
maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, and effectiveness of
the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; reducing the global danger from
weapons of mass destruction; providing the U.S. Navy with safe and
militarily effective nuclear propulsion; and responding to nuclear and
radiological emergencies in the United States and abroad.
Question. Do you perceive there to be any differences or dissonance
between the requirements of each such position? If confirmed, under
whose authority, direction, and control, would you serve in each such
position?
Answer. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Security serves as NNSA
Administrator. Per the NNSA Act, ``in carrying out the functions of the
Administrator, the Under Secretary shall be subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary.''
Question. If confirmed, what additional duties and
responsibilities, if any, do you expect that the Secretary of Energy
would prescribe for you?
Answer. I am unaware of any additional duties and responsibilities
that I may be assigned at this time.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your main priorities in each
of the roles for which you have been nominated?
Answer. My main priority for the NNSA is to deter the enemies of
the United States and of those allies with whom we have extended our
deterrent shield. I am to do this by building and maintaining strategic
weapons that are safe, secure, effective, and reliable. I will
emphasize meeting the programs of record for our customers first. I
want to prioritize the rebuilding of the nuclear weapons enterprise,
deliver on the Life Extension Programs (LEP) Programs of Record,
innovate in our ability to respond to emergency and emergent threats
and continue to pursue non-proliferation and counter-proliferation
priorities. I also firmly believe that NNSA must rebuild credibility
with NNSA customers, including the Department of Defense.
Question. What are the major challenges you would expect to
confront if confirmed as the Under Secretary and Administrator?
Answer. The fundamental challenge NNSA faces is the need to
simultaneously replace its aging and failing infrastructure while
continuing to meet Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for warhead
modernization. Maintaining leadership focus on these priorities should
not come at the expense of investment in expanding scientific
capabilities to expedite future modernization efforts. In addition,
nuclear proliferation challenges are growing in an increasingly complex
threat environment.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus significant leadership attention
on historical project management challenges, and identify best
practices used in private industry that could be adapted for use at
NNSA. I will work to develop collaborative relationships with partner
organizations, especially DOD and Congress, to identify challenges
early and work to identify solutions. I will review the approaches and
systems that NNSA is adopting the nuclear deterrent with an eye toward
identifying efficiencies. While NNSA has a significant Federal
oversight role of its management and operating (M&O) contractors who
manage day-to-day operations at the labs, plants, and sites, I will
make sure M&O contract incentives are properly utilized.
Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you
assign to the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator?
Answer. The Principal Deputy Administrator, subject to the
authority of the Administrator, shall oversee the implementation and
accountability of contracts, procurement, administrative, budget, and
planning activities. In addition, the Principal Deputy Administrator
will engage with stakeholders, partners, and suppliers to NNSA to
develop efforts for resiliency, efficiency, and innovation to the
nuclear weapons enterprise.
conflicts of interest
Question. Federal ethics laws, to include 10 U.S.C. Sec. 208,
prohibit government employees from participating in matters where they,
or certain family members or organizations with which they have certain
relationships, have a financial interest.
Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to disclose any
potential conflicts of interest, including investments, business ties,
family relationships, or other connections that could be perceived as
influencing your decisionmaking?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, that
if a conflict of interest arises, you will recuse yourself from
participating in any relevant decisions regarding that specific matter?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit, without qualification, if confirmed, to
decisionmaking on the merits and exclusively in the public interest,
without regard to private gain or personal benefit?
Answer. Yes.
nnsa organization and management structure
Question. The NNSA Act of 2000, as amended, establishes that the
Administrator for Nuclear Security``. . . shall be subject to the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary [of Energy]. Such
authority, direction, and control may be delegated only to the Deputy
Secretary of Energy, without re-delegation.''
What is your view on the relationship between the Secretary of
Energy and the Administrator of NNSA in statute and in recent practice?
Answer. Per the NNSA Act, NNSA is subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary. To ensure NNSA is successful
in executing its mission, I believe the NNSA Administrator must have a
robust relationship with the Secretary of Energy and Deputy Secretary
of Energy. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary to bolster NNSA's efficiency and impact.
Question. How is the ``semi-autonomous'' nature of the NNSA, as set
forth in the by the NNSA Act, reflected in NNSA's organizational
structure? What makes NNSA different from the domains of the other
Under Secretaries of the Department of Energy (DOE)--in both law and
practice?
Answer. The NNSA Act established NNSA as a semi-autonomous
organization under DOE to execute its national security programs. This
statutory authority is unique in that it provides the Administrator
authority over key operational functions, such as policy development,
personnel, and procurement. The NNSA Act also delineates specific
identified positions, such as the Administrator, Principal Deputy
Administrator for Nuclear Security, Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors, and a General Counsel.
Question. With a view to improving organizational management and
operational effectiveness, would you recommend any changes to the
structure of NNSA?
Answer. Independent studies in recent years have noted that NNSA's
management of the nuclear security enterprise is generally improving.
There is always room for improvement. Given NNSA's unique structure and
relationships with its management and operating contractors (M&O),
sustaining transparent communication and facilitating productive
relationships with stakeholders is fundamental to effective governance
and management. NNSA must deliver on its missions cost-effectively and
efficiently. If confirmed, I will work with the NNSA leadership team to
ensure that the agency executes program and project management
efficiently, with the highest acumen and in a fiscally responsible
manner.
relationship with the department of defense (dod)
Question. If confirmed, you will be a member of the Nuclear Weapons
Council (NWC), together with the Under Secretaries of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, Policy, and Research and Engineering, as
well as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command. Since the 1946 Atomic Energy Act,
when it was designated as the ``Military Liaison Committee,'' the
primary purpose of the NWC is to serve as the civilian-military
interface and set the military requirements for the nuclear weapons
stockpile, which form the basis of the core mission of NNSA. The
Department of Defense (DOD) is, in a sense, NNSA's primary customer.
How would you assess the relationship between NNSA and the DOD, at
both senior management levels, as well as at working levels?
Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to witness these
relationships first-hand, but I understand NNSA and DOD continue to
integrate their work well and maintain a positive working relationship.
NNSA and DOD must continue to successfully integrate each of their
unique capabilities, responsibilities, and schedules to maintain a
safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to improve
this relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to maintain regular engagements with
my DOD counterparts to ensure consistent communications and
coordination so that NNSA remains a dynamic partner ready to support
the nuclear security mission.
Question. Do you believe that NNSA is adequately responsive to the
requirements set by the DOD?
Answer. Yes, though I understand the demand on the nuclear security
enterprise has significantly increased. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure continual communication and collaboration with DOD and, if
necessary, improve NNSA's ability to respond to DOD requirements.
Likewise, I will endeavor to inform DOD requirements by communicating
NNSA's current and planned capacity, and work to ensure that NNSA
modernization and recapitalization efforts are poised to provide
options for future DOD requirements.
Question. Do you believe it important for the NWC to ensure the
NNSA is adequately funded through the interagency budget process to
meet DOD's requirements?
Answer. I believe NNSA must submit a budget capable of supporting
the activities necessary to meet DOD requirements. If confirmed, I will
work with the Secretary of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget,
and the NWC to make sure NNSA understands DOD requirements and requests
the necessary funding to meet those requirements.
nnsa budget
Question. The workload of the NNSA has seen an unprecedented
increase over the past several years, an increase that is expected to
continue for the foreseeable future. However, growth in the NNSA budget
has consistently failed to keep pace with inflation and failed to fully
resource a variety of projects understood to be critical capability
needs, such as tritium and conventional high explosives production.
Multiple independent commissions, including the Commission on the
National Defense Strategy, and the Commission on the Strategic Posture
of the United States have highlighted that U.S. defense investments are
inadequate for addressing the international security threats facing the
United States. These conclusions have been echoed by many Members of
Congress.
Question. Do you agree that sustained real growth in the defense
budget, including the national security functions of the Department of
Energy, of at least 3 to 5 percent is necessary to meet global security
challenges without incurring significant additional risk?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed to be able to sufficiently
evaluate the defense budget's needs. If confirmed, I will work with DOE
colleagues, my Federal counterparts, and additional stakeholders to
request the necessary funding to meet our national security needs to
keep America safe.
Question. 10 U.S.C. 179 requires the Nuclear Weapons Council to
examine the NNSA budget before its submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure it can meet DOD requirements, and
provide confirmation of such review to Congress.
If confirmed, do you commit, without qualification, to complying
with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 179 with regard to the annual NWC
examination of the NNSA budget prior to its submission to OMB?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How would you ensure compliance with this provision,
including ensuring the NWC is accorded adequate time to review the
budget before its submission to OMB?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be briefed on this, but I
understand there is an existing process. If confirmed, I plan to work
with the NWC and the Secretary of Energy to facilitate review of the
NNSA budget and deliver timely responses to any NWC stakeholder
inquiries.
Question. If confirmed, by what standards would you measure the
adequacy of the NNSA budget?
Answer. The adequacy of the NNSA budget must be measured by
evaluating how effectively the NNSA's strategy documents are being
implemented to meet statutory obligations and accomplish the
Administration's policies. If confirmed, I will work with my NNSA
colleagues, Federal counterparts, and additional stakeholders to
determine the appropriate resource levels required for the NNSA budget
to fulfill its statutory responsibilities and accomplish the
administration's policy goals.
nuclear policy and modernization
Question. United States nuclear forces are the bedrock of our
Nation's defense, underpin our most critical alliances, and have
deterred nuclear aggression and great power conflict for more than 70
years. Unfortunately, long deferred investments have left us with
systems and production capabilities beyond or nearing the end of their
useful lives. These capabilities must be updated to maintain a viable
nuclear deterrent.
Do you agree with the assessment of past Secretaries of Defense
that nuclear deterrence is the Nation's highest priority mission and
that modernizing our Nation's nuclear forces is a critical national
security priority?
Answer. Yes, I do. Since the end of World War II, our nuclear
stockpile has served as the bedrock of our Nation's defense. If
confirmed, I look forward to coordinating with NNSA's counterparts in
DOD to ensure we retain a modern, capable, and effective nuclear
deterrent.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to support and advocate for
full funding for efforts to comprehensively modernize the Nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile, including supplemental capabilities like the
warhead for the sea-launched cruise missile, the supporting sustainment
and production infrastructure, and experimental capabilities, and
accelerate such programs wherever possible?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit my support for both the
modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, including SLCM-N,
as well as the recapitalization of the production and science and
technology infrastructure that support it.
Question. In its unanimous bipartisan conclusions, the 2023
Strategic Posture Commission (SPC) highlighted the rapidly growing
threats facing the United States, now and in the coming decades from
China's unprecedented nuclear and military force expansion, Russia's
aggression and investment in destabilizing strategic capabilities, and
growing regional nuclear and missile threats from North Korea and Iran.
To address these threats, the SPC recommended, among other steps, that
the U.S. should expedite its ongoing nuclear force modernization
activities, modify its strategic nuclear force structure to account for
the rapid growth of China's nuclear forces and the unprecedented need
to deter two nuclear-armed peer adversaries, and urgently develop
additional theater range nuclear options.
Do you agree with the conclusions of the SPC regarding global
threats to U.S. interests?
Answer. I agree with the SPC's findings with regards to the threat
environment, the challenges posed by cooperation among our adversaries,
the potential for opportunistic aggression, and the real challenge of
deterring and, if necessary, winning simultaneous conflicts in Europe
and the Indo-Pacific. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on
the work NNSA may have implemented so far in response to these threats
and the work that remains to be done to leverage NNSA's capabilities to
promote peace through strength and support wider global stability.
Question. What is your understanding of how Russia, China, and
North Korea have expanded and/or modernized their nuclear force
capabilities?
Answer. I understand the global security environment has become
more complex in recent years. NNSA, along with its national
laboratories, is uniquely capable of applying technical nuclear weapons
program expertise to assess foreign nuclear weapons programs. If
confirmed, I will seek the appropriate briefings on nuclear threats to
focus NNSA's efforts on deterring and countering those that threaten
U.S. interests.
Question. In your view, how does NNSA support strategic competition
with the countries highlighted by the SPC and contribute to the overall
national security of the United States?
Answer. Every element of the NNSA mission enables and ensures the
United States' ability to strategically compete with our adversaries.
NNSA's sustainment and modernization of our nuclear arsenal is the
backbone of our national defense, ensuring the United States fields
modern, reliable, and effective weapons to deter our adversaries.
Recapitalization of the production enterprise demonstrates the United
States' commitment to the nuclear mission over the long term and sends
a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is able, and
willing, to strategically address changes to the geopolitical
environment by fielding modern capabilities. This also helps to
dissuade adversaries from believing they can outpace our Nation in the
nuclear domain.
NNSA's nonproliferation mission also helps ensure threats to the
United States are minimized and, when applicable, nuclear agreements
are verifiable to deter negotiating partners from abrogating them.
NNSA's counterterrorism and counter-proliferation efforts ensure the
spread of nuclear weapons will not occur without notice and that
nuclear use cannot occur with impunity and non-attribution. The Naval
Nuclear Propulsion mission is essential to advancing the United States'
ability to project power globally. Collectively, NNSA's capabilities
help underpin national security efforts to allow the United States to
deter, compete, and project strength globally.
Question. Do you support continued collaboration with the United
Kingdom in the maintenance of its independent nuclear deterrent?
Answer. Yes. The United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent
plays an immense role in providing a nuclear umbrella to our NATO
allies and, equally as important, acts to complicate adversarial
military calculus. If confirmed, I would continue to support and
advocate for our collaboration with the United Kingdom.
Question. Past administrations have conducted Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR) to define the upcoming overarching U.S. nuclear policy and
strategy. The last NPR, conducted in 2022 by the Biden administration,
emphasized the importance of modernizing our stockpile, NNSA
facilities, and the workforce. Although the Secretary of Defense is the
primary cabinet official responsible for policymaking regarding nuclear
weapons, the support of the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator
for Nuclear Security are crucial to successful execution of the nuclear
mission.
If confirmed, what would be your role in the conduct of the Trump
administration's NPR, should it choose to conduct one?
Answer. If confirmed and the Administration decides to pursue an
updated NPR, I will take an active role to ensure NNSA's capabilities
and requirements are communicated and understood as part of this
process. NNSA has unique responsibilities to deliver a deterrent that
remains safe, secure, and effective for America.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, to the policies
outlined by the 2022 NPR would you recommend the Trump administration
consider?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to potential
deliberations that may be occurring regarding a future NPR. However, I
will make sure NNSA executes the policy decisions outlined in any
update. Given the complex challenges and strategic environment we face
today, I believe that modernizing infrastructure across the enterprise,
delivering capabilities to DOD, advancing future capabilities through
research and development and restoring the domestic production of
strategic materials will be enduring priorities for NNSA.
Question. Should the upcoming NPR call for the development of
additional nuclear capabilities, will you commit, if confirmed, to
supporting those additions and ensuring that NNSA fully supports the
new requirements?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Arms control, when effective and verifiable, has been a
valuable tool for managing competition and international security
concerns. In contrast, unverifiable arms control regimes observed by
only one party can generate instability.
Do you believe that further reductions should be taken only within
the context of a formal, verifiable arms control agreement with Russia,
China and other nuclear-armed powers?
Answer. Decisions regarding future arms control initiatives will be
decided by the Administration. If confirmed, I will work with
interagency partners to contribute to appropriate future arms control
initiatives when feasible. In the meantime, I will ensure that NNSA's
nuclear security enterprise is investing in the development, testing,
and evaluation of monitoring and verification tools and concepts so
that the United States can enter future arms control negotiations with
confidence that we possess the necessary technologies and approaches
for possible future monitoring and verification requirements.
nuclear weapons council
Question. By statute, the Administrator for Nuclear Security is a
member of the Nuclear Weapons Council. In your view, what are the most
significant issues the Council should take up in the coming years?
Answer. While I am not privy to the internal deliberations of the
NWC, I do believe that the NWC should take a strategic approach to
prioritizing the execution of the existing Program of Record, which has
been called necessary but insufficient, while identifying opportunities
to accelerate or augment capabilities beyond those planned
modernization programs. Successfully accomplishing these efforts and
meeting DOD needs while limiting schedule delays and cost increases for
infrastructure, warhead, and platform modernization will require NWC
focus and prioritization. If confirmed, I look forward to collaborating
with my fellow DOD colleagues through the NWC to continue pursuing the
full-scale recapitalization of the enterprise while simultaneously
executing necessary warhead modernization programs.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to fully participating in
NWC matters and personally attending meetings?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to working with the other
members of the NWC and the interagency to ensure that annual budgets
adequately support the modernization and sustainment of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act
restructured the existing Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs into the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear Deterrence, Chemical, and Biological Defense
Policy and Programs. Congress took this action to cut through
bureaucratic stovepipes in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
designate a single official as the principal civilian staff assistant
responsible for nuclear policies, programs, and operations.
What is your understanding of the role of this position in relation
to the Nuclear Weapons Council and with regard to the overall DOD
relationship with the NNSA?
Answer. I expect this position will facilitate close coordination
within DOD and the NWC and will streamline communication between DOD
and NNSA. If confirmed, I look forward to discussions with DOD
colleagues about how they are implementing this restructuring.
defense programs
Question. Do you believe that the United States currently possesses
the capabilities to ensure the stockpile is safe, secure, and
reliable--without the need to resume nuclear explosive testing?
Answer. Yes. The United States continues to observe its 1992
nuclear test moratorium; and, since 1992, has assessed that the
deployed nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective without
nuclear explosive testing. Each year, the national security lab
directors and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command assess the
stockpile and determine if there is anything that would require a need
to return to underground nuclear explosive testing. If confirmed, I
will continue to support the annual assessment process and will ensure
NNSA continues to comply with these readiness requirements while also
supporting a robust Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Question. What is your understanding of the current nuclear weapons
stockpile modernization plan?
Answer. I understand NNSA is currently executing seven simultaneous
stockpile modernization programs at different stages of design,
engineering, production, and delivery. The Program of Record includes
the B61-12, W88 Alt 370, W80-4, W87-1, W93, B61-13 and the development
of SLCM-N. NNSA is also recapitalizing its production infrastructure
and design, certification, and assessment capabilities to support the
current and future deterrent. NNSA's primary focus remains delivering
modernized warheads to DOD, and I understand that the nuclear security
enterprise is actively working each of these programs.
Taken together, the current program of record will run through the
2030's and cover all three legs of the nuclear triad. Its successful
delivery will increase the effectiveness and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear stockpile while providing more flexible options to the
President and enhancing U.S. security. While the program of record is
planned through the 2030's, deterrence does not stop on any particular
date. NNSA must continue to be responsive to DOD requirements while
developing capabilities to meet deterrent gaps of any kind that may
emerge well into the future. Above all, our nuclear modernization plan
must deter the full range of threats posed by adversaries and ensure
the United States has an enduring safe, secure, and effective nuclear
stockpile.
Question. Do you have any concerns with this level of effort
required of NNSA and, in particular, concurrency between the plants and
the laboratories?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with NNSA's laboratories,
plants, and sites to ensure that NNSA and the nuclear security
enterprise are able to deliver these critical programs on time and on
budget. Though the work required of NNSA may seem daunting, I am
encouraged by improved collaboration between NNSA's labs, plants, and
sites in recent years that has resulted in tangible progress in
delivering modernized weapons and recapitalized infrastructure. If
confirmed, I look forward to accelerating progress in delivering the
nuclear deterrent.
Question. Congress has authorized the Stockpile Responsiveness
Program for the last several years in order to exercise design and
engineering skills in support of the nuclear weapons mission, but this
authority has not been fully utilized by NNSA.
If confirmed, how would you support the Stockpile Responsiveness
Program and make full use of the authorities it provides NNSA?
Answer. The unique capabilities of the Stockpile Responsiveness
Program (SRP) allow it to advance important technology and prototype
systems with new capabilities that will be required to allow the United
States to appropriately respond to future threats, technology trends,
and international developments not addressed by existing programs. If
confirmed, I will fully support, and request funding for, SRP to
exercise and develop the nuclear security enterprise's ability to
respond to emerging threats and to ensure DOE/NNSA can recruit, train,
and retain the next generation of weapon designers and engineers, and
to improve integration across the complex to prepare for future
demands.
Question. If confirmed, what are your long-term plans for the
National Ignition Facility and other critical experimental facilities?
Answer. The National Ignition Facility is critical to ensuring the
safety and reliability of the Nation's nuclear stockpile. If confirmed,
I look forward to being briefed on the long-term plans of the National
Ignition Facility.
Question. What are your views of the Advanced Computing Program and
what is your vision for the use of advanced computing in furtherance of
NNSA missions?
Answer. The Advanced Computing Program enables NNSA to expertly
model multiple, connected aspects of nuclear weapons performance. If
confirmed, I will continue NNSA's commitment to acquire greater
computational capabilities that support the use of sophisticated
physics models and advanced artificial intelligence capabilities to
more accurately represent nuclear phenomena and enable simulations of
unprecedented resolution and precision, essential for evaluating the
performance, safety, and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Question. What role do you see in the application of artificial
intelligence and machine learning tools in support of NNSA missions?
Answer. Artificial intelligence will increasingly become an
indispensable tool for NNSA. Alongside supercomputers, new AI-based
workflows coupled with machine learning can address emerging
challenges, including material discovery, design optimization, and
advanced manufacturing within the nuclear security enterprise. If
confirmed, I will evaluate the use of AI and machine learning and
application across NNSA's mission space, whether in support of the
stockpile or addressing nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and
infrastructure challenges.
Question. The NNSA depends upon a unique mix of private sector and
government sources for research, development, and manufacture of
critical technologies to support its national security missions.
However, U.S. superiority in key areas of innovation is decreasing or
has disappeared. Our competitors are engaging in aggressive military
modernization and advanced weaponry development. Much of the innovation
in critical technologies suitable for national defense purposes is
occurring outside of the traditional defense industry.
In your view, what technologies do you see as having the greatest
impact on the missions of the NNSA in the future?
Answer. Applications using artificial intelligence (AI) could give
NNSA a continued advantage over U.S. adversaries in the design and
manufacture of nuclear weapons. AI and machine learning technologies
have potential to optimize experimental designs, analyze diagnostic
data and improve facility operations.
Additionally, advanced manufacturing techniques can accelerate
production and improve the quality of components and systems used in
nuclear weapons. If confirmed, I will work with NNSA's multiple program
offices and the labs, plants and sites to leverage AI, machine
learning, and advanced manufacturing for our national security
missions.
Question. Do you believe NNSA is effectively developing this
technology in comparison to our adversaries?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to activities NNSA
may be undertaking to develop this technology. I agree that effective
development and application of advanced technologies are essential to
maintaining U.S. supremacy in the nuclear arena. I would, if confirmed,
investigate current efforts and be prepared to provide a more complete
answer.
Question. Are NNSA's investments in these technologies
appropriately focused, integrated, and synchronized across all of the
administration's missions and with the DOD, where appropriate?
Answer. One of the principal responsibilities of the NNSA
Administrator is to ensure integration of efforts across NNSA
laboratories, plants, and sites, including the application of advanced
technology, and to integrate these efforts with DOD where needed. If
confirmed, I will make this a key priority.
Question. In general, do you see NNSA as a good partner for
innovative, private sector entities?
Answer. Yes. NNSA's labs, plants and sites, in tandem with private
industry, provide cutting-edge, world class scientific and
manufacturing capabilities and engagement. If confirmed, I will
evaluate partnerships in the private sector for continued preeminence
in critical fields related to the security of the nuclear stockpile.
Question. What steps would you take to improve the NNSA's ability
to engage industry, particularly innovative firms outside the
traditional Nuclear Security Enterprise?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to NNSA's
engagements with industry partners, but I understand that NNSA
routinely engages industry partners on its contracting opportunities
through industry days, pre-proposal conferences, individual meetings
and requests for information on various requirements. If confirmed, I
commit to implementing suggestions from industry partners, when
possible, as well as implementing lessons learned from contract
competitions.
construction and project management
Question. NNSA has been plagued by cost overruns, schedule delays,
and project cancellations related to the construction of nuclear
facilities, including the Uranium Processing Facility, the Savannah
River Plutonium Processing Facility, and the High Explosive Synthesis,
Formulation, and Production Facility.
In your opinion, what are the primary causes of these repeated
failures in project management?
Answer. In the past, NNSA projects have failed due to ill-defined
requirements, deficiencies in contractor performance and planning,
inefficient oversight by Department personnel, procurement delays,
inadequate accountability for contractors, and contract structures that
insufficiently incentivized contractor performance. In addition, I
understand NNSA has been negatively impacted by COVID-19 and inflation
issues that have hit the entirety of the construction industry. If
confirmed, I will work to adopt business best practices to support the
completion of projects to meet the needs of the Nation.
Question. In your view, are the changes in NNSA project management
practices undertaken over the last few years sufficient to address
these problems?
Answer. Over the past few years, NNSA has made continued
improvements to address project management challenges, but more work in
this area is required. If confirmed, I will be looking for areas where
we can adopt innovative strategies to more efficiently deliver NNSA's
mission, such as the streamlining of project management requirements.
Question. If not, what additional steps would you take, if
confirmed, to improve the availability of highly qualified talent
capable of managing intensive capital infrastructure projects?
Answer. Attracting talented professionals to manage these
challenging infrastructure projects is foundational to the success of
the enterprise. If confirmed, I will ensure NNSA hiring requirements
for these positions value commercial experience equivalent to Federal
experience to attract highly qualified talent. I will also focus on
building high performing teams in areas requiring the most attention in
collaboration with the labs, plants and sites.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
ensure that these project management failures are not repeated in the
future?
Answer. If confirmed, some of my recommendations include holding
those responsible for the project accountable, codifying the optimal
level of oversight, taking decisive action when necessary, implementing
lessons learned, strengthening cost estimating practices, and
identifying opportunities for acceleration.
Question. What specific changed in policy, practice, organization,
or regulation would you recommend in furtherance of this effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review current efforts and processes
to ensure that my team continues to refine policy for consistent
approaches in cost estimating, eliminate redundant policies and apply
more streamlined processes that govern acquisition and project efforts.
I will focus on contract structure and incentives to drive performance.
Question. In your view, does the Administrator for Nuclear Security
need any additional authorities or flexibilities to address the root
causes of these project management failures? Please explain your
answer.
Answer. My understanding is that NNSA follows DOE Order 413.3B
which governs program and project management for the acquisition of
capital assets. I agree that rigorous project management principles are
important. I support Energy Secretary Wright's recent memorandum which
focuses on strengthening national laboratory efficiency and mission
execution. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on its
detailed application to NNSA's critical infrastructure mission
activities and whether more changes are warranted.
Question. In 2014, largely in response to a string of the large
project management failures, Congress created the Office of Cost
Estimation and Program Evaluation (CEPE) in the Department of Energy.
CEPE was modeled on the DOD Office of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (CAPE).
In your view, is CEPE sufficiently staffed to effectively provide
the Administrator for Nuclear Security with costing and project
management advice on the variety of projects within NNSA?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to NNSA's staffing
details. If confirmed, I am aware that 50 USC 2411 details the CEPE
Director's responsibilities, and under that statute I would be
responsible for `` . . . ensur[ing] that the Director has sufficient
personnel who have competence in technical matters, budgetary matters,
cost estimation, technology readiness analysis, and other appropriate
matters to carry out the functions required by this'' statute.
Question. Does CEPE have sufficient authority and access to DOE
data and information to serve its statutory purpose?
Answer. I value the importance of data and information in
performing NNSA's statutory mission. If confirmed, I will require
accurate cost estimates and analyses to inform my decisions at NNSA,
and I understand that this important work also informs the NWC and
Congress. In my current capacity, I am not privy to their specific data
sources. I will review whether CEPE has sufficient authority and
access.
Question. CEPE reports directly to the Administrator for Nuclear
Security. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that CEPE
has adequate access to you and other senior leaders in your
organization, as necessary and appropriate?
Answer. Per 50 USC 2411, the ``Director shall be the principal
advisor to the Administrator, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, and the
Secretary of Energy with respect to cost estimation and program
evaluation for the Administration.'' If confirmed, their independent
analyses and reviews will inform my decisionmaking. I will foster a
solid working relationship with the CEPE Director.
Question. If confirmed, specifically how would you undertake to
support and sustain CEPE capabilities and independence?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be important to me that CEPE's
capabilities are supported and sustained. In my current capacity, I am
not privy to all of the capabilities that CEPE possesses. If confirmed,
I would endeavor to understand these unique and important capabilities
as soon as possible. I commit to taking the actions needed to sustain
these capabilities.
plutonium strategy
Question. NNSA has selected two sites for plutonium pit production:
Los Alamos will produce approximately 30 pits per year and the Savannah
River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) will produce up to 50 pits
per year, for a projected two-site total of no fewer than 80 pits per
year. These production targets were established several years ago,
prior to revelations about the speed and scope of potential adversary
nuclear force expansions.
Do you believe and overall production target of no fewer than 80
pits per year is sufficient to meet future demands for modernizing and
adapting the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on the projected demands of the
U.S. nuclear deterrent, however, in 2018, the Nuclear Weapons Council
endorsed NNSA's two-site approach to supply no fewer than 80 war
reserve plutonium pits per year in alignment with DOD requirements. If
confirmed, I pledge to work closely with NNSA and laboratory, plant,
and site leadership to achieve full rate production and continue to
explore opportunities to accelerate the production capacity required to
support the nuclear deterrent.
Question. Do you support the two-site solution, initiated under
President Trump's first term, for meeting statutory requirements for
pit production?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your views on the January 16, 2025, district
court settlement halting installation of classified equipment and
construction of associated facilities at SRPPF until such time as NNSA
prepares a new Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement?
Answer. I understand the settlement agreement, which brought an end
to the lawsuit challenging the National Environmental Protection Act
work done in support of plutonium pit production was mutually agreed
upon by NNSA/DOE and the plaintiffs. Per the Agreement, NNSA will
conduct a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and issue
a Record of Decision based on the findings of the PEIS. The Department
agreed to complete this process within two and a half years and
committed to ensuring enhanced public participation. If confirmed, I
will review the status of SRPPF to ensure this will not pose a problem
for pit production in general or SRPPF in particular.
Question. What are your views on the Los Alamos site and its
capabilities to achieve its pits per year production target to support
the demands of the ongoing stockpile program?
Answer. I welcomed LANL, NNSA, and the nuclear security
enterprise's achievement in producing the first war reserve plutonium
pit for the W87-1 nuclear warhead last year. If confirmed, I will
prioritize the rate production of plutonium pits at LANL and continue
to explore opportunities to accelerate the production capacity required
to support the nuclear deterrent.
Question. SRPPF has been plagued by issues with design and
construction since the decision was made to covert the partially
completed Mixed Oxide Fabrication Facility to into a facility for
producing plutonium pits. The project also experienced significant cost
growth and delays due to impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and the
post-pandemic spike in inflation.
What is your understanding of the status of SRPPF and the project's
likelihood of supporting NNSA efforts to meet the statutory requirement
to produce no fewer than 80 plutonium pits per year?
Answer. I understand that SRPPF will establish the capability to
produce no fewer than 50 War Reserve pits per year and that the
facility will be a secure, reliable and efficient pit production
facility.
I understand that NNSA previously notified Congress of its
inability to reach plutonium pit rate production by 2030. If confirmed,
I will prioritize the advancement of SRPPF to enable NNSA to deliver
plutonium pits at the rates needed to support stockpile modernization
and NNSA's efforts to mitigate further delays and cost growth.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve the
performance of the project, both in terms of cost management and
construction efficiency?
Answer. If confirmed, my recommendations include holding those
responsible for the project accountable and identifying opportunities
for acceleration. If confirmed, I will prioritize understanding NNSA's
project management practices to ensure the project does not encounter
past challenges.
uranium strategy and tritium production
Question. Since the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)
ceased enrichment operations in 2013, DOE has relied on the existing
stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to support Naval Nuclear
Propulsion, as well as the down-blending of recycled HEU to meet
requirements for unobligated LEU for tritium production, but the
available supply of HEU is finite. To address this supply limitation,
the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization directed the
Secretary of Energy to identify two to four sites for reestablishing
unobligated domestic uranium enrichment, for both defense and civilian
energy purposes, with an eye to begin construction no later than 2027.
If confirmed, will you support the Secretary of Energy in meeting
the requirement in the fiscal year 2025 NDAA outlined above?
Answer. Yes, and I look forward to being briefed on NNSA's current
plans to meet this requirement.
Question. The Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA specified that plans for
reestablishing the enrichment capability should focus on ``modular,
scalable facilities''. What are your ideas for how to proceed with such
an effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue a flexible and resilient
domestic uranium enrichment deployment strategy to meet defense mission
requirements and the requirements in the fiscal year 2025 NDAA.
Question. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2014
entitled ``Interagency Review Needed to Update U.S. Position on
Enriched Uranium That Can Be Used for Tritium Production'' concluded
that the DOE's policy on identification of obligated uranium was based
on three international agreements and a series of policy decisions. Of
the three agreements, GAO concluded that only one explicitly addressed
tritium production, but that past State Department findings had
consistently interpreted the other two agreements as imposing peaceful
use restrictions on LEU for tritium production.
Do you believe this GAO reading of all three agreements remains
consistent with U.S. policy goals? In your view, should the State
Department's prior findings be reevaluated?
Answer. I am unsure of the technical specifics of this report, but,
if confirmed, will seek to determine whether actions are necessary to
address these findings. Ensuring a continued supply of tritium is
critical to the success of NNSA's mission. Noting that this report is
more than a decade old, if confirmed, I would also seek to confirm
whether the views of the treaty's partners have evolved. I am committed
to the nuclear deterrent, nonproliferation, and naval reactor missions,
and if confirmed, would ensure NNSA's production of tritium is
consistent with U.S. international agreements and governmental policy.
Question. Section 3138 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2020 directed the Department of Energy to ``determine
whether the Agreement [between the United States of America and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] for Cooperation
on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, signed at
Washington, July 3, 1958, . . . permits the United States to obtain
low-enriched uranium for the purposes of producing tritium in the
United States.'' The Secretary of Energy affirmed that such procurement
of low enriched uranium can occur.
What are your views on the accuracy of the Secretary of Energy's
determination in this regard?
Answer. I support continued collaboration with the United Kingdom.
I believe that all options should be on the table and thoroughly
considered. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and this
Administration to evaluate the previous determination.
naval reactors program
Question. The Director of Naval Reactors is the Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors in the NNSA and is responsible for the
design and testing of the Navy's power reactors, its fuel, dismantling
and decommissioning power reactors and the inspection and storage of
spent Naval Reactor Fuel. Like other elements of the NNSA, the Naval
Reactor program is conducting large nuclear construction projects to
replace aging fuel storage ponds and fuel examination hot cells. The
program is also dependent on high flux Advanced Test Reactor at the
Idaho National Laboratory and will require enriched uranium in the late
2040's timeframe.
If confirmed, will you commit to providing to this committee your
assessment of the current and planned construction projects,
utilization of the Advanced Test Reactor at present and in the future,
as well as planning for the capability to enrich uranium fuel that
meets the future fleet requirements?
Answer. Yes, I will commit to working with Naval Reactors to
provide updates on major construction recapitalization projects and
maintaining the capabilities afforded by the Advanced Test Reactor
(ATR). The ATR is critical to NR's national defense mission. DOE's
Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) and Naval Reactors are continuing to
evaluate various options to maintain thermal test reactor capability
into the foreseeable future.
Additionally, if confirmed, I will work alongside Naval Reactors
and in coordination with the DOE to ensure continued availability of
enriched uranium to fuel the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet. It is my
understanding that the Navy has sufficient enriched uranium to support
Navy shipbuilding into the 2050's, and Naval Reactors is directly
engaged with the DOE and NNSA on efforts to meet future enriched
uranium requirements.
fissile materials disposition
Question. The United States and Russia committed to the disposition
of 34 metric tons (MT) of weapons grade plutonium under the Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) in 2000. The original plan
by the United States was to convert excess weapons grade plutonium to
mixed oxide reactor fuel for civilian reactors at the Savannah River
Site (SRS). After spending billions of dollars, and following Russia's
withdrawal from the PMDA in 2016, this project was abandoned in favor
of diluting the plutonium and disposing of it at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP). The dilute and dispose process involves shipping
the plutonium pits from Pantex to Los Alamos to be turned into oxide
powder, then shipping then on to SRS for packaging, followed by final
shipment to WIPP for disposal.
Do you believe the United States should continue to dispose of its
stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium even though Russia abrogated the
PMDA?
Answer. I believe it is important that NNSA continue its work to
dispose of the excess plutonium necessary to meet the legal commitment
to remove material from the State of South Carolina. At the same time,
I support a review in coordination with interagency partners of the
additional material that NNSA had planned to dispose of under the PMDA
to determine whether continued adherence to the PMDA is still the right
policy for the United States in light of Russia's purported withdrawal
from the agreement.
Question. What are your views on the dilute and disposal method?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to the details of
this program. I understand that dilute and dispose is NNSA's program of
record for plutonium disposition, and I understand the rationale for
this approach. If confirmed, I would make it a priority to learn the
details of the program so that I can lead NNSA's plutonium disposition
work effectively.
Question. What are your views on permanent disposal at WIPP?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to the details of
this program. I understand that dilute and dispose is NNSA's program of
record for plutonium disposition, and that this includes disposal at
WIPP. I understand the rationale for this approach. If confirmed, I
would make it a priority to learn the details of the program so that I
can lead NNSA's plutonium disposition work effectively.
Question. What are your views of the logistics of shipping
plutonium between Pantex, Los Alamos, SRS, and WIPP? In your opinion,
could this process be simplified by shipping the pits directly to SRS
to be converted to oxide powder there?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to the details of
this program. If confirmed, I would make it a priority to learn the
details of the program so that I can lead NNSA's plutonium disposition
work effectively.
Question. What are your views on reprocessing as an alternative to
dilution and disposal?
Answer. I understand that NNSA moved from the MOX fuel approach to
dilute and dispose based on compelling cost, schedule, and technical
factors. Changing the plutonium disposition approach again could be
costly and could make it difficult to meet NNSA's legal commitment to
remove plutonium from the State of South Carolina. If confirmed, I
commit to work closely with Congress on all aspects of the program,
including listening to any views on alternative plutonium disposition
approaches.
nuclear safety and security
Question. NNSA was created partially in response to security lapses
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Nonetheless, periodic security
lapses have continued to occur, risking exposure of some of our
Nation's most closely guarded secrets.
To what extent have the conditions that allowed such lapses to
occur been corrected, in your view?
Answer. While I am not privy to the specifics of LANL's current
security infrastructure, if confirmed, I will assess the current
effectiveness of the security function and associated activities.
Furthermore, I am committed to continuously improving the security of
all NNSA labs, plants, and sites.
Question. Section 3112 of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense
Authorization Act prohibits the Secretary of Energy or the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, after April 15, 2025, from
admitting citizens or agents of the People's Republic of China, the
Russian Federation, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or the
Islamic Republic of Iran to any national security laboratory, nuclear
weapons production facility, or any site that supports the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program.
If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring full compliance with this
provision across NNSA by the statutorily directed April 15, 2025, date
for implementation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your view, are there further changes in policy,
practice, management, or oversight to reduce the frequency of security
issues at NNSA facilities that should be considered?
Answer. Securing NNSA's facilities is critical to the agency's
work. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with Congress to ensure
the security of NNSA's labs, plants and sites. There is no reason any
of our Nation's adversaries should have access to NNSA facilities,
except where required by current or future treaty obligations.
Question. Over the past several years, there has been a dramatic
increase in the number of unmanned aerial systems operating, both
lawfully and unlawfully, in U.S. airspace domestically and over
American military installations overseas.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure the NNSA
appropriately prioritizes and resources detection and defeat
capabilities for UAS that pose a threat to NNSA facilities and assets?
Answer. NNSA must adopt capabilities to detect and defeat UAS that
pose a threat to NNSA facilities and assets. If confirmed, I commit to
learning the details of this program and taking necessary actions to
improve NNSA's UAS detection and defeat capabilities. In addition, I
will commit to continue working with partner agencies, to include DOD,
State Department, DHS, FAA, and local law enforcement, to collaborate
and share information about emerging threats and new CUAS technologies.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to working with Congress
and the interagency to better clarify U.S. Government roles and
responsibilities for detecting, tracking, and if necessary, defeating,
UAS within U.S. airspace?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and NNSA's
Office of Enterprise Assessments have periodically reported accidents
at various Department of Energy facilities over recent years, including
explosions, radiation exposure, and leakage of hazardous materials--
putting both personnel and mission at risk. Yet, while personnel safety
is critically important, the nuclear mission by definition involves
some of the most hazardous materials on earth. Consequently, acceptance
of a measure of risk is a prerequisite to accomplish NNSA's assigned
missions.
How should we balance safety, risk, and mission at NNSA facilities?
Answer. There are many risks and hazards associated with the
production, handling, and disposal of nuclear materials. Intentional
and constant monitoring of risks and the implementation of controls to
mitigate those risks must be a priority. If confirmed, I will emphasize
the continued importance of safety across the enterprise and always
minimize safety risks while ensuring the success of accomplishing
NNSA's important and urgent mission.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to improve
the safety culture at the various NNSA labs and sites while still
meeting mission requirements?
Answer. I recognize that a positive safety culture is important for
mission success. NNSA's national security mission requires sustained
and strong safety performance to ensure public trust. High safety
achievement and mission success are mutually supportive and depend on
proper risk assessment and control. Drawing on my experience as a
nuclear Naval Officer, I understand that safety and mission success are
not mutually exclusive. Conducting NNSA's operations safely is
essential for guaranteeing successful execution. Safety is integral to
the mission, and I will actively seek opportunities to continuously
improve safety practices across the nuclear security enterprise while
ensuring NNSA is delivering on its commitments to modernization and the
programs of record.
cybersecurity
Question. What do you see as the primary cyber policy challenges
for the NNSA and what suggestions do you have for addressing them?
Answer. Technology moves faster than cybersecurity policy. If
confirmed, I will ensure that NNSA continues to improve cybersecurity
policies for information technology and operational technology systems
to meet mission requirements.
Question. Do you believe that the NNSA's current capabilities,
policies, and authorities allow for effective cybersecurity? If not,
what steps should NNSA and the Department of Energy take to address any
shortfalls?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review NNSA cybersecurity capabilities
and authorities and make necessary adjustments.
Question. What do you conclude from the recent cyber-attacks
breaches on telecommunications infrastructure involving Volt Typhoon
and Salt Typhoon about the State of our cyber defenses?
Answer. These events highlight the vulnerability of critical
infrastructure to cyberattacks. Our Nation, including NNSA, must
continue to improve cybersecurity across public and private sectors.
Question. If confirmed, what specific measures would you take to
improve cybersecurity culture across the NNSA workforce?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current State of the
cybersecurity workforce and, if needed, will develop plans to improve
the culture.
Question. How would you empower and hold key leaders accountable
for improvements in NNSA cybersecurity?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the cybersecurity practices or
policies of the NNSA. However, I have experience in many aspects of
cybersecurity from my business career. If confirmed, I will ensure
NNSA's organizational structure empowers and holds key leaders
accountable for implementing cybersecurity practices and measures.
Question. If confirmed, what how do you plan to work with the
Department of Defense and other agencies in the coordination of cyber
security initiatives?
Answer. I understand that NNSA regularly engages with defense,
intelligence, and law enforcement agencies to identify interagency
needs and opportunities for securing, accessing, sharing, and
leveraging data. If confirmed, I commit to taking action to reduce
barriers that NNSA may face in meeting its commitments to interagency
partners.
regulation and oversight
Question. Staff at NNSA's national laboratories often complain that
they are overburdened by regulation and oversight, both internal and
external, and that these contribute to the challenges in staying under
cost and on schedule for major projects.
Do you believe that environmental, safety, and construction
regulations are properly applied to NNSA projects and operations?
Answer. While I am not currently privy to NNSA's application of
environmental, safety, and construction regulations, if confirmed, I
commit to ensuring safe operations across the nuclear security
enterprise, to include protection of the workforce, the public, and the
environment in a way that is supportive of mission execution. I am
aware and supportive of Energy Secretary Wright's recently announced
actions to ease some permitting rules and regulations for construction
projects at the Department of Energy's National Labs.
Question. Do you believe these regulations undermine effective
performance by the labs and efficient mission execution overall?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support DOE/NNSA's initiatives to
streamline regulations, standardize performance expectations, and
implement a common-sense approach to the interpretation and application
of requirements to achieve enterprise-wide efficiency, innovation, and
modernization. Additionally, I will work with Energy Secretary Wright
to seek out and deliver these innovations for all of DOE to use. While
I am not privy to the implementation of regulations across the
enterprise, I understand that overly strict interpretations of and
approaches to regulatory requirements can lead to inefficiencies. I am
committed to exercising existing flexibilities, such as exemptions and
equivalencies, to establish necessary controls while also providing
regulatory relief where possible.
Question. In your view, are the NNSA labs and production facilities
subject to the appropriate level of oversight from the NNSA, DOE, the
EPA, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), and/or Congress?
Answer. Due to the hazardous nature of the work NNSA performs, it
is essential to have the appropriate level of oversight; however, it is
important that oversight does not lead to risk avoidance that impairs
the ability to achieve NNSA's essential national security missions.
NNSA is entrusted stewardship of taxpayer dollars which requires
appropriate scrutiny, yet again, it is important that oversight does
not result in risk aversion. NNSA's national laboratories, production
plants and sites currently have systems and activities that provide a
high level of oversight that meet the needs of regulatory drivers.
Question. Are there certain oversight processes that are
unnecessarily duplicative or purely bureaucratic, in your view?
Answer. My understanding is that NNSA follows DOE Order 413.3B
which governs program and project management for the acquisition of
capital assets. I understand it provides necessary rigor yet can be
overly burdensome. I am committed to working with Energy Secretary
Wright to ensure important work can be executed in a timely manner
under the order. If confirmed, I will work with our stakeholders to
address and identify solutions to inefficiencies that may result from
existing oversight processes.
Question. If confirmed, what changes in regulatory or oversight
structures would you recommend, and why?
Answer. While I am not privy to all NNSA's regulatory and oversight
structures, if confirmed, I will seek opportunities to improve
efficiencies, including by reforming regulatory requirements where
feasible and desirable.
nonproliferation
Question. What do you perceive as the highest priorities of the
nuclear nonproliferation programs at NNSA?
