 His ambition in the region continues to grow, as does his aggressive behavior. Chinese leadership seeks greater power and influence around the world, and it is leveraging a wide range of military, economic, and political pressures against its neighbors and other vulnerable nations to advance these goals. As our defense leaders have made clear, the United States does not seek conflict with China, and strategic competition is not an inevitable march to conflict. America has long been a Pacific nation, and we have deep economic and security interests in the region. During today's hearing, I look forward to discussing how our forces can continue to improve our military posture and capabilities, while also supporting whole-of-govern efforts to compete effectively in the region. To that end, the Defense Department released a joint concept for competing last year, which made clearly the objective of China and our adversaries to win without fighting. The concept warns that if we do not adapt to the realities of long-term competition, the United States risks ceding strategic influence, advantage, and leverage while preparing for war that never occurs. I am interested to hear from our witnesses how they plan to utilize the joint capabilities in the Indo-Pacific and Korea to address these challenges. Recognizing the challenges in the Indo-Pacific, President Biden has requested considerable funding for Indo-Pacom in the fiscal year 2025 budget. This includes $9.9 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, or PDI, to strengthen the posture, infrastructure, and capabilities of our forces. In addition, this PDI investment will help build the capabilities of our allies and partners through military to military training exercises, freedom of navigation operations, and infrastructure improvements. The PDI requests as a subset of broader, department-wide investments to modernize and equip the force, much of which is focused on China as the department's pacing challenge. I am also encouraged by the progress we have made with our allies and partners in the region. These efforts captured in new agreements with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and initiatives like AUKUS and the Quad are truly our asymmetric advantage in the long-term strategic competition with China. However, the most dangerous flashpoint that could turn our competition with China into a conflict remains Taiwan. In the past several years, we have seen a surge of aggressive Chinese military exercises around Taiwan's airspace and territorial waters, as well as an escalation in combative language from Beijing. The world has a right to be concerned. To help strengthen our posture and develop Taiwan's capabilities, the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act included a number of important security assistance tools. The bill established the Indo-Pacific campaigning initiative to facilitate Indo-Pacom's campaigning activities in the region, including increased frequency and scale of exercises, freedom of navigation operations, and partner engagements. The bill also established a comprehensive training, advising, and institutional capacity building program for the military forces of Taiwan. I understand Indo-Pacom is continuing to help Taiwan to advance its defense capabilities consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, and I expect Congress will continue to support this effort. Admiral Aquilino, faced with these wide-ranging challenges, I would like to know your assessment of Indo-Pacom's preparedness to carry out the United States strategy in the region. Key to our success in competition with China, the posture of our forces in South Korea is another vital factor. I'm encouraged by the recent progress we have seen in the trilateral relationship between South Korea, Japan, and the United States. In particular, last year's historic cooperation announced between South Korea and Japan, and the remarkable transformation in Japan's new defense strategy bode well for the future of this relationship. In addition, last spring, South Korean President Yoon addressed a joint session of Congress here in Washington as part of his state visit, just the second of President Biden's term. I understand that Japanese Prime Minister Kishida will do the same next month. I hope that developments like these will provide more opportunities to engage other regional partners. General Le Camere, I would ask for your views on the partnership between the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and other regional partners in addressing China, as well as North Korea's destabilizing activity. We must continue to manage the threat posed by North Korea. We know that Kim Jong-un continues to view nuclear weapons as, in his words, the ultimate deterrent against foreign intervention, and intends to gain international acceptance as a nuclear-armed state. The goal of U.S. policy remains the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but we are not taken on an all-or-nothing approach. Instead, the Biden administration has pursued what it describes as a calibrated, practical approach to diplomacy with the North with the goal of eliminating the threat in the United States. General, I would appreciate your view on the current threat from North Korea and how your forces are maintaining readiness through training and exercises with their South Korean counterparts. Again, let me thank the witnesses for their testimony, and let me recognize the ranking member, Senator Worker. Thank you. Well, we'll try this. Yeah. What do you say? Admiral Aquilino and General LeCameron. Thank you both for your service to our country. It's hard to feel good about the Indo-Pacific. The balance of power is tipping away from the United States and this region. As we confront this uncomfortable dynamic, this committee needs honest feedback and the best military judgment, and I think we're going to get that today. The Biden administration has completely taken its focus off North Korea, even as Pyongyang becomes a major enabler of Russia's brutal war in Ukraine. Some experts believe that North Korea is preparing for war. We'll be interested in your thoughts on that. On the other hand, there is total consensus that China is preparing for war. Beijing just announced another 7.2 percent increase to its defense budget, which already rivals ours in size. The Chinese Communist Party continues to modernize its military at a breathtaking pace. China has the largest navy in the world. Last year, Beijing added 30 ships while the United States reduced our fleet by two. And China is improving more than just its numbers. Every week, we receive more sobering news of emerging Chinese capabilities, improving Chinese force training. Beijing likes to flex this newfound strength, particularly against our Filipino allies and against Taiwan. Chinese ships coerce and harass Filipino vessels, conducting regular resupply missions on Second Thomas Shoal. The Chinese military conducts aggressive military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, simulating a blockade scenario of that free and democratic island. Chinese jets regularly engage in unsafe and unprofessional maneuvers against U.S. and Allied aircraft. A problem Admiral Acquilino has publicly highlighted last year. These activities are not surprising. In public comments, Beijing has clearly stated its intentions to surpass the United States. Just last year in San Francisco, Xi Jinping directly told President Biden that he intends to take Taiwan. We need to pause for a moment and let that sink in. Xi Jinping told our president and our commander-in-chief that he intends to take Taiwan. The Chinese leader warned the American president, face-to-face, in person, that he intends to take Taiwan. What should we do in response? Our position needs to be clear. We do not have a moment to waste. We need to do everything we can right now to deter conflict in the Indo-Pacific. At the moment, it's plain that we're not doing everything that we need to do. Last year in OPACOM's unfunded requirements list totaled $3.5 billion. This year's unfunded requirement list is $11 billion compared to $3.5 billion last year. We're asking our military to prepare for a potential war against China without giving them all the tools necessary to accomplish that objective. That's unacceptable. We must do better. We must do better so we can avoid war. So we can be strong enough to avoid what might happen. The committee needs to come together as it's done in the past to authorize sufficient, robust funding levels for our military. There are clear consequences if we fail to do so. The needs are vast in the Indo-Pacific theater. We need more capable munitions. We need better networked command and control systems, additional submarines, additional destroyers, more amphibes, and military construction for distributed basing. There are more needs, but those are the great starting place without sufficient funds to implement the national defense strategy which the chair referred to, the regional balance of power, will continue to tilt away from America. I look forward to hearing these distinguished witnesses, their testimony, and a candid discussion of what this committee can do this year to begin addressing these challenges. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. Admiral Aquilino, please. Chairman Reed, ranking member Wicker, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come before you today to talk about the Indo-Pacific region. And as chairman Reed said, this will be the last time I testify as commander of U.S. Indo-Pakom. I would like to take a second and thank my family for their support during these last three incredibly demanding years and for over 40 years of time in uniform. And after that time, I can say unequivocally that the sacrifice of our service members make is equally shared by their families. So, again, I couldn't have been successful without the support of mine. I'd like to thank them. The last three years have been an honor of my lifetime to serve with our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, Coast Guardsmen, and the civilians who work tirelessly alongside our allies and partners to keep our nation safe and ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific. I'd also like to thank Congress and all of you. Your support, especially in establishing the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, has been incredible. The American people should know that your efforts to focus our country's resources on addressing our most pressing national security challenge is making a difference. But we all have much more to do and we need to go faster. When I assumed command three years ago, we established the SEAS Initiative approach to implement the National Defense Strategy. In order to deter our adversaries, we challenged the Joint Force to think, act, and operate differently. And while progress has been made, we still have high risk and we're trending in the wrong direction. SEAS Initiative has been challenged by the delayed delivery of military construction, advanced capabilities, and resources to persist persistently project and maintain forces west of the international dateline. And while modernization of the force and the development of new concepts are essential to our ability to deter, we need to move at the speed and pace required to address this rapidly evolving security environment. As required by the NDAA, I've provided my independent assessment of INDOPACOM's resourcing requirements to inform PDI. That was delivered to your offices on Monday with the delivery of the budget. And for the last three years, these requirements have been transparent and consistent. And I acknowledge, however, that those requirements have increased. Now, that's due to a few things. First, previously unfunded requirements don't go away and they roll over into the request. Second, inflation. Third, as we work towards military construction, the cost is increased from initial planning and design, and that's maturity. And then lastly, the threat has changed. And it continues to increase and deliver quality capability and increased capacity from our security challengers. So as I've said many times, conflict is neither imminent or inevitable. But our adversaries have to become, they have become increasingly aggressive and emboldened. The PRC's unprecedented military buildup and campaign of coercive actions destabilize the region. And they challenge our values and the institutions that support a free and open INDOPACOM. We must build upon the progress achieved in the last few years to accelerate the fielding of these key joint capabilities that I've described in the independent assessment. They include the Guam defense system, things that deliver joint and decision superiority, specifically the Joint Fires Network, the INDOPACOM mission network, and they have to advance our relationships, specifically AUKUS and all of the other efforts, trilateral cooperation between Japan and the Republic of Korea. And as I prepare to depart, again, I want to thank Congress for your focus and your support for the challenges in the INDOPACOM. I also value many of the warm interactions and counsel I've had with all of you. So I thank you for the frank conversations, the guidance, and the assistance. My successor will need that same support. This challenge is not going away, nor will it get easier. And Chairman Rankin-Member, thank you for, again, the opportunity to be here. I look forward to having you see your question. Thank you, everyone. General Locke Comer, please. Chairman Reed and Rankin-Member Wicker, distinguished members of the committee, it remains my distinct honor to sit before you today as the Commander of the United States Forces Korea, Combined Forces Command, and United Nations Command. I want to express my sincere appreciation for your unwarying support to our service members, our civilians, our contractors, our interagency colleagues, and all our families overseas, and those who wait at home. We can never take our eye off the solemn responsibility to care for those who have raised their right hand to defend our Constitution and our way of life, including our families who do not volunteer but serve nonetheless. I'm prepared to discuss those in the security environment on the Korean Peninsula. It was just over 70 years ago that China supported Russia's burn and opportunistic. Communist North Korea decided to illegally invade the South, plunging Korea into a very costly armed conflict that is ongoing today. 22 United Nations States came to the aid of the Republic of Korea then, and 17 of them continue to support Armistice Enforcement today through the United Nations Command. Defending forward in this strategic location allows us to better protect our people, the Korean people, our homelands, and reinforce the United States' ironclad commitment to the Republic of Korea. Situated on the Asian continent, the Korean Peninsula shares a northern border with both China and Russia. Although UN Security Council resolutions have levied strict sanctions against the DPRK, they have found refuge in their alliance with the People's Republic of China and their revitalized partnership with Russia. In the last year, the DPRK has continued developing its military capabilities, including solid fuel ballistic missile technology, which violates sanctions. Some of the missile systems that North Korea has been testing threaten countries worldwide. North Korea has also been providing military material support to Russia, assisting in Russia's illegal and indefensible invasion of Ukraine. These relationships have allowed the DPRK to circumvent sanctions, build their weapons program, illegally further missile technology, sustain their cyber crime-derived economy, and threaten the international rules-based order. During the same time, the U.S. Rock Alliance continued to adapt to meet the evolving challenges. In April of 2023, the presidents of the two countries signed the Washington Declaration. We are affirming our commitment to mutual defense. They also announced the establishment of the Nuclear Consultative Group to strengthen extended deterrence, discuss nuclear strategic planning, and manage the DPRK threat. We have taken substantial and concrete steps to follow through on these commitments. The Republic of Korea has organized its own strategic command, giving us another arrow in our quiver. There have been multiple strategic asset deployments to the Republic of Korea Peninsula, including a nuclear ballistic missile submarine and the first B-52 landing in the last 40 years. In August 2023, the presidents of the U.S. Rock and Prime Minister of Japan met at Camp David for a trilateral summit. This historically significant meeting recognized the importance of advancing the security and prosperity of our people. We have made significant progress in following through on the commitments made during the summit, including steps towards sharing of real-time missile warning data, increased trilateral exercises on the sea, and the introduction of trilateral air and cyber exercises. Over the past three years, my thinking on operations, activities, and investments continues to evolve. However, what's not changed is my focus on protecting the homeland, preparing for combat, and taking care of people. Since readiness is perishable, I'll never be satisfied with our level of training and preparedness. As the Rock and U.S. conduct regular military training activities on the peninsula, I'm convinced that the DPRK is not only reacting to our activities, but in many ways mirroring them. We must continue to build physical, mental, and spiritual readiness through operations and activities designed to compete in the gray zone with the DPRK. To defend the Republic of Korea, we must continue to invest in 28,500 service members, including by, tri, and multilateral exercises on and off the peninsula. Multi-domain training, integrating live, virtual, and constructive entities, and continue to experiment with next-generation capabilities in the exact environment where they'll be employed. To maintain the Armistice Agreement, our ironclad commitment to maintain our combat readiness, we need your continued support and recognition to the threats of the homeland. It's been an honor to serve in these three