Answer. The first priority is addressing the threats posed by the
North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. If confirmed, I will help
implement the maximum pressure campaign in Iran and provide unique
technical capabilities that could be used to negotiate, implement, and
verify any potential future agreement for dismantlement of these
countries' nuclear weapons programs. The second is accelerating
detection of nuclear proliferation, especially in areas where
adversaries seek to deny us access. Emerging threats, such as
adversarial use of the space domain and malicious uses of artificial
intelligence, must be detected and characterized early. This requires
rapid, on-demand deployment of flexible systems using innovative
technologies. If confirmed, I will leverage NNSA's world-leading
technical capabilities to enhance its ability to detect these threats,
so that the United States can respond promptly and keep the threat of
nuclear weapons as far from the homeland as possible. The third is
supporting responsible civil nuclear power development and deployment,
especially to ``nuclear newcomer'' countries. We must ensure that
nuclear power expansion is safe, secure, and peaceful, and has
appropriate emergency response frameworks in place. If confirmed, I
will leverage the unique expertise of NNSA's national laboratories to
help U.S. companies design nuclear reactors that are more physically
secure and easier to safeguard, which will reduce proliferation risks
while also providing a commercial advantage to U.S. companies. I will
also encourage NNSA programs to further partner with the countries
embarking on nuclear power through emergency response efforts. This
will effectively strengthen U.S. partnerships proactively with these
countries in radiological and nuclear safety and security.
Question. What challenges does the emerging multilateral nuclear
competition between the U.S., China, Russia, and North Korea pose to
existing nonproliferation efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting America from the
threat of nuclear proliferation, even in a competitive global
environment. This multidimensional nuclear competition poses a
significant challenge for existing nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
Under these circumstances, any potential arms control efforts are more
complex, and it is more difficult to respond to the threat from
countries like Iran and North Korea and to reach agreement on measures
to strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation architecture.
However, NNSA has deep experience and a proven track record in
advancing U.S. nuclear nonproliferation goals, even in challenging
circumstances.
Question. Do you believe additional cooperative nonproliferation
efforts are feasible in light of China, Russia, and North Korea's
burgeoning cooperation on nuclear technologies and materials?
Answer. Launching new cooperative nuclear nonproliferation efforts
is certainly challenging in the current global environment. However, as
I said, NNSA and its predecessor organizations have overcome challenges
like this before. Indeed, the foundation of the global nuclear
nonproliferation regime, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, entered into force during the height of the cold war. Progress
is possible, even under challenging circumstances. For example,
President Trump's pursuit of peace in Ukraine could open new
opportunities for cooperative nonproliferation efforts. If confirmed, I
am committed to taking a clear-eyed view of any new cooperative
nonproliferation opportunities and to vigorously pursue initiatives
that will make America stronger and safer.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your nonproliferation R&D
priorities?
Answer. NNSA should prioritize nonproliferation research and
development (R&D) that directly contributes to the Nation's security by
developing and improving U.S. capabilities to detect and characterize
global nuclear security threats. NNSA must also prioritize R&D that
sustains and develops foundational nonproliferation technical
competencies at the national laboratories to ensure the technical
agility needed to support a broad spectrum of U.S. nonproliferation
missions and anticipated threats. If confirmed, I will prioritize work
in these areas.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to improve
coordination across the NNSA on nonproliferation R&D and reduce
duplicative efforts?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of NNSA offices
performing nonproliferation R&D, but commit to looking into any
duplicative efforts and streamlining the efforts to remove duplication.
emergency response
Question. What is your understanding of the NNSA's roles and
responsibilities with regard to responding to domestic and
international radiological events?
Answer. NNSA is responsible for sustaining and, as necessary,
employing the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) to respond to
radiological and nuclear emergencies of any type and scale, globally.
NNSA also has a significant role in the international arena as a leader
in nuclear and radiological emergency response, including as a party to
the IAEA's Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident
or Radiological Emergency, which sets out an international framework
for cooperation to facilitate prompt assistance in the event of nuclear
accidents or radiological emergencies. In addition, where American
national security, public health and safety, and economic interests are
at stake, NNSA may also embark on providing direct bilateral or
multilateral assistance to international partners to respond to nuclear
or radiological emergencies that arise. NNSA forensics capabilities can
support law enforcement investigations and attribution internationally.
Domestically, NNSA has responsibility for the Department's Emergency
Operation Center and 24/7 Watch Office.This includes providing watch
and warning, situational awareness, and decision support capabilities
for both domestic and international incidents, to include radiological
events.
Question. Do you believe NNSA is adequately resourced and staffed
to fulfill its existing emergency response responsibilities?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to specific data
about emergency response staffing and resources, but domestic and
international emergency response are critical components of NNSA's
mission. If confirmed, I look forward to evaluating the teams and
Administration resources that perform this important work.
Question. In your view, how would you characterize the allocation
of roles and responsibilities across the interagency, particularly with
regard to the DOD and the Department of Homeland Security?
Answer. NNSA maintains robust engagement with interagency partners,
particularly DOD and DHS, on international and domestic, respectively,
nuclear and radiological emergency response. If confirmed, I commit to
engaging with my counterparts to ensure a shared understanding of roles
and responsibilities. Ultimately, my goal would be to implement
efficiencies and optimize NNSA's operational readiness by streamlining
response roles and reducing unnecessary Federal bureaucracy and
redundant interagency oversight. NNSA's unique scientific expertise--
defined by seventy years of expertise on nuclear fuel cycle and weapons
development--is essential to U.S. nuclear and radiological response
processes. NNSA ensures the United States is prepared to prevent,
counter, and respond to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) crises.
NNSA's unmatched technical expertise and response capabilities keep
America safe, secure, and prosperous. From public health and safety to
countering nuclear terrorism, these capabilities are integral to the
U.S. WMD nuclear and radiological emergency response. NNSA and its
national laboratories are uniquely capable of applying technical
nuclear weapons program expertise to assess foreign nuclear weapons
programs.
Question. If confirmed, are there any adjustments to the allocation
of interagency responsibilities you would expect to recommend or
pursue?
Answer. It is my understanding that the NNSA brings technical
expertise and technical resources that are unique in our country if not
the world. If confirmed, I will make every effort to streamline
emergency response processes and implement efficiencies to ensure that
NNSA provides timely, actionable and credible support to Federal, State
and local partners during crises. I will also support NNSA's efforts to
strengthen State and local response capabilities to enhance domestic
resiliency.
personnel management
Question. In your judgment, what is the biggest challenge facing
the NNSA in effectively and efficiently managing its workforce?
The most significant workforce challenges facing NNSA are
recruitment and retention of highly skilled technical employees.
Factors contributing to this challenge include an aging workforce,
remote duty stations with high cost of living (e.g., Los Alamos, NM and
Livermore, CA), and the requirement for high level security clearances.
Finally, NNSA often competes with salaries with private sector jobs.
Question. What recommendations do you have to improve NNSA's
management of its workforce?
Answer. While I am not privy to the details of NNSA's workforce
management, I believe that mitigating the challenges of recruitment and
retention requires that NNSA emphasize the unique benefits of public
service, including emphasis on unique career paths.
Question. In your judgment, how effective is the Department of
Energy and the NNSA at identifying, promoting, and rewarding top
performers?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the Department's policies and
practices related to personnel. However, the success of NNSA depends
primarily on the quality and motivation of its people. If confirmed, I
look forward to strengthening NNSA's ability to recognize and reward
top performers.
Question. Similarly, how effective is the Department of Energy and
the NNSA at identifying and removing underperforming or
counterproductive personnel?
Answer. In my current capacity, I am not privy to personnel matters
at NNSA. However, if confirmed, I will be committed to facilitating a
culture of accountability and performance.
Question. If confirmed, what would you recommend be done to improve
NNSA talent management?
Answer. There is no question that talent management is a critical
factor for NNSA's success. If confirmed, I would adopt a holistic
approach to talent management, ensuring these efforts are aligned with
agency goals. In my experience in the Navy and in the private sector
giving employees clear objectives and frequent feedback results in
better performance across an organization. Also, providing
opportunities for skills training and certifications that lead to
increased opportunities and remuneration while meeting the strategic
workforce needs of NNSA may prove useful.
Question. Do you believe that NNSA has the appropriate number of
civilian employees to perform its mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review if NNSA is appropriately
staffed.
Question. If not, what would be the appropriate size of the NNSA
civilian workforce and what, in your view, would the additional
personnel accomplish that NNSA is not able to accomplish today? If
confirmed, which specific components of the NNSA would you recommend
growing?
Answer. I am not currently privy to details about NNSA's civilian
workforce, but if confirmed, I look forward to assessing NNSA's current
staffing levels and future needs. I am committed to ensuring that
NNSA's urgent missions are properly resourced, including appropriate
staffing.
Question. Do you believe that NNSA has the appropriate
capabilities--in both its civilian employee and contractor workforces--
to perform its mission?
Answer. NNSA has a unique mission in all of government or in the
American economy in general. And therefore it has a unique workforce to
meet the needs of the NNSA mission. If confirmed, I look forward to
immersing myself in the details of the capabilities of both the Federal
workforce at NNSA as well as those of the M&O contractors.
Question. If not, please explain what capabilities each such
workforce requires to ensure that NNSA is fully mission capable?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the full extent of the NNSA
Federal and M&O contractor capabilities. Based upon GAO, CRS, and
Inspector General reports and hearing before the SASC committee,
however, I suspect there are areas where either or both of the Federal
and M&O contractor capabilities need to be enhanced or created. For
example, these reports point to improved needs in project management as
well as to emergent needs like artificial intelligence. I look forward,
if confirmed, to rapidly assessing and addressing these issues at NNSA.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
retain critical nuclear weapons expertise in both NNSA the civilian and
the contractor workforces?
Answer. I understand that NNSA works to retain critical nuclear
weapons expertise through a combination of strategic workforce
planning, training, recruitment, and performance management actions. If
confirmed, in this competitive workforce environment, I will work
strategically with both the NNSA Federal and contractor workforce to
foster and develop internal talent pipelines within each site and
across the nuclear security enterprise in an effort to reduce
attrition. I commit to supporting these initiatives to ensure that NNSA
maintains the necessary talent pool to execute its mission. I also
believe it is important for NNSA to continue to provide stability for
the M&O contractor workforce through long term contracts. I will ensure
that M&O contractors continue to have the wide range of flexibilities
they currently have to offer market competitive pay and benefits to
recruit and retain highly qualified personnel.
Question. What programs, policies, or tools does NNSA need to
better attract the diverse range of skillsets required to support the
missions of the Administration to national security focused careers?
Answer. While I have not yet had the opportunity to learn about
NNSA's ongoing recruitment efforts, I understand that NNSA's use of
direct hire authority, pay supplements, and hiring incentives offers
competitive compensation packages along with opportunities for
professional growth. I also know that NNSA makes incentive payments for
candidates who meet certain criteria and agree to sign a service
agreement for positions it determines are difficult to fill, such as
contracting, cybersecurity, and information technology positions, among
others. These supplements contribute to the competitive demands of an
ever-evolving workforce and fosters employee satisfaction and loyalty.
sexual harassment
Question. What is your assessment of the current climate regarding
sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the DOE and NNSA?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue increasing awareness and
emphasizing prevention and reporting of sexual harassment and sex
discrimination at DOE and NNSA. To the extent there are sexual
harassment and sex discrimination issues that are brought to my
attention, I will take expeditious and appropriate action in
consultation with the appropriate stakeholders in DOE and NNSA.
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 or contractor of the DOE or NNSA?
Answer. I will not tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination
among NNSA employees or among its contractor employees. I will ensure
that complaints of this nature are taken seriously across the
enterprise and will ensure that employees who raise such complaints are
treated in accordance with all Federal laws on regulations.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the State of the relationship
between the Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Senate Armed
Services Committee in particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is responsible
for the oversight and authorization of NNSA. SASC's support on nuclear
security issues and NNSA governance has continually been strong and
bipartisan. As a former member of the House of Representatives myself,
I believe support from Congress and this Committee in particular is
critical to enabling NNSA mission success. If confirmed, I commit to
maintaining a strong relationship with the Committee built on trust and
transparency.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Administrator for Nuclear Security?
Answer. Communication and transparency are foundational to a
productive relationship with Congress. If confirmed, I will ensure that
NNSA maintains strong and open channels of communication with Congress.
Question. The safety, security, and functionality of the United
States nuclear weapons stockpile is of paramount importance to our
Nation's national security, and any potential issues that could
undermine confidence in the reliability of U.S. nuclear forces are of
the highest interest to Congress.
If confirmed, will you commit, without qualification, that you will
promptly notify this Committee of any significant issues in the safety,
security, or reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In much the same manner as the Combatant Commanders
within the Department of Defense, the Administrator for Nuclear
Security is required by Section 4716 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act
(50 U.S.C. 2756) to annually submit a list of priorities that were
insufficiently funded by that year's budget request by the President.
While unfunded requirements lists are invaluable tools in helping
Congress understand executable funding opportunities, past
Administrators have only sparingly fulfilled this requirement.
If confirmed, will you commit to fully complying with the statutory
requirement to submit an annual unfunded priority list to Congress with
the annual budget submission of the President?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to following the law, including
Section 4716 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2756).
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 without delay? 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, and their
respective staffs 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:]
Senator Tom Cotton
nuclear modernization
1. Senator Cotton. Mr. Williams, the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) acquisition cycle to modernize the weapons in
our stockpile can take around 20 years. This hardly seems responsive to
the threat environment when our adversaries are developing new nuclear
systems rapidly. Do you think there's a role for a rapid acquisition
effort in the NNSA that is dedicated to delivering capabilities faster
by tailoring requirements and prioritizing speed?
Mr. Williams. I agree with you that the modernization efforts for
our nuclear weapons are progressing too slowly and do not reflect the
urgency of the current threat environment. Should I be confirmed, I am
committed to developing ways to increase the speed and efficiency with
which NNSA can deliver capabilities to DOD. NNSA is 1) concurrently
modernizing seven nuclear warhead programs within its Program of Record
while 2) simultaneously sustaining the current stockpile and 3)
recapitalizing the nuclear security enterprise industrial base. NNSA
must continue to be responsive to DOD requirements while developing
capabilities to meet deterrent gaps of any kind including emergent and
possibly emergency capabilities. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with you and the Committee on this topic.
2. Senator Cotton. Mr. Williams, the NNSA has proven it can do this
with the W76-2 and the B61-13 programs, which were based on
modifications to existing weapons that took years, not decades, to
deliver. Should we use this type of approach more often to address some
of our near-term deterrence challenges?
Mr. Williams. I agree the W76-2 and B61-13 are great examples of
ways NNSA can quickly adapt to the changing threat environment and
deliver additional capabilities to address deterrence gaps. If
confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the classified details of the
weapon modernization programs with an eye toward determining if
additional opportunities exist for similar modifications within the
program of record.
plutonium pits
3. Senator Cotton. Mr. Williams, under President Biden, the NNSA's
deadline to produce 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030 slipped by
several years. Current law requires the Nuclear Weapons Council to
submit a plan to Congress to get this effort back on track should it
fail to certify that it will meet the 2030 deadline. The Biden
administration never submitted such a plan. If confirmed, would you
commit to taking all steps necessary to accelerate plutonium pit
production?
Mr. Williams. Reestablishing the ability to produce no fewer than
80 plutonium pits per year is a critical national security requirement.
If confirmed, I will review the status of the required plan and work
with the Committee on any identified opportunities to accelerate NNSA's
ability to meet the 80 plutonium pits per year requirement.
4. Senator Cotton. Mr. Williams, given the growing nuclear threats
and the need to increase the size of our arsenal, do you think 80
plutonium pits per year will even be enough to meet deterrence
requirements?
Mr. Williams. I have not yet been briefed on the projected demands
of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, however, in 2018, the Nuclear Weapons
Council endorsed NNSA's two-site approach to supply no fewer than 80
war reserve plutonium pits per year in alignment with DOD requirements.
If confirmed, I intend to work closely with NNSA laboratory, plant, and
site leadership to achieve full rate production and continue to explore
opportunities to accelerate the production capacity required to support
the nuclear deterrent. I defer to the Nuclear Weapon Council, STRATCOM
leadership, and the Department of Defense on the military requirements
to meet deterrence needs.
office of secure transportation
5. Senator Cotton. Mr. Williams, Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, is home to
Training Command for the NNSA's Office of Secure Transportation, which
transports nuclear weapons all around the country. As the NNSA
progresses its modernization efforts, I suspect the demand for agents
to transport weapons will grow. What is your plan to improve both
recruiting and retention of these agents?
Mr. Williams. The Office of Secure Transportation (OST) serves a
very important function for NNSA, transporting special nuclear
materials that are in the custody of or returning to the custody of the
Department of Energy. OST agents undergo rigorous testing and training,
and I know that NNSA works hard to recruit quality personnel for these
challenging, important positions. If confirmed, I look forward to
learning about NNSA's ongoing recruitment and retention efforts in OST
and finding opportunities to improve. I recognize that the training
facility at Fort Chaffee is a critical component of recruitment and
retention efforts. On a personal note, I have extended family members
who were stationed at Fort Chaffee during the Vietnam War era and look
forward to the opportunity to visit the site, should I be confirmed.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Budd
nuclear energy
6. Senator Budd. Mr. Williams, can you please outline your
perspective on mobile, modular micro-nuclear reactor technology and
whether it has promise for expeditionary use?
Mr. Williams. As Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee of the House
Science, Space and Technology Committee I was a strong advocate for
advanced nuclear power solutions and expressed public and private
support for DOD to adopt these systems for reliability and resilience
of electrical power. From the perspective of NNSA, I believe that
modular micro-nuclear reactor technology poses both opportunities and
challenges, including for expeditionary use. If confirmed, I look
forward to learning about the unique expertise and capabilities of the
National Nuclear Administration and will support the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy on potential civilian applications of micro-nuclear
reactor technology and to support the Department of Defense on
potential military applications.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
ethics
7. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not seeking any employment with or compensation from a
defense contractor, including through serving on a board, as a
consultant, or as a lobbyist, for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with all laws
and regulations regarding future employment for executive branch
officials.
8. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not engaging in any lobbying activities, including
unregistered ``shadow'' or ``behind-the-scenes'' lobbying under the
guise of consulting or advising on DOD-related matters, focused on DOD
or any of its components for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with all laws
and regulations regarding future employment and lobbying restrictions
for executive branch officials.
9. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, during your nomination process,
did anyone on the Trump campaign, transition team, or other closely
related entity approach you about your loyalty to President Trump?
Mr. Williams. No.
10. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you sign a loyalty pledge or other
similar oath? If so, please provide a copy of the text of that pledge
or oath.
Mr. Williams. No.
11. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you make any verbal representations of
loyalty? If so, please describe this representation.
Mr. Williams. Not applicable.
12. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, in November 2024, the New York
Times and other news outlets reported that Boris Epshteyn, a top
adviser to President Trump, allegedly requested payment from
prospective political appointees to promote their candidacies for top
positions within the administration. Did you discuss the possibility of
joining the Administration with Mr. Epshteyn at any time?
Mr. Williams. No.
13. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you did discuss the
possibility of joining the administration with Mr. Epshteyn, did Mr.
Epshteyn seek payment from you for promoting your candidacy for a
position within the Administration?
Mr. Williams. No.
14. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, at any time, did lawyers for
President Trump or members of President Trump's team approach you
regarding Mr. Epshteyn and the allegations cited above? If so, please
explain the information that they provided you (including copies of
documents), what was discussed during any calls, and any other
information pertaining to this interaction.
Mr. Williams. No.
15. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, were you in contact with Mr. Elon
Musk at any time during your nomination process? If so, please describe
the nature of those points of contact.
Mr. Williams. No.
16. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, was Mr. Musk present or involved
in any interviews you did related to your nomination? If so, please
describe the nature of his involvement.
Mr. Williams. No.
17. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, was Mr. Musk involved in any way
with your nomination, including but not limited to directly or
indirectly contacting Senators regarding their position on your
nomination?
Mr. Williams. Not to my knowledge.
18. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, who was in the room or
participated in any of your interviews regarding your nomination?
Mr. Williams. During the nomination process, I spoke with several
members of the Trump-Vance Presidential Transition team about my
interest in serving in the Trump Administration.
19. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you own any defense contractor
stock, will you divest it to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of
interest?
Mr. Williams. I do not own stock in any defense contractors. If
confirmed, I will follow the counsel of DOE ethics officials regarding
any potential conflicts or perceived conflicts of interest.
20. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what do you consider the role of
the press in a democracy?
Mr. Williams. Freedom of the press is a clearly defined protection
as stated in the First Amendment.
21. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you think it would be an
appropriate use of taxpayer resources to ``dig up dirt'' on journalists
who investigate or criticize you, your office, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Williams. As stated in my previous response, I believe the
freedom of the press is clearly defined in the First Amendment.
22. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit not to retaliate,
including by denying access to government officials or facilities,
against news outlets or individual journalists who publish articles
that are critical of you, your office, your agency, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I commit to following the law and
upholding the duties of my office.
23. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you requested, or has anyone
requested on your behalf, that any other person or third party sign a
nondisclosure, confidentiality, non-disparagement, or similar agreement
regarding your conduct in a personal or professional capacity?
Mr. Williams. No.
24. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you voluntarily release any
individual from any such agreements before this committee votes on your
nomination?
Mr. Williams. Not applicable.
25. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you ever paid or promised to
pay, or has anyone paid or promised to pay on your behalf, an
individual as part of any non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-
disparagement, or similar agreement?
Mr. Williams. No.
26. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if the answer to the previous
question was yes, how much was promised, how much was paid, and what
were the circumstances?
Mr. Williams. Not applicable.
27. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit to recuse
yourself from all particular matters involving your former clients and
employers for at least 4 years after you leave DOD?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with all laws
and regulations regarding future employment after service within the
executive branch.
28. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit to not seeking
employment, board membership with, or another form of compensation from
a company that you regulated or otherwise interacted with while in
government, for at least 4 years after leaving office?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with all laws
and regulations regarding future employment after service within the
executive branch.
29. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, would it ever be appropriate to
threaten or imply that you would withhold future contracts from a
company if they filed a complaint, bid protest, or cooperated with an
Inspector General, civil, or criminal investigation?
Mr. Williams. No, that would not be appropriate. congressional
Oversight and Transparency
30. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of the
role of the Department of Energy Inspector General?
Mr. Williams. It is my understanding that, pursuant to the
Inspector General Act, the Inspector General for the Department of
Energy is charged with investigating and auditing department programs
to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
31. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you ensure your staff
complies with any Inspector General deadlines established for requested
communications, providing witnesses, providing documents, and that
those witnesses will be protected from reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will comply with all laws and
regulations related to service in the U.S. Government.
32. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are not able to comply
with any Inspector General requests and deadlines, will you notify the
Republican and Democratic Members of this Committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will work to comply with Inspector
General requests in a timely manner. I would defer to the Office of the
Inspector General to update Members of the Committee regarding the
progress of the Inspector General's ongoing reviews.
33. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to refusing to follow illegal orders from any individual,
including the President?
Mr. Williams. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will comply with all laws
and regulations related to service in the U.S. Government.
34. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what actions would you take if
you were given an illegal order from any individual, including the
President?
Mr. Williams. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will comply with all laws
and regulations related to service in the U.S. Government.
35. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition if you are called upon by Congress to provide a
deposition voluntarily?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
36. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition to Congress if you are issued a subpoena to
testify?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, if I am issued a subpoena, I
will follow the advice of DOE and NNSA General Counsel regarding
compliance with such subpoena.
37. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit to providing
information or documents to Congress voluntarily if you are requested
to do so?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
38. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you provide information or
documents to Congress if you are issued a subpoena?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, if I am issued a subpoena, I
will follow the advice of DOE and NNSA General Counsel regarding
compliance with such subpoena.
39. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, will you commit to following
current precedent for responding to information requests, briefings,
and other inquiries from Congress, including the Senate and House Armed
Services Committees and their minority Members?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
40. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if confirmed, will you commit to
posting your official calendar monthly?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I intend to notice official
engagements as needed. Given the sensitive nature of much of the work
done at NNSA, I understand that not all official engagements may be
made public due to their classified nature.
41. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you think DOD has an
overclassification problem? If so, please provide this committee with
an estimate of the number or percentage of documents that will be under
your purview that are overclassified or other examples to illustrate
this problem.
Mr. Williams. As a nominee for the position of Under Secretary of
Energy for Nuclear Security at the Department of Energy, I am unable to
postulate an estimation as to the number of documents that may be
considered overclassified at the Department of Defense.
42. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, to the best of your knowledge, is
your office or agency identifying records for proactive posting in
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act? If not, please describe
how you would ensure that they do so to comply with public records law.
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will follow all DOE and NNSA
General Counsel advice regarding compliance with Freedom of Information
Act requests.
43. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if confirmed, do you think your
department should pursue strategic technology to support automated
declassification?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will review potential
efforts on the use of strategic technology that supports automated
declassification that protects U.S. national security interests and
State secrets.
project 2025
44. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you discussed Project 2025
with any officials associated with the Trump campaign, the Trump
transition team, or other members of the Trump administration? If so,
please explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom
you discussed it.
Mr. Williams. No.
45. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you discussed Project 2025
with any officials associated with the Heritage Foundation? If so,
please explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom
you discussed it.
Mr. Williams. No.
foreign influence
46. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you received any payment
from a foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government
within the past 5 years?
Mr. Williams. No.
47. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you communicated with any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years?
Mr. Williams. I have disclosed all connections to foreign nationals
as part of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management SF-86 form and the
related background investigation that was previously conducted and
required for my role as the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
Administrator of the NNSA.
48. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, please disclose any
communications or payments you have had with representatives of any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years and describe the nature of the communication.
Mr. Williams. As discussed in my previous response, I have
disclosed all connections to foreign nationals, and I have received no
payments from any representatives of foreign governments or entities
controlled by foreign governments.
retaliation and protecting whistleblowers
49. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you believe that
servicemembers, civilians, grantees, and contractors should be
protected from any form of retaliation for coming forward about an
illegal order, sexual assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or
any other concern that they wish to raise?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will comply with all laws and
regulations related to whistleblowers.
50. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you ever retaliated against
any individual for coming forward about an illegal order, sexual
assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or any other concern
that they wish to raise?
Mr. Williams. No.
51. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to protecting whistleblowers? If so, please specify how you will
do so.
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with DOE's
whistleblower protection policies and standards.
impoundment control act
52. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, on January 27, 2025, President
Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo calling for
the suspension of all Federal financial assistance programs (excluding
``assistance provided directly to individuals''). Do you agree with
OMB's decision to issue this memo?
Mr. Williams. I believe there is a standard for an incoming
Administrations to review expenditures before payments are made to make
sure they comply with the law. Currently, I am not aware of any direct
impacts to program funding from agency reviews related to the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
53. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you believe the Secretary of
Defense has the legal authority to block the disbursement of funds
appropriated by Congress?
Mr. Williams. As a nominee for the position of Under Secretary of
Energy for Nuclear Security at the Department of Energy, I am not aware
of legal authorities that the Secretary of Defense may have regarding
disbursement of funds and I am not aware of DOD policy that has
specifics on the matter.
54. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Williams. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
of 1974 governs the role of Congress in the U.S. Budget process.
55. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you commit to following the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will comply with all laws and
regulations related to service to the U.S. Government.
56. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you commit to notifying the
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, including the majority and
minority, if you are asked not to follow the Impoundment Control Act or
not to expend the money that Congress appropriates or authorizes?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with all
applicable laws and statutes regarding the Federal budgetary process.
57. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, the Constitution's Spending
Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) and Appropriations Clause (Art. I,
Sec. 9, cl. 7) give Congress, not the Executive, power of the purse.
The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this power. Do you believe
that impoundments are constitutional?
Mr. Williams. I am not a Constitutional legal scholar, but should I
be confirmed, I will follow all applicable laws and statutes.
58. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, the funding levels in
appropriations bills passed into law are not targets or ceilings;
instead, they are amounts the executive branch must spend, unless
stated otherwise. Congress could--if it wanted the President to have
discretion--write those amounts as ceilings. Do you agree?
Mr. Williams. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law, to
include appropriations legislation. I would ensure that my actions on
this matter are informed by the administration's legal positions.
59. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of the
requirements for DOD to obligate funding that Congress authorizes and
appropriates, in accordance with the time period that Congress deems it
to do so?
Mr. Williams. While I am not nominated for a position at the
Department of Defense, I will comply with all applicable laws and
statues regarding the obligation of funds.
60. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you commit to expending the
money that Congress appropriates and authorizes?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the law.
61. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you commit to following and
implementing every provision of the annual National Defense
Authorization Act passed into law?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the law.
62. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you became aware of a
potential violation of the Antideficiency Act, Impoundment Control Act,
or other appropriations laws, what steps would you take?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will follow all applicable
law and statutes.
acquisition reform
63. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of the
Procurement Integrity Act and your obligations under that law?
Mr. Williams. The Procurement Integrity Act (``PIA'') (as codified
at 41 USC Sec. Sec. 2101-2107) is intended to prohibit, and lay out
consequences for, certain actions of Federal officials and others that
would potentially compromise the integrity of Federal acquisitions.
Under the PIA, I would be obligated: (1) not to knowingly disclose
contractor bid/proposal information or source selection information
prior to the award of a Federal procurement to which the information
relates (42 USC Sec. 2102); (2) if I'm personally and substantially
participating in a Federal procurement valued in excess of the
Simplified Acquisition Threshold, to report any contact with offerors
regarding non-Federal employment to designated officials, and either
reject the offer or recuse myself from the procurement (42 USC Sec.
2103); and (3) not to accept compensation from a contractor as an
employee, officer, director, or consultant, for a period of 1 year
after I have taken certain actions in excess of $10 million, that have
benefited the contractor (e.g., served as a Source Selection Authority
or otherwise personally made a decision for NNSA to award a contract,
subcontract, order, or modification thereto) (42 USC Sec. 2104).
64. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you believe that it is
important to be able to assess accurate cost and pricing data from
contractors, especially for sole-or single-source contracts?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is important to be a responsible steward
of taxpayer dollars, and I look forward to reviewing current contracts
at NNSA, should I be confirmed.
65. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, how do you plan to obtain cost
and pricing data from contractors to determine that the cost of Federal
contracts is fair and reasonable?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is important to be a responsible steward
of taxpayer dollars, and while not currently at DOE, I look forward to
reviewing current contracts at NNSA, should I be confirmed.
66. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, how do you plan to do so in cases
where contractors refuse or claim they are unable to turn over this
data?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is important to be a responsible steward
of taxpayer dollars, and while not currently at DOE, I look forward to
reviewing current contracts at NNSA, should I be confirmed.
67. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, what steps
will you take to ensure that contractors are not price gouging or
overcharging the Federal Government?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is important to be a responsible steward
of taxpayer dollars, and while not currently at DOE, I look forward to
reviewing current contracts at NNSA, should I be confirmed.
68. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to seeking refunds, including voluntary refunds, from
contractors and companies that overcharge the Federal Government?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is important to be a responsible steward
of taxpayer dollars, and while not currently at DOE, I look forward to
reviewing current contracts at NNSA, should I be confirmed.
69. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if so, how do you plan to do so?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is important to be a responsible steward
of taxpayer dollars, and while not currently at DOE, I look forward to
reviewing current contracts at NNSA, should I be confirmed.
research and development
70. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, does the Federal Government
benefit from partnering with colleges, universities, nonprofits, and
federally funded research and development centers?
Mr. Williams. NNSA and the Department of Energy have a long history
of collaboration with colleges, universities, nonprofits, and federally
funded research and development centers, particularly at the DOE
National Labs. Much of the work done at the National Labs is at the
forefront of science and national security.
71. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, under your leadership, will your
agencies continue to work with colleges, universities, nonprofits, and
federally funded research and development centers to research and
address our toughest national security challenges?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to learning
about the current collaborations between NNSA and colleges,
universities, nonprofits, and federally funded research and development
centers.
72. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what should your agency's
criteria for canceling grants be?
Mr. Williams. NNSA has an important national security mission, and
is entrusted with the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. While I am not
currently serving in the Department and have no knowledge of current
practices, I believe any decisions regarding grant funding should
uphold national security and yield a benefit to the American taxpayer.
73. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, who should be involved in
decisions to cancel grants?
Mr. Williams. I am unaware of the current review process currently
established at NNSA and the Department of Energy. Should I be
confirmed, I intend to look into the decisionmaking process regarding
grant recissions.
protecting classified information and federal records
74. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of the
need to protect operational security, or OPSEC?
Mr. Williams. As a former military officer, I recognize that
Operations Security (OPSEC) is a critically important national program
that applies to all agencies and is designed to deny adversaries the
ability to collect, analyze, and exploit information that might provide
an advantage against the United States. OPSEC protects information
against the inadvertent compromise through a process of continual
assessment.
75. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what are the national security
risks of improperly disclosing classified information?
Mr. Williams. In addition to violating Federal laws/regulations,
the improper disclosure of classified information may compromise
sensitive national security information to adversaries, potentially
endangering the United States and its allies and partners.
76. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, is it your opinion that
information about imminent military targets is generally sensitive
information that needs to be protected?
Mr. Williams. Military targets are not in the purview of the
National Nuclear Security Administration. I defer to the Department of
Defense on this matter.
77. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what would you do if you learned
an official had improperly disclosed classified information?
Mr. Williams. Any person who has knowledge that classified
information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised, or
disclosed to an unauthorized person must immediately report the
circumstances to those who have the authority and responsibility for
conducting incidents of security concern inquiries at NNSA.
78. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of
Government officials' duties under the Federal Records Act?
Mr. Williams. The Federal Records Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-754) is a
United States Federal law that provides the legal framework for Federal
records management, including record creation, maintenance, and
disposition.
79. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, should classified information be
shared on unclassified commercial systems?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the law and all
records retention policies at the Department of Energy.
80. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, is it damaging to national
security if the pilots flying a mission find out that the official who
ordered them to perform that mission shared sensitive information that
could have made it more likely that the mission would fail, or they
would be killed?
Mr. Williams. Military targets are not in the purview of the
National Nuclear Security Administration. I defer to the Department of
Defense on this matter.
81. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you had information about the
status of specific targets, weapons being used, and timing for imminent
U.S. strikes against an adversary, under what circumstances would you
feel comfortable receiving or sharing that information on an
unclassified commercial application like Signal?
Mr. Williams. Military targets are not in the purview of the
National Nuclear Security Administration. I defer to the Department of
Defense on this matter.
national nuclear security administration
82. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your understanding of the
purpose of title 42 U.S. Code Sec. 7132?
Mr. Williams. The statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7132, is part of the DOE
Organization Act and includes the Department's Principal Officers,
which are the Deputy Secretary, three Under Secretaries and the
Department's General Counsel. It was amended in 2000 to add the Under
Secretary of Nuclear Security.
83. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what criteria should be used to
reduce NNSA's workforce?
Mr. Williams. As I said in my opening remarks, ``the men and women
of the NNSA comprise one of the greatest scientific and engineering
organizations in human history'' and they ``ensure the safety,
security, reliability, and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile.''
The Government Accountability Office has previously noted that NNSA
does not have a ``sufficiently sized Federal workforce to carry out the
agency's critical missions and oversee M&O contracts.'' I defer to the
Office of Personnel Management to establish criteria regarding
reductions-in-force.
84. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, how will you assess the impact of
potential workforce reductions on stockpile sustainment, non-
proliferation, and modernization programs?
Mr. Williams. The NNSA workforce is critical. If confirmed, I will
stand up for NNSA's personnel to deliver on NNSA's critical national
security mission. We are facing a moment in history where NNSA must
perform, and the agency's success depends on its workforce.
85. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, the NNSA depends on a mix of
Federal employees, contractors, and lab scientists to manage critical
programs. If you determine that reductions in force have harmed NNSA's
mission, what contingency plans would you implement to ensure continued
oversight, safety, and security of the nuclear stockpile?
Mr. Williams. I am not aware of reductions-in-force that have been
implemented at NNSA at this time. I intend to review the contingency
plans currently in place and will follow my obligations in statute to
ensure the oversight, safety, and security of the nuclear stockpile.
86. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, NNSA is undergoing the largest
modernization programs in its history. Earlier this month the
Government Accountability Office published a report that noted that
NNSA's internal review ``concluded that it wouldn't be able to meet
this workload without changes''. Are you familiar with NNSA's review
and how would you address its recommendations?
Mr. Williams. In my current capacity, I am not privy to the
information contained in NNSA's internal review. If confirmed, I will
review the report's findings.
87. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if you are not familiar with the
review referenced in the question above, will you provide this
committee with your plan to address its recommendations in 30 days?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will review the report's findings and
determine whether plans are needed to address its recommendations.
88. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if confirmed, how will you
address your technical management experience shortfalls?
Mr. Williams. I believe my background serving in the United States
Navy, as CEO of a software company focused on modernizing and securing
industrial controls for process manufacturing industries, and as a
Member of Congress has equipped me with the experience and expertise
needed to serve as Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
Administrator for NNSA. If confirmed, I will work closely with NNSA's
leadership team to continue to build a stronger, more efficient, and
mission-focused culture.
89. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, what is your plan to address
NNSA's significant management challenges?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will be looking for areas where we
can adopt innovative strategies to more efficiently deliver NNSA's
mission like streamlining project management requirements. I look
forward to developing a culture of accountability, determining the
optimal level of oversight, take decisive action, when necessary,
implement lessons learned, and reinforce best practices for cost
estimating.
90. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you think it is concerning for
U.S. companies with U.S. user data to partner with companies either
partially or completely controlled by the Chinese Government?
Mr. Williams. Yes, I believe that companies should remain vigilant
in their dealings with companies either partially or completely
controlled by the Chinese government.
91. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, do you currently have any
dealings with businesses that have ties to the Chinese Government?
Mr. Williams. No.
92. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, have you ever conducted business
with a foreign national?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
93. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, if confirmed, would you commit to
not share information with any company that could use this information
to undermine U.S. national security interests, including by supporting
China's nuclear modernization efforts?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
94. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, in your advanced policy questions
you said ``NNSA's nonproliferation mission also helps ensure threats to
the United States are minimized and, when applicable, nuclear
agreements are verifiable to deter negotiating partners from abrogating
them.'' Do you think it's important to advance and support NNSA's
nonproliferation mission?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
95. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, would it be harmful for NNSA
workforce reductions to weaken U.S. leadership in nonproliferation?
Mr. Williams. In my current capacity, I am not privy to the makeup
of the workforce at NNSA. The NNSA workforce is unique and exceptional;
they are essential to accomplishing the vital work entrusted to them.
If confirmed, I will advocate for the men and women of NNSA so that we
can accomplish that mission together.
96. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, how do you think increasing our
nuclear weapons spending will impact our adversaries' interest in doing
the same?
Mr. Williams. Our adversaries have already been accelerating their
nuclear modernization efforts for years. The current U.S. stockpile
remains safe, secure, reliable, and effective. NNSA must continue to be
responsive to DOD requirements while developing capabilities to meet
deterrent gaps of any kind that may emerge well into the future.
Above all, our nuclear modernization plan must deter the full range
of threats posed by adversaries and ensure the United States has an
enduring safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.
97. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, how do you think our adversaries
would interpret the United States resuming live fire nuclear weapons
testing?
Mr. Williams. The United States continues to observe its 1992
nuclear test moratorium; and, since 1992, has assessed that the
deployed nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective without
nuclear explosive testing. Each year, the national security laboratory
directors and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command assess the
stockpile and determine if there is anything that would require a
return to underground nuclear explosive testing. If confirmed, I will
continue to support the annual assessment process and will ensure NNSA
continues to comply with readiness requirements while also supporting a
robust Stockpile Stewardship Program. For questions regarding the views
and actions of America's adversaries, I will need to defer to the
Intelligence Community.
98. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, given the Pentagon's $1.5
trillion nuclear modernization program and Donald Trump's commitment to
examining every aspect of the Federal Government for wasteful spending,
will you assess whether any nuclear modernization programs should be
identified for possible re-evaluation to cut unnecessary costs for the
American taxpayer?
Mr. Williams. NNSA's modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is
the backbone of our national defense, ensuring the United States fields
modern, reliable, and effective weapons to deter our adversaries. NNSA
is entrusted with stewardship of taxpayer dollars which requires
appropriate scrutiny. Over the past few years, NNSA has made
improvements to address project management challenges, but more work in
this area is required. If confirmed, I will be looking for areas where
we can adopt innovative strategies to more efficiently deliver NNSA's
mission.
99. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, as an unratified signatory of the
1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the United States has not tested a
nuclear weapon since Operation Julin in 1992, relying instead on the
Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure the safety and reliability of
the arsenal. Former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, Robert
O'Brien, recently suggested that the United States should restart
nuclear weapons testing. Do you believe there is any technical or
strategic justification for resuming explosive nuclear testing?
Mr. Williams. The United States continues to observe its 1992
nuclear test moratorium; and, since 1992, has assessed that the
deployed nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective without
nuclear explosive testing. Each year, the national security laboratory
directors and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command assess the
stockpile and determine if there is anything that would require a need
to return to underground nuclear explosive testing. If confirmed, I
will continue to support the annual assessment process and will ensure
NNSA continues to comply with readiness requirements while also
supporting a robust Stockpile Stewardship Program.
100. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, some have argued that resuming
explosive nuclear testing could provide marginal benefits for stockpile
confidence, while others warn that it would have severe consequences
for arms control, non-proliferation, and global security. If confirmed,
will you commit to prioritizing scientific advancements in stockpile
stewardship over unnecessary and destabilizing nuclear testing?
Mr. Williams. The United States continues to observe its 1992
nuclear test moratorium; and, since 1992, has assessed that the
deployed nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective without
nuclear explosive testing. Each year, the national security laboratory
directors and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command assess the
stockpile and determine if there is anything that would require a need
to return to underground nuclear explosive testing. If confirmed, I
will continue to support the annual assessment process and will ensure
NNSA continues to comply with readiness requirements while also
supporting a robust Stockpile Stewardship Program.
101. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, the NNSA's Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) works globally to prevent State and non-
State actors from developing nuclear weapons or acquiring weapons-
usable nuclear or radiological materials, equipment, technology, and
expertise. Given that $185 million has been redirected from defense
nuclear non-proliferation to weapons development, can you speak about
the impact this shift will have on non-proliferation programs at NNSA
and what you will do to ensure these programs get the funding they
need?
Mr. Williams. In my current capacity, I am not privy to the details
related to that funding nor the decisions behind its redirection. If
confirmed, I am committed to protecting the United States from the
threat of nuclear proliferation.
102. Senator Warren. Mr. Williams, the success of the NNSA's non-
proliferation mission relies on experienced personnel in national labs
and international cooperation programs. What will you do if you
determine that reductions that occurred before your confirmation have
weakened U.S. leadership in non-proliferation and made the United
States less safe?
Mr. Williams. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of
Energy, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and the
President to determine that NNSA's nonproliferation programs have the
funding and staffing needed to execute their mission.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Duckworth
accountability
103. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Williams, do you commit that your
decisions will be communicated through official, secure channels and
properly documented for both oversight and institutional memory?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I will comply with all
Department of Energy records retentions policies and applicable law.
104. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Williams, would you follow an illegal,
unlawful, or immoral order?
Mr. Williams. Should I be confirmed, I intend to comply with the
law.
______
[The nomination reference of The Honorable Brandon M.
Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of The Honorable Brandon M.
Williams, which was transmitted by the Committee at the time of
the nomination was referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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 The Honorable
Brandon M. Williams in connection with his nomination follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The nomination of The Honorable Brandon M. Williams was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Wicker on May 1, 2025, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on September 18, 2025.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Bradley D. Hansell by
Chairman Wicker prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties, qualifications, and relationships
Question. If confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and Security USD(I&S), what do you believe would be your
most critical duties and responsibilities?
Answer. The primary responsibility of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)) is to support the
Secretary of Defense by executing his intelligence and security
responsibilities and authorities, including the authorities that are
codified in Title 10 and Title 50 of the United States Code. Conducting
this responsibility in support of the warfighter and our national
defense will always be on the top of my mind. I am also particularly
aware, if confirmed, of the responsibility of the USD(I&S), pursuant to
section 137(c) of Title 10 United States Code, for the protection of
privacy and civil liberties in accordance with Federal law and the
regulations and directives of the Department of Defense.
I understand that the responsibilities of the USD(I&S) by statute
and policy are contained in DOD Directive 5143.01 and include serving
as the Principal Staff Assistant and advisor regarding intelligence,
counterintelligence, security, sensitive activities, and other
intelligence-related matters; exercising authority, direction, and
control on behalf of the Secretary of Defense over the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA), the National Security Agency / Central Security Service (NSA /
CSS), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA); establishing policy and
priorities for, and providing oversight of, the defense intelligence
and security enterprises; exercising oversight of personnel policy to
ensure that intelligence organizations in the Department of Defense are
staffed, organized, trained, and equipped to support the missions of
the Department; ensuring that the DOD intelligence components that are
also elements of the Intelligence Community (IC) are responsive to the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in the execution of the DNI's
authorities; ensuring that the combatant commanders, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and the civilian leadership of the Department are provided
with appropriate intelligence support; ensuring that
counterintelligence activities in the Department are conducted and
managed efficiently and effectively; ensuring that certain sensitive
activities which the Department conducts or supports are conducted and
managed efficiently and effectively; overseeing the implementation of
assigned DOD security policies and programs to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness; and serving as the Program Executive for the Military
Intelligence Program (MIP).
Question. What is your understanding of the differences between the
Title 10 and Title 50 duties of the USD(I&S)?
Answer. My understanding is that the USD(I&S) supports the
Secretary of Defense in fulfilling all the Secretary's statutory
responsibilities in the areas of intelligence and security, whether
codified in Title 10 or Title 50 of the United States Code, and that
the duties of the USD(I&S) are prescribed in DOD Directive (DODD)
5143.01. This includes providing overall direction and supervision for
policy, program planning and execution, and use of resources for DOD
activities that are part of the Military Intelligence Program and for
personnel security, physical security, industrial security, and the
protection of classified information and controlled unclassified
information-related activities. Of note, section 137(c) of Title 10
also states that it shall be a top priority of the USD(I&S) to protect
privacy and civil liberties in accordance with Federal law and the
regulations and directives of DOD. I also understand that the USD(I&S)
supports the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling the responsibilities in
subsection 3038(a) of Title 50, United States Code, in consultation
with the Director of National Intelligence, to ensure: (1) that the
budgets of the Intelligence Community (IC) elements within the
Department of Defense (DOD) are adequately funded to the overall DOD
intelligence needs; (2) the implementation of the policies and resource
decisions of the Director of National Intelligence by DOD Components
within the National Intelligence Program (NIP); (3) that DOD tactical
intelligence activities complement and are compatible with intelligence
activities funded by the NIP; (4) that the IC elements within DOD are
responsive and timely with respect to satisfying the needs of
operational military forces; (5) waste and unnecessary duplication
among the DOD intelligence activities are eliminated; and (6) that DOD
intelligence activities are conducted jointly where appropriate.
Question. What leadership and management experience do you possess
that you would apply to your service as USD(I&S), if confirmed?
Answer. I am passionate about helping people and organizations
realize their highest potential. Throughout my career, I have sought
opportunities to be a student and a practitioner of leadership to
enable that objective. If confirmed, I look forward to bringing my
experience forward to be an effective servant leader within the
Department of Defense and Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise
(DISE). I believe my experience in the United States Navy, the United
States Army Special Forces, the National Security Council, and in the
private sector working within both the commercial and government
sectors have uniquely prepared me for this position.
After college, I initially chose to join the Navy's Surface Warfare
Community, inspired by the responsibility of leadership and opportunity
to serve our Nation. My early tours as a Naval Officer taught me many
lessons about how to get things done in a large, matrixed enterprise.
Seeking more impact, I entered Naval Special Warfare Training, which
provided the foundation for the character and leadership principles I
bring forward today. After leading my class through `hell week' and a
medical disqualification later in training, a transfer to the Army
Special Forces provided the experiences that would deepen my commitment
to these principles. I am honored that some of these experiences
included leading America's finest in combat. These responsibilities
prepared me to be a strong manager able to generate a vision, build
consensus, and drive execution. Most importantly, my experiences have
ingrained in me the value of servant leadership.
After my retirement from the military, I attended graduate school
for an MBA to learn how to best apply these leadership lessons in the
business world. I have twice worked at Boston Consulting Group, a
management consulting firm that advises the world's largest
organizations on how to address some of their most challenging
leadership and management challenges. This experience furthered my
ability to be a strategic thinker, capable of challenging the status
quo, in search of innovative solutions. As a leader in the North
American Public Sector practice, advising leaders within the Defense
and Intelligence Community, and as a Senior Director at the National
Security Council, I understand the leadership and managerial challenges
required when attempting to drive impact in the unique government
domain.
As a strategy consultant, operating partner, and independent
consultant I have significant experience partnering with management
teams to tackle their hardest challenges. Across a breadth of sectors
and types of challenges, and despite often facing complex data driven
problems, I have found that effective leadership is almost always the
most impactful lever. My vast experience, and lessons learned along the
way, has shaped a personal leadership approach which is mission
focused, outcomes driven, people enabled, and an exacting focus on
effective decisionmaking. If confirmed, my years of implementing
business best practices will help effectively manage the enterprise,
and I believe my leadership will serve the organization to reach its
potential.
Question. Please provide an example of a situation in which you led
and brought to conclusion a management improvement/change initiative in
a complex organization.
As a Senior Director on the National Security Council staff, I
helped lead efforts in furtherance of a directorate focused on
transnational threats. Part of my mandate was to identify and seek to
eliminate any bureaucratic silos that limited our collective capacity
in areas of my portfolio. I believe this integration is critical in
both policy and organizational design in order to address the sources
of strength and support of our adversaries, including in a key area of
focus at the time for the Administration, transnational organized crime
(TOC).
On February 9, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO)
13773, which, inter alia, called for enhanced efforts to ``maximize the
extent to which all Federal agencies share information and coordinate
with Federal law enforcement agencies, as permitted by law, in order to
identify, interdict, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations
and subsidiary organizations.'' The first interagency report in
response to EO 13773 confirmed that the Federal Government did not have
the requisite structures in place to adequately coordinate activity and
also lacked the capability to provide a comprehensive picture of the
threat environment. Recognizing the importance of establishing an
interagency framework that can both map and action the threat
environment, my team began to build consensus for a permanent
integrated effort to meet the intent similar to what National
Counterterrorism Threat Center (NCTC) does for integrating CT
intelligence and planning. Our effort sought to develop the basis for
increased data integration and a national level planning process. In
the process of standing up a new coordination mechanism, we encountered
many of the barriers that had hardened bureaucratic silos in the past--
such as competing policy priorities, legal authorities issues, and
widely differing but well-established mindsets that fostered
organizational resistance to change. Despite all these obstacles, we
successfully navigated a path to consensus to establish a new whole-of-
government framework for tackling TOC.
These efforts yielded, inter alia, better integration with the
Department of the Treasury and the Department of Defense and a new
interagency planning capability to address this critical issue. These
additional capabilities and increased coordination among Federal
agencies have established an integrated policy planning process with a
permanent focus on improving the integration of available
investigative, regulatory, and law enforcement information required to
address TOC in a more holistic and comprehensive way.
Question. What is your experience across the domain of intelligence
matters? Security matters?
Answer. My career as a national security professional, spanning
more than 20 years, has provided me with significant experience in the
domain of intelligence and security matters, ranging from the tactical
to the strategic level. As a Green Beret, my team conducted the entire
intelligence cycle on the battlefield, to include the development and
utilization of intelligence sources as well as the integration of
sensitive intelligence capabilities, which I then relied on when
planning and leading combat missions. I know the value of getting it
right and the human cost of getting it wrong. My military career also
included assignments focused on harbor security, force protection, and
physical security.
Serving as a Senior Director in the National Security Council, I
saw the criticality of timely and accurate intelligence to inform
policymakers. As part of my responsibility, I leveraged intelligence in
the formulation of policy and ensured relevant strategy was informed by
adequate and coordinated intelligence collection. I saw the importance
not only of the content of the intelligence, but the context and
credibility in its effect on policy formulation. This experience
afforded me the opportunity to become familiar with intelligence
processes at the national level.
Leading a functional directorate on the National Security Council
gave me exposure to threats and policies globally and the intelligence
and security issues that supported them. In my responsibility to align
inter-agency policies and resources to a national problem set, part of
my role within my portfolio included working with elements of the
Intelligence Community to better integrate toward a unified objective.
It also provided me with valuable experience with responsiveness issues
of the Intelligence Community to national level priorities. If
confirmed, these experiences would inform my view on the criticality of
integration across our intelligence components and enhance my ability
to be a valuable stakeholder in its execution.
Returning to Boston Consulting Group, after my nomination to be the
Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence, I helped to build a FOCI
mitigated business that focused on bringing industry's best practices
to the unique government domain, as we partnered with leaders in both
the DOD and the IC to address their challenges. I had the opportunity
to work on strategy, organizational design, operational efficiency, and
acquisition challenges in the community. In the establishment of that
business, I handled many of the security issues that are faced by non-
traditional entrants as they try to serve customers in the Intelligence
Community. As an Operating Partner at two investment firms and as an
Independent Consultant, I had the opportunity to partner with
businesses as they navigated growth strategies in these often-non-
efficient markets. Most of my work in the investment sector has relied
on my deep understanding of the national security challenges facing the
USG, its reliance on the commercial sector to fulfill its requirements,
and the security challenges involved in effectively doing so.
Question. Are there are any actions you would take to enhance your
ability to perform the duties and exercise the powers of the USD(I&S)?
Answer. If confirmed, leveraging the experience and wisdom of the
professionals within the DISE and throughout DOD will be critical to my
own and the organization's success. I believe in the value of seeking
knowledge that can support the mission from every available source and
will do so if confirmed. Furthermore, I would work to ensure an
organization climate that encourages the best ideas to flow freely
through the organization. My understanding is that the duties and
authorities of the USD(I&S) in exercising the Secretary of Defense's
authority, direction, and control over the DISE are significant when
used to their full effect. As a nominee for USD(I&S), I have not yet
had the opportunity to comprehensively assess whether the duties and
authorities of the USD(I&S) over the DISE--as well as the financial
resources and personnel talent within the DISE--are effectively matched
to the Secretary of Defense's national security priorities in
accordance with the Interim National Defense Strategy Guidance. If
confirmed, I commit to making that assessment and will return to the
Committee if I determine additional or revised authorities are
necessary to successfully implement the National Defense Strategy.
Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to ensure
that your tenure as USD(I&S) fulfills the fundamental requirement for
civilian control of the Armed Forces embedded in the U.S. Constitution
and other laws?
Answer. I am committed to upholding the fundamental requirement in
the U.S. Constitution and other laws for civilian control of the Armed
Forces, a key principle of American governance and enabler for our
success as a Nation. This includes executing my responsibilities and
duties established by law and policy to the President, Secretary of
Defense, and to the U.S. Congress, and holding those who I manage and
oversee accountable for the same.
Question. How do you view the relationship and division of
responsibilities between the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence and Security (OUSD(I&S)) and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)?
Answer. The partnership between Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence and Security (OUSD(I&S)) and Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is essential to the success of
the DISE. The OUSD(I&S) works closely with the ODNI to effectively
integrate intelligence in support of U.S. national security interests.
Through the effective partnership and integration between OUSD(I&S) and
ODNI, the Intelligence Community delivers coordinated intelligence to
policymakers and warfighters on crucial threats to our national
security. If confirmed, I will seek to continue to strengthen the
partnership between OUSD(I&S) and ODNI to maximize effects and return
on investment of our combined efforts.
I am also aware that the USD(I&S) is dual-hatted as the Director of
Defense Intelligence within the ODNI, and I believe that formal
relationship offers great opportunities for enhancing our effective
collaboration.
Last, as a principal member of the Suitability and Security
Clearance Performance Accountability Council (PAC), the USD(I&S) works
with the DNI, who is the Security Executive Agent and a principal
member of the PAC.
What is your understanding of the relationship and division of
responsibilities between the OUSD(I&S) and the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD(P)), particularly as regards
policy and programs for information operations, including military
deception and operations security (OPSEC)?
Answer. My understanding is that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (USD(P)) is the Principal Staff Assistant for oversight of
Information Operations (IO), and that the USD(I&S) is the Program
Management Lead for DOD deception activities and operations security.
In coordination with the USD(P), the USD(I&S) develops and oversees
implementation of DOD policy, programs, and guidance for military
deception and operations security; the coordination and deconfliction
of DOD IO and intelligence activities; and develops and oversees the
implementation of policy for intelligence support to IO. If confirmed,
I will prioritize ensuring the Department has all available tools to
effectively compete along the full continuum of conflict. A strong
partnership between OUSD(I&S) and OUSD(P) is critical in the
development and effectiveness of DOD activities to counter adversary
activities in the ``gray zone'', which will enable our ability to deter
adversaries short of armed conflict and re-establish deterrence.
Question. In your view, what would be the appropriate relationship
between the USD(I&S) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in
regard to providing operational intelligence, counterintelligence, and
security support to the warfighter?
Answer. I understand that the USD(I&S) is responsible for
supporting the Secretary of Defense in discharging his intelligence and
security responsibilities and authorities under Title 10 and Title 50
of the United States Code. This includes exercising authority,
direction, and control on behalf of the Secretary of Defense over
certain defense intelligence components of the Department of Defense
and working closely with the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands, Service
Components, and the ODNI to develop effective policy, plans, programs,
and priorities. The optimal relationship between OUSD(I&S) and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is mutual support and
consultation to ensure the defense intelligence enterprise (DIE)
provides the warfighters with the best intelligence possible, to
conduct their planning and operations and to provide the Secretary of
Defense with the best defense intelligence and military advice.
Question. How are responsibilities for the oversight of the
activities and programs of special operations forces delineated between
the OUSD(I&S) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD(SOLIC))?
Answer. I understand that USD(I&S), the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD(SO/
LIC)), and the DOD Senior Intelligence Oversight Official (SIOO) acting
together are the primary oversight officials for all U.S. Special
Operations Forces intelligence and intelligence-related activities and
programs. A strong partnership between OUSD(I&S) and ASD(SO/LIC) is
critical in the development and effectiveness of many DOD activities in
the ``gray zone,'' which will enable DOD's ability to deter adversaries
short of armed conflict and reestablish deterrence. I also intend to
work closely with the SIOO who I understand provides independent
oversight within the Department of intelligence and intelligence-
related activities.'' If confirmed, I will continue this close
partnership to ensure that the United States is best postured to
maximize effects. In doing so, I will ensure defense intelligence
activities adhere to appropriate coordination processes within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. How do you view the relationship and division of
responsibilities between OUSD(I&S) and the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)) in
regard to both unclassified and classified contract efforts?
Answer. I understand the relationship between OUSD(I&S) and the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment
(OUSD(A&S)) is one of cooperation and collaboration. I am aware of
existing important efforts between both offices, to include an
examination of DOD oversight of classified contracting, getting the
National Background Investigation Services program back on track, and
partnering to protect the National Security Innovation Base and Defense
Industrial Base from adversary compromise. If confirmed, I look forward
to learning more about these efforts and making my own assessment of
their progress.
Also if confirmed, a priority of mine will be to better enable
intelligence to inform Department investments, effectively matching
capabilities with threats, along the entire acquisition life cycle. I
will work closely with the USD(A&S) to best integrate intelligence
efforts to effectively support decisionmakers amidst a rapidly evolving
technological and threat environment.
Question. How do you view the relationship and division of
responsibilities between the OUSD(I&S) and the DOD Chief Information
Officer, particularly with respect to the cybersecurity mission;
developing interoperability requirements applicable to information
systems architectures for processing intelligence and
counterintelligence information; and the certification of intelligence
information systems?
Answer. I view the relationship between the OUSD(I&S) and the
Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DOD CIO) as one
predicated on collaboration and partnership to align, secure, and
modernize information security policies and DOD's information system
architectures to support our warfighters. I understand that the DOD CIO
advises the Secretary of Defense on information technology, including
National Security Systems and defense business systems, cybersecurity,
and develops DOD strategy and policy for all DOD information
technology. The partnership between OUSD(I&S) and DOD CIO is imperative
for continuing cybersecurity efforts, such as implementing Zero Trust
on all three DOD network fabrics to mitigate nefarious actors including
insider threat.
If confirmed, I will work with the DOD CIO to advance the
department's mission by ensuring an integrated, intelligence, and
counterintelligence informed management of IT and network security that
addresses the evolving cybersecurity threat.
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship and
division of responsibilities between the OUSD(I&S) and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) for the
Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS)? For the
identification of DOD language capability requirements?
Answer. I understand that the OUSD(I&S) establishes policy for the
Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) in partnership
with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (OUSD(P&R)). This is a critical relationship in support of
the Secretary of Defense's assessment of the shape and size of the
entire DOD workforce alignment to DOD and U.S. national security
priorities. I also understand that OUSD(P&R) coordinates with OUSD(I&S)
and the Intelligence Community to identify and prioritize DOD foreign
language capability requirements. If confirmed, I will make it a
priority to examine the relationship between OUSD(I&S) and OUSD(P&R),
to include the process for identifying DOD language capability
requirements.
Question. How do you view the relationship and division of
responsibilities between the OUSD(I&S) and the heads of the
Intelligence Components of the Military Departments?
Answer. I understand that the OUSD(I&S) staff works closely with
the heads of the intelligence and counterintelligence components of the
Military Departments. I understand that the USD(I&S) provides input to
the Secretaries of the Military Departments on the performance of the
senior intelligence officer within each Military Department.
The USD(I&S) is the Principal Staff Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense with authority delegated from the Secretary of Defense to
establish policy for DOD intelligence, counterintelligence, security,
sensitive activities, and other intelligence-related matters. The
Directors for Defense Intelligence within the OUSD(I&S) have specific
programmatic responsibilities and support the USD(I&S) in carrying out
his assigned responsibilities and exercising the authorities delegated
to the USD(I&S) by the Secretary of Defense.
The Secretaries of the Military Departments exercise authority,
direction, and control over all components within their respective
Departments. The heads of the intelligence and counterintelligence
components within the Military Departments are under the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of the Military Department, and
subject to the policy oversight of the USD(I&S).
Question. What do you perceive to be the role of the OUSD(I&S) with
regard to the Reserve Component intelligence elements of Military
Services?
Answer. I understand that DOD Directive 5143.01 outlines the
responsibilities and functions, relationships, and authorities of the
USD(I&S). In accordance with this Directive, OUSD(I&S) assists the
USD(I&S) to develop and provide policy guidance, resource advocacy, and
oversight for the integration of Reserve Component intelligence
elements, and ensures the Department effectively employs and resources
Reserve Component intelligence elements to best support the National
Defense Strategy. The programmatic role of OUSD(I&S) is the same with
respect to the Active and Reserve Components of the Military Services.
Like the Active Components, the Reserve Components' intelligence
elements are under the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of the relevant Military Department in which they are
located, and subject to the policy oversight of the OUSD(I&S).
Question. What is your understanding of the USD(I&S)'s
responsibility and authority for the management and oversight of
Military Intelligence Program (MIP) and National Intelligence Program
(NIP) funding? How do the processes employed by the USD(I&S) in the
execution of these responsibilities differ from the Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process applicable to all
other DOD organizations and funding?
Answer. My understanding is that USD(I&S) executes the Secretary's
statutory responsibilities regarding the budgets of the DOD components
that comprise the Intelligence Community (IC), and specifically
ensuring the budgets of DOD IC elements are adequate to satisfy the
overall intelligence needs of the Department. Further, as the MIP
Executive Agent, the USD(I&S) is responsible for the management and
oversight of the Military Intelligence Program (MIP). The USD(I&S)
executes the functions for the NIP of the Department, as delegated by
the Secretary of Defense, and as the Director of Defense Intelligence
for ODNI, has visibility into the NIP through participation in the ODNI
PPBE decision forums. Additionally, I understand the DNI and the
USD(I&S) jointly issue intelligence programming guidance to closely
synchronize NIP and MIP-funded programs to ensure the Department's
priorities are communicated to the IC. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the ODNI in ensuring DOD intelligence requirements are
effectively supported within the NIP budget.
With respect to the DOD PPBE process, it is my understanding that
the USD(I&S) is a full participant in the Department's PPBE process and
that military intelligence requirements compete with the other DOD
requirements.
Question. If confirmed, specifically what actions would you take to
develop and sustain an open, transparent, and productive relationship
between the Senate Armed Services Committee and the OUSD(I&S) and the
Defense Agencies under the authority, direction, and control of the
USD(I&S)?
Answer. I believe that collaborative congressional oversight
provides an invaluable perspective on DOD activities that informs
better decisions within both branches of government, ultimately making
DOD more effective in achieving our common purpose of strengthening our
national defense. If confirmed, I intend to maintain a routine,
continuous, and transparent dialog with the defense oversight
committees to discuss the Department's activities that are subject to
their oversight, including defense intelligence, counterintelligence,
security, sensitive activities, and other intelligence-related
activities. I am committed to maintaining open lines of communication
with Congress to ensure accurate and consistent information is shared
from the OUSD(I&S) and the defense agencies under USD(I&S) authority.
Through this approach, I will seek to facilitate effective oversight
and build mutual trust between DOD and Congress, enabling DOD to obtain
legislative authorities and resources necessary for mission success.
If confirmed, will you commit to ensure that this Committee is
provided with the notifications required under law, and that any such
notification is accurate, complete, and timely?
Answer. I am committed to keeping Congress fully and currently
informed involving activities that fall under the USD(I&S)'s
responsibility under DOD Directive 5143.01, including fulfilling the
notification requirements in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2723. If
confirmed, I will ensure such notifications are accurate, complete, and
timely.
conflicts of interest
Question. Federal ethics laws, to include 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208,
prohibit government employees from participating in matters where they,
or certain family members or organizations with which they have certain
relationships, have a financial interest.
Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to disclose any
potential conflicts of interest, including investments, business ties,
family relationships, or other connections that could be perceived as
influencing your decisionmaking?
Answer. I agree to comply with all conflicts of interest disclosure
requirements set forth in the Ethics in Government Act and implementing
regulations.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, that
if a conflict of interest arises, you will recuse yourself from
participating in any decisions regarding that specific matter?
Answer. I agree to comply with all recusal requirements under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 208 and implementing regulations.
Question. Do you commit, without qualification, if confirmed, to
decisionmaking on the merits and exclusively in the public interest,
without regard to private gain or personal benefit?
Answer. I commit to deciding matters on the merits based on the
public interest, without regard to any private gain or personal benefit
major challenges and priorities
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant
challenges you would face if confirmed as the USD(I&S) and what
specific actions would you take to address each of these challenges?
Answer. The most significant challenge will be ensuring the DISE is
most effectively supporting the Secretary of Defense's priorities:
restoring a warrior ethos, rebuilding our military, and reestablishing
deterrence in support of our national defense in a rapidly changing
environment.
Effective management of the DISE is essential, and we must align
efforts to maximize effects downrange and the return on our investment.
This includes ensuring we have the right technology and organizational
structure to enable our personnel--some of America's best--to increase
their impact in today's operational environment, and to position the
Enterprise for the rapidly changing landscape of the future. If
confirmed, I would ensure the Enterprise has the culture, business best
practices, and processes necessary to be agile, while remaining laser
focused on the mission. Adapting the DISE at the speed of relevance
will be difficult, but essential. From my perspective, technology
advancements in ubiquitous sensing, space control, and unmanned systems
at scale are examples of the challenges we must adapt to.
We must better enable intelligence to inform Department
investments, effectively matching capabilities with threats. With
program costs incredibly high--and the cost of misallocation on the
modern battlefield even higher--the premium on intelligence effectively
informing the entire acquisition life cycle is at an all-time high. I
believe the speed of the technology will require increased focus
earlier in the development cycle, requiring an increased focus on
scientific & technical intelligence.
Last, we must ensure the Department has all the tools required to
most effectively compete along the full continuum of conflict. Our
adversaries are increasingly conducting malign activity below a
threshold that has traditionally triggered a military response.
Enhancing DOD Irregular Warfare capabilities will allow us to provide
leaders with risk-informed options to better compete short of armed
conflict and re-establish deterrence. Similarly, I believe offensive
cyber capabilities and an increased focus on Defense human intelligence
are areas for opportunity. Finally, offensive counterintelligence
efforts are essential in imposing a cost on our adversaries. These
options may often carry additional risk; however, the DISE will strive
to provide risk-informed options to the Secretary that support his and
the President's national security objectives.
expanding roles and responsibilities
Question. In 2003, Congress established the position of Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence with the intent to improve
coordination of the Department of Defense's intelligence and security
efforts in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. The roles and responsibilities of the Under Secretary have
expanded significantly since the creation of the position, particularly
in the areas of security and law enforcement.
What is your understanding of the evolution and growth of the roles
and responsibilities of the OUSD(I&S) since its establishment?
Answer. I understand that the evolution of the roles and
responsibilities of the OUSD(I&S) since its establishment in 2003 have
been strategic and responsive to the evolution and growth of
requirements to support the Secretary of Defense in executing his
intelligence and security responsibilities and authorities under Title
10 and Title 50 of the United States Code. The growth largely is
largely attributed to the evolution of important security functions and
programs that enable the Department to more effectively compete across
the spectrum of conflict, to include the assumption of oversight for
the DOD implementation of Trusted Workforce 2.0 and the designation of
the Under Secretary as the Secretary's Principal Staff Assistant for
Law Enforcement. I see these and other roles as necessary to support
the Secretary in the successful implementation of the Interim National
Defense Strategic Guidance.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to balance the
significant and varied responsibilities of the OUSD(I&S)?
Answer. I understand that the USD(I&S) is the Principal Staff
Assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense with authority
delegated from the Secretary of Defense to establish policy and provide
oversight for DOD intelligence, counterintelligence, security,
sensitive activities, other intelligence-related matters, and law
enforcement. If confirmed, I will ensure that I fulfill all
responsibilities in a manner that supports the Interim National Defense
Strategic Guidance. I would identify and leverage the extraordinary
expertise and talent across OUSD(I&S) and Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise to successfully accomplish this objective.
supervision, and oversight of the defense intelligence and security
enterprise
Question. The USD(I&S) is vested with responsibility for the
overall direction and supervision of the Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise in the execution of intelligence,
counterintelligence, security, sensitive activities, and other
intelligence-related matters across DOD. Subject to USD(I&S) oversight,
responsibility for executing policies and programs in these domains
vests primarily in the Military Departments and Services, elements of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Defense Agencies.
What is your understanding of the role of the OUSD(I&S) in
coordinating the activities of the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise?
Answer. I see intelligence and security as mutually reinforcing
mission areas. The Department must understand the intentions,
capabilities, and activities of strategic competitors and other
adversaries. Similarly, the security apparatus must safeguard our
personnel, information, capabilities, and infrastructure against these
adversaries. I understand that OUSD(I&S) works across the Department
with the Military Services and defense agencies to identify
requirements and capabilities to meet DOD priorities. They work closely
with the ODNI to ensure the national intelligence priorities take into
account Departmental requirements. These efforts ensure Enterprise
alignment with all national and Department-level strategies, guidance,
direction, and relevant priorities. The USD(I&S) also executes the
Military Intelligence Program (MIP) and participates in the ODNI
specified National Intelligence Program (NIP) process to ensure
resources are aligned against DOD priorities.
national defense strategy
Question. What is your assessment of the current strategic
environment, including your assessment of the critical and enduring
threats to the national security of the United States and its allies
and partners?
Answer. The United States faces one of the most dangerous strategic
environments in our Nation's history, characterized by the
vulnerability of the U.S. Homeland from years of unsecured borders,
increasingly capable air and missile threats, and others; China's
unprecedented military buildup and its intent to seize control of the
Indo-Pacific; and a range of other persistent threats to the United
States and its Allies and partners, including Russia, Iran, North
Korea, and terrorists. In addition, growing cooperation between Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea must be monitored to safeguard our
interests.
Question. How would you prioritize the efforts of the Defense
Intelligence and Security Enterprise relative to the critical and
enduring threats identified above?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the DISE prioritizes
intelligence support and effective security posture that is aligned to
strategic priorities and the evolving threat environment. I will work
across DOD and the Intelligence Community to prioritize capabilities
that address critical and enduring threats while identifying and
considering capability gaps and shortfalls throughout the Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process. In addition, I will
partner closely with the Director of National Intelligence to align the
Military Intelligence Program and National Intelligence Program to
combine for greatest effect downrange and return on investment.
Question. In your view, what role(s) should the Defense
Intelligence and Security Enterprise play in the implementation of the
National Defense Strategy?
Answer. The DISE plays a vital role in implementation of an NDS
promulgated by Secretary Hegseth. In support of the objectives of the
next NDS, the DISE must support both warfighters and decisionmakers;
provide decision advantage; reestablish deterrence; and safeguard
personnel, information, operations, resources, technologies, and
facilities against a wide range of threats and challenges. At the same
time, the DISE must also maintain its ability to provide strategic
warning globally.
Question. How would you assess the current readiness and
capabilities of the Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise to
execute the NDS?
Answer. I believe the DISE is well-postured to support DOD's
execution of the Department's strategic priorities. If confirmed, I
will conduct my own assessment of the Enterprise's readiness and seek
new and innovative ways to improve its ability to execute the next NDS
promulgated by Secretary Hegseth.
strengthening alliances and attracting new partners
Question. Mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are
crucial to U.S. success in competition and conflict against a great
power.
If confirmed as USD(I&S), what would be your priorities to
strengthen and synchronize existing intelligence and
counterintelligence relationships with foreign governments and
international organizations as well as to foster new relationships?
Answer. My time in the Army Special Forces taught me the immense
value of close partnerships with foreign partners. Strong international
relationships and intelligence sharing during my military service
resulting in increased mission success and decreased risk to force,
while shedding light on the fidelity of strategy, formed the foundation
for my appreciation of their value at the national level. U.S.
intelligence sharing relationships in many cases provide outstanding
return on investment as we each leverage our respective placement,
access, and capabilities while economizing resources. Allies and
partners can be force multipliers that enable DOD to effectively
execute the Secretary's next National Defense Strategy if they approach
the relationship as true partners, willing to contribute as able and
appropriate, not simply be recipients of our intelligence and
information. If confirmed, I commit to strengthening defense
intelligence and counterintelligence relationships with Allies and
partners, including ensuring we have the intelligence sharing
relationships needed to execute the next National Security and National
Defense Strategies. I also commit to working with the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy and ODNI to ensure synchronization of existing
U.S. partnerships and the appropriate prioritization of outreach to new
partners.
Question. If confirmed, what factors would you consider in
rendering decisions on the disclosure and release of intelligence to
foreign governments and international organizations, including in
support of combatant commanders' expressed desire for better
intelligence and intelligence sharing to counter foreign malign
activities?
Answer. I understand that the National Disclosure Policy (NDP) sets
forth the factors that must be considered prior to the disclosure of
classified military information, including military intelligence, to
appropriate foreign partners. I also understand that the USD(I&S) is
responsible for issuing policy for the sharing of military
intelligence. If confirmed, I will support the release of military
intelligence and coordinate with the Director of National Intelligence
to enable the release of national intelligence to Allies and partners
to support combatant command requirements in accordance with the NDP
when in support of the National Security and National Defense
Strategies and aligned with United States policy.
oversight of sensitive activities
Question. The Department of Defense defines sensitive activities as
``operations, actions, activities, or programs that, if compromised,
could have enduring adverse effects on U.S. foreign policy, DOD
activities, or military operations or cause significant embarrassment
to the U.S., its allies, or the DOD.''
What is the role of the USD(I&S) in providing oversight of DOD
sensitive activities?
Answer. The USD(I&S) is the Principal Staff Assistant and advisor
to the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense regarding
intelligence, counterintelligence, law enforcement, security, sensitive
activities, tradecraft, and other intelligence-related matters.
The USD(I&S) establishes policy and provides oversight and
direction for the coordination, assessment, reporting, and conduct of
DOD intelligence and intelligence-related sensitive activities, the
Defense Cover Program, special communications, technical collection
support to intelligence activities, defense sensitive support, and the
clandestine use of technology.
If confirmed, I would work closely with relevant defense and
interagency stakeholders to ensure DOD sensitive activities are
conducted consistent with law and DOD policy.
Question. If confirmed, what factors would you consider in
assessing risks associated with proposed DOD sensitive activities?
Answer. I believe that if DOD is to provide the Secretary of
Defense with all necessary options to effectively compete and deter
adversaries short of armed conflict, DOD must be prepared to take
greater risks in the conduct of the sensitive activities necessary to
reestablish deterrence. However, I strongly believe that these risks
must be informed risks. OUSD(I&S) should play a critical role in
strengthening the oversight of DOD sensitive activities, providing the
Secretary and other decisionmakers with a deeper understanding of the
intelligence, the threat environment, potential impact assessments, and
other critical information available to DOD's interagency and
international partners. If confirmed, I will work with the team to look
at these and other factors and determine the extent to which our
current risk assessment methodologies are adequate for the current
environment to provide the most valuable risk informed decisions.
Question. Do you believe the USD(I&S) has a responsibility to keep
the congressional defense committees fully and currently informed of
DOD sensitive activities? If so, how would you seek to fulfill that
responsibility?
Answer. Yes, I believe that the USD(I&S) has this responsibility
under law, policy, and precedent. If confirmed, I intend to maintain a
routine, continuous, and transparent dialog with the congressional
defense committees on all Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise
activities, to include DOD sensitive activities. I believe that
collaborative congressional oversight provides an invaluable
perspective on DOD activities that informs better decisions within both
branches of government, ultimately making DOD more effective in
achieving our common purpose of strengthening national defense.
defense department and the intelligence community collaboration
Question. Since September 11, 2001, collaboration--both analytical
and operational--between the Department of Defense and the Intelligence
Community has grown increasingly close. Seamless collaboration is vital
to effective and rapid responses to non-traditional threats and
bringing together the strengths of the full spectrum of defense and
intelligence capabilities can generate more effective solutions to
complex problems. However, absent effective management and oversight,
such collaboration risks blurring distinct agency missions,
authorities, and funding, as well as creating redundant lines of
effort.
In your view, are there aspects of the current relationship between
the Department and the Intelligence Community that should be re-
examined or modified?
Answer. I am aware that the OUSD(I&S) works closely with both the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central
Intelligence Agency to ensure that the Intelligence Community (IC) is
able to deliver both national and military intelligence support to
policymakers and warfighters. OUSD(I&S) also helps to enable the rest
of the DOD and the IC to appropriately coordinate and deconflict their
intelligence and sensitive activities. If confirmed, I will seek to
strengthen the relationship between OUSD(I&S) and the IC so that we can
work together to enhance Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise
capabilities and enable DOD operations.
economic competition
Question. Adversarial economic competition is increasingly an issue
that DOD needs to factor into its planning process as it intersects
with military and national security challenges. Adversaries like China
are using economic competition as a gray zone tactic to out-maneuver
the U.S. by operating in the interstitial spaces between traditional
agencies ``lanes in the road'' and stove-piped authorities.
Increasingly, geographic combatant commands are having to consider in
their planning process and theater security cooperation plans how to
combat adversarial economic competition techniques.
How is DOD postured from an intelligence perspective to understand
and analyze the intersection of economic and national security to
better prepare DOD to contribute to economic competition?
Answer. Economic security is national security--the U.S. military
is only as powerful as the underlying strength of the U.S. industrial
base. While the President and the Secretary have made clear the
expectation that the Department aligns its resources to support the
warfighter, DOD can play a significant role in coordinated operations
across the economic and military domains to support national security
objectives. I understand that DOD has pockets of excellence that
contribute heavily to this mission space, but there is certainly room--
and a requirement--for increasing depth in relevant areas of expertise
to ensure DOD is optimally postured to leverage commercial, financial,
economic, and military tools to reinforce the United States' military
advantage. This includes an increased focus on China's efforts to gain
an economic advantage against the United States and its Allies and
partners as well as how their specific economic tradecraft is affecting
our competition in order to inform leadership decisions.
Question. What expertise and capabilities does DOD have to support
the collection and analytic needs for economic competition?
Answer. While I have not been fully briefed on current
capabilities, I am generally aware that the Defense Intelligence
Enterprise has expertise in several relevant fields, ranging from
economics and political science to engineering and biosciences. If
confirmed, I will seek to identify gaps in our expertise and
capabilities in order to optimize the Enterprise against the economic
competition problem set.
Question. How will you prioritize intelligence support for the
geographic and functional combatant commands, as well as senior
leadership in the Department, with regards to adversarial economic
competition needs?
Answer. Given the complex and multidisciplinary nature of economic
competition, I believe that it is critical that support provided to the
combatant commands aligns with the vision and priorities of DOD senior
leadership. That said, the President and the Secretary have made clear
the expectation that the Department aligns its resources to support the
warfighter. We must ensure we have modern structures that appropriately
align to the threat, using obsolete organizational structures and
outmoded approaches to address new types of threats will not work. If
confirmed, I will work with the Defense Intelligence Enterprise (DIE)
in collaboration with the Intelligence Community and the broader U.S.
Government to ensure the DIE's support is appropriately distributed
with--and aligned between--these key customers to maximize effects.
joint requirements oversight council (jroc) and the joint capabilities
integration and development systems (jcids)
Question. Per section 181 of Title 10, U.S. Code, the JROC is
vested with the responsibility to assess joint military capabilities;
establish and approve joint performance requirements that ensure
interoperability between military capabilities; and identify new joint
military capabilities based on advances in technology and concepts of
operation. The JCIDS process was established to address overlap and
duplication in Military Services' programs by providing the information
the JROC needs to identify the capabilities and associated operational
performance requirements needed by the joint warfighter.
What is your understanding of the role of the JROC and JCIDS in
identifying and establishing joint warfighter capability requirements
in the domains of military intelligence, counterintelligence, and
security?
Answer. I understand that military intelligence,
counterintelligence, and security requirements generated from DOD
Components, including the combatant commands, are accounted for among
the other Joint Capability Areas in the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council's (JROC) subordinate Functional Capabilities Boards (FCB).
These FCBs process ``bottom up'' deliberate and urgent requirements and
provide ``top down'' portfolio reviews that evaluate specific
enterprise capability areas. The Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development Systems (JCIDS) process is also informed by a yearly JROC-
led Capability Gap Assessment that validates and prioritizes Combatant
Command capability gaps expressed in their Integrated Priority Lists.
The USD(I&S), as a statutory advisor to the JROC and its
subordinate boards, provides advice that supports JCIDS throughout all
stages of requirements generation and validation processes and plays a
central role in bridging DOD and IC requirements by directly
facilitating the common gatekeeping function between the Joint JCIDS
and the Intelligence Community Capability Requirements Process.
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the defense
intelligence enterprise to provide support and insight in the process
of informing requirements for the broader acquisition system,
especially related to understanding threat systems and illuminating
supply chain issues? Are there sufficient people and resources to
support acquisition intelligence for the Department?
Answer. I have real concerns about the ability of the existing DOD
acquisition integration structure with the intelligence enterprise to
effectively match the speed of the technology cycle, the increasing
scope of acquisitions challenges, and the criticality of the defense
supply chain resiliency in the face of adversary threats. The Defense
Intelligence and Security Enterprise (DISE) is a vital component of the
acquisition process, providing intelligence throughout the requirements
development and acquisition lifecycle on current and future adversary
capabilities and threats to DOD supply chains. Ensuring that
intelligence is incorporated throughout the requirements development
and acquisition lifecycle is necessary to deliver effective,
affordable, and resilient capabilities that are matched to the threat
environment and free from adversary compromise. If confirmed, I will
make it a priority to improve the incorporation of accurate
intelligence into the full acquisition lifecycle, to include more
robust integration at the earlier stages of the process, to better
inform DOD investments.
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the USD(I&S) in
identifying and establishing requirements for rapid or urgent
operational needs, or other acquisition capabilities (like middle tier
acquisitions) not tied to major acquisition programs?
Answer. I understand that, as part of statutory responsibilities to
support JCIDS urgent and emergent operational needs processes, the
USD(I&S) assists in validating requirements from an intelligence
perspective, and further supports solution analysis by identifying
emerging technologies and capabilities in the Defense Intelligence
Enterprise or National Intelligence Community. When necessary, the
USD(I&S) may also facilitate Military or National Intelligence Program
funding to accelerate the fielding of a necessary and promising
intelligence capability. The analysis performed by USD(I&S) for urgent
needs is not limited to major acquisition programs, but may also
include science, technology, research, and development capabilities
that are of sufficient Technical Readiness Level to be eligible for
consideration as a solution to a requirement. From my current
perspective, I am concerned that intelligence inputs into the DOD
acquisition process are inordinately focused on major acquisitions
versus rapid acquisitions, and even then, intelligence inputs often
arrive too late in the cycle to fully inform the first and most
critical decisions on which programs to develop and purchase. If DOD
leaders are to successfully make these hard choices, OUSD(I&S) must
improve how the DISE delivers accurate and relevant intelligence to
inform DOD's earliest acquisitions decisions, as well as the entire
program lifecycle. If confirmed, I intend to leverage all DOD
authorities available to accelerate these processes to act at the speed
of operational need.
intelligence support to the warfighter
Question. If confirmed, how would you balance the need for the
combat support Defense intelligence agencies to provide intelligence
support to the warfighter with the need to provide intelligence support
to policymakers?
Answer. My understanding and belief are that balancing these needs
is one of the OUSD(I&S)'s primary responsibilities. In today's
environment of global and regional threats, most issues are relevant to
both warfighting commands and policymakers. Where there remains
tactical and operational differences, if confirmed, I would work to
ensure the DISE continues to satisfy requirements for operationally--
relevant intelligence that directly enable warfighter success, and I
would work collaboratively across DOD and with interagency partners to
inform policy and military decisionmaking by our national leaders.
Question. In your view, what opportunities exist across the
Intelligence Community to improve intelligence support to the
warfighter? If confirmed, what would you do to leverage these
opportunities?
Answer. My experience both in uniform and serving on the National
Security Council staff underpins my belief in the importance of and the
continued opportunity to improve collaboration across the Intelligence
Community to better support the warfighter.
If confirmed, I would engage early and often with the combatant
commanders to improve my understanding of their needs, and I would
frequently engage leaders within the national Intelligence Community to
obtain support to meet those warfighter needs. I am particularly
interested in applying greater attention to faster, more agile, and
adaptive processing, exploitation, and dissemination of intelligence
data to better support the warfighter and others that engage our
adversaries at the tactical edge--especially as DOD warfighters
increasingly rely on resilient and survivable sensors further removed
from the battlefield to inform their tactical decisions.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
the geographic combatant commands are adequately assessing and
prioritizing their intelligence needs?
Answer. I understand that OUSD(I&S) conducts multiple engagements
with the combatant commands to include regular meetings with all
combatant command J2s on a variety of issues in order to maintain a
current understanding of regional risks and intelligence priorities. If
confirmed, I will promptly establish my own relationships with the
Combatant Commanders and ensure that they're able to prioritize and
receive the intelligence support they require.
Question. In your view, what are the shortfalls in providing the
functional combatant commands and combat support agencies adequate
intelligence support, and ensuring that their intelligence needs are
prioritized?
Answer. As I am not yet in the position, I do not have a completely
informed perspective on this matter. If confirmed, I would work to
ensure that MIP budgets are adequate to satisfy the intelligence needs
of the Combatant Commands, Combat Support Agencies, Defense Agencies,
and Services. I would also strengthen relationships with the Joint
Staff to assess capability gaps, prioritize needs, and ensure strategic
alignment of MIP funding against the highest intelligence needs of the
warfighter in a manner that maximizes our return on our investments.
Last, I would work with the DNI to closely synchronize NIP and MIP
investments to ensure synergy in maximizing effects for the warfighter.
Question. In your view, how are intelligence operations carried out
by special operations forces different from those carried out by the
Intelligence Community?
Answer. I understand that Special Operations Forces (SOF)
intelligence operations are focused on DOD requirements and priorities.
These priorities may differ from those of the IC in that they are
sometimes more tactical, focused on support to military operations or
preparation of military operations. This intelligence enables a
commander to make decisions that reduces risk to force and can create
opportunities for further collection and exploitation. SOF missions
require accurate, detailed, and timely intelligence that only
integrated, multi-disciplinary collection and analysis can provide. It
is essential that SOF intelligence operations are conducted pursuant to
applicable law and policy, and subject to the requisite intelligence
oversight rules, consistent with all DOD intelligence activities.
innovative technologies
Question. What role do you see for AI in supporting national and
economic security? If confirmed, what priority would you assign to
ensuring that the Defense intelligence enterprise invests in AI
applications, as well as training and business process reengineering to
ensure effective use of such applications by the workforce?
Answer. We must thoughtfully consider how the current AI paradigm
will impact national security and transform defense missions. The
magnitude of its impact necessitates a prioritized focus. I see AI
playing an increasingly larger role in improving the speed, accuracy,
and effectiveness of the Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise
(DISE) support to national security. If confirmed, I will ensure that
AI is effectively adopted to improve DISE capabilities, to include
improving the processes, infrastructure, and skills necessary to
accomplish this objective.
This transformation, however, is larger than just the use cases,
and we must coordinate across government to leverage its potential in
shaping our operating environment and driving future advantages.
Question. What role do you envision for AI in bringing greater
efficiencies, timeliness, and accuracy to intelligence collection,
analysis, dissemination, and military decisionmaking?
Answer. I believe that AI can automate large portions of the
intelligence cycle to improve efficiency, timeliness, and accuracy. AI
can also be used to create new ways of generating and responding to
intelligence requirements. By adopting effective AI across the
intelligence cycle, the Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise
can obtain and disseminate more relevant, accurate, and actionable
intelligence into the hands of the warfighter at greater speed and
volume, thereby enabling better and faster military decisionmaking.
Question. Are there other technology areas that you view as
promising as they relate to the intelligence and security functions of
OUSD(I&S)?
Answer. I believe that to accomplish the Secretary's objective of
rebuilding our military capabilities, we must be flexible and
aggressive in our approach to innovation. Critical to success will be
closer integration between DOD and the commercial sector in order to
identify and exploit new capabilities that can be leveraged against the
US or be used to maintain an advantage against our adversaries at the
speed of relevance.
Additionally, I believe there are a number of promising areas that,
if confirmed, I intend to further explore with the OUSD(I&S) and
Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise to support regaining
decision advantage in today's contested environment. Among these areas
are: the exploitation of, and our defense against, exquisite
intelligence collection technologies, such as ubiquitous sensing and
space ISR; expanding virtual domain operations that disrupt adversary
intelligence, the use of advanced computing and software to improve the
efficiency of intelligence collection management; survivable cloud
compute and data transport to the tactical edge; and modernizing and
standardizing DOD information security capabilities, policies, and
practices to reduce risks in the modern operating environment.
Question. Does DOD have sufficient numbers and expertise in the
Intelligence Community to monitor and analyze technological advances in
industry, academia and our adversaries research establishments that
will impact DOD missions and national security?
Answer. As I am not yet in the position, I am unable to provide a
comprehensive assessment to answer this question. However, from my
outside perspective, I am concerned that the DOD may lack sufficient
quantity and specialization of Science and Technology Intelligence
(S&TI) personnel that are necessary to remain competitive with our
adversaries. The sheer volume of information in open-source research
alone presents challenges for the capability and capacity of human
analysts, even when paired with Artificial Intelligence tools.
Additionally, many emerging technologies require highly specialized
expertise that are either in short supply or not currently available
within the U.S. Government, which would potentially require massive
changes to DOD authorities to fully address. Even with improvements,
DOD will increasingly be reliant on outside expertise for cutting edge
technology, particularly in niche fields such as quantum computing,
synthetic biology, and advanced materials. I do not believe that we can
rely on traditional organizational structures and approaches to solve
these new challenges DOD must effectively leverage commercial sector
innovation to help us close these gaps. If confirmed, I will work with
the USD(R&E), ODNI, the private sector, and others to develop options
to ensure that the DISE has access to the expertise needed to stay
ahead of adversary technological advancements.
Question. In your view, what areas of emerging technology should we
be prioritizing collection and analysis to better prepare DOD for
future conflicts?
Answer. As I am not yet in the position and briefed on classified
information, if confirmed, I will conduct a full assessment on which
emerging technologies we must improve collection and analysis against.
From my perspective as an outside observer, however, there are several
areas that I believe merit particular attention. Artificial
Intelligence and Machine Learning technologies, such as those deployed
in the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's MAVEN program, are
transforming sense-making and decisionmaking, and we must keep a close
watch on adversary developments in the AI/ML space. We must also
understand how our adversaries seek to develop and deploy autonomous
systems, enabling our own capabilities while denying those of the
adversary.
Additionally, quantum technologies are beginning to revolutionize
cryptography. The ability to understand the progress of adversaries in
this field and developing countermeasures will be crucial to our
national security.
Finally, I believe space-based technologies, including space-based
surveillance, satellite communications, and space control, are areas
where we may need to prioritize collection and analysis. Space is a
contested domain, and our mission is to preserve the U.S. advantage.
counterintelligence, law enforcement, and security
Question. What is your assessment of current and anticipated
counterintelligence threats to DOD? Which threats do you assess to be
the most concerning and why?
Answer. As I am not yet in the position and briefed on classified
information, if confirmed, I will seek to understand the
counterintelligence threat environment at the classified level in order
to develop informed recommendations to counter threats to our
intelligence advantage.
I am aware that the advent of ubiquitous sensing, artificial
intelligence-powered exploitation of big data, and similar
technological advancements may make it increasingly challenging for
U.S. intelligence to operate with the same effectiveness and agility
against our adversaries without the appropriate modernization of our
efforts. Additionally, as DOD increasingly relies on space-based
capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support
to warfighters, protecting U.S. space superiority from foreign denial
and deception grows more essential.
Question. What is your understanding of the roles and
responsibilities of the OUSD(I&S) to provide strategic direction and
oversight of implementation of counterintelligence policy, programs,
guidance, and training to ensure they are responsive to validated DOD
and national counterintelligence priorities? What changes, if any, in
these roles and responsibilities would you recommend, if confirmed?
Answer. I understand the USD(I&S) has broad responsibility for
oversight of DOD counterintelligence (CI). Further, although I do not
yet have access to classified information, I understand that the
Department is implementing its DOD CI Strategy, ``Confronting Threats
to America's Military Advantage, 2021-2031,'' and has recently
completed a year-long, end-to-end review to identify CI capability
requirements, gaps, and solutions to implement that strategy.