commands. It's also been an honor to serve with Admiral Afgelino these past four-and-a-half years in multiple commands. My best to him and his family fair winds and following seas. Once again, thank you for all your support, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much, General Afgelino. And before I begin, let me remind my colleagues that we had a closed classified session before this. No information discussed in that session may be discussed here in the open session. Admiral Afgelino, CIA Director Burns recently published an article in which he said, quote, no one is watching U.S. support for Ukraine more closely than Chinese leadership. What message does it send to China if the United States fails to support Ukraine and allows the Russians as a result to succeed? Thank you, Chairman. You know, in today's integrated world and this closely aligned global environment, it's clear to me that based on the comments by President Putin and President Xi and their desire for a no-limits relationship and in President Xi's words, a relationship that we haven't seen in 100 years that the two authoritarian nations are aligned more closely than ever. So in the lens that we look at it, a strategic win in Ukraine for Russia is a strategic win for President Xi in China and allowing those authoritarian nations to move forward to change the world order in ways that favor authoritarian nations and infringe upon the freedoms and our values that the United States and our like-minded nations and allies and partners share. That's a dangerous new world. Thank you. The supplemental that we're now currently trying to pass contains not only the necessary support for Ukraine but also support for the Indo-Pacific region. So we need to pass that supplemental to help you also. Is that correct? Chairman, thank you to the committee and the Congress for working through this supplemental and I respectfully request that it gets passed as soon as possible. What's in that is beneficial not only for my partner General Kovoli in UCOM as it applies to the capabilities that Ukraine needs to our previous point. A strategic win for President Putin is a strategic loss for the United States. It's also a strategic win for China. But I thank you specifically for the things you put in there that directly support Indo-Pacific. The $3 billion that's been identified for increased submarine industrial base maintenance and support, that's critically important. Second, the FMF support for Taiwan, also critically important and directly aligned with the Taiwan Relations Act and the responsibilities that we execute in support of that law. And then lastly, those capabilities provided to Indo-Pacom have had multiple engagements with many of you. Senator Sullivan and I had some conversations on those capabilities that are critically important and I know those are in that supplemental. And I thank all the members, the committee and the Congress for pushing that forward. But it is critically important and it's important to go fast. I should note that the major proponent of the submarine industrial base funds was my colleague, Senator Wicker, and we all should thank you for that. General LeCammer, we've been talking about a transfer of operational control in Korea for long as I think I've been here. Quickly, what are the obstacles? Is that something that's now being essentially postponed because of the increasing threat? Thanks, Chairman. No, I mean, we're on the trajectory to complete it, but it's standards-based, not time-based, and I've gotten that directly from the President of the Republic of Korea. So we're working on it and we're moving forward. But the cooperation between, I assume, from comments that we've heard between not only South Korea but Japan and the United States together is at a historic level of integration and cooperation. Is that correct? Yes, Chairman. And I'd like to thank Admiral Aquilino for the tremendous support we get in getting the strategic assets and also working the cooperation between the three countries. Thank you. One issue for both of you, a conflict in the Pacific, perhaps our weakest link is congested logistics. It's a long way from the United States to the areas of operation. And just Admiral Aquilino, very quickly, since my time is running out, your quick comments, then, General McCommer, on congested logistics and what must we do? Yes, Senator, thanks. So supporting the force over half the globe is the task in the Indo-Pacific AOR. It's one of the reasons that we've highlighted the need for significant posture initiatives in the form of support and development to our friends and allies and partners in the region. That's one of the critical aspects. But I also have to thank Congress for your support for the additional fueling tankers that you provided to General Van Oost to be able to do that. We're going to need more of those. And as we distribute our logistics capabilities, we're going to do them on land. We're going to do it at sea. We've moved some Army watercraft. So bottom line is it's critically important. That said, the United States is the only nation that can sustain this type of force across the globe. So it's critically important. We need to do more. General McCommer, please. Yeah, the question I continue to ask, both transcom and Indo-Pac, is when does strategic movement become operational maneuver? I think our adversaries have learned if you let us build the Iron Mountain, you're in trouble. So there's that piece of the fight. The other part of the fight is that the fact that I sit inside the A2AD bubble and that we're actually on the Asian continent in South Korea, it's not a third world country. It's a first world country that has production capabilities. And I think we're looking at all avenues of what can we do to sustain ourselves. But we've got to keep the air and the sea lines and communications open in the fight. It'll be a different fight for a fight on the Korean Peninsula in the future. Thank you very much. Senator Worth, please. Admiral Equilino, you just talked a little about the supplemental. If Putin is successful in Ukraine, I think you said that is a strategic win for the Chinese Communist Party. And you just nodded your head in the affirmative. Can I conclude from your testimony that failure to pass the supplemental being a strategic win for Putin and being a strategic win for the Chinese Communist Party makes conflict in the Indo-Pacific more likely? Thanks, Senator. Again, with the linkage of the PRC and Russia that we've watched now over the past two years, again, I do believe that a strategic win for Putin is a strategic win for President Xi. It certainly makes our problem of deterrence more difficult. And it makes the potential for conflict more likely. You said, I believe, I'm quoting you correctly a few moments ago, things are trending in the wrong direction for the United States in the Indo-Pacific. Could you enlarge on that? Yes, sir. What I said is that things are trending in the wrong direction based on the capability capacity, defense industrial base, their actions and intent by the People's Republic of China. So they are continuing to develop their military machine despite an economy that has significant problems. They've increased their defense budget 7.2 percent this year. That's three years in a row. They've increased it. And I'm not sure that's a very transparent number. My assessment is they're actually spending more on defense than they articulate. So capability and capacity are increasing. Their actions are becoming much more belligerent. Their rhetoric is more clear. They have now articulated that the feature at Second Thomas Shoal is sovereign territory of the People's Republic of China. It is not as validated by the 2016 arbitrarian ruling that concluded China has no legal claim to that feature. And then on top of that, their enforcement is becoming concerning. The firehosing of our Philippine allies, the ramming of their ships and preventing their ability to resupply their sailors on the Sierra Madre, as well as restricting their ability to utilize the resources inside their exclusive economic zone, is all counter to international law. And it is counter to what all nations interpret as the rightful interpretation of un-claws. Okay, well that leads me then to ask about the un-funded requirements. Last fiscal year, the Navy asked for $3.5 billion in un-funded requirements. This year, it's skyrocketed to $11 billion in un-funded requirements. Now, it's my understanding this is way more than a simple wish list on your part because we've required in the NDAA a couple of years ago an independent assessment. We have required it specifically with INDO PAYCOM. Look at the National Defense Strategy that is in place for the United States. Look at what you have and give us an independent assessment of what you need. Is that independent assessment report instructive to you in telling us what your un-funded requirements are? Well, yes, Senator, first it's law, so I will deliver that report until you tell me to stop. We have advocated for those capabilities now for three years. They've been about 90-plus percent consistent. So in other words, we haven't shifted the target. We believe we have the right strategy. We believe we have the right approach and we've delivered those requirements. Additionally, for the two years prior to me, my predecessor was required to deliver a similar report or the same report. Those requirements have been consistent specifically with, you know, approach to the Guam defense system, the munitions capabilities that we need to sustain our deterrence effects, and then many of the other capabilities. We've told you to give us this report. And we've specifically directed that in our NDAA to endopacom. And yet this Congress has not given you what you've needed, so much of that requirement rolls over to the next fiscal year and contributes to the $11 billion which you've asked for this year. That's correct, Senator. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schahini, please. Well, thank you, Admiral and General, for the years of service to our country and for the commitment of your families as well. And Admiral, we will miss you. Probably more than you'll miss us, actually. But I think this is a question for you, General Lakamura. And although you both talked about the growing relationship between North Korea and Russia, that's developed since Putin invaded Ukraine. But can you elaborate on what that means for the regional reaction and what we're seeing in terms of that ability to empower both North Korea and Russia? Thanks, Senator. The relationship's always been there. I mean, the Korean War goes back to when both Mao and Kim Il-sung went to Stalin and asked for permission to invade. And then it fell off when the Soviet Union collapsed and that relationship or that assistance, which I think contributed to the arduous march of the 90s for DPRK, now there's an opportunity for KJU to have his weapons tested and to provide that support. He's always gotten support from Russia and China and the United Nations. Over the last couple of years, they've continued to veto any kind of new sanctions. And so diplomatically, he's gotten that support informationally. He's gotten the support. Both have provided exchanges of congratulations. And then militarily, there's now that relationship and they've contributed to the ability for DPRK to avoid sanctions. And are we seeing any reaction from our allies and the other countries in the Indo-Pacific to this relationship and any greater concern about what's going on there? I meet with the member nation ambassadors once a month, doing an ambassador round table and we talk about it and it's very concerning that relationship. China and Russia have both gained a strategic advantage over us in terms of information operations and are fighting irregular warfare campaigns against us and our allies. Can you speak to what we need to do to better leverage our ability to combat those information campaigns? I guess, Admiral, this is for you. Yes, Senator, thanks. The execution of propaganda misinformation and disinformation is a real concern for me. It should be a real concern for all of the United States. The PRC's ability to influence our information environment is concerning. I'll give you this example, right? So two years ago, you heard a lot about the West is declining. The United States is in decline and the East is rising. China is rising. All right, that is Chinese propaganda. Our economy continues to grow. There is in the cellar. So the actions in the information space, ultimately was being reported all over the United States. That's the expansive ability of misinformation to influence the United States. We ought to understand that it's occurring and we ought to understand that our free and open media and the truth that we project is a critical value of the United States. It's one to be protected, but we have to call out the misinformation to stop that ability to influence. And do you think we need more authorities? We need more leadership on responding to that? We need a better strategy? Why have we not done better as China and Russia have both really expanded their disinformation operations? Well, when you say we, I'm going to talk about what we do in Indo-Paycom. So the strategic approach we've taken is to expose the bad and amplify the good. We must continue to tell the story that's right. The actions that occurred at Second Thomas Show with the Philippines is a good example there. The media that our Philippine allies put on the ships to show the PRC actions are important for the world to see. You will not see those videotapes in mainland China. And their story is completely different, which is, you know, this is an agreement that the Philippines have balked on and they're taking their actions. So, again, it's just a good example of what happens. We have to understand how media is used in the People's Republic of China. Oh, by the way, and in Russia, because it's a similar problem, and in the DPRK, but it is not what we see in our media. We have to understand what's occurring in the differences. We have to value it, and then we have to expose it. Thank you. I'm out of time, but I did want to thank Indo-Paycom for being the leading combatant command on women, peace, and security, because I think it gives us a real advantage. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Shaheen, Senator Orange, please. Senator Fisher, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for being here today. Admiral, thank you for your many years of service. As you mentioned, families are important in this, too. So my thanks to them as well. Thank you for providing, Admiral, the committee with your unfunded requirements list. Its sheer size indicates a significant gap in what Indo-Paycom is being asked to do and what this administration's FY25 budget request would equip it to do. Can you highlight some of your missions that would be more challenging to achieve without the items on that unfunded requirements list? Thank you, Senator. First, it's worth highlighting that I don't take lightly when we develop that list and identify the requirements, and we also understand the magnitude. But what we all have to understand is we haven't faced a threat like this since World War II. The largest military, again, as Senator Wicker said, the world's largest Navy, soon to be the world's largest Air Force. So the magnitude, scope, and scale of this security challenge cannot be understated. All the missions would be challenged. But some examples, the Defense of Guam system is designed to deliver homeland defense to 170,000 American citizens on Guam, as well as the need to deliver combat power if required from Guam. So there's a military force generation mission. There's a Defense of Our Allies and Partners mission as applied through the Mutual Defense Treaties of the Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Those requirements and our commitment to our allies is the highest level of commitment. The ability to deliver deterrent effects and ensure I'm prepared to fight and win if tasked, that's what we have identified on that list. Thank you. I appreciate that. It is, I think, a very complete list as well, and it's very realistic. And I do appreciate your honesty in the information you provide on what you need to keep this country safe and keep the world safer. So thank you for that. In your written testimony, you note that the Navy, Army, and Marine Corps still need to procure the types and quantities of the munitions required to defeat threats in the Indo-Pacific region. As a combatant commander, how do delays in munitions production or decisions to procure lower quantities of munitions than you require by the operation plans that we have out there? How does that inhibit your ability to field an integrated joint force that will be effective against a peer adversary? Thank you, Senator. You know, I would say the number one lesson learned for the United States as we watched what the Russians have done in the illegitimate illegal invasion of Ukraine. The number one lesson we learned is that munitions of the right type and magnitude in the right place, A, delivers a deterrent effect, and B, if we get in a fight, will be absolutely needed. So this is a lesson learned over many, many years, but highlighted in this recent history as it applies to Ukraine. Those same lessons learned apply in the Indo-Pacific command. So we need the right numbers and the right types for the problem set that the United States will have. And those are capabilities, not only the land attack capabilities, but the anti-ship capabilities, anti-air capabilities, and in the magnitude that we need. So critically important, and I don't want to learn the lesson again. Sir, in that unfunded priorities list, you included a requirement for an additional $580.7 million for Indo-Pac-Com campaigning. When you testified before this committee last year, we discussed the value of campaigning and having persistent forward forces operating with our allies and partners forward every single day. So I understand the importance of these types of exercises. Clearly, the budget doesn't align with that campaigning, though. So what happens if there are continued delays in the resources needed to persistently project and maintain forces in the Indo-Pacific? Yes, Senator. So critically important and aligned to the strategy in the theater and in the national defense strategy is the theory of campaigning, which is pushing deterrent forces forward, operating, exercising, and working every day with our allies and partners forward to deliver those deterrent effects. If those funds are not there, I'll just be doing less. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Senator Blumenthal, please. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As I said in the closed session that we had, I want to express my appreciation for both of your service and the tremendous service of everybody who works under your commands. I'd like to ask a couple of questions about submarines, in particular, AUKUS. How important is AUKUS in our defense going into the future in deterring China and also providing the capability that the United States needs to defend our allies and our self? Yes, Senator. Again, additionally part of our strategy is to bring together and strengthen our alliance and partnerships. It's a critically important aspect of that. It's a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation increase in capability of the Australians. It's worth me highlighting that the Australians are a mutual defense treaty ally. They're a critical partner. The Australians have shared blood and treasure with the United States in every fight we've been in for the last 100 years. So strengthening their defense, having them with the exact same capabilities we have to be interoperable. I see no break in that linkage and for the Australians to have Virginia-class submarines and additional capabilities. We identify in pillar two of the AUKUS agreement tied with our UK counterparts. That's a critically... Put it this way, that's a really strong team that if we need to come together, that's very valuable. Are reducing the rate of production of submarines send the wrong signal at this point? Well, Senator, I have certainly advocated for increased capability of our joint force. I've advocated for increased capacity of our joint force in all domains. Our undersea capabilities are a significant advantage for the United States and we ought to consider expanding. I know you're in a tough position and I'm not asking you for your personal opinion or what the deliberations were that went into the rate, the reduction in the rate of submarine production from two to one per year. But I think it sends exactly the wrong signal to our allies, not only Australia but others in the region when we reduce the output of such a critical weapons platform that is vital not only to our own defense but to deterrence and defense of others in the region. Would you agree that we ought to increase the rate of production if possible? Senator, again, I would... The undersea capabilities that you've articulated, I absolutely need and I need them at scale and I need them at speed. This is a whole of nation problem. Number one, we should resource the requirements as is needed to deliver those capabilities. But we also need to deliver those capabilities on the timelines that we desire and that we pay for. So, again, I think there's lessons for all of the nation here that applies to this specific capability and others. So, again, I need the assets operationally. There's no doubt. How would you compare question for both of you, our capability in the artificial intelligence sphere as compared to the PRC? Senator, I'm tracking this very closely. I think the United States clearly has an advantage. We need to maintain that advantage. When we talk about AI, I always articulate, let's speak more precisely instead of saying AI. So, whether it's target recognition, whether it's autonomous command and control, we have to be specific. That said, we do have an advantage. I work a lot with Mr. Doug Beck from the Defense Innovation Unit. He supports my efforts to deliver capabilities that we need and he's a really good asset to help push this forward. But we do have an advantage and we need to maintain it. General. Senator, I would agree with that and we are continuing to work with Endopecom also with the commercial industry and academia to make sure that we do maintain that. Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Brown, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, let me just begin by thanking both of you for your service to our country. Admiral Aquilino, understand this is the last time you're going to be before our committee and we thank you very much for your years of service to this country. I have most certainly appreciated your candidness in our closed session regarding the challenges that you face and the need to continue to invest. Everything that we can do to deter the forces in that region means that our young men and women are not in harm's way as much as they would be otherwise. So thank you for that. Let me just begin. Admiral Aquilino, the way that you have discussed the Joint Fires Network makes it sound like an actual joint solution to the problem, to the problem set that the department has identified and which the JADC2 is supposed to solve. If so, I'm glad that you're leaning forward on this and have submitted it as an unfunded priority. My question to you relates to my concern that each service is apparently designing its own approach to the joint all-domain command and control program. We're talking air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace. How and when do you see the department bringing all of these separate lines of effort together? Thank you, Senator. So first, the services are doing some good work to figure out how to close and maintain the ability through a kill-web mechanism to close their kill chains. From the combatant command perspective, we don't do anything in stovepipes. We fight as a joint force. So the approach we've taken with the Joint Fires Network is to pull together a best-of-breed approach of project convergence from the Army, overmatch from the Navy and Marine Corps, and then ABMS from the Air Force, along with the DARPA aspect of Assault Breaker 2, to pull all those together and deliver a real near-time best-of-breed solution to be able to command and control the joint force and ultimately close the kill chain. And I think what this is, the way we have articulated it and linked it with the building senator is, you know, we're going to kind of provide some insights into the further development of CJAD C2 as it goes forward. So we're completely linked. We participate and utilize it in the guide series of experiments that Deputy Secretary Hicks has been running. We think we'll be informative, but ultimately I'm going to produce a prototype, if you will. That will be demonstrated in our next big exercise this year to see where we are, what we're doing, is it right, is it at scale. We've also pulled in what CENTCOM has been doing and we've pulled in what General Cavoli's been doing in UCOM in support of Ukraine. So our lens is this is a best-of-breed and a pretty good indicator on what we think the future should look like. When we talk about all of the domains, we're assuming that our adversaries in the region will do their best to limit our capabilities in multiple domains, whether it's cyber or whether it is space. In our particular case, we have adversaries who prepare to fight and in an armed conflict, there will be no limitations with regard to any domain. We will be at war and the war will be in all domains including cyberspace and space itself, accurate to say. And the reason why I ask that is because we talk about a kill web now rather than a kill chain, recognizing multiple ways. Can you expand a little bit on that, and I'm going to ask you to be a little bit brief about that. I have one question that I really want to get to to General Akamara on as well. Yes, sir, to kill web is critical, right? Because we do expect the adversary to try to break our kill chains. We need multiple paths, multiple dimensions. We need to be resilient. We need to deliver and close those kill chains. So absolutely required. Thank you, Admiral. And I appreciate your directness on that. General Akamara, from where I said a quiet day on the Korean Peninsula is truly a great day. Our relationship with the Republic of Korea and with the United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission is a large credit to why we've had a lasting peace since 1950. We've been there, but we've been there and we've been able to maintain peace. While these relationships have been established for decades, are there any policy barriers that hinder your command's ability to fully integrate partner nation family personnel into your community programs, such as schools? Thanks, Senator. It's not a policy. It's really, I need the NDA change to read a space from space available to space required for our Dodea schools, for our UNC member nations. It's a simple change, but it's one that would be very important in terms of maintaining that relationship. We haven't had to turn anybody away, but we can't guarantee it for them. And obviously the families are important and there's angst in those families until we can tell them that, yes, we have a school slot for them. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rounds. On behalf of Chairman Reid, I recognize Senator Cain. I'd like to ask some questions about alliances. First, I'll stress the questions that Senator Blumenthal asked about the capacity that AUKUS helps deliver us in the region, and I won't go into it because I thought Admiral Aquiliner, your answer was very robust there. I have worked with many of the colleagues on this committee and on the Foreign Relations Committee to get the AUKUS framework and law, and I'm really happy with the first set of authorities we put in the NDA, but we do need to get the supplemental past as you indicated. Let me ask a question about another alliance that I think the committee understands, but sometimes the public doesn't. In general, the camera, I'd like to ask you about Japan and South Korea. When President Biden had the Camp David Summit with the political leadership of the two countries, it was a headline in the United States, but most people saw it and thought, well, Japan is an ally, Korea is an ally, so in the U.S., I don't think it was seen as a big deal, but it is a big deal because Japan and South Korea have had a lot of challenges based on tough, tough history, and the increasing closeness of that relationship, both at the political level and at the military level, is a big deal. I'd like you to talk a little bit about how this relationship getting closer in the U.S. role in helping achieve our rapprochement is giving us a strong set of alliances and an increasing deterrence capacity in the Indo-Pacific. Thanks, Senator. I'll open with we've got to have the humility to know that we can't solve the historical differences between the two nations, but we have to do our best to continue to work together with them, and we have to have the emotional intelligence to see it from both sides as we go forward. The true existential threat to the Republic of Korea in Japan is not World War II Imperial Japan, it's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with nuclear weapons pointed at both countries and quite frankly, our country. And so I think that and our ability to train and what do we reveal and what do we conceal? How do we reassure the South Korean people? How do we reassure the people of Japan the importance of that relationship? The Korea Theater of Operations is pretty tight. The Admiral has been talking about some of these weapons systems that are out there. We are all inside an A to A debubble both countries, and we've got to continue to work together for the security of all three nations. Hey, Senator Geithner, I have one comment. So it is absolutely worth highlighting the leadership of President Yoon and Prime Minister Qashida to move to where we are today with the trilateral relationships without their leadership, and I sat with both of them and I thanked them for it, but the security environment dictates we are stronger together. We can defend each other's nations. As a matter of fact, as we sit here today, we have a U.S. ballistic missile defense ship, a Japanese ballistic missile defense ship, and a South Korean ballistic missile defense ship operating in the area with the expectation of a potential launch by North Korea to defend all three of our nations. That's where we move this ball. And again, General, the camera's work has been critical, but the President and Prime Minister's leadership cannot be understated. We move to another topic. 2024 is the 30th anniversary of the effective date of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea. It was written in the 1980s, sufficient nations ratified by 1994 for it to go into effect. The U.S. follows the convention but has never ratified it. The fact that we haven't ratified it means that we lose opportunities, for example, to claim mineral rights at deep seabed. Those opportunities have shrunk while other nations have grown even at our expense, and the fact that we haven't ratified also means that we're unable to take enforcement actions or press against illegal activities by nations like China that would violate the convention. There's been a pretty steady drumbeat of support for the UN Convention from defense secretaries, DHS secretaries, secretaries of state, military leadership under administrations of both parties over the last 30 years, but it's particularly picked up in the last 10 years, indicating that it would be wise. It would be in the U.S.'s interest if we joined the more than 150 nations that exceeded to that convention. Is that, Admiral Aquilino, as you finish 40-plus years of service, including service in the Indo-Pay-Com in this most recent important chapter of your professional career, do you share the view that the U.S. joining the convention would be a smart thing for us to do? Yes, Senator, so for three years in the Indo-Pay-Com and all of my hearings and meetings with Congress, I have advocated for the ratification of uncloss for the three years before that as the Pacific Fleet Commander. I have advocated for it in the years before that as well. So it absolutely puts us on the right foot as it applies to the security environment. There's no doubt. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Cain. Senator Orr, please. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks, gentlemen, very much for being here today and Admiral Aquilino. We wish you the best in your next chapter. And thank you so much for your service. Admiral Aquilino, as the combat commander for Indo-Pay-Com, you do have a lot on your plate. You've heard from my colleagues. We understand the threat that China poses as our pacing threat. In July, I had received back some RFIs from SOCOM, and they stated that global combatant commanders will require more SOF forces and great power competition. That same RFI stated that the U.S. Army's force structure cuts to SOF enablers will increase risk to operational commanders, specifically cuts to the SOF formation, decrease our ability to meet combatant commanders' requirements. Admiral, do you agree with SOCOM's assessment that you will need more SOF forces in great power competition? Thanks, Senator. Good to see you again. General Fenton's been a great partner for a number of years. So as we look at laying down the correct posture in Indo-Pacific command in order to deter conflict, there is an absolute soft component of that. And it has increased as we've laid out what do we believe we need in place. General Fenton has supported that. So our posture has increased. Again, I can't speak to the other combatant commands, but I've also put my money where my mouth is because my senior enlisted advisor sitting behind me is a Navy SEAL. So I needed some SOF too in the headquarters. Absolutely. Thank you. So you would agree, Admiral, that those relationships that those SOF personnel develop in your region are extremely important. Correct. Yes, ma'am. Their ability to operate persistently with our partners for training for increasing of combat capability and then ultimately, should there be conflict to have them in the right place, critically important to me. Very good. And throughout the morning, I've heard my colleagues talk about relationships and how important they are and whether that is nation to nation, member to member, mill to mill. All of that is very important. So I've worked with a number of members in a bipartisan way here on some of the COFA nations and the convene act. And can you speak to the relationship that those COFA nations have and how that helps stabilize the region? Yes, ma'am. Before I do that, I do want to thank you for passing the COFA agreement with the funding required. That was critically important to our national security. We defend those islands like there are a homeland. Those COFA states contribute more military members per capita than anywhere else. We value their service and their importance. But bottom line is the right force in the right place at the right time to deliver the right effect. That's what we look at. And in many cases, those are soft forces, especially with smaller nations, they can go in. Or if they don't have militaries, there's an opportunity for our soft to work with police forces and other island capabilities that provide benefit. Thank you very much. And General LeCameron, kind of staying on the theme of these relationships, I'm going to throw you a little bit of a softball. This was not a scripted question, but because I know that you have a personal relationship with the person I'm going to reference, and he is a hero to many. The last remaining Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean War is Colonel Ralph Puckett. And the Korean President, President Moon, South Korean President, President Moon was here in May of 2021 during that ceremony at the White House where Colonel Puckett was given his Medal of Honor. Can you speak just briefly in the minute I have left about the significance of the President being here from South Korea during that awards ceremony? Tell us a little bit about Colonel Puckett and his service to South Korea and the United States so that we can honor him today. Oh, thanks, Senator. Yes, Colonel Puckett. If