I also understand the USD(I&S) along with the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency is a standing member of the National CI and
Security Center's National CI Policy Board. In addition, DOD
participates with the FBI in the National CI Task Force and local CI
Task Forces under a formal memorandum of understanding. Through this
and other forums the USD(I&S) provides policy, oversight, advocacy,
guidance and direction to DOD CI activities conducted, oftentimes, in
cooperation or in partnership with other Departments and Agencies
across the U.S. Government.
One of my major priorities, if confirmed, is to assist the
Secretary in reestablishing deterrence by presenting him with risk
informed options to impose costs on our adversaries short of armed
conflict. Among these options is a greater focus on
counterintelligence, and in particular, offensive counterintelligence,
to disrupt foreign intelligence services before they can act with
malign intent against the United States.
personnel security and insider threat
Question. The USD(I&S) is accountable for managing and overseeing
DOD's insider threat, personnel security, security clearance process,
and the National Industrial Security programs. DOD has experienced
devastating attacks from insider threats--attacks that have led to the
death and injury of DOD personnel, as well as to the loss of highly
classified information critical to national security. Recent delays
have exacerbated backlogs in processing security clearances and
reinvestigations for DOD personnel.
Most of these very challenging new and enhanced requirements have
been assigned to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
(DCSA). What is your current assessment of the ability of DCSA to
transform itself to meet these objectives?
Answer. I understand that after President Trump transferred the
background investigation and security clearance function to DCSA in
2019, DCSA vetting services have proved essential to national-level
efforts to modernize personnel vetting and uniformly execute the
National Industrial Security Program. DCSA services establish the
foundation for execution of various subsequent security requirements
and procedures which enable the essential concept of security in-depth.
Additionally, in accordance with section 847 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2020, DCSA has been charged to prepare
to conduct assessments of Foreign Ownership, Control, and Influence
(FOCI) not only for cleared defense contractors, but also all DOD
contracts over $5 million-an effort that, if confirmed, I intend to
assess closely to determine how best to support the FOCI mission in an
effort to protect the Defense Industrial Base from compromise.
Ultimately, to effectively and efficiently serve the DOD and other
Federal agencies, I believe that DCSA requires cutting-edge technology,
adaptable processes, the capacity to operate at scale, and-perhaps most
significantly-the best talent available with the skills needed to
pursue these objectives.
Although I do not yet have enough information to make a full
assessment at this time, the criticality of these efforts and the State
of our capabilities relative to the timing of these mandates is
concerning. If confirmed, I look forward to working with DCSA to fully
assess the State of play.
Question. There has been a backlog in processing security
clearances that has been growing since 2023, after many years or steady
progress in improving the security clearance process timelines. What is
your understanding of the current issues causing the backlog and the
status of efforts within DCSA to reduce that backlog?
Answer. I am dismayed at the continuing challenges to delivering
timely security clearances, and if confirmed, it would be a top
priority to avoid further delay in meeting the requirements of Trusted
Workforce 2.0. Our national security depends on recruiting and
retaining highly qualified individuals serving in critical positions
across the Federal Government and industry, and delay in the security
clearance process hinders our ability to fill these roles at the speed
of mission requirements. People are our most important asset, but an
inefficient and lengthy background investigation and security clearance
process prevents the DOD from attracting and competing for top-tier
talent. Every day a scientist, engineer, or analyst waits on their
clearance to begin Federal work is 1 day closer to taking a job
elsewhere--or never even applying to the U.S. Government at all.
If confirmed, I will fully engage with DCSA to understand the
factors contributing to timeliness concerns and will hold them
accountable for their performance. I commit to modernizing and
accelerating the clearance process through rigorous oversight and
dedication to business transformation, advanced technology, and data-
driven solutions.
Question. Specifically, if confirmed, how would you ensure that
DCSA is highly responsive to the needs of the USD(A&S) for vetting DOD
contractors in responsibility determinations?
Answer. I understand that DCSA provides end-to-end vetting of
contractor personnel and companies for eligibility to access classified
information in accordance with regulatory requirements for the National
Industrial Security Program. This vetting assesses alignment of
eligibility decisions with national security interests. This is one
piece of a security apparatus that must work in concert with and at the
speed of the acquisitions decision-making process to enable
uncompromised delivery of supplies and technologies to properly equip
our warfighters.
If confirmed, I will ensure OUSD(I&S) prioritizes collaboration
with OUSD(A&S) to optimize security in acquisitions, including vetting
people and companies within a certain timeframe and under conditions
that allow the Department to acquire critical supplies, services, and
technologies at the speed of mission requirements.
Question. What is your understanding of the status of development,
approval, and implementation of the Trusted Workforce 2.0 initiative?
Answer. I recognize that Trusted Workforce (TW) 2.0, originally
launched in 2018 under President Trump, is a national-level reform
effort aimed at improving overall efficacy of vetting for clearances
and suitability. While I understand that TW 2.0 may have demonstrated
some relative progress at times over the last few years, there clearly
remains unacceptable challenges to full implementation of its objective
If confirmed, I will work with my ODNI, OPM, and OMB colleagues to
evaluate and take appropriate action to ensure that DOD fulfills its TW
2.0 responsibilities. Furthermore, I commit to keeping DOD's
interagency and private industry partners fully and regularly informed
of DCSA's progress in implementing TW 2.0, and identifying to them--as
well as the Congress--any indications of additional delays or cost
overruns in meeting the performance and timeliness standards set for
the vetting enterprise. Specifically, I will work to ensure Department
leaders know the impact of failing to meet these standards, so efforts
can be appropriately prioritized in support of Department objectives.
Question. What is your understanding of the status of development,
approval, and implementation of continuous vetting initiative?
Answer. It is my understanding that continuous vetting (CV),
including the adjudication of CV information, is a key element of
Trusted Workforce 2.0. As DOD further implements CV, I believe its
implementation must prioritize advanced technology, capacity, and cost-
effectiveness. Without an effective and timely continuous vetting
architecture, DOD will be unable to optimize its workforce in a secure
manner, jeopardizing mission success.
If confirmed, I will push OUSD(I&S) and DCSA to incorporate modern
technology, maximize efficiency, and continuously improve the ability
to identify and assess risk to our Nation's trusted workforce.
Specifically, I will work to ensure Department leaders know the impact
of failing to meet these standards set for the vetting enterprise, so
efforts can be appropriately prioritized in support of Department
objectives.
Question. What is your understanding of the remaining challenges in
achieving reciprocity of clearances and access to classified
information across government components and their contractors?
Answer. I am aware of concerns about reciprocity between Federal
components, particularly with IC agencies. My understanding is that
reciprocity between DOD components has been significantly improved, but
the delays in reciprocity that remain are generally related to
differences between IC agencies in their individual enhanced
eligibility requirements for access to especially sensitive
information, such as polygraph requirements.
If confirmed, I will ensure DOD personnel vetting policies and
processes are aligned to Trusted Workforce 2.0 initiatives and tracked
through a performance management system to ensure effective and
efficient transfer of trust and the mobility of the Federal workforce,
as well as our contractors and others in private industry who are
granted clearances.
Question. In your view, how should DCSA posture the Department to
deter, detect, and mitigate insider threats before they harm national
security?
Answer. Over the course of my military service, I learned time and
again the importance of empowering leadership and accountability at all
mission levels. I understand that USD(I&S) is responsible for policy
and oversight of the Department's Insider Threat program, ensuring DOD
components have the necessary guidance, resources, and capabilities to
empower leaders at all levels to manage insider risk to readiness,
resources, and national security information. I understand that DCSA's
role in the Insider Threat program is to be a data and system provider,
enabling information sharing and decentralized program implementation
so DOD commanders at all levels effectively manage their own risks.
If confirmed, I will work with DCSA, the Military Departments, and
other DOD components to ensure component and subordinate level insider
threat program interoperability with enterprise data and systems.
Question. How would you characterize the threat posed by foreign
nations to the integrity of the National Security Innovation Base?
Which threats do you assess as most concerning, and why?
Answer. The threat posed by foreign nations to the integrity of the
National Security Innovation Base is persistent and significant. While
I am not currently briefed on classified information, from open-source
reporting I appreciate that the National Security Innovation Base is
being exploited in sustained attempts to erode U.S. technology
superiority critical to maintaining a military advantage over
adversaries and the economic well-being of U.S. industry. Threat actors
increasingly seek to weaponize the open and collaborative nature of the
strong partnerships and relationships DOD has cultivated with U.S.
academic institutions. Additionally, foreign threats don't just include
outright theft of information through espionage and other illicit
means, but also rely on more subtle approaches such as foreign
acquisition of critical nodes within the U.S. supply chain.
If confirmed, I look forward to further strengthening DOD efforts
to protect the National Security Innovation Base--to include an
emphasis on robust intelligence support to Foreign Ownership, Control,
and Influence mitigation and support to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States--to thwart our adversaries while
continuing to support the vital and enabling aspects of innovation. In
addition to FOCI and CFIUS efforts, I believe a key component of this
effort will be not only enhancing our defensive posture here at home
but taking action to impose costs on adversaries and reestablish
deterrence.
Question. How would you propose to improve the support provided by
the DCSA, the DOD counterintelligence organizations, and the national
Intelligence Community to better protect the National Security
Innovation Base, and enhance the Department's innovation strategy,
especially with respect to technology companies that are non-
traditional DOD contractors?
Answer. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
plays a vital role in safeguarding national security by conducting
background investigations and granting security clearances for DOD
personnel and contractors. DCSA also oversees the National Industrial
Security Program (NISP), which protects classified information within
the Defense Industrial Base.
Although the core security principles of the NISP remain valid for
all companies and contractors, as I have seen from my own business
experience, the NISP's administrative requirements lack the agility
needed to facilitate effective acquisition decisions and ensure supply
chain integrity in today's landscape, especially for classified
programs. Furthermore, I am concerned that these regulations do not
adequately address the needs of the National Security Innovation Base,
a significant portion of which operates outside of the traditional NISP
framework. It is these non-traditional DOD contractors that
increasingly drive national security innovation, presenting DOD with
the greatest opportunities for leap-ahead technologies, but meanwhile
posing unique vulnerabilities to our adversaries.
Question. How is DCSA postured to better leverage artificial
intelligence and other automation tools to improve due diligence
vetting, as well as security clearance processes and suitability
determinations?
Answer. I recognize the immense potential of artificial
intelligence and machine learning to revolutionize personnel vetting
and due diligence. Through automating routine tasks and analyzing vast
datasets, I believe we could significantly improve the speed and
accuracy of these vetting processes. If confirmed, I will prioritize
development and adoption of these technologies across the DOD, working
closely with DCSA to ensure responsible and effective implementation
and return on investment.
Question. According to the ``Fork in the Road'' memo from the
Office of Personnel Management, ``Employees will be subject to enhanced
standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward,'' but no
further guidance has been issued on what that means. What is your
current understanding of the current definition for ``suitability''
being used by DOD, the process for those suitability determinations,
and how that might change?
Answer. I understand USD(P&R) is the Department's lead for
suitability based on guidance issued by the Office of Personnel
Management. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the USD(P&R)
to ensure the appropriate intelligence and security inputs are
incorporated into their guidance.
collection & special programs
Question. In light of the rapidly evolving nature of the national
security environment, to include significant advances by adversarial
nations in the development and fielding of capabilities that could
challenge DOD tradecraft, technologies, methodologies, and processes,
what do you see as the most pressing challenges to DOD's ability to
conduct technical and human intelligence collection activities?
Answer. Adversary investment in advanced technologies such as
artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and encrypted
communications, as well as the dispersion of sophisticated capabilities
across the globe, have complicated the information environment and
reduced our national security advantage. Additionally, the emergence of
ubiquitous sensing and the increasing volume of commercially available
data on individuals and their activity pose novel counterintelligence
challenges to DOD human intelligence collection activities, operational
security, force protection, and many other areas of potential
vulnerability.
Meanwhile, our own foundational vulnerabilities such as fragmented
infrastructure, limited interoperability, and outdated network
architectures amplify the threat from these advanced capabilities.
Therefore, we must invest in innovation to stay ahead of these advanced
technologies while building a secure, efficient foundation to move our
information from sensors to decisionmakers securely and faster than our
adversaries.
If confirmed, I will work to smartly allocate and realign resources
to close the seams that adversaries exploit, raising the barrier and
cost of conducting intelligence against the U.S., and ensuring our
intelligence enterprise can securely navigate an era defined by
relentless digital exposure and ubiquitous technical surveillance. This
will include DISE efforts to address the reality of global ubiquitous
sensing, the proliferation of networked, correlated, and automated
systems, and the algorithms that can exploit gathered information.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to approach these
challenges to ensure that the DOD intelligence enterprise is postured
to operate in an increasingly contested security and intelligence
environment?
Answer. DOD operates within an increasingly contested security and
intelligence environment. Embracing new technology and investing in
innovative solutions is vital to the Department's ability to grasp
collection opportunities in the physical and digital domains.
If confirmed, I will lead the continuous review of processes and
policies to support warfighters and decisionmakers in this changing
environment. This may require changes in how DOD personnel train and
use tradecraft, technologies, and methodologies, as well as process
adjustments for collection analysis. Aggressive efforts to ensure DOD
is leveraging the best commercial technologies will remain essential,
as will our ability to rapidly field technologies where required. As we
adapt our efforts, we must ensure the DOD's intelligence collection
activities are lawful and conducted in accordance with the United
States Constitution.
Alignment across mission and technology needs, modernization of
planning doctrine in this new landscape, and reducing barrier of entry
for DOD elements and personnel to access best-in-class capabilities in
a resource efficient manner is essential in 2025 and beyond.
information operations
Question. What are your views on the roles, responsibilities, and
preparedness of the Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise to
conduct operations in the information environment, as well as deter and
defend against such operations by adversaries?
Answer. I believe that for DOD to compete effectively in the
information environment, the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise must inform activities that shape the perceptions of
specific foreign audiences to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.
Our efforts to deter and defend against adversary information
operations should be prioritized with appropriate resources and must
include more robust coordination and collaboration across the
Department, including with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy as
the Secretary of Defense's Principal Information Operations Advisor, as
well as the interagency.
Question. In your view, how can the Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise better support the requirements of the combatant
commanders for intelligence to enable their information operations?
Answer. I believe that the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise (DISE) should enhance its ability to support Combatant
Commanders by focusing on three key areas: understanding adversary
goals, enabling maneuver in the information environment, and
identifying proxies and influence networks. First, the DISE must
improve its intelligence collection and analysis to fully understand
adversary goals in the information space--what they seek to achieve,
how they measure success, and where vulnerabilities exist. Second,
intelligence must be aligned with warfighter requirements to facilitate
maneuver in the information environment, ensuring that commanders can
shape narratives, counter adversary information operations, and
integrate influence activities into broader operational planning to
support American objectives Finally, the DISE should increase its focus
on tracking adversary use of proxies and influence mechanisms--whether
state-sponsored media, cyber actors, or third-party enablers--to
provide a clearer picture of the information battlespace. If confirmed,
I look forward to assessing and improving the Enterprise's support to
information operations in these areas.
imperative for independent intelligence analysis
Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to ensure
that DOD intelligence analysts, including those seconded to offices
that are not part of the defense intelligence structure, are
independent and free of pressure from influence from their chain of
command to reach a certain conclusion, including a conclusion that fits
a particular policy preference?
Answer. I am deeply committed to ensuring that all defense
intelligence assessments remain unbiased, objective, and free from
political interference. An absolute focus on the mission and support of
the warfighter demands it. The credibility of intelligence
assessments--and the willingness of our leaders to accept and act on
those assessments--is predicated on apolitical, non-partisan analytical
judgments. We cannot support the warfighter or policymaker without the
best thinking from all of our people in support of our national
security.
If confirmed, I will work across the OUSD(I&S) staff and the
Defense Intelligence Enterprise (DIE) to ensure that all DOD
intelligence analysts adhere to Intelligence Community analytic
standards promulgated in Intelligence Community Directive 203, which
mandates that all-source intelligence analysis must be objective and
independent of political considerations.
the defense intelligence workforce
Question. The USD(I&S) exercises policy oversight of the Defense
Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) to ensure that defense
intelligence, counterintelligence, and security components are
structured; manned; trained--including joint intelligence training,
certification, education, and professional development; and equipped to
execute their missions.
Is the DOD civilian intelligence workforce properly sized with the
appropriate capabilities, in your view? Please explain your answer.
Answer. As I am not yet in the position, I have not yet had an
opportunity to comprehensively assess the size or capabilities of the
Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise (DISE) workforce. I am
aware that the Secretary has directed reductions within the civilian
defense workforce to more effectively align with the Administration's
national security priorities, and I fully support this critical effort.
If confirmed, I will immediately review the work that has been done to
date across the DISE workforce and provide recommendations for how to
most effectively meet the requirements of the DISE in support of
national security.
space
Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to enhancing
the interface and synchronization of space-based capabilities resident
in the Intelligence Community with military space organizations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Space Policy, the United States Space Force, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, and DOD title 50 agencies to
ensure roles, responsibilities, and requirements amongst the various
stakeholder organizations are aligned and mutually support IC and
military space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR)
needs. I would also ensure that DOD and IC space architectures remain
integrated to maximize ISR support to the Joint Force to achieve our
national security objectives.
Question. How would you recommend deconflicting tasking
requirements in the space warfighting domain across DOD with tasking
requirements from Intelligence Community customers?
Answer. If confirmed, I would first work with the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense Policy, the Joint Staff, the Combatant
Commanders, and the Military Departments to understand their gaps and
concerns with existing tasking processes and procedures. I will then
work alongside OUSD Policy to support the development of new processes,
tools, and concepts of employment to assure Combatant Commanders and
Warfighters access to the space-based intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance necessary to support military operational requirements.
New architectures must be responsive to the warfighter.
Question. The Space Force has been assigned the mission of space-
based ISR. To ensure the timely presentation of forces and effects to
the combatant commander by the Space Force, Congress enacted into law
section 1684 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024
(P.L. 118-31), further amended by section 1654 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (P.L. 118-366) which stated
that:
``The Secretary of the Air Force shall be responsible for
presenting space-based ground and airborne moving target indication
systems to the combatant commands to accomplish missions assigned to
such commands under the Unified Command Plan that--(1) are primarily or
fully funded by the Department of Defense; and (2) provide near real-
time, direct support to satisfy the operational requirements of such
commands.''
If confirmed, will you adhere to this provision of law?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would ensure that OUSD(I&S) and the
Defense Intelligence Enterprise partner with the leads of the MTI
Working Group established by the FY2024 NDAA to identify the most cost-
effective delivery mechanisms to improve lethality.
unidentified anomalous phenomena (uap)
Question. What is your understanding of the current congressional
concerns regarding transparency and reporting on UAP issues with
Congress?
Answer. I am aware of the tremendous public and congressional
interest in understanding both historical and contemporary UAP
observations. If confirmed, I am committed to enabling the Department
of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and National Archives and
Records Administration to declassify and share information related to
UAP with the American public to the greatest extent possible, while
also protecting sensitive sources and methods information to ensure
that gaps potentially revealed by declassification of information to
the public--and therefore to our adversaries--is a risk-informed
decision. When UAP information is unable to be safely and responsibly
declassified, I am committed to providing all such information, at all
levels of classification, to the appropriate congressional committees
of jurisdiction.
Question. What do you see as the Intelligence Communities' level of
effort and focus on the UAP challenge?
Answer. I understand the Department enjoys strong support from the
Intelligence Community (IC) and the whole of the Defense Intelligence
and Security Enterprise for its UAP mission. In line with statute, AARO
reports to both DOD and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) and regularly convenes a group of IC partners to
share information and expertise relating to UAP. IC partners routinely
support AARO in the analysis and resolution of UAP reports. If
confirmed, I will ensure this strong partnership is sustained.
Question. The All-Domain Anomalous Resolution Office, or AARO, was
established to be the central clearinghouse for reporting and analysis
of UAP incidents.
Do you believe AARO is adequately staffed and resourced to carry
out its mission? What areas do you believe AARO should be focusing on?
Answer. Yes. I understand that AARO is adequately staffed and
resourced to meet its mission. I believe that AARO should focus on
fully leveraging partnerships and capabilities across the U.S.
Government to close gaps in domain awareness and minimize technological
and intelligence surprise. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure AARO
has the support it needs to succeed, and that its efforts--and that of
the DISE--are complementary and synchronized with other DOD efforts to
address Unmanned Vehicles (UXS) in an effective manner.
Question. How will you improve the integration of Intelligence
Community technical collection assets, such as signals intelligence and
measurement and signatures intelligence systems, into UAP reporting?
Answer. I understand that DOD enjoys strong support from the IC in
this regard. AARO convenes multiple UAP Communities of Interest that
engage IC partners to draw on their expertise, resources, and
capabilities. If confirmed, I will ensure continued DOD collaboration
with our IC partners to expand and improve technical collection
relating to UAP detected in the air, sea, or space.
sexual harassment
Question. In responding to the 2018 DOD Civilian Employee Workplace
and Gender Relations survey, approximately 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.
If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to receive or
otherwise become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment or
discrimination from an employee of the OUSD(I&S)?
Answer. Every civilian employee and military member within the
Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise workforce is entitled to
work in an environment free of harassment or discrimination of any
type. If confirmed, I will ensure that leaders across the Defense
Intelligence and Security Enterprise are acting to ensure that our
workplace is free of harmful sexual or other harassment or
discrimination and will take immediate action to correct and hold
accountable those responsible for actions counter to law and policy.
detainee treatment
Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, The
Department of Defense Detainee Program, dated August 19, 2014?
Answer. Yes, I support the standards for detainee treatment
specified in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector
Operations and DOD Directive 2310.01E, Department of Defense Detainee
Program.
Question. Section 2441 of Title 18, U.S. Code, defines grave
breaches of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including
torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.
In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a way that
provides U.S. detainees in the custody of other nations, as well as
foreign detainees in U.S. custody appropriate protections from abusive
treatment?
Answer. Yes.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034 of Title 10, U.S. Code, prohibits taking or
threatening to take an unfavorable personnel action against a member of
the armed forces in retaliation for making a protected communication.
Section 2302 of Title 5, U.S. Code, provides similar protections to
Federal civilian employees. By definition, protected communications
include communications to certain individuals and organizations outside
of the chain of command, including the Congress.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that military
and civilian members of the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise who report fraud, waste, and abuse, or gross mismanagement--
including in classified programs--to appropriate authorities within or
outside the chain of command--are protected from reprisal and
retaliation, including from the very highest levels of DOD and the
broader Intelligence Community?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to ensuring protections are afforded
to DISE employees who report fraud, waste, and abuse, or gross
mismanagement, in a manner consistent with law, regulation, and policy.
Additionally, I will ensure that personnel who pursue retaliatory
actions upon protected personnel are addressed appropriately, as
established by law, regulation, and policy.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring
consistency in the application and interpretation of whistleblower
protections across the Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to ensuring DOD policy implementing
such protections is applied consistently and uniformly in accordance
with law.
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:]
Senator Tom Cotton
director of national intelligence and under secretary of defense for
intelligence and security coordination
1. Senator Cotton. Mr. Hansell, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and Security Coordination (USD(I&S)) was dual-hatted as
the Director of Defense Intelligence and principal advisor to the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) because Congress recognized the
urgent need for a single proponent to ensure the broader national
Intelligence Community meets critical defense requirements. Yet there
are no documented processes or procedures for ensuring that
collaboration; I judge the interaction between DNI and USD(I&S) to be
wholly inadequate. Will you commit to improving this relationship and
ensuring you are best advocating for defense intelligence needs?
Mr. Hansell. Subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense,
the USD(I&S) accomplishes the Secretary's responsibilities pertaining
to the National Intelligence Program as described in 50 U.S.C. Sec.
3038, in consultation with the DNI. To fulfill those responsibilities,
close collaboration between the USD(I&S), DNI, and their respective
offices is essential to ensure that the Intelligence Community is
responsive to U.S. military and defense requirements. If confirmed, I
will prioritize my role as the DNI's Director for Defense Intelligence.
In doing so, I will engage regularly with the DNI to advocate for IC
investments, capabilities, and activities to address DOD requirements
in accordance with 50 U.S.C. Sec. 3038.
defense intelligence enterprise governance
2. Senator Cotton. Mr. Hansell, USD(I&S) should be the central
advocate for DOD's intelligence priorities. Yet despite possessing
authority, direction, and control over agencies like the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA), USD(I&S) is not viewed as that advocate, and each agency appears
to act largely on its own accord. Will you commit to working with me to
improve USD(I&S)'s enterprise governance to ensure defense intelligence
agencies are providing the intelligence our warfighters need?
Mr. Hansell. Yes. I take seriously the USD(I&S) responsibility in
10 U.S.C. Sec. 137 to perform such duties and exercise such powers as
the Secretary of Defense may prescribe in the area of intelligence,
including to exercise the Secretary of Defense's authority, direction,
and control over DIA, NGA, NSA, NRO, and the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). If confirmed, I commit
to taking an active oversight and advocacy role for the enterprise
while I explore, in coordination with the ODNI and with transparency to
Congress, improvements to the USD(I&S) governance of the Defense
Intelligence and Security Enterprise to ensure it is effectively
collectively supporting warfighter's needs
3. Senator Cotton. Mr. Hansell, do you have any ideas right now on
what steps you need to take to improve USD(I&S) operations?
Mr. Hansell. I am committed to improving how OUSD(I&S) operates to
make the best use of taxpayer dollars and to ensure that its oversight
of the Defense Intelligence and Security Enterprise is focused on the
Secretary of Defense's priorities. If confirmed, I intend to undertake
a review of OUSD(I&S)'s mission and organization to align the office's
resources, manning, and activities with its mission critical functions.
I will also seek to accelerate the adoption of advanced technology to
improve OUSD(I&S) workflows, enhance the Office's capability to
exercise effective governance and oversight of the Enterprise, and
advance critical intelligence and security programs.
4. Senator Cotton. Mr. Hansell, USD(I&S)'s charter is out of date,
duplicative, and does not accurately reflect its enterprise governance
roles. An updated charter is critical to properly aligning USD(I&S)'s
roles and missions. Will you commit to understanding where the latest
draft of the charter is in the staffing process and to ensuring it is
updated in a timely manner?
Mr. Hansell. I understand that the DOD Performance Improvement
Officer/Director of Administration and Management (PIO/DA&M) is
responsible for overseeing the DOD issuances program and for
establishing the DOD policy for developing, processing, coordinating,
approving, and publishing issuances, including DOD Directive 5143.01,
the USD(I&S) charter. I understand that DOD is currently in the process
of updating the Charter. If confirmed, I commit to making a full
assessment and working with the DOD PIO/DA&M to complete approval and
delivery of the USD(I&S) Charter.
classified facilities
5. Senator Cotton. Mr. Hansell, Arkansas is home to a growing and
diverse defense industrial base, including small businesses and
academic institutions eager to support national security missions.
However, limited access to classified facilities remains a significant
barrier to entry. The program for shared commercial classified spaces
authorized in last year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has
generated strong national interest, including from companies in
Arkansas. If confirmed, how will you ensure that this program is
implemented in a way that supports regional defense ecosystems like
Arkansas and helps integrate new entrants into the national security
enterprise?
Mr. Hansell. During my confirmation hearing, I shared that
overclassification impedes innovation and competition. Similarly, I'm
aware how challenges with accessing secure spaces and equipment needed
to work on classified contracts in a timely and cost-efficient manner
delay delivery of essential supplies, services, and technologies,
ultimately reducing capability and competition. In order to increase
competition and capture the best capabilities for the Department we
must have policies which reduce the red tape and barriers to entry that
disproportionally affect non-traditional defense players, such as the
small businesses and academic institutions mentioned in Section 874,
while securing the enterprise.
I am aware that OUSD(I&S) has put out a Request for Information
(RFI) to industry to solicit input on commercial solutions responsive
to the pilot program required by section 874 of the FY25 NDAA. If
confirmed, I will make it a priority to implement this provision,
consistent with the Secretary's priorities, while simultaneously
strengthening our safeguards for protecting sensitive defense
information. Receiving and incorporating feedback from industry to
ensure policies are having the intended consequences should be a
critical component of the implementation plan.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator M. Michael Rounds
machine-assisted analytic rapid-repository system
6. Senator Rounds. Mr. Hansell, we have been told for years that
Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) main repository for all
foundational military intelligence--a system known as MARS [Machine-
Assisted Analytic Rapid-Repository System]--will transform the way the
Intelligence Community approaches and generates foundational military
intelligence. It has been 7 years since DIA began this effort, and
close to a $1 billion has been spent on MARS, but the system has only
recently achieved initial operational capability. I understand there
has recently been a new solicitation for an additional $1 billion for
MARS. If confirmed, will you look into the issue of how this program is
being funded and developed, and investigate how we can avoid
acquisition issues like this in the future?
Mr. Hansell. It is my understanding that MARS replaces the
Modernized Integrated Data base (MIDB) to provide authoritative, all-
source foundation military intelligence to the Joint Force, coalition
partners, and key decisionmakers. The MARS program will support
intelligence mission data, cyber, and space/counterspace mission areas
to satisfy the U.S. military's increasing demand for information. MARS
will also take advantage of artificial intelligence and lean automation
technologies to enhance strategic indications and warning, improve
operational intelligence, and support agile acquisition and modern
system testing. If confirmed, I will review MARS to determine whether
it meets the cost, schedule, and performance milestones set for the
program to inform future DOD decisions. It is equally important that
DOD use lessons learned from the development of the MARS program so as
to avoid similar cost overruns, schedule delays, and mission impact in
its future defense intelligence acquisitions.
software acquisition pathway
7. Senator Rounds. Mr. Hansell, in his March 6, 2025, memo,
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed all Department of Defense
components to adopt the software acquisition pathway, also called SWP,
as well as flexible contracting tools like commercial solutions
openings, and he directed that the Department submit an implementation
plan within 30 days. If confirmed, how will you make sure Intelligence
& Security implements this guidance throughout and across the defense
intelligence enterprise?
Mr. Hansell. It is my understanding that the SWP enables speed and
agility while maintaining the necessary decision points to deliver
innovative capabilities that are combat worthy in alignment with
Secretary of Defense priorities. If confirmed, I will ensure the
warfighter has the best available intelligence capabilities to complete
their missions. I will further seek ways to modernize the Defense
Intelligence and Security Enterprise's defense acquisition workforce to
fully execute SWP and similarly innovative contracting tools where most
valuable. As we pursue these acquisition reform efforts to unlock the
full potential of American innovation and support our national defense,
we must also ensure robust security measures to safeguard sensitive
defense information are effectively integrated.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Joni K. Ernst
ubiquitous technical surveillance
8. Senator Ernst. Mr. Hansell, as you are aware of the threat of
Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance (UTS), from your standpoint, are we
executing a coordinated strategy to deal with such a threat?
Mr. Hansell. Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance (UTS) and Ubiquitous
Data Collection (UDC) are two components of what I refer to as
``Ubiquitous Sensing.'' I believe that the emerging operating
environment presents both threats and opportunities for DOD. It is my
understanding that U.S. adversaries and many non-State actors have
proven particularly adept at leveraging Ubiquitous Sensing to imperil
or even defeat legacy U.S. security practices. I understand the
Department has developed and promulgated training and educational
opportunities to those mission areas most impacted within intelligence,
security, and sensitive activities--these must be expanded where it
makes sense to inform the entire Joint Force. If confirmed, I will work
with DOD and Intelligence Community partners to develop an adaptive
strategic framework that addresses both the risks and opportunities
posed by Ubiquitous Sensing and coordinate across the Department to
inform our collective efforts accordingly.
9. Senator Ernst. Mr. Hansell, in your opinion, who owns or should
own that strategy?
Mr. Hansell. Ultimately, I see Ubiquitous Sensing as a challenge to
the entire Joint Force, and even the Federal Government. DOD needs a
strategy that drives the requirements process to develop and deliver
improved capabilities, tactics, training, and procedures for the Joint
Force to succeed in the Ubiquitous Sensing environment, both to protect
our own forces, and to take advantage of opportunities against our
adversaries. I believe it is incumbent on the Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise to play a leading role in a DOD-wide strategy to
address Ubiquitous Sensing, and if confirmed, I intend to contribute to
any such effort.
10. Senator Ernst. Mr. Hansell, what measures will you implement to
conduct thorough digital risk assessments aimed at identifying and
mitigating vulnerabilities exploited through UTS?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, integrated training and education will
be a key component of my efforts to inform DOD components regarding the
risk within the Ubiquitous Sensing environment. To accomplish this, I
would work with the Joint Staff, military services, and combatant
commands to prioritize programs and capabilities that require digital
risk assessments and insights from Intelligence Community partners to
mitigate threats and exploit opportunities. Furthermore, I believe it
will be critical to expand our commercial and scientific partnerships
if we are to keep pace with cutting-edge technology.
11. Senator Ernst. Mr. Hansell, China has deployed one of the most
sophisticated UTS ecosystems in the world, leveraging artificial
intelligence (AI)-powered surveillance, mass data aggregation, and
biometrics to monitor its citizens and foreign individuals operating in
China and beyond. The Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) use of commercial
technology for intelligence gathering extends to U.S. military
personnel, business executives, and government officials traveling
abroad. Given this reality, what immediate steps will you take to
ensure the Department is proactively identifying and countering UTS
threats posed by adversarial State actors like China?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I would support appropriate training and
awareness programs across the spectrum of the Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise, as well as those DOD components conducting
sensitive activities. As I am not yet briefed on classified
information, I am unable to detail the immediate steps that DOD should
take to defend against or exploit Ubiquitous Sensing. If confirmed, I
look forward to getting all the information required for a fully
informed approach that enables effective DISE efforts and informs DOD
strategy on this important challenge.
digital signature management
12. Senator Ernst. Mr. Hansell, the Chinese Government has
developed an extensive system to monitor individuals' digital
footprints, leveraging location data, app metadata, and online behavior
to track both its own citizens and foreigners. Reports indicate that
Beijing exploits personal devices to map military installations,
intercept communications, and track patterns of life of U.S. personnel
in strategic areas like the Indo-Pacific and Africa. Given these
developments, how do you plan to improve training programs focused on
digital signature management to ensure our warfighters, intelligence
professionals, and diplomatic personnel can operate securely in
environments saturated with technical surveillance?
Mr. Hansell. As I am not yet briefed on classified information, I
am unable to detail the immediate steps DOD may take to improve
training programs specific to digital signature management. However, if
confirmed, I would empower, advocate, and promote appropriate training
and awareness programs across the spectrum of the Defense Intelligence
and Security Enterprise, as well as those DOD components conducting
sensitive activities.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Budd
counter-unmanned aerial systems
13. Senator Budd. Mr. Hansell, can you describe some the challenges
that the Intelligence Community faces in countering drones on U.S.
soil, and if confirmed, how you would act to improve the Department's
posture to mitigate this threat?
Mr. Hansell. Protecting the Homeland from the threats of unmanned
drones is a top priority for the DOD. My understanding is the OUSD(I&S)
team works with partners across DOD, the Intelligence Community, and
the Interagency to improve DOD's posture to mitigate these threats.
The commercial nature of drones offers our adversaries very
capable, very affordable systems--as evidenced by their proliferation
and success in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine--for both intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance and strike missions. I fear that the
accelerating evolution of drone technology--particularly for commercial
drones--is outpacing the development of countermeasures. The potential
lack of attribution is an important component of this threat. I also
believe that events involving unidentified drones operating within the
United States highlight the need for the U.S. Government to have better
means of rapidly characterizing unidentified drones in order to make an
accurate attribution as to who is operating them.
If confirmed, I will foster DOD and Intelligence Community
collaboration with law enforcement and civil aviation authorities to
address these technology challenges. Furthermore, we must collectively
review existing policy and authorities to ensure seams between Federal,
State, and local agencies do not hinder effective, coordinated
responses to counter drones within the United States.
intelligence cooperation
14. Senator Budd. Mr. Hansell, can you articulate your vision for
how title 10 and title 50 agencies should operate in the space and
cyber domain?
Mr. Hansell. To support DOD's continued leadership in the space
domain, I envision seamless operations between agencies to safely
operate and de-orbit satellites. To achieve this vision, if confirmed,
I would work to ensure Defense and Intelligence Community agencies have
clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities, robust information
sharing mechanisms, unified command structures, and a commitment to
transparency and accountability. Additionally, it is vital to enhance
our ability to operationally deconflict space activities, given the
rapid acceleration and access to the space domain, including from
commercial operators, other government agencies, our Allies and
partners, and our adversaries. I will help ensure the closer
coordination of defense and intelligence space activities to avoid
ineffective duplication of effort, the potential for inadvertent
interference, or operations that could needlessly imperil our space
assets.
For the cyber domain, I believe it is essential that DOD deliver to
the Secretary more options to compete with adversaries short of armed
conflict. I envision working to ensure the Defense Intelligence and
Security Enterprise components operating in cyberspace, in coordination
with the ODNI and other Intelligence Community partners, have a clearer
understanding of their roles and responsibilities, robustly share
information, and act with transparency and accountability. The cyber
domain is consistently evolving through expanded access and
technological advancements, including from commercial operators, other
government agencies, our Allies and partners, and our adversaries. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure coordinated defense intelligence and
security support to DOD cyber operations and activities to avoid
ineffective duplicative efforts and, equally as important, inadvertent
interference or operations that could jeopardize our most critical
assets.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
signal chat leak
15. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hansell, the recent security breach
involving Signal chat, which could have resulted in the deaths of
American servicemembers, highlights this Administration's reckless
disregard for operational security. Have you ever discussed classified
information on an unclassified medium?
Mr. Hansell. No, I have not.
16. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hansell, what would be the consequences for
discussing classified information on an unclassified server or medium?
Mr. Hansell. Classified information on unclassified systems is a
breach of security. It is my understanding that each instance is
handled based on the specific circumstances, and the DOD Information
Security Program empowers leaders at each level to remediate
unauthorized disclosure based on those circumstances. Commanders and
supervisors are aided in determining how best to remedy each situation
by security personnel. When consequences are deemed appropriate it may
include administrative actions, removal from access, loss of security
clearance, and/or criminal prosecution.
17. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hansell, do you think it is wise to discuss
classified war planning on Signal?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will be responsible for DOD security
practices in accordance with the laws and policies governing the DOD
Information Security Program, reinforcing to the Joint Force the
importance of using authorized and secure channels for all classified
communications. Furthermore, in coordination with the DOD Chief
Information Officer, I intend to conduct a review of the policies and
regulations related to the DOD Information Security Program to ensure
they are modernized and standardized to give clear guidance to the
Joint Force. We must ensure that DOD has the policies and technologies
available to safeguard information while enabling communication at the
speed of operations.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
ethics
18. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not seeking any employment with or compensation from a
defense contractor, including through serving on a board, as a
consultant, or as a lobbyist, for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Hansell. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law as well as the terms of
my Ethics Agreement. These provisions set forth comprehensive
restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from defense
contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal Government on
behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe that these
existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the public
interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of my
office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
19. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not engaging in any lobbying activities, including
unregistered ``shadow'' or ``behind-the-scenes'' lobbying under the
guise of consulting or advising on DOD-related matters, focused on DOD
or any of its components for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Hansell. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law as well as the terms of
my Ethics Agreement. These provisions set forth comprehensive
restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from defense
contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal Government on
behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe that these
existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the public
interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of my
office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
20. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, during your nomination process,
did anyone on the Trump campaign, transition team, or other closely
related entity approach you about your loyalty to President Trump?
Mr. Hansell. No.
21. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you sign a loyalty pledge or other
similar oath? If so, please provide a copy of the text of that pledge
or oath.
Mr. Hansell. No, I was not approached.
22. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you make any verbal representations of
loyalty? If so, please describe this representation.
Mr. Hansell. No, I was not approached.
23. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, in November 2024, the New York
Times and other news outlets reported that Boris Epshteyn, a top
adviser to President Trump, allegedly requested payment from
prospective political appointees to promote their candidacies for top
positions within the administration. Did you discuss the possibility of
joining the Administration with Mr. Epshteyn at any time?
Mr. Hansell. No.
24. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you did discuss the possibility
of joining the administration with Mr. Epshteyn, did Mr. Epshteyn seek
payment from you for promoting your candidacy for a position within the
Administration?
Mr. Hansell. No.
25. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, at any time, did lawyers for
President Trump or members of President Trump's team approach you
regarding Mr. Epshteyn and the allegations cited above? If so, please
explain the information that they provided you (including copies of
documents), what was discussed during any calls, and any other
information pertaining to this interaction.
Mr. Hansell. No.
26. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, were you in contact with Mr. Elon
Musk at any time during your nomination process? If so, please describe
the nature of those points of contact.
Mr. Hansell. No.
27. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, was Mr. Musk present or involved
in any interviews you did related to your nomination? If so, please
describe the nature of his involvement.
Mr. Hansell. No.
28. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, was Mr. Musk involved in any way
with your nomination, including but not limited to directly or
indirectly contacting Senators regarding their position on your
nomination?
Mr. Hansell. No.
29. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, who was in the room or
participated in any of your interviews regarding your nomination?
Mr. Hansell. I met with members of the President's team during my
selection process, but it was the President who made the decision to
nominate me for this position.
30. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you own any defense contractor
stock, will you divest it to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of
interest?
Mr. Hansell. The Ethics Agreement I signed on March 20, 2025, which
was previously provided to the Committee, sets forth my ethics
commitments, if confirmed.
31. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what do you consider the role of
the press in a democracy?
Mr. Hansell. A free press is protected by the U.S. Constitution and
is a critical part of our democracy.
32. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you think it would be an
appropriate use of taxpayer resources to ``dig up dirt'' on journalists
who investigate or criticize you, your office, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Hansell. No, it would be a completely inappropriate use of
resources.
33. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit not to retaliate,
including by denying access to government officials or facilities,
against news outlets or individual journalists who publish articles
that are critical of you, your office, your agency, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Hansell. Yes.
34. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you requested, or has anyone
requested on your behalf, that any other person or third party sign a
nondisclosure, confidentiality, non-disparagement, or similar agreement
regarding your conduct in a personal or professional capacity?
Mr. Hansell. No.
35. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you voluntarily release any
individual from any such agreements before this committee votes on your
nomination?
Mr. Hansell. Not applicable.
36. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you ever paid or promised to
pay, or has anyone paid or promised to pay on your behalf, an
individual as part of any non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-
disparagement, or similar agreement?
Mr. Hansell. No.
37. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if the answer to the previous
question was yes, how much was promised, how much was paid, and what
were the circumstances?
Mr. Hansell. Not applicable.
38. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit to recuse yourself
from all particular matters involving your former clients and employers
for at least 4 years after you leave DOD?
Mr. Hansell. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law as well as the terms of
my Ethics Agreement. These provisions set forth comprehensive
restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from defense
contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal Government on
behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe that these
existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the public
interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of my
office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
39. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit to not seeking
employment, board membership with, or another form of compensation from
a company that you regulated or otherwise interacted with while in
government, for at least 4 years after leaving office?
Mr. Hansell. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law as well as the terms of
my Ethics Agreement. These provisions set forth comprehensive
restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from defense
contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal Government on
behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe that these
existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the public
interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of my
office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
40. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, would it ever be appropriate to
threaten or imply that you would withhold future contracts from a
company if they filed a complaint, bid protest, or cooperated with an
Inspector General, civil, or criminal investigation?
Mr. Hansell. No, that would not be appropriate. congressional
Oversight and Transparency
41. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what is your understanding of the
role of the Department of Defense Inspector General and service
Inspectors General?
Mr. Hansell. It is my understanding that the role of the Department
of Defense Inspector General is to conduct independent audits and
investigations relating to DOD's programs and operations to promote
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and to prevent and detect fraud
and abuse. Relevant to the role of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and Security, the DOD IG and USD(I&S) partner in providing
oversight and direction to DOD law enforcement functions.
42. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you ensure your staff
complies with any Inspector General deadlines established for requested
communications, providing witnesses, providing documents, and that
those witnesses will be protected from reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will work to comply with Inspector
General requests in a timely manner.
43. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are not able to comply with
any Inspector General requests and deadlines, will you notify the
Republican and Democratic Members of this Committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will work to comply with Inspector
General requests in a timely manner. I would defer to the Office of the
Inspector General to update Members of the Committee regarding the
progress of the Inspector General's ongoing reviews.
44. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to refusing to follow illegal orders from any individual,
including the President?
Mr. Hansell. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will follow the
Constitution and the law of the United States.
45. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what actions would you take if you
were given an illegal order from any individual, including the
President?
Mr. Hansell. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will follow the
Constitution and the law of the United States.
46. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition if you are called upon by Congress to provide a
deposition voluntarily?
Mr. Hansell. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
47. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition to Congress if you are issued a subpoena to
testify?
Mr. Hansell. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
48. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit to providing
information or documents to Congress voluntarily if you are requested
to do so?
Mr. Hansell. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
49. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you provide information or
documents to Congress if you are issued a subpoena?
Mr. Hansell. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
50. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, will you commit to following
current precedent for responding to information requests, briefings,
and other inquiries from Congress, including the Senate and House Armed
Services Committees and their minority members?
Mr. Hansell. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
51. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if confirmed, will you commit to
posting your official calendar monthly?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed I will commit to transparency consistent
with the law. For example, if my official calendar is requested
pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, I will commit
to releasing responsive agency records subject to any withholding under
applicable FOIA exemptions.
52. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you think DOD has an
overclassification problem? If so, please provide this committee with
an estimateSenator Warren. of the number or percentage of documents
that will be under your purview that are overclassified or other
examples to illustrate this problem.
Mr. Hansell. Yes, I do believe that the entire Federal Government,
to include the DOD, has a problem with the overclassification of
information. Proper classification enables effective sharing of
classified information across government and industry and expedites
that information's eventual declassification. While I am not yet in the
role of Under Secretary and am unable to provide an estimate of the
depth of this problem, if confirmed, I will champion a culture of
responsible classification, ensuring information is protected
appropriately while balancing the need for efficient information flow.
53. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, to the best of your knowledge, is
your office or agency identifying records for proactive posting in
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act? If not, please describe
how you would ensure that they do so to comply with public records law.
Mr. Hansell. I have not been briefed on the organization's
compliance posture with the Freedom of Information Act. However, I
fully support complying with all public records laws and would ensure
the OUSD(I&S) follows these laws.
54. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if confirmed, do you think your
department should pursue strategic technology to support automated
declassification?
Mr. Hansell. Yes, I believe that existing strategic technology has
great potential for improving the efficiency of the declassification
process--indeed, automation is necessary if the Federal Government is
to tackle this problem, which can unnecessarily obscure government
action at times. If confirmed, I am committed to getting briefed on the
State of technical solutions to automate declassification, and advocate
for significant progress in this area. Increasing transparency, in a
responsible manner, ultimately fulfills the President's pledge for a
more open and accountable government.
project 2025
55. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you discussed Project 2025
with any officials associated with the Trump campaign, the Trump
transition team, or other members of the Trump administration? If so,
please explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom
you discussed it.
Mr. Hansell. No, I have not.
56. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you discussed Project 2025
with any officials associated with the Heritage Foundation? If so,
please explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom
you discussed it.
Mr. Hansell. No, I have not.
foreign influence
57. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you received any payment from
a foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government
within the past 5 years?
Mr. Hansell. No, I have not.
58. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you communicated with any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years?
Mr. Hansell. No, I have not.
59. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, please disclose any communications
or payments you have had with representatives of any foreign government
or entity controlled by a foreign government within the past 5 years
and describe the nature of the communication.
Mr. Hansell. Not applicable.
retaliation and protecting whistleblowers
60. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you believe that
servicemembers, civilians, grantees, and contractors should be
protected from any form of retaliation for coming forward about an
illegal order, sexual assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or
any other concern that they wish to raise?
Mr. Hansell. Yes, I do.
61. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, have you ever retaliated against
any individual for coming forward about an illegal order, sexual
assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or any other concern
that they wish to raise?
Mr. Hansell. No.
62. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to protecting whistleblowers? If so, please specify how you will
do so.
Mr. Hansell. Yes, if confirmed, I will commit to protecting
whistleblowers in accordance with applicable law. I will foster a
culture where the organization understands that doing so supports the
mission.
impoundment control act
63. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, on January 27, 2025, President
Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo calling for
the suspension of all Federal financial assistance programs (excluding
``assistance provided directly to individuals''). Do you agree with
OMB's decision to issue this memo?
Mr. Hansell. I support the President's efforts to streamline the
Federal Government and ensure that it is carrying out Federal programs
in an efficient and economical manner. That said, I am not aware of how
this memorandum would impact DOD. If confirmed, I will review the memo
and work to implement the President's direction.
64. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you believe the Secretary of
Defense has the legal authority to block the disbursement of funds
appropriated by Congress?
Mr. Hansell. I fully acknowledge and respect Congress'
constitutional role in appropriating funds to be carried out by the
executive branch for designated purposes. I commit, if confirmed, to
executing my responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the
law. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
65. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what is your understanding of the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Hansell. My understanding is that Congress passed the
Impoundment Control Act in 1974. This Act provides a framework for
handling circumstances in which the President seeks to defer or cancel
execution of appropriated funds. I commit, if confirmed, to executing
my responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on
this matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice
to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
66. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you commit to following the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Hansell. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to
the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
67. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you commit to notifying the
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, including the majority and
minority, if you are asked not to follow the Impoundment Control Act or
not to expend the money that Congress appropriates or authorizes?
Mr. Hansell. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to
the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
68. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, the Constitution's Spending Clause
(Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) and Appropriations Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9,
cl. 7) give Congress, not the Executive, power of the purse. The
Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this power. Do you believe that
impoundments are constitutional?
Mr. Hansell. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to
the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
69. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, the funding levels in
appropriations bills passed into law are not targets or ceilings;
instead, they are amounts the executive branch must spend, unless
stated otherwise. Congress could--if it wanted the President to have
discretion--write those amounts as ceilings. Do you agree?
Mr. Hansell. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law, to
include appropriations legislation. I would ensure that my actions and
advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
70. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what is your understanding of the
requirements for DOD to obligate funding that Congress authorizes and
appropriates, in accordance with the time period that Congress deems it
to do so?
Mr. Hansell. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law, to
include authorization and appropriations legislation. I would ensure
that my actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter
are informed by the administration's legal positions and advice from
the Department's General Counsel's office.
71. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you commit to expending the
money that Congress appropriates and authorizes?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I commit to expending resources in
accordance with congressional appropriations and authorizations for
those programs delegated to me. I would ensure that my actions and
advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
72. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you commit to following and
implementing every provision of the annual National Defense
Authorization Act passed into law?
Mr. Hansell.I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law,
including the National Defense Authorization Act. I would ensure that
my actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are
informed the administration's legal positions and advice from the
Department's General Counsel's office.
73. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you became aware of a potential
violation of the Antideficiency Act, Impoundment Control Act, or other
appropriations laws, what steps would you take?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, were I to become aware of any violation
of the Antideficiency Act, Impoundment Control Act, or other
appropriations laws, I would abide by the Department's procedures to
report such violations to the appropriate authorities. I would further
ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on any
matters of violations are informed by the administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
acquisition reform
74. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what is your understanding of the
Procurement Integrity Act and your obligations under that law?
Mr. Hansell. My understanding of the Procurement Integrity Act is
that, as a government official, I am obligated to protect competitive
source selection information from unauthorized disclosure, including by
complying with the DOD's Controlled Unclassified Information program.
Safeguarding this sensitive information is essential to maintaining the
integrity of the procurement process and ensures all prospective
contractors have a fair opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. I
understand the Procurement Integrity Act also restricts former
Government officials from accepting compensation from contractors under
certain conditions.
75. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, do you believe that it is
important to be able to assess accurate cost and pricing data from
contractors, especially for sole-or single-source contracts?
Mr. Hansell. Yes, I believe it is important to be able to assess
accurate cost and pricing data from contractors to ensure the DOD is
paying a fair price for critical services.
76. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, how do you plan to obtain cost and
pricing data from contractors to determine that the cost of Federal
contracts is fair and reasonable?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will work with Department stakeholders
and the acquisition workforce to ensure the Department has access to
accurate cost and pricing data as required by law.
77. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, how do you plan to do so in cases
where contractors refuse or claim they are unable to turn over this
data?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I look forward to fully reviewing these
types of issues with the OUSD(A&S) and have the DOD receive as much
relevant data as possible to be efficient with taxpayer dollars. It is
my understanding that there are statutory requirements to provide this
data, and I would use existing authorities to resolve contractual
issues.
78. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are confirmed, what steps
will you take to ensure that contractors are not price gouging or
overcharging the Federal Government?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I look forward to working with OUSD(A&S)
to ensure that fair prices are being paid in exchange for critical
services. I will ensure the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise uses all legal tools available to ensure that price gouging
or overcharging are not taking place within the DISE.
79. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to seeking refunds, including voluntary refunds, from
contractors and companies that overcharge the Federal Government?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting OUSD(A&S)
should it decide to review any current contracts in order to ensure
that fair prices are being paid in exchange for critical services and
any refunds due are collected.
80. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if so, how do you plan to do so?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting OUSD(A&S)
should it decide to review any current contracts in order to ensure
that fair prices are being paid in exchange for critical services with
all available DOD resources.
81. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, during your hearing you expressed
concerns that overclassification hurt DOD competition. Do you have any
specific examples of when that may have been a factor?
Mr. Hansell. From my experience, I understand concerns about
overclassification hindering competition, having seen it from varying
perspectives during my time in government and in business. Reflecting
on this, a hypothetical situation where this could occur are government
efforts to procure capability that in part has both a commercial and
national security use case. Unnecessarily overclassifying portions of
the requirement or similarly limiting solicitation to known entities,
can exclude potentially capable partners, ultimately stifling
competition and slowing our access to cutting-edge technology. I've
spoken with companies about the challenges of navigating security
requirements, particularly regarding classified facilities, which can
often disadvantage nontraditional players, to include smaller
businesses. We must always protect our security and seek the most
effective ways to do so while encouraging competition and capturing the
best innovative technology for our warfighters.
research and development
82. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, does the Federal Government
benefit from partnering with colleges, universities, nonprofits, and
federally funded research and development centers?
Mr. Hansell. Yes, it does. Specific to the defense intelligence and
security portfolio, it is my understanding that OUSD(I&S) benefits from
the research conducted by the University Affiliated Research Center
(UARC) that it established in 2018, the Applied Research Lab for
Intelligence and Security (ARLIS). Affiliated with the University of
Maryland, I understand ARLIS is the only UARC conducting both
classified and unclassified research to best address security and
intelligence challenges, to include in areas such as advanced
computing, emerging technologies, and the human domain. UARCs such as
ARLIS are key players in addressing 21st century technology challenges
to U.S. national security.
83. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, under your leadership, will your
agencies continue to work with colleges, universities, nonprofits, and
federally funded research and development centers to research and
address our toughest national security challenges?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I commit to continuing to work with
colleges, universities, nonprofit organizations, and federally funded
research and development centers to develop new and transformative
capabilities for the warfighter consistent with the Administration's
mission and priorities.
protecting classified information and federal records
84. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what is your understanding of the
need to protect operational security, or OPSEC?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, as the DOD senior official responsible
for the DOD Information Security Program, I will be responsible for
establishing and overseeing the implementation of policies and
procedures for the conduct of DOD operations security, or OPSEC. I
understand firsthand that protecting OPSEC is critical for mission
success. OPSEC is an important and required tool for commanders and
leaders to employ at all levels to deny our adversaries the ability to
collect, analyze, and exploit information that might provide an
advantage against the United States. Effective OPSEC protects critical
information about DOD activities, intentions, capabilities, or
limitations that an adversary seeks to gain a military, political,
diplomatic, economic, or technological advantage. Proper OPSEC is
coupled with information security to form a culture of vigilance across
DOD.
85. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what are the national security
risks of improperly disclosing classified information?
Mr. Hansell. It is generally accepted that the improper or
unauthorized disclosure of classified information could be expected to
cause identifiable or describable damage to national security. The
describable damage and certainty of that damage would depend on the
details of the information released, including the level of
classification, as well as the extent and nature of the disclosure.
Determining the extent of damage to national security is part of the
unauthorized disclosure process as outlined in DOD policy. If confirmed
as the DOD senior official responsible for the DOD Information Security
Program, I will be unwavering in championing the DOD's information
security, recognizing it as a cornerstone of meeting the Department's
priorities for increased strength and lethality.
86. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, is it your opinion that
information about imminent military targets is generally sensitive
information that needs to be protected?
Mr. Hansell. The Department has robust policies and processes
dedicated to determining the sensitivity of information related to
military targets. If confirmed, in my role as the DOD senior official
responsible for the DOD Information Security Program, I would ensure
our commanders have clear and authoritative guidance for following
these policies and processes.
87. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what would you do if you learned
an official had improperly disclosed classified information?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed and in such a situation, I would
immediately take steps to secure the information, assess the situation,
and report the incident to the appropriate security officials for
mitigation and appropriate action in accordance with law and policy. If
confirmed, in my role as the DOD senior official responsible for the
DOD Information Security Program, it will also be my role to set the
standard for proper handling of classified information. Protecting
classified information is paramount, and I would treat any potential
breach with the utmost seriousness.
88. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what is your understanding of
Government officials' duties under the Federal Records Act?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will adhere to the Federal Records Act
and the applicable DOD policies that implement it, which ensure that
the Federal records I create or receive are appropriately maintained,
and I will hold the personnel of the Defense Intelligence and Security
Enterprise accountable for the same.
89. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, should classified information be
shared on unclassified commercial systems?
Mr. Hansell. No.
90. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, is it damaging to national
security if the pilots flying a mission find out that the official who
ordered them to perform that mission shared sensitive information that
could have made it more likely that the mission would fail, or they
would be killed?
Mr. Hansell. The Department of Defense places the utmost importance
on mission success and the safety of the men and women carrying out the
mission, making it the finest fighting force in the world. I know
firsthand the importance of safeguarding sensitive information. If
confirmed, I will be responsible for the DOD Information Security
Program, and in that role, I will make it a priority that DOD personnel
have clear guidance for the proper safeguarding of sensitive
information while enabling communication at the speed of operations.
91. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, if you had information about the
status of specific targets, weapons being used, and timing for imminent
U.S. strikes against an adversary, under what circumstances would you
feel comfortable receiving or sharing that information on an
unclassified commercial application like Signal?
Mr. Hansell. Without speaking to hypothetical circumstances, I
believe we must ensure that DOD has the policies and technologies
available to most effectively safeguard information while enabling
secure communication at the speed of operations. If confirmed, I will
be responsible for the DOD Information Security Program, and in that
role I would, in coordination with the DOD Chief Information Officer,
review the policies and regulations related to the DOD Information
Security Program to ensure they are modernized and standardized to
support that objective.
personnel security
92. Senator Warren. Mr. Hansell, what factors should be considered
in determining whether a former Government official needs protection?
Mr. Hansell. While I understand the President and the Secretary of
Defense have the inherent authority to provide protective services
outside of the context of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 714, the statute authorizes
protection for a former or retired official who faces a serious and
credible threat arising from duties performed while employed by DOD or
for compelling operational considerations. The determination to provide
such physical protection and personal security pursuant to this statute
shall be based on a threat assessment by an appropriate law
enforcement, security, or intelligence organization. In practice, such
determinations are necessarily balanced against competing operational
and resourcing requirements for the protection of other authorized
personnel.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Duckworth
disclosure of classified information
93. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Hansell, what is the normal process
after the Department becomes aware of indications that classified or
sensitive defense or intelligence information has been found in the
public sphere?
Mr. Hansell. I understand that DOD takes immediate action whenever
there is credible information that classified or sensitive defense
information has been found in the public sphere. This could involve
initiating an inquiry or investigation to assess the scope of the
potential compromise, secure any compromised information to the extent
possible, and identify the source of the unauthorized disclosure. If
circumstances warrant, DOD then pursues appropriate administrative,
legal, or other remedial actions based on the findings of the inquiry
or investigation.
94. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Hansell, would you hold senior officials
who violate protections of sensitive information to the same standard
as junior soldiers and civilians?
Mr. Hansell. Yes. All DOD personnel with access to classified
information are responsible for protecting such information. If
confirmed, as the DOD senior security official responsible for
directing, administering, and overseeing the DOD Information Security
Program, I will advocate for a culture of accountability at all levels,
backed up by clear, modernized, and standardized guidance, to ensure
that all DOD personnel support this shared obligation.
accountability
95. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Hansell, do you commit that your
decisions will be communicated through official, secure channels and
properly documented for both oversight and institutional memory?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will always comply with the Federal
Records Act and all laws concerning the safeguarding of classified
information.
96. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Hansell, would you follow an illegal,
unlawful, or immoral order?
Mr. Hansell. If confirmed, I will follow the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Bradley D. Hansell
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Bradley D. Hansell, which
was transmitted by the Committee at the time of the nomination
was referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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 Mr. Bradley D.
Hansell in connection with his nomination follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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.]
______
[The nomination of Mr. Bradley D. Hansell was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Wicker on May 1, 2025, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2025.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Earl G. Matthews by
Chairman Wicker prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and qualifications
Question. Section 140 of title 10, U.S. Code, provides that the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense (DOD General Counsel) is
the chief legal officer of the Department.
What background and experience do you possess that qualify you for
this position?
Answer. I received my Juris Doctor degree from Harvard University
in June 1998, took and passed both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey bar
examinations in the summer of 1998 and have been a licensed attorney
continually since October 1998. I additionally hold a Master of Laws
degree in National Security Law from the Georgetown University Law
Center, which I received in May 2013. Currently, I am a member in good
standing only of the District of Columbia bar. I have served as an
attorney within the Department of Defense in various capacities for
over 25 years. I have served continuously as an Army Judge Advocate,
either on active duty orders or in a part-time status, in the United
States or in overseas operational environments. I have served as a
uniformed lawyer in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iraq during two separate tours,
in Afghanistan and in the Horn of Africa. I have extensive Pentagon
experience having served within the Office of the Judge Advocate
General of the Army and the Office of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have been both a career civilian attorney
within the Defense Intelligence Agency, where I advised on sensitive
intelligence matters, and I have served as the Principal Deputy General
Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the Department of the Army. In
the latter role I was the Chief Legal Officer of the largest single
component of the Department of Defense. Throughout my career, I have
provided advice and counsel to Department of Defense personnel as
disparate as staff non-commissioned officers and platoon leaders to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Army.
Question. What leadership and management experience do you possess
that you would apply to your service as DOD General Counsel, if
confirmed?
Answer. My most significant legal leadership role was as Principal
Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the Department of
the Army from June 2017-July 2018 where I lead a 50-attorney office
charged with advising the civilian and uniformed leadership of the
Department of the Army. The Office of the General Counsel of the Army
also provided legal oversight and guidance to the entire Army legal
enterprise, to include over 5,000 attorneys, both uniformed and
civilian. As an Army Judge Advocate, I have been privileged to serve on
and lead legal teams at home and abroad, including serving as Staff
Judge Advocate to the District of Columbia National Guard during
significant periods of civil unrest. If confirmed, I will draw upon my
leadership and management experiences to make me a better leader of the
DOD legal enterprise.
Question. What is your understanding of the breadth and scope of
the DOD General Counsel's duties and responsibilities?
Answer. It is my understanding that the General Counsel is the
chief legal officer of the Department of Defense and the advisor to the
Secretary of Defense for all legal matters and legal services performed
within or involving the DOD Components. The breadth and scope of these
duties and responsibilities are vast, aligned to the global mission of
the Department of Defense to achieve Peace through Strength, deter war
and if necessary, defeat our enemies. If I am confirmed, I expect that
I will be responsible for overseeing the provision of timely and
accurate legal advice on myriad DOD activities. This encompasses the
full spectrum of legal issues, from international law, environmental
law, contracting, and personnel matter. Most importantly, the General
Counsel supports and empowers the legal professionals across the
Department, in and out of uniform, to ensure we all provide sound legal
advice and counsel to our clients and commanders in support of the
mission.
Question. If confirmed, what additional duties and functions might
you recommend the Secretary of the Defense prescribe for you?
Answer. The Department carries out unique military and national
security functions, as well as a wide variety of activities ranging
from providing health care to its military personnel and their families
to working with and training important allies and partners, and all the
activities required to support the Total Force, protect the Nation and
project power across the globe. If I am confirmed, I eagerly anticipate
the challenge of providing legal advice on a broad portfolio of subject
areas essential to the combat readiness, lethality and effectiveness of
our armed forces. If confirmed, I would have the opportunity to work
with senior leaders in the Department and would have a better sense of
what the Department's needs would be and what additional duties and
functions the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, but I anticipate they
would be aligned to ensuring we build and maintain an effective
fighting force.
Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to ensure
that your tenure as DOD General Counsel epitomizes the fundamental
requirement for civilian control of the Armed Forces embedded in the
U.S. Constitution and other laws?
Answer. The American principle of civilian control of the military
is foundational to our democracy, and I am committed to it. Having
served in the Army, both in and out of uniform, I am acutely aware of
the need to ensure civilian control of the military, and the legal
structure established by our Constitution and the laws of the Nation to
ensure it. I believe that large organizations reflect the principles
and values of their leaders. Therefore, if confirmed, I will convey
through my leadership, words and actions that civilian leadership of
the Department is central and preeminent.
Question. Who is the client of the DOD General Counsel?
Answer. The Department of Defense and its senior leaders in their
official capacities are the clients of the DOD General Counsel.
conflicts of interest
Question. Federal ethics laws, to include 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208,
prohibit government employees from participating in matters where they,
or certain family members or organizations with which they have certain
relationships, have a financial interest.
Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to disclose any
potential conflicts of interest, including investments, business ties,
family relationships, or other connections that could be perceived as
influencing your decisionmaking?
Answer. I agree to comply with all conflicts of interest disclosure
requirements set forth in the Ethics in Government Act and implementing
regulations.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, that
if a conflict of interest arises, you will recuse yourself from
participating in any decisions regarding that specific matter?
Answer. I agree to comply with all recusal requirements under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 208 and implementing regulations.
Question. Do you commit, without qualification, if confirmed, to
decide matters on the merits, and exclusively in the public interest,
without regard to private gain or personal benefit?
Answer. I commit to deciding matters on the merits based on the
public interest, without regard to any private gain or personal
benefit.
exercise of independent professional legal judgment
Question. President Trump's February 18, 2025, Executive Order
entitled ``Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies'' states in section
7 that ``No employee of the executive branch acting in their official
capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of
the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney
General's opinion on a matter of law. . . .''
What is your understanding of the rules of professional
responsibility that apply to civilian attorneys in the Department of
Defense, including those that work within the DOD Office of the General
Counsel?
Answer. DOD attorneys must be licensed in at least one U.S. State,
commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia and are subject to
the rules of professional conduct for their licensing jurisdiction.
Additionally, DOD civilian attorneys are subject to the professional
responsibility provisions set forth in DOD Instruction 1442.02.
Question. If confirmed, what rules of professional responsibility
would apply to you personally in your practice of law?
Answer. I am currently licensed in the District of Columbia and
would be subject to the District of Columbia Rules of Professional
Conduct under the authority of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, as well as DOD Instruction 1442.02.
Question. If confirmed, how will you implement section 7 of the
above referenced Executive Order and enforce it throughout the
Department?
Answer. The Attorney General, through DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC), interprets how the law applies to the executive branch, and that
interpretation is binding on the Department of Defense. Section 7's
articulation of the President's and Attorney General's authority and
function as they pertain to interpretations of the law may be new, but
the underlying principles described in Section 7 are consistent with my
understanding of standard practices of the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, for questions where I am unsure about the appropriate
interpretation of law, I intend to authorize outreach to OLC for formal
or informal guidance on the appropriate interpretation of law and apply
OLC's advice to the activities of the Department.
Question. What is your view of the applicability of section 7 to
you personally, if confirmed as the DOD General Counsel?
Answer. As an Executive Order that is currently in force, section 7
of EO 14215 would apply to my activities as General Counsel, if I am
confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address a situation where
your independent professional legal judgment differs from the opinion
of the President?
Answer. If confirmed, I do not anticipate that my professional
legal judgment would often differ from the opinion of the President or
his legal advisors. If a difference were to emerge, I would seek
further guidance from legal advisors at the White House and at the
Department of Justice, and if appropriate, would request a review of my
interpretation by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.
major challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next DOD General Counsel?
Answer. The major challenges confronting the next General Counsel
of the Department of Defense mirror the major challenges facing the
Department writ large. These include supporting the President's focus
on the restoration of the Department of Defense as a race-blind, merit
and values based, warfighting focused institution.
Question. If confirmed, what broad parameters would you establish
as to the types of legal and policy issues on which you and the Office
of the DOD General Counsel must be consulted?
Answer. Based on my experience, DOD appears to have a culture that
values legal input and appears to have robust processes in place to
obtain that input on critical issues. If I am confirmed, I will lead
the experienced attorneys in the Office of the DOD General Counsel and
in the wider DOD legal community in their efforts to provide the best
possible legal advice to decisionmakers throughout the Department of
Defense as they implement the priorities of the President. I would work
to ensure that I am consulted on any issues potentially impacting the
execution of the Secretary's national defense strategic guidance,
particularly matters with the potential for significant financial or
litigation risk for the Department.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the State of the DOD Office of the
General Counsel's relationship with the Senate Armed Services Committee
in particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. I believe the Office of General Counsel works
collaboratively with both the Senate Armed Services Committee and with
the Congress as a whole. Strong relationships with Congress are
essential to mission success. If confirmed, I will continue to maintain
and cultivate those strong relationships, especially those involving
the Armed Services Committee.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between this Committee
and the DOD Office of the General Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage open, honest, and timely
communications between the Committee and the Department. I am committed
to building and maintaining open lines of communication. If confirmed,
I will work closely with Members of this Committee, the Congress as a
whole, as well as the professional staff of the Armed Services
Committee.
Question. If confirmed, what factors would you consider in
determining whether or not to recommend the invocation of Executive
Privilege in regard to a request from the Senate Armed Services
Committee for information under the cognizance of a component of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Executive Privilege is invoked by the Counsel to the
President. If confirmed, I would work closely with interagency lawyers,
to include the White House Counsel's office, regarding matters of
privilege.
Question. Under what extraordinary circumstances do you believe it
would be appropriate for the Secretary of Defense to limit review of an
Execute Order by the Armed Services Committees?
Answer. Executive Orders are issued by the President, and as such
are White House documents. If confirmed, I commit to working with
interagency lawyers to include the White House Counsel's office to
resolve any matters of privilege on a timely basis.
legal opinions
Question. Are the legal opinions of the Office of the DOD General
Counsel binding on all Department of Defense attorneys?
Answer. The legal opinions of the DOD General Counsel generally are
binding throughout the Department of Defense. Under 10 U.S.C. Sec.
140, the DOD General Counsel is the ``chief legal officer of the
Department of Defense,'' and under DOD Directive 5145.01, the General
Counsel is responsible for ``[e]stablish[ing] DOD policy on general
legal issues, determin[ing] the DOD position on specific legal
problems, and resolv[ing] disagreements within the DOD on such
matters.'' 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140, however, does not apply to the General
Counsel to the Inspector General. In addition, Title 10 prohibits any
officer or employee of DOD from interfering with the independent legal
advice of certain senior military lawyers.
Question. If confirmed, are there specific matters on which your
predecessor General Counsels have issued legal opinions that you would
expect to reconsider and possibly revise? If so, which opinions, in
which practice areas, do you believe might merit reconsideration?
Answer. I am not presently aware of any current legal opinions
that, if I am confirmed, I would expect to reconsider or revise.
However, I expect that, if I am confirmed, I will have the occasion to
revisit matters and welcome the opportunity to do so.
relationship with the department of justice (doj)
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice with respect to
litigation involving the Department of Defense?
Answer. The Department of Justice has the statutory responsibility
to represent the United States and its officers, employees, and
agencies, including the Department of Defense, in litigation. Attorneys
from the Department of Defense work closely with Department of Justice
lawyers on matters in which DOD, or one or more of its components or
officials, is a party or has an interest.
Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the
development and consideration (or reconsideration) of legal opinions by
the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice that directly
affect the Department of Defense?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect to work closely with the Office
of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice (OLC) on the most
complicated legal issues confronting the Department of Defense. By
continuing to foster a close working relationship with OLC, I will
strive to ensure that DOD and its officials have the benefit of the
highest-caliber legal advice within the executive branch.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to address an
opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel with which you disagreed
as a matter of proper interpretation of the law?
Answer. The Attorney General, usually acting through the Assistant
Attorney General for OLC, sometimes is called on to issue legal
opinions that are binding on the entire executive branch, including the
Department of Defense. If I am confirmed, and in the event that OLC
issues an opinion with which I disagree as a matter of law, I would
express my opinion to the Assistant Attorney General or, if necessary
and appropriate, the Attorney General and ask for reconsideration of
the OLC opinion. I hope to have developed a sufficiently close working
relationship with OLC that my input would be considered prior to
issuance of the legal opinion.
independent legal advice by judge advocates
Question. What is your view of the requirement for the Judge
Advocates General of the Services, the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the legal advisor to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide independent legal advice to the
Secretaries of the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, and the Service Chiefs?
Answer. I understand that the Judge Advocates General of the
Services, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and the legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff provide independent legal advice to the leadership of their
respective Military Departments, and that under the law no officer or
employee of DOD may interfere with that. If confirmed, I will respect
and support the important role played by these officers and be clear
with my expectation that we fully comply with the law in this regard.
Having served as an Army Judge Advocate, I understand that the
uniformed lawyers of the military play a critical role within the
Department, and that due to their military training and background
offer an important perspective.
Question. What is your view of the responsibility of uniformed
judge advocates to provide independent legal advice to military
commanders?
Answer. I understand that that Judge Advocates in the field, in
support of their Services or at joint commands, have a responsibility
to provide independent legal advice to military commanders. Having
served as an Army Judge Advocate, I understand that the uniformed
lawyers of the military play a critical role within the Department, and
that due to their military training and background offer an important
perspective.
Question. What is your understanding of the DOD General Counsel's
responsibilities with regard to military justice and The Judge
Advocates General?
Answer. In my view, the role of the DOD Office of General Counsel
is to provide legal advice to the Secretary of Defense and DOD
stakeholders on policy, legislative, and programmatic initiatives
intended to deter misconduct. If confirmed, I will work with the Judge
Advocates General of the Military Departments and the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as the Lead
Special Trial Counsel, to refine policies and seek additional
authorities, as required, to promote justice, deter misconduct, and
facilitate appropriate accountability.
The Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps play crucial roles in providing military
justice personnel and training in their Military Services. However,
decisions in the military justice system are made independently by
certain personnel, including convening authorities, special trial
counsel, defense counsel, military judges, and court-martial panel
members (jurors). For the system to operate fairly--and be perceived as
operating fairly--those servicemembers who exercise independent
judgment in the system must perform discretionary duties free from
improper influence by their superiors.
Question. If confirmed, what relationship would you establish with
the General Counsels of the Military Departments?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely with the General
Counsels of the Military Departments. I would develop strong lines of
communication to assist them in providing timely and accurate legal
advice to the senior leadership of their respective military
departments, and to ensure that legal matters are effectively
coordinated across the Department.
authorization for the use of military force (aumf)
Question. In your view, in what circumstances should the President
seek authorization from Congress before using military force?
Answer. While the President is chief executive and Commander in
Chief, the Constitution assigns to the Congress an essential role in
decisions to declare war. Further, the War Powers Resolution prescribes
that the President ``in every possible instance shall consult with
Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into
hostilities.''
Consistent with the constitutional division of roles, the President
may direct certain military action pursuant to Article II of the
Constitution when that action serves an important national interest and
the reasonably anticipated nature, scope, and duration of the operation
and any possible responses would not rise to the level of ``war'' under
the Constitution. I understand this has been the longstanding view of
both Democratic and Republican administrations across several decades,
as reflected in a series of opinions by the Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel.
general and flag officer nominations
Question. Existing law and policy provide that adverse and
reportable information pertaining to an officer must be evaluated by
senior leaders in the Military Departments and in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense prior to the nomination of such an officer for
promotion to a general or flag officer grade, or for appointment to a
position of ``importance and responsibility.''
In your view, what is the role of the DOD General Counsel in the
officer promotion system generally, and more specifically in reviewing
the nomination of officers for promotion to general and flag officer
grades and positions?
Answer. It is my understanding that all reports of promotion
selection boards are reviewed by the Office of the DOD General Counsel
prior to final action on the report by the Secretary of Defense or the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. This review
comes after similar legal reviews have been conducted at the Military
Service and Military Department levels. If the DOD General Counsel
determines that a promotion selection board did not conform to law or
policy, it would be the duty of the General Counsel to inform the
Secretary of Defense or Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, as the case may be, of the irregularities and to recommend
appropriate corrective action. I am also aware that the Office of the
DOD General Counsel reviews the nomination package for each officer
recommended for appointment to the grade of O-9 or O-10 while serving
in a position of importance and responsibility, ensuring that any
adverse or reportable information pertaining to an officer is
accurately summarized. The Office of the DOD General Counsel also has a
role in ensuring that officer promotion policies in DOD regulations
accurately reflect the law in title 10, U.S. Code.
Question. In your view, are the current policies and procedures
governing review of the records of officers whose selection for
promotion or assignment requires Presidential or Secretary of Defense
approval or Senate confirmation, sufficient to enable informed
decisions by the secretary of the Military Department concerned, the
Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Senate? Please explain
your answer.
Answer. It is my understanding that these current policies and
procedures, many of which are based on law, provide the Secretary of
Defense, the President, and the Senate sufficient information on which
to make informed decisions as to which officers should be promoted and/
or assigned to positions of importance and responsibility. If
confirmed, I will recommend changes to the current policies and
procedures if I determine they are appropriate.
Question. In your view, are these policies and procedures fair to
the individual officers proceeding through the promotion or assignment
processes?
Answer. Yes, it is my understanding that these policies and
procedures are fair. When adverse information pertaining to the officer
is involved, I am aware that the officer's statement regarding such
information is included in the appointment or nomination package. If
confirmed, I will recommend changes to the policies and procedures if I
determine they are appropriate.
sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention and response
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the DOD General
Counsel in addressing sexual assault and sexual harassment within the
Department of Defense?
Answer. In my view, the role of the DOD Office of General Counsel
is to provide legal advice to the Secretary of Defense and DOD
stakeholders on policy, legislative, and programmatic initiatives
intended to deter this misconduct. If confirmed, I will work with the
Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments and the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as the
Services' Lead Special Trial Counsel, to refine policies and seek
additional authorities, as required, to promote justice, deter
misconduct, and facilitate appropriate accountability. I anticipate
ensuring high-level focus on this issue.
Question. What is your assessment of the efficacy of the
Department's sexual assault prevention and response program?
Answer. I understand the Department has undertaken numerous
initiatives to prevent and respond to sexual assault, including
establishing the Offices of Special Trial Counsel within the military
Services. I expect that it will take time to assess the efficacy of
this initiative and other legal and policy changes implemented by the
Department.
Maintaining good order and discipline in the Armed Forces promotes
efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment and thereby
strengthens the national security of the United States. If confirmed, I
will work with DOD stakeholders to support these programs to ensure the
readiness of the warfighter.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034 of title 10, U.S. Code, prohibits taking or
threatening to take an unfavorable personnel action against a member of
the armed forces in retaliation for making a protected communication.
Section 2302 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides similar protections to
Federal civilian employees.
If confirmed, what role would you establish for yourself in, and
what specific actions would you take, ensuring that servicemembers and
civilian employees of the Department of Defense who report fraud,
waste, and abuse, or gross mismanagement are protected from reprisal?
Answer. Whistleblowers perform an important service by reporting
what they reasonably believe to be evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse
or gross mismanagement. Whistleblower protection laws exist to ensure
that whistleblowers may report freely concerning issues of fraud,
waste, and abuse or gross mismanagement without fear of retaliation
and/or reprisal. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of
Defense provides all the protections to which whistleblowers are
entitled under law and policy. Moreover, I will work to ensure that
throughout DOD there is appropriate policy in place on whistleblower
protection. Last, I believe that all senior defense officials have an
obligation to emphasize, in both their words and actions, the
importance of whistleblower protection and the benefits derived by DOD
from investigations and reviews based on protected communications. If I
am confirmed, this will be a personal point of emphasis for me.
support to the department of defense inspector general
Question. What is the relationship between the DOD General Counsel
and the DOD Inspector General?
Answer. The DOD Inspector General has an independent statutory
status as does the General Counsel to the DOD IG, which is established
by law in an amendment to the Inspector General Act. The General
Counsel to the IG, who is not under the supervision of the DOD General
Counsel, is appointed by the Inspector General and serves as the chief
legal officer of the Office of the Inspector General. It is my
understanding that reviewing the legal sufficiency of Inspector General
investigations, including whistleblower investigations, is performed by
the General Counsel to the IG, not the DOD General Counsel. If
confirmed, I will provide appropriate legal advice to the Department in
conjunction with actions stemming from an investigation and will assist
the Office of the Inspector General as requested and appropriate.
Is the DOD Inspector General bound by the legal opinions of the DOD
General Counsel?
Answer. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140, legal opinions of
the DOD General Counsel generally are binding throughout the Department
of Defense. The General Counsel to the Inspector General, however, is
expressly exempted from the scope of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140 by virtue of
Section 907 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2009 (5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 408(h)).
Question. What role, if any, does the DOD General Counsel have in
reviewing DOD IG reports of investigation and inspections? In your
view, do you see a need for a change in this role?
Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD General Counsel does
not review the legal sufficiency of Inspector General investigations
and recommendations. This review is provided by the General Counsel to
the Inspector General. It would be appropriate, however, for the DOD
General Counsel to assist the Office of the Inspector General as
requested by that office, including review of certain IG investigation
and inspection reports prior to finalization and release.
civilian attorney recruiting and retention
Question. In your view, does the Office of the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense have a sufficient number of attorneys to
perform its many missions? Please explain your answer.
Answer. While I am currently not able to assess this, if I am
confirmed I would explore whether the Department has sufficient legal
resources to meet the Department's needs in terms of quantity and
quality of civilian attorneys.
Question. Do you believe that the DOD legal community needs
additional incentives and talent management tools to recruit, develop,
sustain, and retain a 21st century career civilian attorney workforce?
If so, what sort of incentives and tools do you perceive would be
helpful?
Answer. While I am not currently able to assess this, if confirmed,
I will collaborate with Department leaders to identify ways to
strengthen our civilian attorney talent management efforts and
implement modernized hiring practices that enhance workforce
efficiency. I would determine whether the current civilian attorneys
are provided sufficient opportunities for advancement and professional
fulfillment. If not, I would take steps to improve these opportunities.
I am not currently aware of any incentives that are necessary, but
if confirmed, I would take the necessary steps to evaluate and assess
the situation to help make this determination. The civilian attorney
workforce is a key part of the DOD team, and the Department must
efficiently recruit and retain highly skilled civilian attorneys who
contribute to the public interest.
Question. The DOD General Counsel serves as the selecting official
for all OSD career Senior Executive Service (SES) attorney positions.
What do you view as the most important executive competencies of an
SES attorney and how would you assess these in deciding whether to
recommend a particular candidate for selection and appointment to an
attorney's position in the career SES?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will lead the experienced attorneys in
the Office of the DOD General Counsel and in the wider DOD legal
community in their efforts to provide the best possible legal advice to
decisionmakers throughout the Department of Defense. To do this
effectively, I will seek SES attorneys who possess critical leadership
skills and are capable of building multi-disciplinary and cohesive
teams to accomplish the priorities of the President and the Secretary
of Defense.
acquisition
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the DOD General
Counsel in ensuring that the Department's acquisition programs are
executed in accordance with applicable law and policy?
Answer. As the chief legal officer of the Department of Defense,
the General Counsel has the critical role of advising clients
throughout the Defense acquisition community on the requirements of law
and regulation as they relate to the execution of DOD's acquisition
programs, including especially some of the largest and most important
programs of the Department. If I am confirmed, I would ensure my team
of highly qualified acquisition attorneys is watchful that the
Department conducts procurements fairly and openly, mindful of the need
to be good stewards of the American taxpayers' dollars. Moreover, I
would be very clear that the Department needs to comply with all
statutory limitations and prohibitions and that the thought or ignoring
them for the mere sake of business expediency is not to be tolerated.
Question. What are your views on the overall effects on DOD of
defense acquisition reform to date?
Answer. I understand that over the past several years the
Department has made strides in implementing the Adaptive Acquisition
Framework, which provides multiple fit-to-purpose pathways for
differing types of acquisitions and recast the former ``one size fits
all'' approach. I imagine it would be overly optimistic to consider the
job done. There must still be more to accomplish, and I look forward,
if confirmed, to working with the Department's leadership and the team
of acquisition attorneys at DOD to keep the ball rolling in this
important effort.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that DOD acquisition
officials understand and leverage the flexibilities provided by
Congress in the context of acquisition reform?
Answer. The job of the DOD General Counsel is to apply the laws
promulgated by Congress as they relate to the Department. I commit to
you that, if I am confirmed, I would approach this task with the full
understanding of the intent of Congress. In this context I would
consider one of the primary functions of the job, and part of the
duties of the acquisition attorneys on staff, to be tracking the
enactment of new authorities and communicate with the client community
to make sure it is aware of flexibilities that new enactments might
provide. I would encourage greater use of any legislatively bestowed
flexibility however, wherever, and whenever appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, how would you deal with contractors that
improperly mark technical data, do not deliver technical data under the
terms of the contract, or otherwise enforce technical data rights and
ordering to ensure DOD is able to maintain competition and its core
logistics capabilities?
Answer. This is a simple matter of contract enforcement, rooted in
insistence on compliance with the terms of our written agreements. A
lawyer's role here is no different than it would be in other business
disputes: providing well-grounded advice and effective advocacy,
especially after the point where matters have devolved to litigation.
risk aversion
Question. Many attempts at management reform in the Department of
Defense, to include personnel reform and acquisition reform, involve
allowing senior and local leadership to make maximum use of authorized
flexibilities and exceptions to standard practices. It is generally
believed that DOD's so-called ``risk averse culture'' stifles
initiative and traps the Department in a set of antiquated and
burdensome practices. At times, this culture of risk aversion has been
attributed to the legal advice rendered by DOD and component attorneys.
In your view, what role should the assessment of ``risk'' play in
an attorney's provision of legal advice?
Answer. The need to foster a culture of innovation across the
department is pressing. We ought not let an undue concern for risk
frustrate meeting that need. My role, if confirmed, will be to see that
attorneys within the DOD Office of the General Counsel understand the
flexibilities as well as the limits provided in law and regulation and
that they advise their clients accordingly. The mere presence of risk
should not lead an attorney to withhold advising on possible options.
Certainly, a DOD attorney should seek to make sure that his or her
clients are aware of any legal risks associated with various options,
but he or she should make it part of his or her job to find ways to
mitigate those risks and, wherever possible, advise on alternate paths
that present none of the identified risks. In the end, however,
attorneys only advise. The business decisionmakers and policy clients
need to settle on how best to proceed, after fully understanding a
range of legally available options. The job of a lawyer is to present
those legally available options.
ethics and professional responsibility
Question. Servicemember and DOD civilian employee conflicts of
interest have long been a concern. What is the general prevalence in
the armed forces, and in the DOD civilian workforce, of violations of
criminal laws and executive branch and DOD ethics regulations relating
to conflicts of interest?
Answer. I believe preventing conflicts of interest is critical to
maintaining the public's trust and confidence in the Department's
operations. Based on the most recent annual data reported on the Office
of Government Ethics web site, I understand that there were only 2
statutory violations and 110 regulatory violations in a Department of
over 1.7 million full-time personnel during CY 2023. That represents
less than .5 percent of the total DOD workforce. As the Department of
Defense Designated Agency Ethics Official, I will, if confirmed, carry
out an effective ethics program to prevent and resolve conflicts of
interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department
of Defense in ensuring that attorneys under his supervision adhere to
Rules of Professional Conduct? If confirmed, how would you approach
this critical supervisory duty with regard to the Office of the DOD
General Counsel?
Answer. The DOD General Counsel (GC) is responsible for
establishing professional responsibility standards for the civilian
attorneys under the GC's supervision and for overseeing adherence to
these standards, in accordance with DOD Directive 5145.01 and DOD
Instruction 1442.02. If confirmed, I will implement these rules to
ensure legal services are provided with the highest degree of
professionalism.
Question. Are the laws and regulations relating to the post-
government employment of DOD personnel--military and civilian--
adequate, coherent, and comprehensible, in your view?
Answer. There is a long-standing framework of executive branch-wide
ethics statutes and regulations that balance the interests of the
public in preventing conflicts of interest with the employment rights
of individual employees and the Government's interest in recruiting
talent. I understand that a 2021 Government Accountability Office audit
report concluded that DOD has strong post-government employment
training, guidance, and practices for implementing these laws and made
no findings of violations. Additionally, a congressionally mandated
federally Funded Research & Development Center study finalized in 2024
concluded that the proliferation of ethics provisions that address the
same or similar issues risks confusion that could undermine compliance
and enforcement. The study further found that there was not a strong
reason to treat DOD officials more stringently than officials in other
agencies. If confirmed, I would support clear, consistent, and balanced
ethics laws, which are essential to maintaining the public's trust.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were it brought
to your attention that a certain appointment or designation was
potentially in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and
associated case law?
Answer. If I am confirmed and it were brought to my attention that
an appointment potentially violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, I
would obtain the facts pertaining to the appointment and provide my
best legal advice to the Secretary regarding the appointment. If I
believed the appointment would violate the Federal Vacancies Reform
Act, I would provide that advice.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take if it were
brought to your attention that a potential nominee, military or
civilian, does not meet statutory prerequisites for the position for
which the individual would be nominated?
Answer. If I am confirmed and it were brought to my attention that
a potential nominee, military or civilian, does not meet statutory
prerequisites for the position for which the individual would be
nominated, I would obtain the facts pertaining to the appointment and
provide my best legal advice to the Secretary regarding the nomination.
If I believed the nomination did not meet statutory prerequisites for
the position, I would provide that advice.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were it brought
to your attention that an individual pending nomination or confirmation
by the Senate, to a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed office
was potentially acting in contravention of the policies of the Senate
Armed Services Committee regarding the presumption of confirmation?
Answer. If I am confirmed and it were brought to my attention that
an individual pending nomination or confirmation by the Senate, to a
Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed office was potentially
acting in contravention of the policies of the Senate Armed Services
Committee regarding the presumption of confirmation, I would obtain the
facts pertaining to the appointment and provide my best legal advice to
the Secretary regarding the nomination. If I believed the individual
pending nomination or confirmation was potentially acting in a manner
inconsistent with the policies of the Senate Armed Services Committee
regarding the presumption of confirmation, I would provide that advice.
annual department of defense legislative program
Question. One of the responsibilities of the DOD General Counsel is
to coordinate the Department's legislative program and to provide the
Department's views on legislative proposals initiated from outside the
Department.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that the
Department's legislative proposals are submitted to the Armed Services
Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives in a timely
manner, so as to ensure ample opportunity for consideration of such
proposals by Congress and the public before markup of the annual NDAA?
Answer. I understand the need to provide fully coordinated draft
legislation to the Armed Services Committees as early as possible after
the President submits his budget to Congress. If confirmed, I will work
with DOD components and the Office of Management and Budget to expedite
review and coordination of draft legislation for inclusion in the
annual NDAA. I fully appreciate that the earlier the Department submits
its legislative proposals, the more likely the Armed Services
Committees will consider the Department's proposals and recommend that
they be enacted.
Question. What actions would you take, if confirmed, to ensure
Congress receives the Department's views on other proposed legislation
in a timely manner?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs manages the Department's
response to congressional requests for informal views of specific
pieces of legislation. If confirmed, I will work with that office to
ensure timely responses to those requests.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, reports, records (including documents and electronic
communications) and other information from the Department.
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:]
Senator Tom Cotton
legal issues
1. Senator Cotton. Mr. Matthews, the Department of Defense (DOD)
lawyers have become known for becoming far too risk averse, always
defaulting to ``no'' rather than helping the Secretary of Defense or
the President find a way to accomplish a mission legally. If confirmed,
would you commit to working with the Secretary to become an enabler--
not an inhibitor--to meet his intent?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, my lodestar will be to ensure that the
military and policy objectives of the President and the Secretary of
Defense are achieved in a manner consistent with the Constitution and
laws of the United States. To that end, where legal issues may
frustrate a proposed course of action, it would be my responsibility
not just to identify those issues, but also to identify reasonable
alternatives to accomplish the mission lawfully. I would also oversee
legal services performed throughout DOD, and I would lead, encourage,
and expect lawyers throughout the Department to take this same
constructive approach when they provide legal advice to decisionmakers
at all levels.
environment
2. Senator Cotton. Mr. Matthews, environmental regulations are one
of those mission areas in which the Secretary will need your legal
support. Laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Endangered Species Act are drastically and unnecessarily delaying DOD
projects, from facility expansions, to defense industrial base
projects, to constructing runways in the Pacific. Often, it's other
Federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service that create the
hold-ups. How would you use your role as legal counsel to ensure the
services can move through environmental reviews as quickly and
efficiently as possible?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will work with my counterparts at
other Federal agencies, and counsel for the Military Departments, to
ensure we are all aligned on national security priorities and
conducting environmental reviews as quickly and efficiently as
possible. I will also work with my clients and the Military Departments
on ways to streamline DOD processes and environmental reviews while
continuing to comply with the law.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
lawful orders
3. Senator Hirono. Mr. Matthews, the DOD General Counsel, serves as
an important check to ensure the President, Secretary of Defense, and
other senior military leaders are complying with U.S. and international
law. In your view, what role do the senior uniformed Judge Advocates
General (JAG) for each of the services play in the Department, and how
will you ensure their voices are heard on major issues involving
interpretations of U.S. and international law?
Mr. Matthews. I proudly served as an Army Judge Advocate, and I
respect the role played by our senior Judge Advocates in advising
leadership both at headquarters and in the field. They play a critical
role within the Department, bring an important perspective and have a
voice that needs to be heard. They provide independent legal advice to
the leadership of their respective Military Departments, and under the
law no officer or employee of DOD may interfere with that. If
confirmed, I will ensure that my organization follows the law and will
advise all Department leadership to do the same.
rule of law
4. Senator Hirono. Mr. Matthews, the DOD Law of War Manual is a
cornerstone of U.S. military legal doctrine, reinforcing obligations
under international law. Can you commit to upholding its principles,
even when they may conflict with political or strategic pressures?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
5. Senator Hirono. Mr. Matthews, how will you ensure that the U.S.
military continues to adhere to international legal norms, including
the Geneva Conventions, particularly in an era of evolving threats and
unconventional warfare?
Mr. Matthews. Commanders and, in particular, the President as the
Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense, as the head of the
Department of Defense, are responsible for ensuring that the U.S.
military complies with international law, including the 1949 Geneva
Conventions. If confirmed, I will work with other lawyers in DOD and in
the U.S. Government to support the Secretary in that responsibility by
advising him and other senior officials and, as DOD's Chief Legal
Officer, by leading and encouraging DOD lawyers to provide timely and
sound legal advice to decisionmakers at all levels. For example, if
confirmed, I will perform the responsibilities of the General Counsel
outlined in DOD Directive 2311.01, DOD Law of War Program, including
exercising primary staff responsibility for the DOD Law of War Program
and reviewing appropriate plans and policies for consistency with the
law of war.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
ethics
6. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not seeking any employment with or compensation from a
defense contractor, including through serving on a board, as a
consultant, or as a lobbyist, for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Matthews. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law. These provisions set
forth comprehensive restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation
from defense contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal
Government on behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe
that these existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the
public interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of
my office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
7. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not engaging in any lobbying activities, including
unregistered ``shadow'' or ``behind-the-scenes'' lobbying under the
guise of consulting or advising on DOD-related matters, focused on DOD
or any of its components for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Matthews. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law. These provisions set
forth comprehensive restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation
from defense contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal
Government on behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe
that these existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the
public interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of
my office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
8. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, during your nomination process,
did anyone on the Trump campaign, transition team, or other closely
related entity approach you about your loyalty to President Trump?
Mr. Matthews. No.
9. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you sign a loyalty pledge or other
similar oath? If so, please provide a copy of the text of that pledge
or oath.
Mr. Matthews. N/A
10. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you make any verbal representations of
loyalty? If so, please describe this representation.
Mr. Matthews. N/A
11. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, in November 2024, the New York
Times and other news outlets reported that Boris Epshteyn, a top
adviser to President Trump, allegedly requested payment from
prospective political appointees to promote their candidacies for top
positions within the administration. Did you discuss the possibility of
joining the Administration with Mr. Epshteyn at any time?
Mr. Matthews. I have never met Mr. Epshteyn.
12. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you did discuss the
possibility of joining the Administration with Mr. Epshteyn, did Mr.
Epshteyn seek payment from you for promoting your candidacy for a
position within the Administration?
Mr. Matthews. N/A
13. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, at any time, did lawyers for
President Trump or members of President Trump's team approach you
regarding Mr. Epshteyn and the allegations cited above? If so, please
explain the information that they provided you (including copies of
documents), what was discussed during any calls, and any other
information pertaining to this interaction.
Mr. Matthews. No.
14. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, were you in contact with Mr. Elon
Musk at any time during your nomination process? If so, please describe
the nature of those points of contact.
Mr. Matthews. No.
15. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, present or involved in any
interviews you did related to your nomination? If so, please describe
the nature of his involvement.
Mr. Matthews. No.
16. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, was Mr. Musk involved in any way
with your nomination, including but not limited to directly or
indirectly contacting Senators regarding their position on your
nomination?
Mr. Matthews. No.
17. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, who was in the room or
participated in any of your interviews regarding your nomination?
Mr. Matthews. I met with members of the President's team during my
selection process, but it was the President who made the decision to
nominate me for this position.
18. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, how should DOD prevent and
mitigate conflicts of interest if a special government employee or
other government advisor is also the recipient of DOD contracts and
could stand to financially benefit from the advice they provide to DOD?
Mr. Matthews. I understand that there is a robust framework of
Federal ethics laws and regulations applicable to special government
employees (SGEs). These provisions address requirements for
identification and prevention of conflicts of interest, to include
compliance with applicable ethics training and financial disclosure
requirements. DOD SGEs receive training and guidance from Department
ethics attorneys, usually as part of their appointment process.
19. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you own any defense contractor
stock, will you divest it to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of
interest?
Mr. Matthews. I will comply with applicable law and policy with
respect to divestiture.
20. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what do you consider the role of
the press in a democracy?
Mr. Matthews. I consider the press to play an important role in a
democracy, helping to ensure an informed electorate. This role is
rightly reflected in the freedom of the press enshrined in the First
Amendment, and its precise bounds are subject to interpretation by the
courts.
21. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you think it would be an
appropriate use of taxpayer resources to ``dig up dirt'' on journalists
who investigate or criticize you, your office, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Matthews. I do not believe it appropriate to use taxpayer
resources to ``dig up dirt'' on anyone.
22. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit not to retaliate,
including by denying access to government officials or facilities,
against news outlets or individual journalists who publish articles
that are critical of you, your office, your agency, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
23. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you requested, or has anyone
requested on your behalf, that any other person or third party sign a
nondisclosure, confidentiality, non-disparagement, or similar agreement
regarding your conduct in a personal or professional capacity?
Mr. Matthews. No.
24. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you voluntarily release any
individual from any such agreements before this committee votes on your
nomination?
Mr. Matthews. Not applicable.
25. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you ever paid or promised to
pay, or has anyone paid or promised to pay on your behalf, an
individual as part of any non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-
disparagement, or similar agreement?
Mr. Matthews. No.
26. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if the answer to the previous
question was yes, how much was promised, how much was paid, and what
were the circumstances?
Mr. Matthews. N/A
27. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to recuse
yourself from all particular matters involving your former clients and
employers for at least 4 years after you leave DOD?
Mr. Matthews. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law. These provisions set
forth comprehensive restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation
from defense contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal
Government on behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe
that these existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the
public interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of
my office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
28. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to not seeking
employment, board membership with, or another form of compensation from
a company that you regulated or otherwise interacted with while in
government, for at least 4 years after leaving office?
Mr. Matthews. I will abide by the extensive post-government
employment ethics rules required by Federal law. These provisions set
forth comprehensive restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation
from defense contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal
Government on behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe
that these existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the
public interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of
my office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
29. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of the
Hatch Act?
Mr. Matthews. The Hatch Act, a Federal law passed in 1939, limits
certain political activity of Federal employees while they are on duty,
in the Federal workplace, or acting in their official capacity.
Political activity is activity directed toward the success or failure
of a partisan candidate, political party, or partisan political group.
30. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what disciplinary actions are
appropriate for violations of the Hatch Act?
Mr. Matthews. I understand that the Office of Special Counsel has
jurisdiction to enforce the Hatch Act before the Merit Systems
Protection Board, and that the full range of disciplinary actions--from
a reprimand to removal--are available options. I believe that the
appropriate disciplinary action depends on the nature of the violation.
31. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, would it ever be appropriate to
threaten or imply that you would withhold future contracts from a
company if they filed a complaint, bid protest, or cooperated with an
Inspector General, civil, or criminal investigation?
Mr. Matthews. No.
congressional oversight and transparency
32. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of the
role of the Department of Defense Inspector General and service
Inspectors General?
Mr. Matthews. The role and responsibilities of the DOD Inspector
General and the Service Inspectors General are established by the
Inspectors General Act of 1978 as amended, and DOD Directive 5106.01.
The Department of Defense Inspector General conducts independent audits
and investigations relating to DOD's programs and operations to promote
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and to prevent and detect fraud
and abuse. It is my understanding that the Service Inspectors General
perform similar functions, assessing for the Secretaries of the
Military Departments matters such as economy, efficiency, and
readiness.
33. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you ensure your staff
complies with any Inspector General deadlines established for requested
communications, providing witnesses, providing documents, and that
those witnesses will be protected from reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed my touchstone will be adherence to the
law. I will instruct, my staff to meet legal requirements including
deadlines, and will hold myself and my staff accountable for those
requirements including deadlines.
34. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are not able to comply
with any Inspector General requests and deadlines, will you notify the
Republican and Democratic Members of this Committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will work with the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) to comply with requests in a timely manner. I
will defer to OIG to keep Congress updated regarding its ongoing
reviews.
35. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to refusing to follow illegal orders from any individual,
including the President?
Mr. Matthews. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will follow the
Constitution and the law of the United States.
36. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what actions would you take if
you were given an illegal order from any individual, including the
President?
Mr. Matthews. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will follow the
Constitution and the law of the United States.
37. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition if you are called upon by Congress to provide a
deposition voluntarily?
Mr. Matthews. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
38. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition to Congress if you are issued a subpoena to
testify?
Mr. Matthews. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
39. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to providing
information or documents to Congress voluntarily if you are requested
to do so?
Mr. Matthews. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
40. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you provide information or
documents to Congress if you are issued a subpoena?
Mr. Matthews. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
41. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to following
current precedent for responding to information requests, briefings,
and other inquiries from Congress, including the Senate and House Armed
Services Committees and their minority members?
Mr. Matthews. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
42. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, will you commit to
posting your official calendar monthly?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I commit to complying with Freedom of
Information Act, which covers all agency records to include my official
calendar.
43. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you think DOD has an
overclassification problem? If so, please provide this committee with
an estimate of the number or percentage of documents that will be under
your purview that are overclassified or other examples to illustrate
this problem.
Mr. Matthews. I understand the Department has been evaluating
concerns related to the overclassification of information in
conjunction with other relevant stakeholders, including the
congressional defense and intelligence committees. If confirmed, I am
committed to assessing the information under the Original
Classification Authority of the DOD General Counsel to ensure it is
appropriately classified.
44. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, to the best of your knowledge, is
your office or agency identifying records for proactive posting in
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act? If not, please describe
how you would ensure that they do so to comply with public records law.
Mr. Matthews. To the best of my knowledge, DOD is committed to
transparency consistent with the law and endeavors to comply with the
requirement to proactively release records when appropriate under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
45. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, do you think your
department should pursue strategic technology to support automated
declassification?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I would support the assessment and
appropriate use of strategic technology in a manner consistent with the
law to enable automated declassification.
project 2025
46. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you discussed Project 2025
with any officials associated with the Trump campaign, the Trump
transition team, or other members of the Trump administration? If so,
please explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom
you discussed it.
Mr. Matthews. During the transition period and since the beginning
of the Administration, I have followed standard protocol in
conversations about my qualifications for this role.
47. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you discussed Project 2025
with any officials associated with the Heritage Foundation? If so,
please explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom
you discussed it.
Mr. Matthews. I have not discussed Project 2025 with any Heritage
Foundation officials recently.
foreign influence
48. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you received any payment
from a foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government
within the past 5 years?
Mr. Matthews. No.
49. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you communicated with any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years?
Mr. Matthews. I have provided relevant information in connection
with my security clearance background investigation.
50. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, please disclose any
communications or payments you have had with representatives of any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years and describe the nature of the communication.
Mr. Matthews. N/A.
retaliation and protecting whistleblowers
51. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you believe that
servicemembers, civilians, grantees, and contractors should be
protected from any form of retaliation for coming forward about an
illegal order, sexual assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or
any other concern that they wish to raise?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. I believe persons who report allegations of
wrongdoing should be protected from retaliation.
52. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, have you ever retaliated against
any individual for coming forward about an illegal order, sexual
assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or any other concern
that they wish to raise?
Mr. Matthews. No.
53. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to protecting whistleblowers? If so, please specify how you will
do so.
Mr. Matthews. Yes. If confirmed, I will commit to protecting
whistleblowers. I will ensure that the Department of Defense provides
all the protections to which whistleblowers are entitled under law and
policy.
impoundment control act
54. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, on January 27, 2025, President
Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo calling for
the suspension of all Federal financial assistance programs (excluding
``assistance provided directly to individuals''). Do you agree with
OMB's decision to issue this memo?
Mr. Matthews. I support the President's efforts to streamline the
Federal Government and ensure that it is carrying out Federal programs
in an efficient and economical manner. This is vital given the fiscal
constraints our country is facing that the President has pointed out,
and thus to making our national security policies and organizations
sustainably effective. That said, I am not aware of the how this
memorandum has been interpreted and applied among the relevant
executive branch agencies, including DOD. Therefore, I am not in a
position to provide an informed assessment of the matter. If confirmed,
however, I would look forward to learning more and helping to
facilitate solutions that reflect the President's and the Secretary of
Defense's priorities and are consistent with the law.
55. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you believe the Secretary of
Defense has the legal authority to block the disbursement of funds
appropriated by Congress?
Mr. Matthews. I fully acknowledge and respect Congress'
constitutional role in appropriating funds to be carried out by the
executive branch for designated purposes. I commit, if confirmed, to
executing my responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the
law. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and the input from experts within my office.
56. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Matthews. My understanding is that Congress passed the
Impoundment Control Act in 1974. This Act provides a framework for
handling circumstances in which the President seeks to defer or cancel
execution of appropriated funds. I commit, if confirmed, to executing
my responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on
this matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice
to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
Administration's legal positions and the input from experts within my
office.
57. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you commit to following the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law. I would
ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this
matter are informed by the Administration's legal positions and the
input from experts within my office.
58. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you commit to notifying the
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, including the majority and
minority, if you are asked not to follow the Impoundment Control Act or
not to expend the money that Congress appropriates or authorizes?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law. I would
ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this
matter are informed by the Administration's legal positions and the
input from experts within my office.
59. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, the Constitution's Spending
Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) and Appropriations Clause (Art. I,
Sec. 9, cl. 7) give Congress, not the Executive, power of the purse.
The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this power. Do you believe
that impoundments are constitutional?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law. I would
ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this
matter are informed by the Administration's legal positions and the
input from experts within my office.
60. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, the funding levels in
appropriations bills passed into law are not targets or ceilings;
instead, they are amounts the executive branch must spend, unless
stated otherwise. Congress could-if it wanted the President to have
discretion-write those amounts as ceilings. Do you agree?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law, to
include appropriations legislation. I would ensure that my actions and
advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
Administration's legal positions and advice from the Department's
General Counsel's office.
61. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of the
requirements for DOD to obligate funding that Congress authorizes and
appropriates, in accordance with the time period that Congress deems it
to do so?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to
the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
Administration's legal positions and the input from the experts in my
office.
62. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you commit to expending the
money that Congress appropriates and authorizes?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to
the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
Administration's legal positions and the input from experts within my
office.
63. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you commit to following and
implementing every provision of the annual National Defense
Authorization Act passed into law?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to execute my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law,
including the National Defense Authorization Acts.
64. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you became aware of a
potential violation of the Antideficiency Act, Impoundment Control Act,
or other appropriations laws, what steps would you take?
Mr. Matthews. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my
responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter as on all others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to
the Secretary of Defense on this matter are informed by the
Administration's legal positions and the input from experts within my
office.
right-to-repair
65. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to ensuring services and components have guidance and necessary
support to include right-to-repair/technical data rights clauses in
acquisition contracts that DOD enters into?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. Generally speaking, having access to the
technical data necessary and the required level of accompanying data
rights to support fielded systems further readiness. However, the
Department acquires these things under contract with a value attached,
and it would need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the
expense is merited. Ultimately, it is a business decision whether the
benefits outweigh the costs in a particular acquisition.
66. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to ensuring contractors deliver technical data rights to DOD
when their contract requires it, when DOD pays for it, or when a
contract allows it?
Mr. Matthews. I believe this is a simple matter of contract
enforcement, rooted in insistence on compliance with the terms of our
written agreements.
67. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if a contractor refuses to
provide technical data rights, how will you work to gain those rights?
Mr. Matthews. A lawyer's role here is no different than it would be
in other business disputes: providing well-grounded advice and
effective advocacy, especially after the point where matters have
devolved to litigation.
68. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if a company refuses to provide
DOD technical data rights that DOD believes it is entitled to receive,
how would you recommend DOD approach future contract negotiations with
that company?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will assess how the Department has
handled these situations and the impact of when a company has not
provided technical data. I understand that the legal scheme associated
with technical data rights allows for specially negotiated licenses,
which provide for more nuanced, case-specific licensing than the
default licensing set out in the regulations. A narrower licensing
requirement, agreed upon at the time of contract award, should result
in better contract compliance.
69. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of how
DOD can use suspension and debarment to advance DOD acquisition and
policy priorities?
Mr. Matthews. The suspension and debarment programs of the
Department, and across the Executive generally, ensure the Government
contracts only with presently responsible contractors. This is an
important measure to ensure that the Department can proceed with
confidence as it relies on industry to provide the goods and services
needed to meet mission.
70. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you support cost-saving legal
programs such as the Navy's Taxpayer Advocacy Project?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I would support programs aimed at
saving or avoiding costs and entering better business arrangements.
71. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you commit to convening a
program similar to the Navy's Taxpayer Advocacy Project to identify
legal tools to protect DOD interests in acquisition and sustainment
across DOD?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will consider the benefits of
establishing such program in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It
may be that such programs would have greater effect when they are more
closely aligned with contracting activities, as now, with the Navy.
Even if so, if confirmed, I would see that OGC would provide such
programs all the support and assistance that could come from OSD.
72. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, will you commit to conducting an
assessment of how legal tools can be used to protect DOD interest in
acquisition and sustainment, the results of which you would make public
for review by Congress, the public, and the Department of Government
Efficiency?
Mr. Matthews. I understand that this sort of review already takes
place on a day-by-day, issue-by-issue basis as the acquisition lawyers
in OGC provide their advice to clients. To the extent this part of the
ordinary business of OGC, the provision of the results could implicate
concerns about attorney-client privilege and other strictures on the
release of information. As such, I do not think it is appropriate to
commit to the release of these reviews.
acquisition reform
73. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of the
Procurement Integrity Act and your obligations under that law?
Mr. Matthews. The Procurement Integrity Act prevents unethical and
improper practices from influencing Federal procurements by prohibiting
the disclosure or obtaining source selection information before a
contract award. This element of the Act serves a critical role in
ensuring that competitive procurements are run fairly. An additional
element restricts acceptance of post-government employment compensation
from contractors by certain former officials. This element serves an
important role in ensuring conflicts of interest do not taint
procurement. I consider the Act to be a fundamental part of the bedrock
shoring up good business in acquisition.
74. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you believe that it is
important to be able to assess accurate cost and pricing data from
contractors, especially for sole-or single-source contracts?
Mr. Matthews. Without doubt, the ability of the Department's price
negotiators to have access to the cost and pricing data needed to place
them on equal footing with contractors is essential to allowing the
price negotiators to arrive at a fair and reasonable price with
conducting sole-source negotiations.
75. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, how do you plan to obtain cost
and pricing data from contractors to determine that the cost of Federal
contracts is fair and reasonable?
Mr. Matthews. Already statute and regulation set out requirements
for the provision of this data as a condition of a sole-source contract
award. As I understand the State of play, issues arise not so much
because of an outright refusal by contractors to provide cost and
pricing data; rather, disputes arise over the application of exceptions
for commercial items to the fundamental requirement.
76. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, how do you plan to do so in cases
where contractors refuse or claim they are unable to turn over this
data?
Mr. Matthews. This is a matter of regulatory compliance. It is the
job of a lawyer in this context to consistently and vigorously advise
on what the law requires.
77. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, what steps
will you take to ensure that contractors are not price gouging or
overcharging the Federal Government?
Mr. Matthews. The determination of whether a contract price is fair
and reasonable is a business decision and a determination committed to
the discretion of the contracting officer negotiating the deal. While
this is not a legal determination, DOD lawyers will assist the
contracting officer by advising on what the applicable law requires and
advocating for submission when there is a dispute.
78. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to seeking refunds, including voluntary refunds, from
contractors and companies that overcharge the Federal Government?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, if confirmed I will commit to work with clients
to seek refunds when appropriate.
79. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if so, how do you plan to do so?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will assess on a cases-by-case basis
to advise on the most appropriate approach.
80. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, would it be appropriate for DOD
to establish program schedules to achieve partisan electoral outcomes?
The requirements of acquisition programs, including delivery
schedules, should be informed by the warfighters' requirements.
81. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, should DOD acquisition decisions
be influenced by partisan political activities?
Mr. Matthews. Decisions made about proceeding under any acquisition
program should be informed by the warfighters' requirements.
82. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, should DOD acquisition decisions
be influenced by individuals with conflicts of interest that involve
DOD?
Mr. Matthews. I understand the serious responsibility to prevent
conflicts of interest and preserve the integrity of the acquisition
process. I know that there are statutes and regulations to ensure that
this does not occur. I am committed to ensuring that the Department
avoids conflicts of interest and maintains the highest standards of
ethical conduct.
research and development
83. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what should your agency's
criteria for canceling grants be?
Mr. Matthews. The decision to cancel any grant is, at root, a
decision not made by the General Counsel's office. I envision that my
role in the context of business decisionmakers making such a policy
call will be advising whether the considerations underlying any such
decision, and the end-State decision itself, are legally proper and
available.
84. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, who should be involved in
decisions to cancel grants?
Mr. Matthews. Any decision to terminate a contract or cancel a
grant is a business decision. As a lawyer, my job is to advise on the
legal availability and risks associated with making that decision, not
to make the decision itself.
protecting classified information and federal records
85. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of the
need to protect operational security, or OPSEC?
Mr. Matthews. Maintaining OPSEC is critical to national security.
86. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what are the national security
risks of improperly disclosing classified information?
Mr. Matthews. The unauthorized disclosure of classified information
could reasonably be expected to cause some degree of damage to the
national security.
87. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, is it your opinion that
information about imminent military targets is generally sensitive
information that needs to be protected?
Mr. Matthews. It is my opinion that such information would
generally be sensitive and must be protected consistent with the
direction of the Original Classification Authority (OCA) and his or her
supervisory official who is also an OCA.
88. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what would you do if you learned
an official had improperly disclosed classified information?
Mr. Matthews. I would take action in accordance with law and
policy, including DOD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, DOD Information
Security Program: Protection of Classified Information.
89. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of
Government officials' duties under the Federal Records Act?
Mr. Matthews. My understanding of my duties under the Federal
Records Act is that, as a public servant, I have a duty to manage the
work-related records and information I create and receive in accordance
with the law and applicable policy. I understand that Federal records
should be accurate, complete, and readily accessible. If confirmed, I
am committed to complying with the Federal Records Act.
90. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, should classified information be
shared on unclassified commercial systems?
Mr. Matthews. No.
91. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, under what circumstances should
improperly sharing classified information on unclassified commercial
systems be considered grounds for dismissal?
Mr. Matthews. Consistent with DOD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, DOD
Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information, the
prompt reporting of any potential security incidents to the relevant
security manager is necessary to ensure that such incidents are
properly investigated and the necessary actions are taken to negate or
minimize the adverse effects of any actual loss or unauthorized
disclosure of classified information.
92. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, under what circumstances should
improperly sharing classified information on unclassified commercial
systems be considered grounds for referral for an administrative or
criminal investigation?
Mr. Matthews. Consistent with DOD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, DOD
Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information, the
prompt reporting of any potential security incidents to the relevant
security manager is necessary to ensure that such incidents are
properly investigated and the necessary actions are taken to negate or
minimize the adverse effects of any actual loss or unauthorized
disclosure of classified information.
93. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, is it damaging to national
security if the pilots flying a mission find out that the official who
ordered them to perform that mission shared sensitive information that
could have made it more likely that the mission would fail, or they
would be killed?
Mr. Matthews. It is my opinion that such information must be
protected consistent with the direction of the Original Classification
Authority (OCA) and his or her supervisory official who is also an OCA.
94. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if you had information about the
status of specific targets, weapons being used, and timing for imminent
U.S. strikes against an adversary, under what circumstances would you
feel comfortable receiving or sharing that information on an
unclassified commercial application like Signal?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I would ensure any information is
appropriately transmitted pursuant to its classification using the
proper secure communication platforms.
personnel security
95. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of
DOD's duties and obligations under the Privacy Act?
Mr. Matthews. I understand that DOD's general duties and
obligations under the Privacy Act are to assure that personal
information is maintained in a manner that precludes unwarranted
invasions of privacy. Among other things, I understand the Privacy Act
includes provisions to prevent unauthorized disclosure of such
information, to allow for appropriate access and amendment by the
subject of the information, and to provide appropriate transparency as
to the type of information that is maintained and the uses to which it
is put.
96. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, would it ever be appropriate for
DOD to provide personal information about members of the military, DOD
civilians, or DOD contractors to an opposition research firm and under
what circumstances?
Mr. Matthews. No.
base realignment and closure
97. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687
provides specific thresholds and reporting requirements for closing or
realigning military installations outside of a formal BRAC process. If
confirmed, how would you advise the Department in determining whether a
proposed action falls within the scope of section 2687?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will advise the Department on the
civilian personnel thresholds under section 2687 and whether
congressional notification is required as part of the budget request
for authorization of appropriations in accordance with section 2687.
98. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, beyond the formal BRAC process,
what legal factors and risks would you consider when advising the
Department on using existing statutory authorities--such as Sec. Sec.
2687 and 993--to close or realign installations?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will advise the Department on the
statutory criteria and requirements to close or realign installations,
to include compliance with relevant fiscal, environmental and real
property disposal authorities needed to implement any significant
basing decision, closure or realignment outside of BRAC.
99. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, how would you
ensure the Department remains in full compliance with statutory
notification and reporting requirements associated with installation
closures, force structure changes, or significant personnel movements?
Please specify how you would ensure timely congressional notification
under Sec. Sec. 2687 and 993.
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will ensure that my office provides
advice on the statutory procedures related to basing decisions,
closures or realignments, including the timing and contents of
congressional notification and reporting under applicable laws such as
Sec. Sec. 2687 and 993. This would include whether congressional
notification is required as part of the budget request in accordance
with section 2687, and notifications under section 993 when there are
reductions of more than 1,000 military members from an installation.
100. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what legal safeguards would you
recommend to prevent the circumvention of BRAC through incremental
actions that might technically avoid statutory thresholds but
cumulatively have the effect of a closure or realignment?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will work within the Department to
ensure legal review of all proposed closures or realignments to
determine whether a proposed action will exceed the civilian personnel
thresholds under base closure law, and whether prior actions were taken
within 5 years to reduce the number of civilian personnel below these
thresholds.
101. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, in your role as General Counsel,
how would you approach advising the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy, Installations, and Environment on legal
considerations related to pursuing a new round of BRAC?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I am committed to assisting the
Secretary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy,
Installations and Environment (ASD-EIE) to address the broad range of
legal considerations related to any new BRAC authority. If confirmed, I
will advise the Department on BRAC procedures, including force
structure and infrastructure analysis requirements, fiscal rules,
Department recommendations for closure and realignment, and
consideration of legal requirements for property disposal including
environmental liabilities, property sales and local redevelopment.
privatized military housing
102. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, privatized military housing
companies have relied on the Federal enclave doctrine to deny military
members of their tenants' rights. How will you ensure servicemembers'
have access to safe housing?
Mr. Matthews. Servicemembers who are tenants in privatized military
housing deserve safe, quality housing for themselves and their
families. If confirmed, I will support the Department's efforts to
pursue all available mechanisms for holding privatized military housing
companies to the commitments they made in our legal agreements. I will
also continue to assist the Department to prioritize the implementation
of the Tenants' Bill of Rights and Universal Lease Agreement across all
installations with privatized housing.
war powers
103. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of
the War Powers Resolution and DOD's consultation obligations?
Mr. Matthews. I understand the War Powers Resolution prescribes
that the President ``in every possible instance shall consult with
Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into
hostilities.'' If confirmed, I will advise the Secretary of Defense to
recommend to the President consultation consistent with the War Powers
Resolution in appropriate situations.
Consistent with the constitutional division of roles, the President
may direct certain military action pursuant to Article II of the
Constitution when that action serves an important national interest and
the reasonably anticipated nature, scope, and duration of the operation
and any possible responses would not rise to the level of ``war'' under
the Constitution. I understand this has been the longstanding view of
both Democratic and Republican administrations across several decades,
as reflected in a series of opinions by the Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel.
104. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, how would you assess DOD's
compliance with the War Powers Resolution?
Mr. Matthews. I am confident Department officials understand and
appreciate Congress's important role in declaring war and in funding
the Department's national security operations. If confirmed, I would
provide advice consistent with the War Powers Resolution.
105. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, does the President currently
have legal authority to initiate military action against Iran or would
that require explicit congressional authorization?
Mr. Matthews. There is no explicit congressional authorization for
military action against Iran. Consistent with the constitutional
division of roles between the President and the Congress, even in the
absence of congressional authorization, the President may direct
military action that serves an important national interest and does not
rise to ``war'' under the Constitution, based on the anticipated
nature, scope, and duration of the operation. Further, the War Powers
Resolution prescribes that the President ``in every possible instance
shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed
Forces into hostilities.'' If confirmed, I would apply this framework
of analysis in advising on any contemplated initiation of military
action.
domestic deployment
106. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, will you make sure
the public knows as much as practicable why and under what authorities
the Guard is being deployed domestically?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Office of
General Counsel will support legislative affairs and public affairs
offices in responding to inquiries regarding the authorities that the
National Guard are deployed domestically in a federally funded or
controlled capacity. I also note that the authority used to order
National Guardsman to full-time duty is typically included on their
published orders and should be quite clear to the member. Additionally,
the member is generally free to provide those orders to their
employers, landlords or others, as the member consents. Finally, in
case it's helpful, DOD Instruction 1215.06 provides an overview of the
various authorities that can be used to order the National Guard and
other Reserve components to full-time operational duty, both
domestically and abroad.
107. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, if confirmed, will you make sure
the public knows as much as practicable when there are significant
changes in why and under what authorities the Guard is being deployed
domestically?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, as above, if confirmed, I will commit that my
office will work with other DOD officials to provide appropriate
explanations and clarifications to legislative affairs and public
affairs offices so that DOD can respond as practicably as possible to
inquiries on the Federal authorities used for National Guard domestic
operations.
108. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, do you support the Department of
Homeland Security submitting requests for assistance at the southwest
border from the Department of Defense and the National Guard at least
180 days in advance?
Mr. Matthews. Yes, to the extent that such advance notice is
practical. We fully understand our partners at DHS may have emergent,
short-notice requirements for DOD support.
109. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what benefits could advance
notice from the Department of Homeland Security provide for readiness
and national security?
Mr. Matthews. The more advance notice provided for a request for
assistance, the more DOD can plan for appropriate support and assess
what effect such support would have on readiness. Advance notice also
facilitates a smoother transition to full-time duty for any Reserve
component personnel who may be needed and called upon to support the
mission.
110. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, Department of Defense Directive
3025.18 ``Defense Support of Civil Authorities'' and Department of
Defense Instruction 3025.21 ``Defense Support of Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies,'' and Joint Publication 3-28 ``Defense Support to
Civil Authorities'' provide doctrine for planning, conducting, and
assess defense support of civil authorities. If confirmed, will you
evaluate whether those policy documents provide sufficient clarity,
including on emergency authorities, and provide your assessment to this
committee?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. I have personal familiarity these issuances and
extensive experience supporting DSCA missions. From this knowledge and
experience, I believe they generally provide sufficient clarity, but I
am willing to re-evaluate them and provide the committee with a fresh
assessment. The Office of the General Counsel will continue to work
closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as they evaluate and update these guidance
documents for the Department.
111. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, Department of Defense Directive
3025.18 ``Defense Support of Civil Authorities'' and Department of
Defense Instruction 3025.21 ``Defense Support of Civilian Law
Enforcement Agencies,'' and Joint Publication 3-28 ``Defense Support to
Civil Authorities'' provide doctrine for planning, conducting, and
assess defense support of civil authorities. If confirmed, will you
evaluate whether those policy documents provide adequate procedures to
inform the public about the authorities, mission, and duration for
domestic deployments and provide your assessment to this committee?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. If confirmed, I am willing to evaluate these
documents and provide an assessment. The Office of the General Counsel
will continue to work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as they evaluate
and update these guidance documents for the Department.
112. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, what is your understanding of
the training provided to the National Guard for Federal standing rules
for the use of force on domestic military deployments?
Mr. Matthews. It is my understanding that the training National
Guard (NG) members receive on the DOD/Federal standing rules for the
use of force (SRUF) for domestic operations would be the same (or based
on the same) training that Federal military forces, including other
Reserve component personnel, would receive in preparation for a Federal
mission. Generally, DOD SRUF would only apply to NG personnel on Active
Duty orders (i.e., performing Federal missions in a title 10, U.S.
Code, duty status). By contrast, for NG personnel in a State duty
status and performing State militia missions (or in a title 32, U.S.
Code, duty status), training on the use of force would vary and depend
on the State rules for the individual State NG or the RUF that is
agreed upon by States when operating in a different State (e.g., an
Emergency Management Assistance Compact action during domestic
response). A notable exception regarding the officials who determine
RUF is the DC National Guard, which falls under a separate chain of
command under the President through the Secretary of Defense when DC NG
personnel are operating in a militia (i.e., performing duty under title
32, U.S. Code) rather than Federal service capacity.
113. Senator Warren. Mr. Matthews, is there any distinction in the
standing rules of force for the National Guard during domestic military
deployments when in ``title 10'' status versus when operating under
State or ``title 32'' status?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. In a title 10, U.S. Code, duty status, National
Guard (NG) personnel fall under the command and control (C2) of the
President, Secretary of Defense, and the Active component chain of
command. The rules for the use of force (RUF) for a title 10 mission
would be based on the standing Federal RUF in accordance with DOD
Directive 5210.56, ``Arming and the Use of Force,'' and CJCS
Instruction 3121.01B, ``Standing Rules of Engagement/Standing Rules for
the Use of Force for U.S. Forces.'' In a State Active Duty status or a
title 32, U.S. Code, duty status, NG personnel fall under the C2 of
their Governor and have a State chain of command. In these ``non-
Federalized'' statuses, the RUF would be based on State law and policy.
A notable exception regarding the officials who determine RUF is the DC
National Guard, which falls under a separate chain of command under the
President through the Secretary of Defense when DC NG personnel are
operating in a militia (i.e., performing duty under title 32, U.S.
Code) rather than Federal service capacity.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Duckworth
legal independence of judge advocate general community
114. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, what is your perspective on
the recent dismissals of senior Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers,
and what do you believe is the impact on legal independence and
accountability within the military justice system?
Mr. Matthews. I was not privy to the reasons the Secretary
requested nominations for the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates
General. I believe that the President acted within his authority in
this action. The Judge Advocates General provide independent legal
advice to the leadership of their respective Military Departments.
Under the law, an officer or employee of DOD cannot interfere with that
advice. If confirmed, I will comply with the law and I will work with
them to promote the interests of justice as well as the lethality and
readiness of our forces. I am confident that our Judge Advocates, both
at headquarters and in the field, will continue to provide their best
legal advice in support of the military justice system, and if
confirmed I will ensure their voices are heard.
115. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, do you believe current
whistleblower protections in the Department are sufficient?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department
provides all the protections to which whistleblowers are entitled under
law and policy.
disclosure of classified information
116. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, what is the normal process
after the Department becomes aware of indications that classified or
sensitive defense or intelligence information has been found in the
public sphere?
Mr. Matthews. Consistent with DOD Manual 5200.01, Volume 3, DOD
Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information, the
prompt reporting of any potential security incidents to the relevant
security manager is necessary to ensure that such incidents are
properly investigated and the necessary actions are taken to negate or
minimize the adverse effects of any actual loss or unauthorized
disclosure of classified information.
117. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, would you hold senior
officials who violate protections of sensitive information to the same
standard as junior soldiers and civilians?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
accountability
118. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, do you commit that your
decisions will be communicated through official, secure channels and
properly documented for both oversight and institutional memory?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will comply with the applicable laws
and policies concerning official communications and retention of
government records.
119. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, would you follow an illegal,
unlawful, or immoral order?
Mr. Matthews. I will not follow an illegal or unlawful order.
law of armed conflict
120. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, during your testimony you
criticized the restrictiveness of rules of engagement and asserted that
they make commanders more risk averse--describe your understanding of
the Law of Armed Conflict and the role of Rules of Engagement?
Mr. Matthews. During my testimony, I observed that during the past
couple of decades of counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism
operations, rules of engagement (ROE) have sometimes been employed that
are more restrictive than what is permissible under the law of war.
ROE reflect legal, policy, and operational considerations. ROE may
restrict actions that would be lawful under the law of war, but may not
permit actions prohibited by the law of war. ROE can be used as part of
the implementation of U.S. law of war obligations during military
operations by, for example, directing compliance with specific law of
war rules or providing procedures that facilitate compliance, such as
procedures for making judgments about the proportionality of a planned
attack.
During my testimony, I also observed that the culture in which
commanders have been operating can be risk averse. Although legal
advisers support the commander in issuing ROE, including by advising on
the consistency of the ROE with the law of war, the commander decides
what ROE to issue, which reflect his or her military and policy
judgments about how to weigh various risks (for example, risk to
mission accomplishment, risks to the force, risks of civilian
casualties).
121. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Matthews, do you think explicit rules
of engagement protect our servicemembers from moral injury?
Mr. Matthews. U.S. servicemembers should understand that their
actions under rules of engagement are lawful and ethical. They should
understand that such actions are in the service of our country and
justified under the law of war.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kelly
chief legal officer
122. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, the United States is a party to a
large number of treaties and other international agreements governing
military operations, arms control, aerospace and maritime activities,
and a host of other matters. What is your view of the role of this body
of international law on the conduct of DOD?
Mr. Matthews. Treaties to which the United States is a party are
part of U.S. law under the Constitution. International law governing
DOD activities articulates rights, duties, and liabilities of DOD in
relation to other countries. Treaties governing military operations,
such as the Charter of the United Nations or the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, often codify core principles like self-defense and humane
treatment of detainees that are part of the Department's core values.
These and other treaties, such as Status of Forces Agreements, can also
provide important protections for DOD personnel abroad or otherwise
facilitate the Department's activities in defense of the Nation and
advance important U.S. national interests.
123. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, as chief legal officer, you also
serve as DOD's Chief International Agreements Officer. In that role,
will you provide oversight of DOD's compliance with U.S. law regarding
international agreements?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. In the NDAA for fiscal year 2023, Congress
established a requirement that all Federal departments and agencies
appoint a Chief International Agreements Officer, to help ensure
compliance with statutory obligations under the Case Act. In 2024, the
Department of Defense designated the General Counsel of the Department
of Defense as the Chief International Agreements Officer. If confirmed
as General Counsel, I would work closely with the State Department to
ensure that all DOD components comply with their obligation to transmit
binding international agreements, for transparency and oversight by
Congress.
124. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, will you provide legal advice
encouraging DOD's compliance with international and domestic law?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
125. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, as the General Counsel you will
be responsible for overseeing DOD's lawyers, to include adherence to
professional responsibility standards, how do you intend to ensure that
all DOD attorneys provide sound legal advice that is free from
political influence?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I would be responsible for establishing
professional responsibility standards for the civilian attorneys under
my supervision and for overseeing adherence to these standards, in
accordance with DOD Directive 5145.01 and DOD Instruction 1442.02. If
confirmed, I will implement these rules to ensure legal services are
provided with the highest degree of professionalism. I expect all
attorneys in the Department to continue to provide principled counsel
to their organizational clients, consistent with these authorities and
the requirements of an individual attorney's licensing jurisdiction.
126. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, it would also be your role to
provide sound legal advice to the Secretary of Defense on military
justice matters. How will you ensure the Department and its leaders
follow the laws of the United States?
Mr. Matthews. If confirmed, I will provide my best legal advice to
the Secretary on military justice matters. I will also support and seek
to empower our judge advocate colleagues who regularly advise on such
matters so that they can provide their best legal advice in support of
decisionmakers.
127. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, oversight over the Department's
actions is critical for ensuring that its leaders do in fact follow the
law. Will you agree to protect the independence of the Department of
Defense Inspector General and their office?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
relationship with the military service judge advocates general and
special trial counsel
128. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, as chief legal officer, you are
responsible for providing advice to the Secretary of Defense on all
military justice matters requiring his attention. However, the members
of the Service JAG Corps are responsible for advising commanders in
their exercise of prosecutorial discretion over military members
assigned to their commands.
Mr. Matthews. Special Trial Counsel (STCs) are judge advocates who
occupy an independent role in the prosecution of certain ``covered''
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They exercise
independent prosecutorial discretion over these offenses and alleged
offenders. Will you ensure STCs are able to exercise independent
prosecutorial discretion over the offenses assigned to them by law,
without political or command influence?
If confirmed, I will strive in my actions and words to support and
respect the independent prosecutorial discretion of the Special Trial
Counsel. My advice and counsel will always be to follow the law, in
this and all areas.
129. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, will you agree to advise the
Secretary that he may do nothing to actually influence or appear to
influence the conduct of any military justice proceeding unless he is
willing to exercise convening authority himself?
Mr. Matthews. While I do not anticipate this scenario arising, my
advice and counsel will always be to follow the law.
law and military operations
130. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, will you agree to support and
defend the role of judge advocates in advising commanders on whether
their operations comply with U.S. and international law?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
131. Senator Kelly. Mr. Matthews, will you encourage commanders to
seek the legal advice of their judge advocates in all cases where legal
considerations bear on their decisions or actions?
Mr. Matthews. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Earl G. Matthews follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Earl G. Matthews, which was
transmitted by the Committee at the time of the nomination was
referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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 Mr. Earl G.
Matthews in connection with his nomination follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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.]
______
The nomination of Mr. Earl G. Matthews was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Wicker on May 1, 2025, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2025.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Dale Marks by Chairman
Wicker prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and qualifications
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and
responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy,
Installations, and Environment (ASD(EI&E))?
Answer. The mission of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Energy, Installations, and Environment (ASD EI&E) is to provide safe,
resilient, and robust platforms, enabling the warfighter to execute
their mission, train, conduct maintenance, and support servicemember
families.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that
qualify you to perform the duties and functions of the ASD(EI&E)?
Answer. I have a deep understanding of the EI&E mission across its
multifaceted portfolio through almost 25 years of experience in uniform
as a strategist and planner and almost 10 years as a Federal civilian.
My experience has ranged from leading teams conducting installation
complex encroachment management action plans to address issues
negatively impacting military missions and surrounding communities to
completing the first in-depth process review of wind farms and their
impacts on military missions for Congress, which led to the creation of
the Department of Defense (DOD) Siting Clearinghouse. I've also led
portions of Service budget prioritizations and successfully supported
these programs during cost assessment and program evaluation.
Question. In particular, what management and leadership experience
do you possess that would apply to your service as ASD(EI&E), if
confirmed?
Answer. I have been privileged to lead teams large and small from
the Pentagon down to the installation level. During my time as the
Chief of Staff in Afghanistan, I held responsibility for the management
and sustainment for actions across the mission. I've also led complex
teams in support of Homeland Defense under the North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD)/United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and
have been honored to support senior leaders at all levels within the
Department. As the current senior civilian at Eglin Air Force Base, I
lead a team of over 10,000 in developmental test and evaluation while
simultaneously managing the stewardship, investments, and innovation of
over 726 square miles of land range and over 124,000 square miles of
over-water range, while collaborating with each of the Services and
over 35 tenant organizations.
Question. Do you believe that there are any actions you need to
take to enhance your ability to serve as the ASD(EI&E)?
Answer. Each experience throughout my military and civilian career
has prepared me to assume the duties of the ASD(EI&E). As a lifelong
learner, and if confirmed, I remain open to interactions with Congress
and other organizations, public and private, that would increase my
understanding of this diverse portfolio.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to develop and
sustain an open, transparent, and productive relationship between your
office and Congress, and the Senate Armed Services Committee, in
particular?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure there is a continual exchange
of ideas and information to support and assist Congress in its
oversight role of the Department's programs through regular and
recurring engagements and dialog.
conflicts of interest
Question. Federal ethics laws, to include 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208,
prohibit government employees from participating in matters where they,
or certain family members or organizations with which they have certain
relationships, have a financial interest.
Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to disclose any
potential conflicts of interest, including investments, business ties,
family relationships, or other connections that could be perceived as
influencing your decisionmaking?
Answer. I agree to comply with all conflicts of interest disclosure
requirements set forth in the Ethics in Government Act and implementing
regulations.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, that
if a conflict of interest arises, you will recuse yourself from
participating in any relevant decisions regarding that specific matter?
Answer. I agree to comply with all recusal requirements under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 208 and implementing regulations.
Question. Do you commit, without qualification, if confirmed, to
decisionmaking on the merits and exclusively in the public interest,
without regard to private gain or personal benefit?
I commit to deciding matters on the merits based on the public
interest, without regard to any private gain or personal benefit.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that confront
the ASD(EI&E)?
Answer. Though I have not been confirmed and do not have a detailed
appreciation of the many complex issues facing ASD (EI&E), my initial
assessment is that the following concerns have significant impacts on
its portfolio: budgetary constraints and making the best use of limited
resources, installation resilience against threats regardless of the
source (natural or manmade), real property management and the
associated costs, aging and outdated infrastructure and its direct
impact on readiness, and energy resilience both at home and in
expeditionary environments. All of these are underpinned by the
evolving security environment and the need for installation readiness
to confront all challenges.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take, in what order
of priority, and on what timeline--to address each of these challenges?
Answer. My priorities, if confirmed, would include a portfolio
review to better understand the specific challenges facing ASD EI&E. I
would focus on implementing priority changes based on influencing the
next Future Years Defense Program.
2022 national defense strategy (nds)
Question. The 2022 NDS designates China as the pacing challenge for
the United States, but it also states that Russia remains an acute
threat to U.S. national interests. In addition, the Department must
also manage the persistent threats posed by rogue regimes and violent
extremist organizations.
In your view, how does the Office of the ASD(EI&E) directly support
the NDS?
Answer. Practically everything DOD does in some form is directly
touched or influenced by ASD EI&E, which in turn supports the National
Defense Strategy. The office protects and sustains warfighter readiness
by strengthening strategic and operational capacity, reducing costs,
and increasing lethality by providing policy and governance for
programs and activities that enable resilience for systems and
installations.
Question. In your view, what Department of Defense infrastructure
and military construction investments would be necessary for the Joint
Force to prevail in great power competition?
Answer. The two main investments needed to prevail in great power
competition are resilience and efficiency. Resilience investments are
necessary to ensure that our infrastructure and military construction
are ready when called upon to support the warfighter in whatever
mission capacities are required. Efficiency ensures our military
construction and infrastructure are affordable, have a low operating
cost over time, and remain robust and relevant in the long term to
support the warfighter requirements where and when needed. We cannot
overlook opportunities to fully integrate our mutual efforts to provide
the greatest return on those investments.
military housing privatization initiative
Question. In the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), Congress established the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI), providing the Department of Defense (DOD) with the
authority to obtain private-sector financing and management to repair,
renovate, construct, and operate military housing. DOD has since
privatized 99 percent of its domestic housing. In 2019, the Senate
Armed Services Committee held three hearings to address concerns voiced
by military families living in privatized housing that the program has
been grossly mismanaged by certain private partners, that military and
chain of command oversight were non-existent, and that in speaking out
about the appalling condition of the quarters in which they lived, they
were opening themselves to reprisal.
What are your impressions of the overall quality and sufficiency of
DOD family housing, both in the United States and overseas?
Answer. I understand that the overall goal of DOD's housing program
is to ensure that servicemembers have access to safe, quality, family
housing, whether in the U.S. or overseas. I am concerned that DOD may
lack sufficient affordable accompanied and unaccompanied housing. If
confirmed, I will ensure that we have the appropriate oversight
mechanisms in place to hold both the Military Departments and housing
providers to the quality standards that our servicemembers deserve.
Question. What are your views of the current goals and structure of
the DOD's military housing privatization program?
Answer. I believe the overarching goals and structure of the
Department's military housing program--supported by the significant
MHPI reform actions Congress enacted in recent NDAAs--properly support
the Department's efforts to provide day-to-day oversight of this
portfolio, including the Military Housing Privatization Initiative.
However, there is always room for improvement. If confirmed, I will
review the Department's MHPI program goals and oversight structure to
ensure the Department provides quality housing for military families
and holds MHPI companies accountable for complying with project legal
agreements.
Question. What efforts has DOD taken to address servicemember and
family member concerns regarding the untenable living conditions
prevalent in certain privatized housing locales?
Answer. It is my understanding that, in addition to issuing the
MHPI Tenant Bill of Rights and working with the MHPI companies to
obtain their voluntary agreement to implement these rights at nearly
all installations with privatized housing, the Department has
implemented numerous other reforms such as establishing a Chief Housing
Officer and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing, establishing
resident advocates, implementing new housing standards and inspection
requirements, launching a publicly available resident complaint data
base, and other measures. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department continues to improve the safety, quality, and habitability
of privatized housing, and to further enhance the Department's
oversight of the MHPI program and projects.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to ensure accountability
among DOD leaders for oversight of the privatized housing program?
Answer. I recognize the importance of holding DOD leadership
accountable for providing appropriate oversight of the privatized
housing program, as envisioned at the beginning of the MHPI program. If
confirmed, I will ensure that DOD leadership at all levels provides
necessary oversight to ensure that MHPI projects deliver safe, quality
housing for servicemembers and their families and that they hold the
MHPI companies accountable for project performance in accordance with
project legal agreements. In addition, I will fully support the
inclusion of MHPI program oversight as a performance measure for DOD
civilian and military leaders with DOD housing oversight
responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to improve applicable
business operations constructs and vest accountability in MHPI
contractors for strict compliance with the terms of their public-
private partnership agreements with the Department of Defense?
Answer. The success of the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative relies, in part, on the MHPI companies and projects abiding
by the terms of the project ground lease and associated legal
agreements that comprise the project deal structures, and for those
deal structures to incentivize good performance. If confirmed, I will
request that Military Departments review the MHPI project legal
agreements to ensure that they are enforcing existing standards of
performance and to identify any areas where they should seek
renegotiation of the terms of those agreements to incorporate clear and
enforceable performance standards at the appropriate lowest level, and
penalty provisions for failure to meet performance standards.
Question. What are your views of the efficacy of the MHPI reforms
enacted in the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA, as amended by subsequent NDAAs?
Answer. These reforms, especially the implementation of the MHPI
Tenant Bill of Rights, have been transformative in ensuring DOD takes
necessary actions to improve the MHPI program and to rebuild trust,
which creates a positive living experience for servicemembers and their
families. If confirmed, I will embrace my responsibilities as the DOD
Chief Housing Officer to oversee the Department's implementation of any
remaining MHPI reforms and to hold DOD leadership and the private
sector MHPI companies accountable for their project oversight and
performance.
Question. What do you believe to be the root causes of the MHPI
crisis?
Answer. I understand that there was inadequate privatized housing
oversight compared to what was originally envisioned at the outset of
the MHPI program, which included exercising authorities in the project
legal agreements to hold the MHPI companies accountable for project
performance. If confirmed, I am committed to providing rigorous
oversight in my role as the Department's Chief Housing Officer, and to
ensuring the Military Departments hold MHPI companies accountable for
providing safe, quality housing for servicemembers and their families
that is responsive to any concerns raised by servicemembers and their
families.
Question. Do you believe the DOD has rectified these problems,
notwithstanding Congress's continued receipt of complaints from
military families?
Answer. I believe the Department has made significant progress in
rectifying the underlying oversight issues that caused the MHPI housing
crisis, including implementing the MHPI Tenant Bill of Rights at nearly
100 percent of military installations with privatized housing. However,
I also believe there is room for additional improvement, including
implementing the remaining reforms. If confirmed, I will work with the
Military Departments in my capacity as the Chief Housing Officer to
ensure they continue to implement required reforms that will strengthen
their oversight, hold MHPI housing companies accountable, and provide
safe, quality housing for servicemembers and their families.
Question. If not, what would you do differently to address this
issue, if confirmed?
Answer. I believe in a proactive approach. If confirmed, I will
work in my capacity as the Chief Housing Officer to ensure the
Department of Defense continues to strengthen its oversight
responsibilities and hold MHPI housing companies accountable for
addressing complaints from military families.
Question. What role would you establish for yourself, if confirmed,
in ensuring that the Department of Defense's use of direct hire
authority to fill vacancies in military installation housing offices
results in the timely hire of highly qualified individuals to perform
these critical duties?
Answer. The MHPI housing crisis was due, in part, to reduced
oversight of the privatized housing projects. I understand that the
Military Departments have since hired more than 600 additional housing
staff to provide necessary MHPI project oversight. If confirmed, I will
ask the Military Departments to provide an update on their housing
manpower requirements and take action as necessary to ensure they
utilize all available and appropriate hiring authorities to augment
staffing at their installation housing offices.
Question. If confirmed, how would you view and order your
relationship with the private contractors who own and manage the
privatized housing agreements with the DOD?
Answer. I believe in a proactive approach based on open
communication. The Chief Housing Officer is responsible for oversight
of all aspects of the MHPI program. If confirmed, I will ensure that
the Military Departments exercise all available authorities within the
project legal agreements to hold MHPI companies accountable for
providing safe, quality housing for servicemembers and their families.
Question. What do you view as your obligations to these partners?
Answer. The Chief Housing Officer must ensure that the Military
Departments adhere to the terms of the MHPI project legal agreements
and provide appropriate oversight staff and support for the full
implementation of the Tenant Bill of Rights. If confirmed, I will
expand opportunities for open lines of communication and increased
visibility with each of the private sector MHPI companies and support
and encourage their efforts to improve their respective privatized
housing portfolios, while also working with the Military Departments to
hold MHPI companies accountable for providing a positive living
experience for servicemembers and their families.
Question. What do you view as your obligations to the
servicemembers and family members who reside in military housing?
Answer. Servicemembers and their families expect and deserve a safe
and secure place to live in return for the sacrifices they make for our
Nation. If confirmed, my priority as the Department's Chief Housing
Officer will be to ensure the Department of Defense meets its
obligation to provide members of the armed forces and their families
with access to safe, quality, affordable housing.
Question. What are your views on establishing command
accountability by having MHPI issues become a part of the performance
evaluations of base commanders and their senior enlisted counterparts?
Do you believe that both civilian and uniformed individuals should be
held accountable for failures?
Answer. I believe accountability is a critical core value for any
organization and that all personnel, whether civilian or uniformed
service, should be held accountable for their performance. If
confirmed, I will fully support the inclusion of MHPI oversight
responsibilities as a performance metric to be considered as part of
performance evaluations for base commanders and their senior enlisted
counterparts. I will also support granting commanders the requisite
authorities and resources at the appropriate lowest level for
supervision and oversight.
Question. Given the challenges associated with the MHPI, do you
support the further privatization of the Military Service lodging
facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would want to have a better understanding
of the details of this practice and other business models that could
enhance military service lodging to explore best practices to improve
the efficiency and quality of these programs. Local conditions should
always inform decisions on this matter.
base realignment and closure
Question. In past years, DOD has requested congressional
authorization to conduct another Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
round.
Do you believe another BRAC round is necessary? If so, why?
Answer. While I am aware the Department of Defense has excess
infrastructure capacity, I am currently not in a position to fully
understand how the Department's real property portfolio aligns with
current and future needs across the Military Departments. I believe
that BRAC is one of many tools available to address underutilized and
excess infrastructure. If confirmed, I would also work closely with
Congress to shape the definition, goals, and authorities required if
BRAC was deemed necessary.
Question. Were Congress to authorize another BRAC round, what is
your understanding of the responsibilities that would be assigned to
the ASD(EI&E) for formulating BRAC recommendations? If confirmed, how
would you plan to execute these responsibilities?
Answer. In my opinion, EI&E is the appropriate office within the
Department to oversee and facilitate a BRAC round should it be
authorized by Congress. The Secretary and other senior leaders, such as
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, would set the strategic framework and determine the final
recommendations. Implementing BRAC requires coordination with the
Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate
stakeholders. It will be executed in accordance with the BRAC
authorization enacted by the National Defense Authorization Act.
Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to improve
the accuracy of DOD excess capacity estimates?
Answer. Decision-quality data is necessary to make informed
decisions about the Department's excess capacity. If confirmed, I will
work with the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and other
appropriate stakeholders to ensure the Department undertakes the
necessary analyses to have a full understanding of its excess capacity.
Question. How would you undertake execution of these
responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would rely on a range of subject matter
experts to assess the Department's infrastructure needs and review
available options to properly align the infrastructure with the
mission. I would coordinate with all Military Departments, Combatant
Commands, and appropriate stakeholders to ensure that any
recommendations are consistent with the National Defense Strategy and
meet all legislative requirements.
Question. If confirmed, and if Congress were to authorize another
BRAC round, how would you go about setting priorities for
infrastructure reduction and consolidation within the DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Military
Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to
determine the best approach to BRAC implementation, while ensuring that
all BRAC recommendations meet NDAA requirements and enhance
installation military value to support mission requirements and the
National Defense Strategy.
Question. With a view to helping DOD measure its reduction of
excess infrastructure, would there be value--in any future BRAC round--
in setting targets for eliminating excess capacity, in your view?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to assess excess
capacity. Based on this assessment, the Department can determine if
there is value in setting an infrastructure reduction target or whether
it is better to have flexibility to focus on broader policy objectives.
Question. It has been noted repeatedly that the 2005 BRAC round
resulted in significant unanticipated implementation costs and saved
far less money than originally estimated.
Do you believe such issues could be anticipated and addressed
suitably in a future BRAC round, and if so, how?
Answer. It is my understanding that the BRAC 2005 round had high
implementation costs due to its transformational nature, including
deliberate decisions to build new infrastructure at locations that
received missions from closed or realigned installations. If confirmed,
I will examine ways to better anticipate costs, project savings, and
meet the goals established by the BRAC authorization.
Question. What is your view of the efficacy of DOD's process of
``bundling'' multiple stand-alone realignments or closures into a
single BRAC recommendation? How does ``bundling'' affect visibility
into the estimated costs and savings generated by an individual closure
and realignment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the efficacy of how past
realignments or closures were recommended to the BRAC commission. I am
committed to ensuring cost and savings are clearly justified and
visible as part of BRAC implementation and may require a more detailed
approach.
Question. What steps has the DOD taken to share with the Military
Departments and Services its ``lessons learned'' from the environment
remediation in support of the redevelopment of military bases closed
under BRAC--particularly with respect to the remediation of emerging
contaminants?
Answer. I understand that OSD and the Military Departments have
issued numerous policies and guidance that take into account ``lessons
learned'' across the environmental remediation programs, including
those related to the remediation of emerging contaminants. If
confirmed, I will seek a better understanding of how ``lessons
learned'' are incorporated into future actions affecting the
redevelopment of closed military bases.
Question. If confirmed, and if Congress were to authorize another
BRAC round, how would you apply these ``lessons learned'' proactively
to new realignments and closures?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine ways to better anticipate
costs, project savings, meet the goals established by the BRAC
authorization and promulgate comprehensive DOD guidance to new
realignments and closures.
installation modernization and resilience
Question. Decades of underinvestment in DOD installations has led
to substantial backlogs in facilities maintenance, while making it more
difficult for DOD to leverage new technologies that could enhance
installation efficiency and productivity. Yet, the quality of
installation resilience directly impacts the entire spectrum of
military operations--from force development through power projection,
interoperability with partner nations, and force sustainment--while
providing an appropriate quality of life for servicemembers and their
families.
In your view, does the DOD receive adequate funding for its
installations? Please explain your answer.
Answer. The continuing challenge is to balance warfighter
capability with installation support to enhance lethality. I recognize
that the Department must prioritize its limited resources across a wide
range of critical priorities. If confirmed, I will work with the
Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate
stakeholders to analyze funding allocations for installations to gain a
comprehensive understanding of resources versus the requirements. If
there is not adequate funding for installations, I would recommend an
increase of resources to address deficiencies in a prioritized and
systematic manner consistent with need.
Question. In your view, how is the readiness of DOD installations
linked to the readiness and lethality of the Armed Forces?
Answer. In my view, the installation is the weapons system and is
foundational to the readiness and lethality of the force. They serve as
initial maneuver platforms from which the Department can deploy troops
around the globe and coordinate and control various mission-related
functions for those units once deployed. This makes our installations
critical to providing a distinct advantage to our warfighters over our
adversaries.
Question. If confirmed, do you have specific plans to leverage
infrastructure and modernization to improve the quality of life for DOD
servicemembers and their families?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan on collaborating within DOD and with
industry experts on what measures could be taken to apply modernization
to installations that will increase the Quality of Life for our
servicemembers and their families. I will also work with Military
Departments to get an understanding of how to effectively support the
forces through expediting the clearance of maintenance backlog and the
streamlined incorporation of innovative technologies available to
increase facility efficiency and mission productivity.
Question. The Department has the goal of a 90 percent funding
requirement for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization
(FSRM). This goal does not buy down risk on the billions of dollars of
backlogged projects, however. The Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA mandated that
each military department achieve a minimum 4 percent plant replacement
value by 2030 with smaller metrics to be met beginning in 2027.
If confirmed, how will you ensure this 4 percent requirement is met
and the outdated culture of meeting 90 percent of a 100 percent
requirement is met? Please explain your answer.
Answer. This issue will not improve over time, underscoring the
tensions between warfighter requirements and aging infrastructure. I
also understand this is an issue important to Congress. If confirmed, I
will assess the Department's approach to prioritizing and funding
investments in our infrastructure. Working with the Military
Departments, Combatant Commands, and appropriate stakeholders, I will
develop Department-level guidance and oversee infrastructure
investments in execution to ensure the money is spent on the
appropriate priorities. I will work with organizations across the DOD
and Congress to balance increasing funding and reducing unneeded
infrastructure to ensure investments enhance military readiness and
warfighter lethality.
Question. In recent years, the Department has responded to
committee requests for information saying the Department would be in
favor of a multi-year FSRM budget to align with the authorization time
of the military construction authorization of 3 years.
What is your view of moving FSRM from a 1-year authorization to a
3-year authorization? What benefits would be realized from such a move?
Answer. The potential benefits of a move to 3-year authorization
include a better planning and execution period, budget predictability
and stability, and alternate execution opportunities, which could be
more attractive to DOD business partners. While moving to a 3-year FSRM
authorization could provide some benefit to the Department, I believe
the Department should move forward cautiously to determine the added
value of a longer authorization. Specific performance, execution, and
delivery metrics would be necessary to ensure that 3-year money is
spent as intended. I understand the Commission on Programming,
Planning, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform presented a case study
in their report that examined the limitations of FSRM as a 1-year
appropriation. I commit to reviewing their findings.
Question. If confirmed, would you advocate for this change
throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I would advocate for the Department to
evaluate all options with regard to enhancing the flexibility and
increasing the efficiency of FSRM funding. This may include a series of
pilots to be executed with oversight from my office to determine the
overall value of increasing the availability period. I believe that
oversight and accountability of resources allocated for facility
sustainment, restoration, and modernization are critical in a resource-
strained environment. I will work with all stakeholders to ensure these
funds are managed appropriately and effectively.
Question. Military Construction (MILCON) accounts have failed to
see the same amount of growth over the last several years as have other
accounts such as procurement and research and development.
If confirmed, what arguments would you advance to advocate for
additional MILCON dollars during budget builds? Please be descriptive.
Answer. If confirmed, I would focus on the key enabling role our
infrastructure plays in supporting our Armed Forces and advocate for
additional infrastructure investments through all funding sources,
including MILCON. I would highlight the Department's investments in the
IndoPacific, critical DOD infrastructure, and shipyards as good
examples of missions that require immediate MILCON investments to
increase our readiness and warfighting capabilities to enhance
lethality.
Question. The DOD defines ``installation resilience'' as the
capability of a military installation to avoid, prepare for, minimize
the effect of, adapt to, and recover from extreme weather events, or
from anticipated or unanticipated changes in environmental conditions.
The range of threats against which a military installation must
maintain resiliency is ever--growing, including: cyber threats,
physical attacks, political influence, and extreme weather events.
Given the 2022 NDS, what priority in the DOD program would you
accord the survivability of DOD expeditionary advanced bases, forward
operating bases, and other locations?
Answer. The survivability and credibility of our DOD forward
presence are essential to Joint deterrence and lethality. If confirmed,
I will work with my counterparts in OSD, the Joint Staff, the Services,
and the Combatant Commands to ensure the Department has a network of
bases that can withstand cyber, kinetic, and extreme weather-related
risks, and fully support warfighting requirements.
Question. What is your understanding of the Department's efforts to
assess and prioritize facility requirements for prepositioned forward
fuel, stocks, and munitions, as well as to generate options for non-
commercially dependent distributed logistics and maintenance--all to
ensure logistics sustainment in the face of persistent multi-domain
attack?
Answer. It is my understanding that the facility requirements
supporting logistics sustainability are assessed by the Combatant
Commands and prioritized through a collaborative engagement with
stakeholders. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Sustainment, our Combatant Commands, the Joint Staff, the
Defense Logistics Agency, and other appropriate stakeholders to assess
and prioritize the facility requirements for supporting logistics
sustainment.
Question. How is DOD addressing significant challenges with
resilient storage for new generations of high-yield munitions in
theater?
Answer. While I am not completely familiar with all aspects of new
generations of munitions, I am generally aware that there is a need to
modernize and improve munition storage facilities in theater. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Services and Combatant Commands
to address these challenges.
Question. In your view, how can the capability and capacity of
ordnance magazines at ordnance installations be enhanced--with a view
to ensuring the most efficient resupply of war fighters and minimizing
strategic lift requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Services and
Combatant Commands to evaluate new and emerging technologies to adopt
the most efficient and effective strategies and facilities to better
support our Warfighters.
extreme weather events
Question. Section 2801 of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA required each
major military installation to include military installation resilience
in each installation's military plan.
If confirmed, how would you ensure these plans are completed and
shared with this Committee?
Answer. Military installations serve as force and power projection
platforms and thus must be resilient to kinetic, cyber, and extreme
weather-related risks. If confirmed, I will work across the Department
to assess and mitigate extreme weather-related impacts on operations.
This will include completing the military installation resilience
portion of the Installation Master Plans and sharing those plans in a
manner consistent with the law and the Secretary's direction.
Question. In 2018 alone, extreme weather caused roughly $9.0
billion in damage at military bases across the United States.
How would you assess the readiness and resource impacts on the DOD
from recent extreme weather events?
Answer. Installations are essential to supporting a trained, ready,
and deployable force. I understand from my time at both Tyndall and
Eglin Air Force Bases how extreme weather events can have a sharp and
sustained impact on the ability of an installation to effectively carry
out military missions. Actions that support rapid recovery from
kinetic, cyber, and extreme weather events send a clear message of
deterrence to potential adversaries. If confirmed, I will focus the
Department's efforts on a risk-informed approach to assess the
readiness and resource impacts on DOD from recent extreme weather
events.
Question. In your view, how can the DOD best mitigate risks to
Department missions and infrastructure associated with extreme weather
events?
Answer. To effectively mitigate risks from extreme weather events,
the Department should leverage validated solutions developed through
research and development programs that provide cost-effective
approaches for infrastructure and installation resilience. By
continuing to invest in innovative research and demonstration programs
that draw on top talent from industry, universities, and Federal
partners, we can ensure our installations maintain mission readiness
while adapting to increasing extreme weather challenges. If confirmed,
I will focus the Department's efforts using a risk-informed approach
that emphasizes lethality and operational resilience.
Question. If confirmed to be the ASD(EI&E), how would you update
the DOD Building Requirements Unified Facilities Criteria to
incorporate designs more resilient to the effects of extreme weather
events to ensure that MILCON-funded structures exist and remain fully
functional for their intended lifecycles?
Answer. Construction projects are expected to last decades and can
have significant near-and long-term impacts. While project expediency
is critical, I am committed to assessing and mitigating near-and long-
term consequences to military readiness for our servicemembers and
their families. If confirmed, I will work with organizations across DOD
to assess and refine the current Building Requirements Unified
Facilities Criteria.
energy resilience
Question. It is essential that the DOD maintain the capability to
sustain critical operations in the event of intentional and
unintentional grid outages.
If confirmed, what would you do to inculcate energy resilience as a
mission assurance priority for the DOD?
Answer. Energy resilience is key to maintaining the readiness of
our installations and posture. If confirmed, I will work with my
counterparts in the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, defense
agencies, and interagency partners to continue to identify energy
resilience gaps for critical missions and prioritize DOD investments in
energy projects based on mission assurance assessments.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to direct the
execution of projects (MILCON or non-DOD funded) to fill gaps in
individualized Installation Energy Plans, to oversee the execution of
these projects, and to identify and remediate resilience gaps both on-
and off-DOD installations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to make individualized
Installation Energy Plans the foundation of DOD planning for energy
resilience investments and work with the Military Departments and
Combatant Commands to prioritize the planning and execution of MILCON-
funded projects based on contribution to mission assurance for the DOD
enterprise. I would also work with others across DOD, the interagency,
local communities, and industry to identify and address energy
resilience gaps ``off the installation,'' and pursue opportunities
available to address resilience gaps both on and off DOD installations.
Question. In your view, how can the DOD better integrate energy
security and resilience as standard components of its MILCON projects
and programs?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department leverages the
Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP) as the
primary mechanism for enhancing installation energy resilience via
MILCON appropriations. If confirmed, I will work with the Military
Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to
seek opportunities to integrate energy security and resilience into
DOD's MILCON projects and programs, such as ERCIP.
Question. In your view, how can DOD and Joint Force training
exercises and wargames better incorporate real-world scenarios
regarding energy-related threats and constraints--such as the
availability of fuel in the IndoPacific and assessing black start
abilities in response to a cyberattack on commercial electric grids?
Answer. In my view, effective DOD and Joint Force training
exercises and war gaming depend on robust and well-developed scenarios
that reflect real-world threats to energy security. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that well-developed and validated scenarios
reflecting these threats are made available for and integrated with war
gaming and training exercises with the appropriate stakeholders and
interagency partners. If confirmed, I also will direct that the lessons
learned from black start exercises and cybersecurity readiness
resilience exercises are reflected in these real-world scenarios to
identify potential risks to energy the IndoPacific and other theatres.
Question. Given the DOD's dependence on non-DOD energy sources, how
can the public and private sectors best be integrated in installation
resilience plans and programs to reduce vulnerabilities, add
redundancy, or improve energy management?
Answer. If confirmed, I will join with my counterparts across DOD
and the interagency to continue to work with utility providers and
other industry partners to identify energy resilience vulnerabilities
and develop cost-efficient and innovative solutions to reduce
vulnerabilities and add redundancy where needed. Given DOD's position
as one of the world's largest energy customers and its critical
dependence on commercial power, I will work to increase DOD's use of
public-private partnerships via programs like the Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP); leverage third-party
financing authorities, such as energy performance contracting, that
rely on private financing to reduce vulnerabilities and improve
resilience and energy management; and leverage programs through the
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation that can serve as
resources for communities and installations to partner together to
address known vulnerabilities through the planning and construction of
infrastructure enhancements--to include energy-related projects.
Question. In your view, is the use of stationary micro-reactors a
workable option to provide long-term energy resiliency to U.S.-based
DOD installations?
Answer. On-site nuclear power provides a significant opportunity
for the Department to enhance deterrence, increase lethality, and
improve the energy resilience at our installations through firm base
load power. The Department of Defense is pioneering microreactors with
Project Pele, which will be the first Generation IV nuclear reactor
constructed outside of China when it turns on in the next few years. If
confirmed, I will work to support the formulation of additional reactor
programs across the services for future installation energy needs.
Question. What is your understanding of the initiatives, if any,
the DOD is undertaking with respect to development of long duration
grid batteries for use on bases?
Answer. As I understand it, the Department works closely with the
Department of Energy to jointly fund and execute demonstrations of
various long-duration energy storage technologies. These technologies
include electrochemical storage and thermal energy storage options. If
confirmed, I would also work with industry and academic partners to
explore energy storage technology to improve installation resilience
against cyber, kinetic, and weather-related risks.
authorities to improve energy resilience
Question. DOD and the Military Departments can use any number of
authorities and mechanisms to pursue distributed energy projects that
improve installation resilience, increase readiness and mission
assurance, and offer long-term cost savings. These include: Inter-
Government Support Agreements, Other Transaction Authority, Utility
Privatization, Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs), Utility
Energy Service Contracts, Enhanced Use Leases, and the Defense
Community Infrastructure Program. ESPCs, in particular, are required by
law to deliver cost savings, yet the number of energy contracts have
decreased significantly over the last several years. If contracts are
written properly, non-DOD-funded mechanisms are excellent ways to lock
in cost savings for 25 years, increase resilience, modernize
infrastructure, and diversify energy sources.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to streamline the process
of writing and awarding contracts that will improve mission assurance
through the various DOD energy offices?
Answer. I understand the Department is working to improve its
overall acquisition processes in order to get mission-relevant
solutions ``down range'' faster. This includes the energy solutions
that power our platforms, formations, and installations. If confirmed,
I will ensure the Department utilizes all available acquisition
authorities and I will explore potential new methods of acquisition to
improve budget execution to enhance infrastructure resilience and
energy security.
Question. In your view, how can the DOD improve its use of the
previously mentioned authorities to secure access to advanced energy-
related technologies and concepts, including cyber-secure microgrids?
Answer. It is my understanding that, in alignment with various
statutory and policy imperatives, DOD is favoring the development of
resilient and cybersecure microgrids on its installations. Through
microgrids, DOD has the opportunity to ensure military installations
have reliable energy to power their missions during prolonged grid
disruptions or cyber incidents. I also understand the Department
continues to leverage Other Transaction Authorities and third-party
financing authorities to implement modern and advanced energy
technology solutions, including advanced nuclear and advanced
geothermal technologies. If confirmed, I look forward to better
understanding how the Department can better leverage these alternative
financing authorities to address its mission's needs.
Question. What is your understanding as to why the number of non-
DOD funded energy contracts have decreased over the last several years,
and if confirmed, what recommendations, if any, would you have to
ensure DOD secures utility savings for must-pay bills?
Answer. I understand that energy contracts at DOD installations are
increasingly complex, addressing resilience and incorporating
cybersecurity while relying on energy and water cost savings to fund
much-needed improvements. In my view, utility costs are expected to
increase; however, using third-party financed energy contracts could
help mitigate future price increases, and the Department could leverage
those utility cost savings to drive infrastructure modernization,
increase resilience, and enhance energy security.
areawide contracts
Question. The Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act
included language providing the Department with explicit authority to
use Areawide Contracts (AWCs) to procure utility services. AWCs are
master services agreements with pre-negotiated terms and conditions
that allow utilities to provide services in a fast, efficient, and
cost-effective manner. Despite this clear authority, the Department is
failing to consistently use AWCs in a manner consistent with the
legislation.
What is your view of AWCs, and if confirmed, do you commit to
follow the statute and issue guidance that allows the use of AWCs to
more rapidly initiate and execute energy resilience projects?
Answer. I appreciate Congress' recognition of AWCs' value and the
additional potential available by using them. I understand these
contracts are already used to some extent across DOD, freeing up
significant financial resources for other priorities. However, I
believe there may be additional capabilities that these contracts can
provide the Department with more widespread usage and additional
training. If confirmed, I will explore additional opportunities to
leverage AWCs to bolster DOD energy resilience and security, as part of
a more proactive toolkit of streamlined resources to rapidly initiate
and execute energy resilience projects.
operational energy
Question. The Department defines operational energy as the energy
required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and
weapons platforms for military operations, including the energy used by
tactical power systems, generators, and weapons platforms. On the
battlefield of the future, warfighters will need exponentially more
energy with rapid recharge and resupply over longer operating
distances. The quality of electricity will matter too--the DOD's
vehicles, sensors, robots, cyber forces, directed energy weapons, and
artificial intelligence will be controlled by systems sensitive to
fluctuations in voltage or frequency.
If confirmed, what priorities would you establish for DOD
investments in operational energy technologies to increase warfighter
combat capabilities and reduce logistical burdens?
Answer. In my view, addressing operational energy requirements
remains one of the biggest warfighting challenges in the EI&E
portfolio. If confirmed, my priority would be to align the Department's
operational energy innovation initiatives with the priorities set by
the President and the Secretary of Defense. I will align energy
innovation for both the Administration's key areas of interest and the
DOD Operational Energy Strategy to support the development of the
power, energy and thermal management, controls, distribution, and
storage solutions to support Warfighter combat capabilities and defense
of the Homeland from threats by peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries.
Question. In what specific areas do you believe the DOD needs to
improve the incorporation of operational energy considerations and
distributed energy resources into strategic planning processes?
Answer. In a contested environment, the availability of energy to
the Joint force cannot be guaranteed. If confirmed, I will ensure that
DOD understands and incorporates energy constraints into operational
planning and addresses those gaps throughout requirements, acquisition,
and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) processes.
Question. How can DOD acquisition systems better address
requirements related to the use of energy in military platforms to
decrease risks to warfighters?
Answer. Given the impact of energy on mission effectiveness and
cost, energy supportability requirements should be an integral part of
weapons system development and acquisition. If confirmed, I will
prioritize strengthening the integration of the Energy Key Performance
Parameter (KPP) and energy supportability considerations throughout the
requirements, acquisition, and sustainment process aligned with
priorities set by the President and the Secretary of Defense. This
commitment is driven by the statutory requirements in 10 USC Sec. 2911
and the necessity of ensuring our forces have a secure and reliable
energy supply in contested environments.
Question. In your view, how can energy supportability that reduces
contested logistics vulnerabilities become a key factor in the
requirements process?
Answer. Clearly defined and data-backed energy-related capability
requirements are crucial for the development of energy-supportable
systems that are able to operate over long distances in austere
environments. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to better align
analyses in the requirements process with the statutorily required
energy key performance parameter.
Question. How can the DOD broadly include operational energy
improvements in its weapons platforms?
Answer. Operational energy must be integrated throughout the
lifecycle of a program, from requirements development and system design
through sustainment and modernization. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure programs assess the benefit of operational energy innovation and
improvements during the analyses of alternatives, detailed design, and
operations, and as part of system modernization or significant
overhauls.
Question. In your view, how can the DOD better leverage
advancements in data analytics and associated technologies to improve
commanders' visibility into fuel consumption by the force?
Answer. The Department recognizes the critical need for improved
visibility into fuel consumption across the Joint Force. Leveraging
advancements in data analytics offers a significant opportunity to
enhance operational endurance and readiness. If confirmed, I envision a
future where real-time data, coupled with predictive analytics and
machine learning, empowers commanders at all levels with actionable
insights.
energy conservation
Question. What do you perceive to be the core elements of an
effective energy conservation strategy for the DOD?
Answer. An effective DOD energy conservation strategy requires a
multi-pronged approach, prioritizing mission assurance while promoting
innovation and collaboration. Key elements include data-driven
decisionmaking through robust energy monitoring, aggressive adoption of
efficient technologies, cultivating a culture of conservation to reduce
consumption, fostering strategic partnerships, and prioritizing
lifecycle cost analysis in procurement. Bolstering resilience through
onsite generation and enhanced grid security is paramount.
Question. What do you perceive to be the most achievable and
realistic energy conservation goals for the DOD?
Answer. In my view, at minimum, leveraging Installation Energy and
Water Plans and the resulting energy project planning and
prioritization will strike the right balance between resilience and
conservation while exploring additional opportunities. These plans
drive a more integrated and systematic approach to energy management
through informed energy planning and support a more holistic energy
plan with input from stakeholders. If confirmed, I will review
opportunities to apply enabling authorities, such as the Energy Act of
2020, to address energy conservation opportunities and progress toward
energy reduction goals at installations.
Question. What do you consider to be a ``stretch goal'' for DOD
energy conservation?
Answer. Any energy conservation effort the Department pursues
should focus on measures that enhance warfighter effectiveness, mission
support, and lower life-cycle costs. Energy conservation should not
come at the expense of lethality.
Question. If confirmed, what specific actions would you take to
reach these goals, and how would you measure your progress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Department's approach to
prioritizing and funding energy efficiency and conservation
investments. Trends in energy consumption and performance need to be
compared to near-, mid-, and far-term requirements for resilience and
mission capabilities. If confirmed, I would work with key energy
stakeholders to develop a data-informed approach to measure and achieve
energy conservation goals.
Question. In your view, what has been the impact of the current DOD
energy conservation goals? Please explain your answer.
Answer. In my view, energy conservation has increased energy
efficiency, enhanced the resilience of our installations, reduced
utility costs, and mitigated future price risks. By applying energy
conservation measures to improve energy performance, I understand the
Department has achieved notable reductions in water and electrical
consumption.
water resilience
Question. A secure and reliable supply of water is essential to the
Department of Defense's ability to perform its critical missions on
installations and in support of operational deployments.
If confirmed, how would you lead the DOD in developing a
comprehensive water strategy that addresses research, acquisition,
training, and organizational issues?
Answer. Consistent access to water is essential to building and
maintaining military strength and lethality. Water is critical to
supporting the warfighter, protecting health, conducting mission-
essential operations, and sustaining the defense industrial base. If
confirmed, I will continue the Department's work to improve resilient
installation capabilities that reduce risk and allow for quick recovery
from disruptions.
Question. What actions has the DOD already undertaken to improve
access to sustainable water sources in drought-prone areas across the
United States and the globe, and with what result?
Answer. As I understand it, the Department evaluates installations'
water source conditions to identify risks to water under adverse
conditions such as wildfire and drought. The DOD also manages water
resources serving installations in the western U.S. and tracks water
rights to promote water security and maintain a competitive advantage.
The collection and management of water rights support DOD's mission by
supporting planning, preparing, and providing for an adequate water
supply and proactively addressing current and potential curtailments.
Question. What progress is the DOD making in developing and
implementing a technology roadmap to address capability gaps for water
production, treatment, and purification?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD is integrating data on
water availability, quality, and infrastructure conditions to identify
areas where technology or resources are lacking, enabling more targeted
investments in innovative solutions. Once areas are identified, this
data will support water resilience and infrastructure investments.
Question. What actions has the DOD undertaken to improve water
conveyance systems to reduce loss, recapitalize aging infrastructure,
and meet installation mission requirements?
Answer. As I understand it, DOD has developed the Water Management
and Security Assessment that centralizes installation water resilience
data, including those about aging infrastructure and leak detection.
Assessment results support risk-informed prioritization of actions to
ensure installation water security and strategically focus investments.
If confirmed, I will continue to support water resilience efforts that
build military strength and lethality.
emerging contaminants
Question. Per-and Poly fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination
associated with military chemical spills and past use of AFFF are a
concern for Congress, DOD, and military families.
If confirmed, what role would you establish for the ASD(EI&E) in
addressing potential PFAS contamination at DOD installations and
operational platforms?
Answer. I understand Congress codified the DOD PFAS Task Force in
the law and established the ASD(EI&E) as the chair in 2021. If
confirmed, I will ensure that DOD continues to aggressively address
PFAS in a comprehensive manner across the Department while working with
the interagency and community partners.
environmental restoration
Question. Funding for the DOD's environmental restoration program
remains a significant part of the DOD's overall environmental program
budget.
What do you see as the main priorities for environmental cleanup
and restoration in the context of the DOD program?
Answer. I understand the Department has made significant progress
over the years to address contamination from its past activities, and
there is still work to be done.
If confirmed, I will prioritize high-risk locations. The main
priorities for environmental cleanup will include areas with the
highest risk to human health and locations where cleanup will provide
additional lands to support the DOD mission.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
ensure that the DOD continues to program, budget, and execute adequate
funding to permit cleanups under the Installation Restoration and
Military Munitions Remediation Programs so that they continue apace?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments to
ensure these important programs receive appropriate support through the
programming, budgeting, and execution process.
encroachment on military installations
Question. Competition for space and other forms of encroachment
continue to challenge the resiliency of DOD ranges and amplify the need
for larger hazard areas to execute training, attesting, and operations
to meet NDS requirements.
In your view, can virtual testing and training solutions contribute
to the DOD's ability to meet capability requirements and mitigate the
adverse effects of encroachment? If so, how.
Answer. In my opinion, the Department's test and training complexes
are national treasures and vital to warfighter readiness and lethality.
Virtual solutions can never fully replace physical ranges, but they can
enhance and augment test and training capabilities and remain an
important tool for research, development, and operational effectiveness
and efficiency.
Question. If confirmed, how would you contribute to the DOD in
projecting future operations, testing, and training range requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work within the Department and with
the Combatant Commands to evaluate/determine future operations,
testing, and training range requirements and ensure that the assets
supporting these requirements are protected. I would explore expanding
programs such as the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration
(REPI) program to protect future operations, testing and training
ranges. REPI enables DOD to work with other Federal agencies, State,
and local partners to protect assets such as critical air space from
incompatible development.
Question. How would you structure your role as the ASD(EI&E), if
confirmed, with respect to engaging with communities surrounding DOD
ranges and training areas, to address and resolve concerns, while
ensuring the resilience of range capabilities?
Answer. Community engagement is an important aspect of EI&E's
work--the Department lives and works within the local community. I
believe the various programs under the Office of Local Defense
Community Cooperation, specifically the Installation Readiness Program,
the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program,
and the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) offer some of
the best means for engaging the community. Collaboration with the local
community fosters cooperation with military installations to enhance
the military mission and enrich the community.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address the challenging
demands for compensation for noise impacts being levied by communities
surrounding DOD installations?
Answer. The Community Noise Mitigation Program--which supports the
installation of insulation for some communities impacted by military
fixed-wing aviation noise--is a tool that the Department can use to
work with specific communities to address these types of problems. If
confirmed, I will work to see what approaches can help alleviate noise
concerns while ensuring DOD mission success.
One significant tool the DOD can use to mitigate impacts of base
encroachment and preserve natural habitat buffers to bases is the
Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program. Another
avenue to mitigate potential conflicts between base radar and energy
development is software updates and the modernization of radars, which
are often paid for by energy developers.
Question. If confirmed, what new ideas would you propose as means
for addressing this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with interagency and
intergovernmental partners at the Federal, State, and local levels, as
well as with industry, to identify new and innovative approaches to
ensure the continuity of DOD's mission and readiness while also
ensuring critical energy development. I will focus the Department's
efforts on finding solutions through early engagement and identifying
areas of concern that emphasize military lethality, and work to keep
those areas and capabilities unimpeded, alongside industry if
applicable.
Question. If confirmed, what policies or steps would you take to
balance the tradeoff between energy development, radar modernization,
and impact on operations and training?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
intergovernmental partners, industry, and academia to integrate efforts
and identify sustained radar updates and modernization solutions to
defend the Homeland against adversarial attacks. I will engage
proactively with industry to overcome radar interference through early
engagement on the identification of areas of concern that emphasize
military lethality and work to keep those areas and capabilities
unimpeded.
real property accountability
Question. DOD manages a portfolio of real property assets that, at
last report included about 586,000 facilities--including barracks,
maintenance depots, commissaries, and office buildings. The combined
replacement value of this portfolio is almost $1.2 trillion and
includes about 27 million acres of land at nearly 4,800 sites
worldwide. This infrastructure is critical to maintaining military
readiness. Since 1997, DOD Infrastructure Management has been on the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) ``High Risk List.''
If confirmed as the ASD(EI&E), what actions would you take to
better align infrastructure to changing DOD force structure needs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments and
Combatant Commands to explore all options to enhance the Department's
ability to restore lethality to our forces in the most efficient way
possible, including examining how our current infrastructure is
supporting the operational requirements of the warfighter.
Question. Is DOD's joint basing program currently achieving its
goals, in your view? What additional opportunities exist, if any, to
reduce duplication of effort? If confirmed as ASD(EI&E), what actions
would you take to avail the Department of such opportunities?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to partner with the Military
Departments and Combatant Commands to assess the effectiveness of the
joint basing program. Through this assessment, I believe we can
identify opportunities to improve the program's effectiveness and
reduce duplication of effort while enabling the important missions that
call these joint bases home.
Question. Do you believe the DOD currently maintains excess
infrastructure overseas? Please explain your answer. How would you seek
to address the number, placement, and mission assurance of overseas
infrastructure, if confirmed?
Answer. I am not currently in a position to determine how much, if
any, excess infrastructure the Department maintains overseas. Decision-
quality data is necessary to make informed decisions about the
Department's excess overseas capacity. If confirmed, I will work with
the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate
stakeholders to ensure the Department undertakes the necessary analyses
to ensure our overseas infrastructure efficiently and effectively
supports force posture, mission requirements, and National Defense
Strategy implementation.
Question. If confirmed as the ASD(EI&E), how would you go about
relocating functions from commercial leased space to existing space on
a DOD installation--reducing leases and better utilizing excess space?
Answer. 1f confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
Defense Agencies, the Government Services Agency, DOD Field Activities,
and other appropriate stakeholders to smartly identify opportunities to
relocate functions from commercial leased spaces to existing space on
DOD installations while ensuring minimal disruption to operations. I am
committed to improving the utilization of our existing space and
reducing unnecessary expenditures on leases.
Question. In November 2018, GAO reported that DOD's Real Property
Assets Data base contained inaccurate data and lacked completeness: DOD
was missing utilization data for about 93,600 facilities.
In your view, what are the key components of a sound and
sustainable process to account for the existence and status of the
DOD's real property assets?
Answer. A sustainable real property accounting process for DOD
requires visibility to support informed decisionmaking. Visibility
relies on detailed, accurate, and consistent data collection through
regular inventories and condition assessments that reflect capabilities
on the ground. Beyond clear DOD guidance, I believe a key component of
this process is consolidating data from different real property records
into a single, comprehensive data base. Such a system should provide
sufficient tracking, reporting, and lifecycle cost analysis
capabilities to enable informed decisionmaking.
Question. The cost of construction in remote overseas locations is
particularly expensive. When these locations are designated as
accompanied tours, this cost is magnified by requirements for support
facilities such as schools, larger hospitals, and family housing units.
What is the value in designating remote locations as accompanied
tours, in your view?
Answer. It is my understanding that this designation is designed to
increase the quality of life for servicemembers and families by
providing continuity of operations in remote areas, decreasing family
separations, and reducing staff separations. If confirmed, I will
consult with the Department's subject matter experts in the Office of
the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness to assess the
value and the cost of designating remote locations as accompanied
tours.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate mechanism for
deciding whether the value of accompanied tours in this context
outweighs the cost associated with constructing and maintaining the
facilities required to support military families?
Answer. It is my understanding that mission stability and
effectiveness are primary factors when considering establishing
accompanied tours in remote locations and have a direct impact on
recruiting and retention. If confirmed, I will consult with the
Department's subject matter experts in the Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Personnel & Readiness to assess the costs and benefits
of designating remote locations as accompanied tours.
Question. What are your ideas for reducing the costs of
construction at remote locations?
Answer. I understand that each remote location has inherently
unique challenges for construction, such as the availability of labor,
equipment, and materials required, which are unlikely to be available
locally and usually must be imported from external markets. If
confirmed, I will work with the DOD construction agents and industry to
identify innovative acquisition, supply chain, and technical solutions
to efficiently execute projects at these locations and throughout the
world.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, reports, records (including documents and electronic
communications) and other information from the Department.
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, and other appropriate
committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, with 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, and 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, and 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 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:]
Senator Tom Cotton
environment
1. Senator Cotton. Mr. Marks, I hear time and time again that
burdensome environmental regulations like NEPA, the Endangered Species
Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act cause significant delays to
critical DOD projects. Let me give you a few examples. An environmental
review for a project in Alaska to expand artillery training is expected
to take 6 years because of potential effects on the beluga whale. In my
own State of Arkansas, a company had to go through a 9-month
environmental assessment before it could expand a munitions-production
facility, only to find there would be no impact on the environment from
the facility expansion. It gets worse: the Air Force could not cut down
trees to work on a runway in Tinian--a critical node in the Pacific--
for 2 years because a certain bird species that went extinct in the
1990's might come back. Does any of this sound reasonable to you?
Mr. Marks. While I am not familiar with the details of these
specific situations, delays in military construction are concerning and
extended delays could jeopardize mission execution. If confirmed, I
will review and work with the Military Departments, Combatant Commands,
and other appropriate stakeholders to streamline procedures and
environmental requirements for Military Construction projects. I will
ensure that construction projects can meet mission support schedules
while upholding the laws of the United States.
2. Senator Cotton. Mr. Marks, do you believe these timelines to
complete environmental reviews are impeding our ability to compete with
Communist China?
Mr. Marks. Any actions that reduce warfighter readiness and their
operational capacity are a detriment to national security and impact
our ability to deter our adversaries. In my current role, I do not have
the information to assess how environmental review processes impact the
Department of Defense's readiness posture. If confirmed, I will pursue
pathways that streamline and prioritize environmental review timelines
to support the Department's mission to address threats here and abroad
while upholding the laws of the United States.
3. Senator Cotton. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, will you commit to
taking a look at how we can reduce these burdensome requirements?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will explore and pursue opportunities to
streamline Department of Defense (DOD) processes and environmental
reviews to support the DOD mission. I will emphasize that DOD
environmental reviews and consultation processes should support fast,
agile decisionmaking while addressing threats here and abroad and
upholding the laws of the United States. I will also commit to working
with the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, other appropriate
stakeholders, and Congress to identify statutory impediments and
streamline where possible.
infrastructure
4. Senator Cotton. Mr. Marks, robust, resilient infrastructure will
be critical in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM). There, bases
like Andersen, Hickam, and Kadena will be responsible for generating
combat airpower to deter and, if required, defeat Communist China. What
are your infrastructure priorities for preparing these facilities for
conflict in the Pacific?
Mr. Marks. The survivability and credibility of our Department of
Defense forward presence is essential to deterring Chinese aggression
in the Indo-Pacific. If confirmed, I will work across the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and with the Joint Staff, the Services, and the
Combatant Commanders to prioritize survivability of these operating
locations while also pursuing other initiatives that increase our
ability to deliver combat power.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator M. Michael Rounds
artificial intelligence infrastructure
5. Senator Rounds. Mr. Marks, it is critical that the United States
remain the global leader on artificial intelligence (AI) development. A
significant limiting factor for this national objective is real estate:
both the compute and energy infrastructure needed to meet the demands
of this initiative require significant physical space. If confirmed,
will you work with this committee to make use of Department's
substantial land resources to build out the infrastructure we need to
maintain and expand U.S. AI dominance?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the congressional defense
committees to maximize the Department of Defense's resources by
ensuring effective management of the Department's extensive real estate
portfolio, consistent with the Secretary of Defense's priorities. I
commit to exploring available Department real estate for artificial
intelligence-related infrastructure consistent with other national
priorities and the Department's statutory authority to include
notification or approval from Congress when required for real estate
transactions.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Budd
base land/environmental protection
6. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, are you familiar with the DOD's
Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program, and
if so, what is your view of this program?
Mr. Marks. I am familiar with the Readiness and Environmental
Protection Integration (REPI) program. During my time at Eglin Air
Force Base, I found the REPI program to be an effective way to protect
the operations, testing and training missions. Our team at Eglin worked
alongside other Federal agencies, State, and local partners to protect
assets such as critical airspace from incompatible development at a
lower cost to the military, saving valuable taxpayer dollars. REPI has
a positive return on investment and if confirmed, I will continue to
support this valuable tool.
base housing
7. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, what are your views on privatization of
barracks and other facilities on military installations?
Mr. Marks. Local conditions should always inform decisions on this
matter. Privatization, where feasible, is one of many tools that the
Department can use to support the operational requirements of the
warfighter. Regardless of the models, Privatized Owners must be held to
the highest standards to ensure high-quality dwellings for our
servicemembers. If confirmed, I will work with the Military
Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders on
strategies and options to ensure all servicemembers and families have
access to safe, quality Department of Defense housing, including
barracks.
8. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, keeping cost savings and quality of
life for servicemembers in mind, do you view it feasible and/or
advisable to privatize barracks on military installations?
Mr. Marks. Privatization is one of many tools that would be
considered in this collaboration. If confirmed, I will examine how our
current Unaccompanied Housing facilities are supporting the operational
requirements of the warfighter. I will also work with the Military
Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to
explore all options to enhance the Department's ability to restore
lethality to our forces in the most efficient way possible.
military construction
9. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, Guam is critical to contingencies in
the Indo-Pacific and vital for American power projection, yet their
existing facilities are still damaged from the devastation caused by
Super Typhoon Mawar and susceptible to future typhoons and cyber
attacks. Do you believe that the Department of Defense ought to invest
in Guam's critical infrastructure and military construction (MILCON)
projects?
Mr. Marks. Yes, I believe the Department of Defense should invest
in Guam's critical infrastructure and military construction projects.
Infrastructure investment in Guam is crucial to deterrence and
operational reach within the Indo-Pacific Region.
10. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, a recent report identified that poor
initial planning negatively impacted several MILCON projects including
a Special Operations Forces (SOF) Training Command Building at Fort
Bragg, NC which was delayed several years and cost over $10 million
more than originally projected. How do you view your role in ensuring
the efficient execution of military construction projects?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, my role would be to work with the Military
Departments and Department of Defense Construction Agents to maintain
effective oversight of all the Department's infrastructure investment
programs. This includes ensuring requirements are addressed at the
planning stage of any project and directly engaging with key project
stakeholders at all stages of the project lifecycle to effect change
that delivers capabilities at the speed of relevance and at reasonable
cost.
11. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, how will you work to
improve information sharing within DOD to improve execution of military
construction projects and create cost savings?
Mr. Marks. Effective information sharing is essential to manage the
complex execution of military construction projects throughout the
Department. If confirmed, I intend to implement actions to improve
transparency, streamline decisionmaking, and drive information sharing
between key stakeholders through tools available better to track the
status and readiness of these projects.
nuclear energy
12. Senator Budd. Mr. Marks, can you please outline your
perspective on mobile, modular micro-nuclear reactor technology and
whether it has promise for expeditionary use?
Mr. Marks. The Department of Defense (DOD) faces kinetic, cyber,
political-economic, and weather-related risks affecting the energy our
forces and installations need. I understand the Military Departments
are already pursuing initiatives for fixed reactors at our
installations, and the Strategic Capabilities Offices is developing a
prototype mobile micro-reactor. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
DOD considers all cost-effective energy sources as options for meeting
expeditionary energy needs in contested environments.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Eric Schmitt
per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances
13. Senator Schmitt. Mr. Marks, according to the Department's most
recent report to Congress in January 2025, ``DOD has obligated $1.86
billion through fiscal year 2023 and plans to obligate $197.5 million
in fiscal year 2024 to address its PFAS [per-and polyfluoroalkyl
substances] releases at active installations, National Guard
facilities, and FUDS [formerly used defense sites] properties. DOD
plans to obligate an additional $7.09 billion after fiscal year 2024 to
address PFAS releases.'' If confirmed, please describe how you will
utilize Class I hazardous waste disposal wells as part of DOD's
comprehensive remediation and removal plan and what you will do to
increase the use of this Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved
removal options across DOD installations?
Mr. Marks. I understand that the Department of Defense's 2023 per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) destruction and disposal guidance
considered many disposal options, including the availability of Class I
hazardous waste disposal wells for liquid wastes. If confirmed, I will
ensure the Department continues to allow consideration of Class I
hazardous waste disposal wells in any updates to its PFAS destruction
and disposal guidance.
14. Senator Schmitt. Mr. Marks, in April 2024, the EPA released
updated guidance on destruction and disposal of PFAS. That guidance
encourages the use of Class I hazardous waste underground injection
wells among other removal options. DOD has not updated its guidance
since July 2023. If confirmed, do you commit to updating the
Department's PFAS removal and remediation guidance and similarly
encourage the use of Class I hazardous waste underground injection
wells?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of Defense
updates its per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances destruction and disposal
guidance to allow the use of disposal and destruction technologies at
facilities with environmental permits or regulator approval where a
permit is not required.
15. Senator Schmitt. Mr. Marks, will you ensure that all
commercially available, cost-effective, and Environmental Protection
Agency permitted and approved per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
removal and remediation solutions will be clearly approved for use all
DOD installations?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of Defense
updates its per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) destruction and
disposal guidance to include updated information from the Environmental
Protection Agency's 2024 guidance update. I recognize the Department
requires multiple options for the destruction or disposal of its PFAS
wastes and will ensure a continued focus on the use of proven
technologies at facilities with environmental permits or regulator
approval where a permit is not required.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
installation energy
16. Senator Reed. Mr. Marks, DOD likely faces increased demand for
installation energy over the coming years while wanting to reduce
utility costs. Increasing the amount of distributed energy for military
installations by using non-DOD funded contract mechanisms like energy
savings performance contracts (ESPCs), power purchase agreements
(PPAs), etc. lock in utility savings for decades. If confirmed do you
commit to increasing the amount of non-DOD funded mechanisms to
diversify and improve the resilience of its energy assets on
installations?
Mr. Marks. I recognize the significant potential of non-Department
of Defense funded contract mechanisms, such as Energy Savings
Performance Contracts and Power Purchase Agreements, to address this
challenge while enhancing energy security and resilience. If confirmed,
I commit to prioritizing and expanding the use of these tools by
streamlining processes, providing clear guidance to installations, and
prioritizing projects that deliver multiple benefits like energy and
water savings and enhanced resilience. Using these mechanisms would
support future budgeting of utility costs and mitigate future price
increases, allowing for better resource allocation to support the
mission.
operational energy
17. Senator Reed. Mr. Marks, roughly two-thirds of DOD's total
energy use comes from its weapon platforms on the move. While the Air
Force creates the vast majority of that fuel demand, the other services
play a role as well. Concerted efforts and investments in operational
energy improvements will be the primary way DOD can reduce its energy
demand in future conflicts as combat operations in the Middle East have
already taught us stark and costly lessons. How can DOD ensure its
operational energy investments reduce demand for weapons platforms
while improving readiness--and which technologies do you find most
promising in this area?
Mr. Marks. I believe we can reduce logistics burdens most
effectively by integrating energy supportability in requirements and
the acquisition decisionmaking process, leveraging more energy-
efficient technologies to improve operational effectiveness and
supportability, and developing new concepts of operation. If confirmed,
I will conduct a review of relevant technologies such as advanced
energy storage, blended-wing bodies, hybridization, and mobile modular
reactors to assess alignment with the need for a lethal Joint force
able to defend the homeland and deter our adversaries under contested
operating conditions.
climate change
18. Senator Reed. Mr. Marks, how important is it for DOD to
mitigate impacts to military installation resilience, given the costly
impacts from extreme weather each year, and what will your approach be,
if confirmed?
Mr. Marks. Installations are essential to supporting a trained,
ready, and deployable force. I understand from my time at both Tyndall
and Eglin Air Force Bases how extreme weather events can have an
impact--both sudden and sustained--on the ability of an installation to
effectively carry out military missions. Actions that support rapid
recovery from kinetic, cyber, and extreme weather events send a clear
message of deterrence to potential adversaries. If confirmed, I will
focus the Department of Defense's efforts on a risk-informed approach
to assess the readiness and resource impacts on Department of Defense
from recent extreme weather events.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
installation resilience
19. Senator Hirono. Mr. Marks, how important is it for DOD to
mitigate impacts to military installation resilience given the costly
impacts from extreme weather each year, and what will your approach be
to this issue, if confirmed?
Mr. Marks. Installations are essential to supporting a trained,
ready, and deployable force. I understand from my time at both Tyndall
and Eglin Air Force Bases how extreme weather events can have an
impact--both sudden and sustained--on the ability of an installation to
effectively carry out military missions. Actions that support rapid
recovery from kinetic, cyber, and extreme weather events send a clear
message of deterrence to potential adversaries. If confirmed, I will
focus the Department of Defense's efforts on a risk-informed approach
to assess the readiness and resource impacts on Department of Defense
from recent extreme weather events.
installation energy
20. Senator Hirono. Mr. Marks, DOD will face increased demand for
installation energy over the coming years while simultaneously
attempting to reduce utility costs. Increasing the amount of
distributed energy for military installations by using non-DOD funded
contract mechanisms like energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs)
and power purchase agreements (PPAs) lock in utility savings for
decades. Will you commit to increasing the amount of non-DOD funded
mechanisms to diversify and improve the resilience of energy assets on
DOD installations?
Mr. Marks. I recognize the significant potential of non-Department
of Defense funded contract mechanisms, such as Energy Savings
Performance Contracts and Power Purchase Agreements, to address this
challenge while enhancing energy security and resilience. If confirmed,
I commit to prioritizing and expanding the use of these tools by
streamlining processes, providing clear guidance to installations, and
prioritizing projects that deliver multiple benefits like energy and
water savings and enhanced resilience. Using these mechanisms would
support future budgeting of utility costs and mitigate future price
increases, allowing for better resource allocation to support the
mission.
military housing
21. Senator Hirono. Mr. Marks, there have been numerous prior year
National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) that enacted various reforms
related to privatized housing and most recently enlisted barracks. How
will you ensure that both privatized housing and enlisted barracks
continue to get rigorous oversight to minimize the problems military
families continue to experience?
Mr. Marks. I believe the Department of Defense, working with
Congress, has made significant progress in rectifying the underlying
oversight issues that caused the privatized and Unaccompanied Housing
crises. However, I also believe there is room for additional
improvement, including implementing the remaining National Defense
Authorization Act reforms for all of Department of Defense (DOD)
housing. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments in my
capacity as the Chief Housing Officer to ensure the continued
implementation of required reforms that will further strengthen
oversight of DOD housing, hold Miliary Housing Privatization Initiative
housing companies accountable, and provide safe, quality housing for
all servicemembers and families.
operational energy
22. Senator Hirono. Mr. Marks, roughly two-thirds of the DOD's
total energy use comes from its weapon platforms on the move. While the
Air Force creates the vast majority of that fuel demand, the other
services play a role as well. Concerted efforts and investments in
operational energy improvements will be the primary way DOD can reduce
its energy demand in future conflicts, as combat operations in the
Middle East have already taught us stark and costly lessons. How can
DOD ensure its operational energy investments reduce demand for weapons
platforms while improving readiness--and which technologies do you find
most promising in this area?
Mr. Marks. I believe we can reduce logistics burdens most
effectively by integrating energy supportability in requirements and
the acquisition decisionmaking process, leveraging more energy-
efficient technologies to improve operational effectiveness and
supportability, and developing new concepts of operation. If confirmed,
I will conduct a review of relevant technologies such as advanced
energy storage, blended-wing bodies, hybridization, and mobile modular
reactors to assess alignment with the need for a lethal Joint force
able to defend the homeland and deter our adversaries under contested
operating conditions.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
ethics
23. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not seeking any employment with or compensation from a
defense contractor, including through serving on a board, as a
consultant, or as a lobbyist, for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Marks. I will abide by the extensive post-government employment
ethics rules required by Federal law. These provisions set forth
comprehensive restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from
defense contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal
Government on behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe
that these existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the
public interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of
my office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
24. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to not engaging in any lobbying activities, including
unregistered ``shadow'' or ``behind-the-scenes'' lobbying under the
guise of consulting or advising on DOD-related matters, focused on DOD
or any of its components for 4 years after leaving DOD?
Mr. Marks. I will abide by the extensive post-government employment
ethics rules required by Federal law as well as the terms of my Ethics
Agreement. These provisions set forth comprehensive restrictions
relating to acceptance of compensation from defense contractors, as
well as communicating back to the Federal Government on behalf of any
future employers and clients. I believe that these existing rules are
appropriate and sufficient to protect the public interest. If
confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of my office
honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in full
compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
25. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, during your nomination process, did
anyone on the Trump campaign, transition team, or other closely related
entity approach you about your loyalty to President Trump?
Mr. Marks. No.
26. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you sign a loyalty pledge or other
similar oath? If so, please provide a copy of the text of that pledge
or oath.
Mr. Marks. I was not approached.
27. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you make any verbal representations of
loyalty? If so, please describe this representation.
Mr. Marks. I was not approached.
28. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, in November 2024, the New York Times
and other news outlets reported that Boris Epshteyn, a top adviser to
President Trump, allegedly requested payment from prospective political
appointees to promote their candidacies for top positions within the
Administration. Did you discuss the possibility of joining the
Administration with Mr. Epshteyn at any time?
Mr. Marks. No.
29. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you did discuss the possibility
of joining the Administration with Mr. Epshteyn, did Mr. Epshteyn seek
payment from you for promoting your candidacy for a position within the
Administration?
Mr. Marks. No.
30. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, at any time, did lawyers for
President Trump or members of President Trump's team approach you
regarding Mr. Epshteyn and the allegations cited above? If so, please
explain the information that they provided you (including copies of
documents), what was discussed during any calls, and any other
information pertaining to this interaction.
Mr. Marks. No.
31. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, were you in contact with Mr. Elon
Musk at any time during your nomination process? If so, please describe
the nature of those points of contact.
Mr. Marks. No.
32. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, was Mr. Musk present or involved in
any interviews you did related to your nomination? If so, please
describe the nature of his involvement.
Mr. Marks. No.
33. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, was Mr. Musk involved in any way
with your nomination, including but not limited to directly or
indirectly contacting Senators regarding their position on your
nomination?
Mr. Marks. No.
34. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, who was in the room or participated
in any of your interviews regarding your nomination?
Mr. Marks. My interviews consisted of meetings with a member of
Secretary Hegseth's team and then members of the White House
Presidential Personnel Office. This was my first time meeting these
individuals.
35. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you own any defense contractor
stock, will you divest it to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of
interest?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will comply with the requirements set
forth in my Ethics Agreement, which I signed on March 11 and which was
previously provided to this committee. I do not own any defense
contractor stock.
36. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what do you consider the role of the
press in a democracy?
Mr. Marks. A free press is protected by the U.S. Constitution and
is an essential part of our democracy.
37. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you think it would be an
appropriate use of taxpayer resources to ``dig up dirt'' on journalists
who investigate or criticize you, your office, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Marks. No. Taxpayer resources are a special trust, and it would
be inappropriate to do so.
38. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit not to retaliate,
including by denying access to government officials or facilities,
against news outlets or individual journalists who publish articles
that are critical of you, your office, your agency, or the Trump
administration?
Mr. Marks. Yes.
39. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you requested, or has anyone
requested on your behalf, that any other person or third party sign a
nondisclosure, confidentiality, non-disparagement, or similar agreement
regarding your conduct in a personal or professional capacity?
Mr. Marks. No.
40. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you voluntarily release any
individual from any such agreements before this committee votes on your
nomination?
Mr. Marks. Not Applicable.
41. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you ever paid or promised to
pay, or has anyone paid or promised to pay on your behalf, an
individual as part of any non-disclosure, confidentiality, non-
disparagement, or similar agreement?
Mr. Marks. Not Applicable.
42. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if the answer to the previous
question was yes, how much was promised, how much was paid, and what
were the circumstances?
Mr. Marks. Not Applicable.
43. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to recuse yourself
from all particular matters involving your former clients and employers
for at least 4 years after you leave DOD?
Mr. Marks. I will abide by the extensive post-government employment
ethics rules required by Federal law. These provisions set forth
comprehensive restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from
defense contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal
Government on behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe
that these existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the
public interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of
my office honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in
full compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
44. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to not seeking
employment, board membership with, or another form of compensation from
a company that you regulated or otherwise interacted with while in
government, for at least 4 years after leaving office?
Mr. Marks. I will abide by the extensive post-government employment
ethics rules required by Federal law as well as the terms of my Ethics
Agreement. These provisions set forth comprehensive restrictions
relating to acceptance of compensation from defense contractors, as
well as communicating back to the Federal Government on behalf of any
future employers and clients. I believe that these existing rules are
appropriate and sufficient to protect the public interest. If
confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of my office
honorably, and I will seek any post-government employment in full
compliance with the applicable ethics rules.
45. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, would it ever be appropriate to
threaten or imply that you would withhold future contracts from a
company if they filed a complaint, bid protest, or cooperated with an
Inspector General, civil, or criminal investigation?
Mr. Marks. No, that would not be appropriate.
congressional oversight and transparency
46. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what is your understanding of the
role of the Department of Defense Inspector General and service
Inspectors General?
Mr. Marks. The Department of Defense Inspector General and the
service Inspectors General play key roles in ensuring accountability,
efficiency, and integrity within the Department of Defense and its
respective military branches.
47. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you ensure your staff complies
with any Inspector General deadlines established for requested
communications, providing witnesses, providing documents, and that
those witnesses will be protected from reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work to comply with Inspector
General requests in a timely manner.
48. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are not able to comply with
any Inspector General requests and deadlines, will you notify the
Republican and Democratic Members of this Committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work to comply with Inspector
General requests in a timely manner. I would defer to the Office of the
Inspector General to update Members of the Committee regarding the
progress of the Inspector General's ongoing reviews.
49. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to refusing to follow illegal orders from any individual,
including the President?
Mr. Marks. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will follow the
Constitution and the law of the United States.
50. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what actions would you take if you
were given an illegal order from any individual, including the
President?
Mr. Marks. I do not accept the premise that the President will
issue me an unlawful order. If confirmed, I will follow the
Constitution and the law of the United States.
51. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition if you are called upon by Congress to provide a
deposition voluntarily?
Mr. Marks. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
52. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to testify or
provide a deposition to Congress if you are issued a subpoena to
testify?
Mr. Marks. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
53. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to providing
information or documents to Congress voluntarily if you are requested
to do so?
Mr. Marks. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
54. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you provide information or
documents to Congress if you are issued a subpoena?
Mr. Marks. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
55. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to following current
precedent for responding to information requests, briefings, and other
inquiries from Congress, including the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees and their minority members?
Mr. Marks. I will work to comply with Congress's requests in a
timely and responsible manner.
56. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, will you commit to
posting your official calendar monthly?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I am committed to meeting all legal
disclosure requirements.
57. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you think DOD has an
overclassification problem? If so, please provide this committee with
an estimate of the number or percentage of documents that will be under
your purview that are overclassified or other examples to illustrate
this problem.
Mr. Marks. For information for which the Office of the Secretary of
Defense is the Original Classification Authority, the respective
classification security guides need to be analyzed to ensure they
strike the proper balance between sharing information and protecting
sources and methods. I strongly believe enabling access to information
as quickly and as broadly as possible is critical to national security.
58. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, to the best of your knowledge, is
your office or agency identifying records for proactive posting in
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act? If not, please describe
how you would ensure that they do so to comply with public records law.
Mr. Marks. I have not received any briefing on the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment's
(ASD(EI&E)) current Freedom of Information Act program. If confirmed, I
will review that program to ensure it is aligned with law. I fully
support complying with all public records laws and would ensure that
ASD(EI&E) follows these laws.
project 2025
59. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you discussed Project 2025 with
any officials associated with the Trump campaign, the Trump transition
team, or other members of the Trump administration? If so, please
explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom you
discussed it.
Mr. Marks. No.
60. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you discussed Project 2025 with
any officials associated with the Heritage Foundation? If so, please
explain what you discussed, when you discussed it, and with whom you
discussed it.
Mr. Marks. No.
foreign influence
61. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you received any payment from a
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years?
Mr. Marks. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
62. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you communicated with any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years?
Mr. Marks. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
63. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, please disclose any communications
or payments you have had with representatives of any foreign government
or entity controlled by a foreign government within the past 5 years
and describe the nature of the communication.
Mr. Marks. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
retaliation and protecting whistleblowers
64. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you believe that servicemembers,
civilians, grantees, and contractors should be protected from any form
of retaliation for coming forward about an illegal order, sexual
assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or any other concern
that they wish to raise?
Mr. Marks. Yes, I believe that all whistleblower laws should be
followed, and that bona fide whistleblowers should be afforded the
protections provided them by applicable statute.
65. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, have you ever retaliated against any
individual for coming forward about an illegal order, sexual assault or
harassment, negligence, misconduct, or any other concern that they wish
to raise?
Mr. Marks. No.
66. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to protecting whistleblowers? If so, please specify how you will
do so.
Mr. Marks. Yes. If confirmed, I will follow all laws related to
whistleblowers and will ensure the protections required by law.
impoundment control act
67. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, on January 27, 2025, President
Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo calling for
the suspension of all Federal financial assistance programs (excluding
``assistance provided directly to individuals''). Do you agree with
OMB's decision to issue this memo?
Mr. Marks. I support the President's efforts to streamline the
Federal Government and ensure that it is carrying out Federal programs
in an efficient and economical manner. That said, I am not aware of how
this memorandum would impact the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I
will review the memo and work to implement the President's direction.
68. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you believe the Secretary of
Defense has the legal authority to block the disbursement of funds
appropriated by Congress?
Mr. Marks. I fully acknowledge and respect Congress's
constitutional role in appropriating funds to be carried out by the
executive branch for designated purposes. I commit, if confirmed, to
executing my responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and the
law. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
69. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what is your understanding of the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Marks. My understanding is that Congress passed the Impoundment
Control Act in 1974. This Act provides a framework for handling
circumstances in which the President seeks to defer or cancel the
execution of appropriated funds. I commit, if confirmed, to executing
my responsibilities in a manner consistent with the Constitution and
the law on this matter, as on all others. I would ensure that my
actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are
informed by the Administration's legal positions and advice from the
Department's General Counsel's office.
70. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you commit to following the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Marks. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my responsibilities
consistent with the Constitution and the law on this matter as on all
others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
71. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you commit to notifying the
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, including the majority and
minority, if you are asked not to follow the Impoundment Control Act or
not to expend the money that Congress appropriates or authorizes?
Mr. Marks. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my responsibilities
consistent with the Constitution and the law on this matter as on all
others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
72. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, the Constitution's Spending Clause
(Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) and Appropriations Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9,
cl. 7) give Congress, not the Executive, power of the purse. The
Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this power. Do you believe that
impoundments are constitutional?
Mr. Marks. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my responsibilities
consistent with the Constitution and the law on this matter as on all
others. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
73. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, the funding levels in appropriations
bills passed into law are not targets or ceilings; instead, they are
amounts the executive branch must spend, unless stated otherwise.
Congress could--if it wanted the President to have discretion--write
those amounts as ceilings. Do you agree?
Mr. Marks. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my responsibilities
consistent with the Constitution and the law. I would ensure that my
actions and advice to the Secretary of Defense on this matter are
informed by the Administration's legal positions and advice from the
Department's General Counsel's office.
74. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what is your understanding of the
requirements for DOD to obligate funding that Congress authorizes and
appropriates, in accordance with the time period that Congress deems it
to do so?
Mr. Marks. My understanding is the balance of an appropriation or
fund limited for obligation to a definite period is available only for
payment of expenses properly incurred during the period of availability
or to complete contracts properly made within that period of
availability and obligated consistent with the law. However, the
appropriation or fund is not available for expenditure for a period
beyond that otherwise authorized by law.
75. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you commit to expending the money
that Congress appropriates and authorizes?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I commit to being a good steward of
Department appropriations and to comply with all applicable law
regarding their obligation and expenditure.
76. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you commit to following and
implementing every provision of the annual National Defense
Authorization Act passed into law?
Mr. Marks. I fully acknowledge and respect Congress's
constitutional role in issuing laws and provisions to be carried out by
the executive branch for designated purposes. I commit, if confirmed,
to executing my responsibilities consistent with the Constitution and
the law. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on these matters are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office.
77. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you became aware of a potential
violation of the Antideficiency Act, Impoundment Control Act, or other
appropriations laws, what steps would you take?
Mr. Marks. I commit, if confirmed, to executing my responsibilities
in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the law on this
matter. I would ensure that my actions and advice to the Secretary of
Defense on this matter are informed by the Administration's legal
positions and advice from the Department's General Counsel's office and
would make all appropriate notifications as required by law.
acquisition reform
78. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what is your understanding of the
Procurement Integrity Act and your obligations under that law?
Mr. Marks. I understand that, under the Procurement Integrity Act,
I am obligated as a Government official to protect competitive source
selection information from unauthorized disclosure. Safeguarding this
sensitive information is essential to maintain the integrity of the
process and ensures all prospective contractors have a fair opportunity
to compete for Federal contracts. Furthermore, I understand the
Procurement Integrity Act prohibits former Government officials from
accepting compensation from contractors to varying degrees, depending
on the procurement decisionmaking role performed by the former official
and the dollar value of those decisions.
79. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you believe that it is important
to be able to assess accurate cost and pricing data from contractors,
especially for sole-or single-source contracts?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition (ASD(A)) to address the accuracy of cost and
pricing data from contractors--particularly in sole-source situations--
where they intersect with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Energy, Installations, and Environment's portfolio. Competition is the
preferred way to obtain fair, reasonable pricing and best values. When
competition is not possible, I understand the Truthful Cost and Pricing
Data Act (commonly referred to as TINA) requires contractors to provide
data, such as actual cost, that places the Government and the
contractor on an equal footing when negotiating contract prices. I
understand that access to accurate cost and pricing data from
contractors provides the Government with a reliable way to verify
contractor assertions or statements in terms of costs and cost trends
during negotiations.
80. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, how do you plan to obtain cost and
pricing data from contractors to determine that the cost of Federal
contracts is fair and reasonable?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition (ASD(A)), where appropriate, to address
obtaining cost and pricing data from contractors where they intersect
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment's portfolio. I understand that the Government has the
authority to obtain certified cost and pricing data from contractors
unless an exception applies through the statutory requirement (Truthful
Cost and Pricing Data Act--commonly referred to as TINA). I understand
exceptions to TINA include competition and commercial items and
services, which should be prioritized to the maximum extent possible to
promote improved cost, schedule, and performance for the products and
services needed to support national defense.
81. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, how do you plan to do so in cases
where contractors refuse or claim they are unable to turn over this
data?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition (ASD(A)), where appropriate, to address
cases where contractors refuse or claim inability to provide cost and
pricing data.
82. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, what steps
will you take to ensure that contractors are not price gouging or
overcharging the Federal Government?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition (ASD(A)), where appropriate, to take a
proactive approach to safeguard against price gouging. I believe
competing products and services amongst traditional and nontraditional
defense contractors is the optimal way to prevent price gouging and
obtain the best value.
83. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you are confirmed, will you
commit to seeking refunds, including voluntary refunds, from
contractors and companies that overcharge the Federal Government?
Mr. Marks. I am committed to sound financial management of
resources allocated to the Department of Defense through taxpayer
dollars. If confirmed, I will partner with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition (ASD(A)) where appropriate, to seek voluntary
refunds when funds are otherwise not recoverable through the terms and
conditions of the contract.
84. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if so, how do you plan to do so?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition (ASD(A)), where appropriate, to address
instances where the Department has been overcharged.
research and development
85. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, who should be involved in decisions
to cancel grants?
Mr. Marks. There may be many reasons the government cancels a
grant, and the decision is not taken lightly. Regardless of reason--
non-compliance, convenience, voluntary withdrawal, or mutual
agreement--agency leadership may have the authority to terminate a
grant after being guided by legal counsel to ensure compliance with
statutory authorities, regulations, and grant terms and conditions.
When considering canceling a grant, transparency and adherence to due
process are paramount. If confirmed, and should it become necessary to
terminate a grant under my authority, I will do so only after a
thorough review. If confirmed, I will be a responsible steward of
taxpayer dollars, ensuring that grants are used effectively and
efficiently to support the President's national security objectives and
within statutory authorities.
protecting classified information and federal records
86. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what is your understanding of the
need to protect operational security, or OPSEC?
Mr. Marks. OPSEC is the process of identifying and protecting
critical information to prevent adversaries from gaining advantage,
ensuring mission success and safety of personnel.
87. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what are the national security risks
of improperly disclosing classified information?
Mr. Marks. The loss or degradation of resources or capabilities
undermines the Department of Defense's mission and security, damages
public trust, and compromises sources and methods.
88. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, is it your opinion that information
about imminent military targets is generally sensitive information that
needs to be protected?
Mr. Marks. This determination is based on circumstances on a per-
mission basis based on Operational Security principles.
89. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what would you do if you learned an
official had improperly disclosed classified information?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I commit to following applicable laws and
relevant guidance from the Department of Defense, Intelligence
Community, and other applicable security officials with respect to
addressing improperly disclosed information.
90. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what is your understanding of
Government officials' duties under the Federal Records Act?
Mr. Marks. The Federal Records Act (FRA) is a law that requires all
Federal agencies to maintain records that document their activities.
Federal employees are responsible for making and keeping records of
their work. Federal employees have three basic obligations regarding
Federal records: 1) Create records needed to do the business of their
agency, record decisions and actions taken, and document activities for
which they are responsible; 2) Take care of records so that information
can be found when needed, and 3) Carry out the disposition of records
under their control in accordance with agency records schedules and
Federal regulations. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing and following
the appropriate Federal Records Act requirements applicable to my
position.
91. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, should classified information be
shared on unclassified commercial systems?
Mr. Marks. No.
92. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, is it damaging to national security
if the pilots flying a mission find out that the official who ordered
them to perform that mission shared sensitive information that could
have made it more likely that the mission would fail, or they would be
killed?
Mr. Marks. I know firsthand the importance of safeguarding
sensitive information. I believe we must ensure that the Department of
Defense has the policies and technologies available to safeguard
information while enabling communication at the speed of operations.
93. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you had information about the
status of specific targets, weapons being used, and timing for imminent
U.S. strikes against an adversary, under what circumstances would you
feel comfortable receiving or sharing that information on an
unclassified commercial application like Signal?
Mr. Marks. While I cannot speak to hypothetical circumstances, I
believe we must ensure that the Department of Defense has the policies
and technologies available to safeguard information while enabling
communication at the speed of operations.
base realignment and closure
94. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, the Department of Defense has
historically used the congressionally authorized Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process to realign and close military installations in
an objective, transparent manner. What are your views on the need for a
future BRAC round, and under what circumstances would you recommend
pursuing this process to the Secretary of Defense and the President?
Mr. Marks. I am currently not in a position to have a detailed
understanding of how the Department's real property portfolio aligns
with current and future needs across the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders. Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is one of many tools available to
address underutilized and excess infrastructure. If confirmed, I would
work closely with Congress to shape the definition, goals, and
authorities required if BRAC was deemed necessary.
95. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, under title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687,
the Department has limited authority to close or realign installations
outside of a formal BRAC process, subject to specific thresholds and
reporting requirements. Under what circumstances would you recommend
using this authority?
Mr. Marks. I am currently not in a position to have a detailed
understanding of how the Department's real property portfolio aligns
with current and future needs across the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders. If confirmed, I
will work with the aforementioned stakeholders and the Congress to
determine if there are any suitable uses for the authorities granted
under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687.
96. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if DOD exercises any authorities
under title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687, will you notify or brief Congress
before doing so?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments
to ensure that the Department fully complies with the congressional
notification requirements under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687.
97. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if DOD exercises any authorities
under title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687, will you provide written
justifications to Congress before doing so?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments
to ensure that the Department fully complies with the congressional
notification requirements under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687.
98. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, what other steps would you take to
support transparency and congressional oversight of such actions?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to ensure that
all applicable laws regarding military basing actions are followed,
including congressional notification requirements.
99. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, will you commit to
full compliance with all statutory requirements, including but not
limited to, title 10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2687 and 993, before
recommending or executing any closure, realignment, or significant
force structure change?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to ensure that
the Department complies with the requirements of all applicable laws
regarding basing actions, including 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 and 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 993, and that Congress is notified as directed by law.
100. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to keeping Congress
fully informed of any such deliberations before recommending or
executing any closure, realignment, or significant force structure
change?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Military Departments,
Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to ensure that
Congress is properly informed in accordance with all applicable laws
regarding closure, realignment, or basing actions and that Congress is
notified with proper information as directed by law.
101. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, past base closures and realignments
have had significant impacts on local communities and military
families. If confirmed, how would you balance military requirements
with the economic and social impacts on affected communities when
considering installation changes?
Mr. Marks. I believe it is the Department's policy that every
practical consideration should be given when implementing base closures
and realignments that may seriously affect a community's economy. If
confirmed, I will implement these actions in a manner that fully
considers the local economic impact and leverages assistive resources
to the extent possible.
102. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, in preparation for this role, are
you aware of how often and under what circumstances the President has
used title 10 U.S.C. 2687(d)?
Mr. Marks. To my knowledge, I am not aware of an instance when the
President has certified to Congress under 10 U.S.C. 2687(d) that a base
closure or realignment must occur for emergency reasons.
community engagement
103. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, how do you plan to
work with the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation?
Mr. Marks. The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation
(OLDCC) is a critical resource for the Department that enables the
Department to leverage public and private capabilities of defense
communities to support the lethality and readiness of our installations
and warfighters. I have had firsthand experience with its Installation
Readiness program, for example, which is helping Northwest Florida to
collaboratively work with military installation leaders to address
regional readiness threats and identify improvement projects,
incorporating water, gas and power utilities. If confirmed, I will work
with OLDCC to identify opportunities to expand support for the
Secretary's priorities in partnership with installations and defense
communities--such as in defense of the homeland and addressing critical
infrastructure needs.
104. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, in your advance policy questions
you said ``the Installation Readiness Program, the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program, and the Defense
Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) offer some of the best means
for engaging the community''. What do you consider to be the biggest
successes of those programs and how do you plan to build on that
success?
Mr. Marks. I believe that programs offer valuable opportunities to
engage local communities to ensure the readiness and lethality of our
military installations and ranges. As an example, in my experiences at
Eglin Air Force Base, I have worked with State and county partners as
well as private landowners for many years to protect thousands of acres
of nearby forests and agricultural lands through the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Integration program. I have also seen
firsthand the benefits of the Defense Community Infrastructure Program,
which provided Eglin Air Force Base and its surrounding community with
a new fire station that enhances emergency response capabilities and
emergency services.
The Department must continue to build on these successes,
recognizing that it needs the civilian capabilities leveraged by these
programs to meet our mission needs and improve readiness and warfighter
lethality.
105. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you support expanding the DCIP
program to meet community needs?
Mr. Marks. The Defense Community Infrastructure Program is the only
construction grant program within the Department of Defense (DOD) that
can deliver needed infrastructure enhancements through civilian
capabilities, especially critical infrastructure needs and requirements
that are primarily not owned nor controlled by DOD. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with Congress to identify additional
opportunities to leverage this program to address the important
infrastructure needs of our installations across the country.
106. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if you're confirmed, will you
ensure that the Military Family Readiness Working Group for Military
Housing holds its first meeting no later than June 1, 2025?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will work with the Undersecretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to determine what steps are
necessary to hold the first Military Family Readiness Working Group for
Military Housing.
climate resilience
107. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, the Department of Defense is
charged with climate resilience plans to defend the Nation against
safety and security threats. If confirmed, will you ensure that
installation resilience is part of the national defense strategy?
Mr. Marks. Military installations serve as force and power
projection platforms and thus must be resilient to kinetic, cyber, and
extreme weather-related risks. If confirmed, I will work across the
Department of Defense to assess and mitigate extreme weather-related
impacts on operations. This will include completing the military
installation resilience component as part of the Installation Master
Plans and sharing them in a manner consistent with the law and the
National Defense Strategy.
108. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you believe that having a
diversified energy portfolio such as solar, wind, and battery storage
is important to installation resilience?
Mr. Marks. The Department of Defense (DOD) faces a range of
kinetic, cyber, political-economic, and weather-related risks to the
energy needed to execute critical missions at our installations. DOD
should consider a range of cost-effective energy technologies,
including energy generation and storage to ensure a diversified energy
portfolio that supports a lethal Joint Force able to defend the
homeland and deters our adversaries. If confirmed, I am committed to
actively exploring all options, including cutting-edge energy solutions
such as advanced nuclear and enhanced geothermal technologies.
109. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, what steps will you
take to ensure the Department is energy-resilient and conserves as much
energy as possible?
Mr. Marks. Energy resilience is key to maintaining the readiness of
our installations and posture. If confirmed, I will work across the
Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure we continue to identify energy
resilience gaps for critical missions and prioritize DOD investments
for enhanced resilience. Energy conservation will play an important
role in this effort. Past energy conservation actions have increased
efficiency, enhanced resilience, reduced utility costs, and mitigated
future price risks. Conserving energy allows DOD to power more
platforms and capabilities in support of the warfighter. I will ensure
that decisionmaking regarding installations and forces is informed by
the risks to our critical missions and energy supplies, and the
capabilities afforded by changes in our energy use.
110. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you believe that extreme weather
is a threat to national safety and security?
Mr. Marks. Extreme weather is a threat to our installations,
personnel, and assets. Installations are essential to supporting a
trained, ready, and deployable force. They serve as initial maneuver
platforms from which the Department of Defense (DOD) can deploy troops
around the globe and coordinate and control various mission-related
functions for those units once deployed. This makes our installations
critical to ensuring national security. Extreme weather threatens the
safety, health, and effectiveness of the warfighter. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure the DOD and installation-related national safety
and security are able to withstand extreme-weather related risks.
111. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, do you believe climate resiliency
considerations are necessary for the future construction and
rehabilitation of military installations?
Mr. Marks. Integrating preparedness into future construction and
rehabilitation is necessary to avoid damages and risks to mission.
Construction projects are expected to last decades and can have
significant near-and long-term impacts. Impacts from extreme weather
events can have significant financial and mission impacts to the
Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will work with the Military
Departments, Combatant Commands, and other appropriate stakeholders to
ensure our installations can withstand extreme weather-related risks
and fully support warfighting requirements in the short, medium, and
long-term.
112. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, what steps will you
take to ensure the Nation's ability to respond and recover from climate
disruptions?
Mr. Marks. To effectively mitigate risks from extreme weather
events, the Department of Defense (DOD) should leverage validated data
and solutions that provide cost-effective infrastructure and
installation resilience approaches. By continuing to invest in
innovation, best practices, and tools that draw on top talent from
industry, universities, and Federal partners, we can ensure our
installations maintain mission readiness while adapting to increasing
extreme weather challenges. If confirmed, I will focus DOD's efforts
using a risk-informed approach that emphasizes lethality and
operational resilience.
113. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) have been found in essential use applications and industrial and
consumer products. If confirmed, will you support PFAS cleanup efforts
within the DOD Cleanup Program?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I will support per-and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) cleanup efforts within the Cleanup Program and ensure
the Department of Defense continues to aggressively address PFAS in a
holistic manner across the Department.
exceptional family member program
114. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, the DOD's Exceptional Family Member
Program (EFMP) survey found only 43 percent of respondents were
satisfied with the program. How will you address the needs of EFMP
families?
Mr. Marks. The Department's Exceptional Family Member Program is a
vital resource for military families. If confirmed, I commit to working
with the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness on
potential improvements in the areas where the program intersects with
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment's portfolio.
115. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, EFMP families report waiting months
for medical and educational services after a permanent change of
station (PCS). How will you facilitate standardization of care and
transfer of care during a PCS?
Mr. Marks. I understand that the Undersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)) has oversight of the Exceptional
Family Member Program. If confirmed, I will work with OUSD(P&R) to
provide the appropriate support to any effort to improve access to care
and transfer of care during a Permanent Change of Station.
privatized military housing
116. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, privatized military housing
companies have relied on the Federal enclave doctrine to deny military
members of their tenants' rights. How will you ensure servicemembers'
have access to safe housing?
Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks. I understand that the overall goal of the
Department of Defense's housing program is to ensure that
servicemembers have access to safe, quality, housing, whether in the
U.S. or overseas. If confirmed, I will ensure that we have the
appropriate oversight mechanisms in place to hold both the Military
Departments and privatized owners to the quality standards our
servicemembers deserve.
117. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, will you commit to implementing and
enforcing the Military Housing Privatization Initiative Tenant Bill of
Rights?
Mr. Marks. The Tenant Bill of Rights is one of several key
transformative actions taken to improve the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative program and to create a positive living
experience for servicemembers and their families. If confirmed, I will
support efforts to ensure full implementation of the Tenant Bill of
Rights.
118. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, if confirmed, will you assess the
sufficiency of the Tenant Bill of Rights and come back to the committee
with any recommendations to strengthen the Tenant Bill of Rights within
90 days?
Mr. Marks. I believe in a proactive approach. If confirmed, I will
work as the Chief Housing Officer to ensure the Department of Defense
continues to strengthen its oversight responsibilities, including
evaluating the sufficiency of reforms already in place.
119. Senator Warren. Mr. Marks, the Government Accountability
Office reported ``widespread confusion across military branches about
the mediation process for housing disputes.'' How will you improve
access to the dispute resolution mechanism guaranteed in the Tenant
Bill of Rights?
Mr. Marks. I believe the Department of Defense, with the support of
Congress, has made significant progress in rectifying the underlying
oversight issues that caused the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative housing crisis. I also believe there is room for additional
improvements, including implementing the remaining reforms and fully
addressing recommendations from the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) on improvements to the dispute resolution process. If confirmed,
I commit to addressing the GAO recommendations.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Duckworth
accountability
120. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Marks, do you commit that your
decisions will be communicated through official, secure channels and
properly documented for both oversight and institutional memory?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I commit to following applicable laws and
relevant guidance from the Department of Defense, Intelligence
Community, and other applicable security officials with respect to the
proper handling, transmittal, and retention of official information.
121. Senator Duckworth. Mr. Marks, would you follow an illegal,
unlawful, or immoral order?
Mr. Marks. If confirmed, I would have a duty not to carry out a
manifestly unlawful order.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kelly
installation infrastructure
122. Senator Kelly. Mr. Marks, you've run one of the biggest Air
Force installations and worked at the policy level on energy and
environmental issues, so you know how hard it can be to get real
improvements done on base. In your experience, what are the biggest
obstacles to improving on-base infrastructure?
Mr. Marks. In my experience, balancing resources with the necessary
readiness investments in our installations is a continual challenge.
Further, there are challenges in maintaining the acquisition capacity
to execute infrastructure projects. If confirmed, I will advocate for
the most effective resources our installations need to promote military
readiness and work with the military departments to maintain the
acquisition capacity to execute it efficiently.
123. Senator Kelly. Mr. Marks, is it a lack of funding, outdated
policies that slow down decisionmaking, or a contracting process that
makes it hard to get projects started and completed on time?
Mr. Marks. Resourcing levels, agency policies, decisionmaking
thresholds, and acquisition requirements all create unique challenges
in delivering and completing on-time projects. If confirmed, I will
work with the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and other
appropriate stakeholders to exert maximum effort to streamline
processes, remove barriers to entrance, and explore opportunities to
involve commercial sources much earlier in the acquisition process.
124. Senator Kelly. Mr. Marks, what steps would you take to upgrade
barracks and make sure our troops are living in safe, well-maintained
conditions?
Mr. Marks. Mission requirements should always inform decisions on
this matter. If confirmed, my priority as the Chief Housing Officer
will be to work with the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and
other appropriate stakeholders to ensure the Department meets its
obligation to provide members of the Armed Forces with access to safe,
quality, affordable Unaccompanied Housing worldwide while ensuring
readiness and enhancing lethality.
125. Senator Kelly. Mr. Marks, how do you plan to prioritize these
improvements while working within budget constraints?
Mr. Marks. As the Department considers the range of investment
needs to improve readiness and lethality, I expect resourcing for
infrastructure will continue to be constrained. If confirmed, I intend
to work with the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and other
appropriate stakeholders to advocate for the resourcing needed to
provide our warfighters with the best infrastructure possible, right-
size our footprint using all available authorities, and optimize the
use of all resources provided. I will also look for innovative best
practices to maximize every dollar and improve project timelines.
126. Senator Kelly. Mr. Marks, there is a long list of Child
Development Centers in need of replacement, expansion, or both.
Ensuring safe and accessible childcare is critical to readiness and
retention. How do you plan to prioritize these improvements while
working within budget constraints?
Mr. Marks. Providing Child Development Centers is essential to
supporting our warfighters' families and ensuring military members can
focus on their mission. If confirmed, I will work with the Military
Departments to improve Child Development Centers consistent with
priorities articulated by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness through projects executed effectively and
efficiently that prioritize mission readiness requirements.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Dale R. Marks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Dale R. Marks, which was
transmitted by the Committee at the time of the nomination was
referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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 Mr. Dale R.
Marks in connection with his nomination follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) 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(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The nomination of Mr. Dale R. Marks was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Wicker on May 1, 2025, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on June 3, 2025.]
[all]