there's one thing he taught me many years ago as a lieutenant, all the way up as my honorary Colonel of the Regiment. The Ranger Regiment is that combat is simple blocking and tackling. So picture yourself, brand new second lieutenant, sail over to South Korea, land in the Pusan perimeter and are told to stand up a Ranger Company as a second lieutenant. He stands it up. He fights. He's wounded. He tells his folks to leave him there. He's still from his wounds. I think he's still had many surgeries and they still leak. And he's a national treasure. Hard as woodpecker lips. We'd always find him down there in the snowstorm correcting machine gunners on what to do going forward. So the fact that the President of the United States, and I believe it was President Moon, was there that presented him the Medal of Honor. Or he was there when he got the U.S. Medal of Honor and then last year during the state visit he received the Korean version of that. His service is legendary all the way through. I think if you were to talk maybe even to Chairman Reid who probably remembers Colonel Puckett at the Academy, Ranger Puckett, he's probably starting to sweat right now. So he has mentored and tormented many of us to this location and he is a national treasure. So thank you. Thank you, General Le Camarie. I think he's pretty outstanding. And I had to tell his story because I want folks to recognize that so many of these relationships through so many eras of conflict that the United States has always been a leader. And the men and women that serve in uniform have been recognized by so many nations around the globe. And we do face eras of isolationism as well. And it's incredibly important that we maintain leadership around the globe. Our sons and daughters are going forward. They are sacrificing so much for our nation. But we are being recognized by those nations as well. Those relationships matter. They will always matter. So thank you for taking time to honor Colonel Puckett today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator King, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, how does Kim hang on? GDP per capita in North Korea is $2,000. And in South Korea, it's $35,000. And if you go back to the time of the Korean War, the GDP per capita in North Korea is essentially flat. And South Korea is a hockey stick. Do the people in North Korea not know the extent to which they're being compromised by their government? Simple answer is, Senator, they have no idea what's on the outside world. He maintains power because he controls information in and controls information out. And they literally don't. They don't have access to the internet or radio broadcast from other countries. I mean, it's hard to believe that the border, I mean, the border of North Korea is about 30 miles from Seoul, as you know. And it's hard to believe that they just don't, they don't know to the extent to which, as I said, they're being compromised. I'm being polite by using the word compromised. Yes, Senator. I've read several books on the defectors and met a couple of them. And even knowing what they know right now to go back, they would still go back. I mean, it's tremendous. He's treated as a deity. The brainwashing that has occurred is pretty powerful. It's astonishing. Admiral Aquilino, I want to give you a hypothetical. You were talking a few minutes ago about disinformation, the Chinese Communist Party. What if the Chinese Communist Party came to this country and said, we'd like to create an app that 150 million Americans will use. We will have access to all of their data and it will give us a platform for information and disinformation and propaganda. Do you think that would be a good idea for us to welcome that hypothetical idea? Yes, Senator. I'm incredibly cautious of anything that comes out of the People's Republic of China, specifically in the information space. It's a forum for them to take advantage of our freedom of speech and information to push and sell their thoughts, ideas, and ability to influence the American public. And this is their policy, is it not? This isn't just something that's random. They have a concrete, deliberate policy of trying to influence us and other countries through information and disinformation. They absolutely, as a part of their strategy, are using the information space to achieve their strategic objectives and the information space is incredibly strong. The irony of it is their system is so closed without freedom of speech that they're taking advantage of our system of freedom of speech to further their strategic objectives. It's geopolitical jiu-jitsu. They're using our strength against us. And to go back to my hypothetical, do you think it would be a good idea to allow that app to be on 150 million American phones? I can tell you that in IndoPaycom, I would not allow any of those apps on any of our systems. I think that speaks volumes. Thank you very much, Admiral. Thank you both for your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator King. Senator Cotton, please. Gentlemen, thank you both for being here. And Admiral, in particular, thank you for your final appearance. I know that that's really bittersweet that you won't get to testify before Congress anymore, but maybe we'll have you back as a civilian expert one day in the future. We've heard a few questions this morning about lessons that Xi Jinping might be taking from the war in Ukraine. I don't think we've heard yet about what's happening in the Middle East, and in particular, Admiral Aquilino, I'd like to know what lessons you think the Chinese may have learned from watching our largely defensive response to the Iranian-backed Houthi attacks on freedom of navigation and commerce in the Red Sea? I think what they're leveraging and what they learned, Senator, is that the United States is a global power designed to protect the international rules-based order in a way that benefit all of the globe, right? So the free flow of commerce through the Bobbleman Deb, the Red Sea is an important issue for all nations, and the United States, as the enforcer and supporter of that, they've watched us deliver that effect. They have taken no action to do that, despite the fact that having... they have three ships there, and they have not contributed to the benefit of the global flow of commerce or what it means to all nations. That ought to be pretty telling to all of us. And they're perfectly comfortable with us doing it, at the same time trying to articulate the United States as an aggressor around the globe, right? It is the example of what's real versus what they're portraying in the information space that we talked about. Do you think they are fearful or emboldened by the response we've had against the Houthi aggression there? I think they're happy that we have had to take action and they view it as any distraction for the United States is a benefit for the People's Republic of China. So that's how I think they're looking at it. Okay. Let's turn to Taiwan. Do you think the existing presidential drawdown authority for Taiwan is adequate? I think it's a good start. I think we've identified a lot of the capabilities that are needed to meet the responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act. I think that I know for a fact that the Secretary and the Deputy we have a process in place to review those and ensure that we're getting to the right capabilities at the right magnitude. And hopefully, again, my advocacy is for at the right speed. And I thank the Congress for including that in the supplemental. It's critically important. We've provided $1 billion in drawdown authority so far the administration has only used $345 million of that. Do you think they should use the full $1 billion? Absolutely. I think there's a plan for that. I think there's an ability to produce some of those things that might be part of the slowdown, Senator. And this is about, like I said before, right all parts of our government and our industry have to get together and move faster. Okay. The 2023 NDAA provided authority to establish a regional contingency stockpile of American weapons in Taiwan. Would that be helpful? I think that would certainly be helpful towards our responsibility under the Taiwan Relations Act. Okay. Let's get to the bottom line about Taiwan and why it matters. Some people might say, well, Taiwan is just a tiny island so far away and Communist China claims it as part of its own territory. What would it really matter? Like why should the United States be willing to risk our sons and daughters? Why should we make the massive investment and deterrent capability in your region to stop China from invading and annexing Taiwan? What's the big deal? Could you explain why it matters, Admiral? Yes, sir. There's a variety of reasons why it matters. First, as it applies to the rules and the rule of law that we follow and adhere to, that has made the world a better place, that has allowed for the prosperity of all nations in the post-World War II environment, that would be under attack, first of all. And that ties all the way to the illegal invasion of Ukraine, right? That's an assault on the rules-based order. So critically important. Second, the democracy, the thriving democracy that exists there, the values, freedom of navigation, all of the things that we value in the United States' interests are tied to that. Third, the ability of the United States in the current way semiconductors are laid out is critically important for all industry and all the things that we have inside the United States when you look at 90-plus percent of high-end chips emit from Taiwan. So those are just three quick reasons why it's important. Douglas MacArthur, in a famous memorandum at the outset of the Korean War, referred to Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in submarine tender. Could you explain a little bit to why General MacArthur thought Taiwan was such critical terrain from a military standpoint? Certainly it's strategic in its location, fairly close to Japan, close to the Philippines, and in the place where two-thirds of the global economy transits in the vicinity of, as it applies, to the global need for transport of goods and services. So, again, it is a strategic location that could have advantage as if you were to plant excessive military capabilities on it to restrict or potentially restrict the flow of goods and services. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. Senator O'Rono, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here and Admiral Aquilino. Thank you very much to you and your family for your decades of service. My very best to you in your future endeavors. And also, thank you for the courtesies extended to me and my staff during your leadership in Indo-Paycom. You noted several times about the linkage between the PRC and Russia. And just as that alliance is very important to those two nations, our allies are very important. In the Indo-Paycom area, we have Japan, South Korea, Philippines, India, the United Nations. Our allies are very important to us, and that is why it is important for us to stand with our allies. You've been asked a number of questions about the need for us to support Ukraine, and that is because our allies are important to us and that every day that goes by, that we're not providing the need of support for Ukraine, strengthens Putin's hand, and therefore also Xi Jinping's. Would you agree with that? I do send her, again, a strategic win for President Putin in Ukraine as a strategic win for President Xi in China. And the allies are so important. We are stronger when we're together. There's no doubt. The linkage of our values, our beliefs, are critically important. And that is why our not funding Ukraine is very much of interest to Xi Jinping. Not to mention Putin, of course. You also mentioned that the PRC's military buildup, which has been going on for quite a while, and I think our asymmetric advantage, if you want to describe it that way, in terms of our assets, our planes, our ships, et cetera, has been our technological capabilities in our assets. So do you think we're doing a good job in maintaining our technological advantage in terms that we may have fewer ships, we may have fewer planes, but our technological advantage is there? Do you think we are doing a good job to maintain our technological advantage? I do believe, Senator First, let me just say, we have the world's greatest fighting force that's ever been seen. That advantage has helped us keep the peace in many places for decades. We do have a technological advantage that is second to none, and the key is maintaining it because the People's Republic of China intends on closing that advantage and ultimately moving in front of us. I think you know that over the years I've been very focused on missile defense of Hawaii, and I would just ask you very quickly. There is a provision directing the DOD to develop a comprehensive plan for missile defense of Hawaii. Do you think that Hawaii is currently protected from ballistic crews and hypersonic threats? Senator, as you know, it's my responsibility to defend Hawaii. I take that responsibility very clearly and of critical importance. Hawaii is defended from ballistic missiles. Hawaii will be defended from cruise missiles. Should there be a threat that shows itself in the vicinity? No one is defended from hypersonic missiles as we sit here today. Not yet. Working on it, I know. I also note in your written testimony that you addressed the establishment of the Joint Task Force regarding Red Hill. I want to commend you for the leadership that you provided in working with the community and you acknowledge the importance of rebuilding trust in the local community with regard to Red Hill. But it goes for our military installations, not just in Hawaii, but everywhere and the need to build community support. And so I commend you for your acknowledging that. You were also asked about our recent support for the COFAS. Now, that agreement took many years to decide. And so is there anything more we can do to support? In addition to the funds that will be provided to Marconesia Marshall Islands and Palau in this agreement, are there more things we can do to support these island nations which serve as a bulwark against China and the Indo-Pacific AOR? Yes, Senator, thanks. We've worked with all of those island nations to do a couple of things. Number one, make sure that they can understand their maritime domain awareness and have situational awareness when threats might be in their vicinity. So that's one aspect. Second, we've provided some understanding on what might it mean for increased storm severity and other environmental issues that would impact, and we've helped on the construction side to ensure that anything that the Department of Defense builds is resilient against any of those threats. Third, we provide assistance like on Palau. We have a deployment of Seabees that go there and support the future cooperation that we do militarily as well as some other community service events. So that's what Wright looks like to me, and we've got to continue to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Harono. Senator Salton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Admiral. I want to thank you and your wife, Laura, for your exceptional service over the years. I want to extend my wife and I our appreciation to you and your family and your daughters, and you've done a really, really exceptional job. So you're going to be missed. I hope you don't go very far away. In general, thank you for your continued great service as well. I want to dig into the supplemental a little bit more. I know you've gotten a lot of questions on it, but I ended up supporting that bill. It wasn't perfect. There's a lot of things I didn't like about it, but I did it primarily because if you look at it, it's actually primarily folks about rebuilding our brittle industrial capacity to produce weapons and weapons systems for our own military, for our own defense and enhance our industrial base, which unfortunately has atrophied. It includes the capacity to produce everything from subs, 3 billion for subs, but with with AUKUS, it's actually 6 billion, 6 billion. It's 5 billion for 155 millimeter howitzers, ammo, and it's everything from anti-ship systems, harpoons, tomahawks, harms, switch blades as all in this. 60% of this bill goes to building our industrial base. So with that, would our military in Taiwan's and our industrial ability to deter a war in the Taiwan Strait be enhanced by passing this defense industrial bill? Yes, Senator, absolutely. And I appreciate the support of you and the Congress to identify those needs. Again, both whether they for Ukraine or directed towards the Indo-Pacific, as you point out, they absolutely, that bill absolutely supports the increased industrial base requirements for ships, submarines, weapons, and other things, critically important. In general, on the Korean Peninsula as well? I mean, 5 billion for 155 millimeter howitzer rounds produced in America, that's not insignificant. Yes. And then, so without it, you think we'd have less deterrence in the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula? The funding in that bill is absolutely critical. General? Yes, Senator. You know, one criticism of the defense supplemental is it does not prioritize the correct demand signal for the threats we face, including in the Indo-Pakum theater. I find it a little curious since I worked directly with you and your team, Admiral, to shape the bill to give you the weapons systems that you think you need. I would say you're probably the most expert person probably in the world on what you need to deter a war in the Taiwan Strait. So you think that criticism is accurate, that it doesn't hit the correct demand signal that you need since you shaped the bill? I know that for a fact since we worked together. Senator, from my review again, as it applies to the items I've required or asked for in the independent assessment for three years, 1254 last year and a 1302 this year, that bill absolutely gets after my requirements. In another, one of the views of some of the critics is that we shouldn't focus on assisting Ukraine because that takes away from defending and deterring a war in the Taiwan Strait. So Putin can roll over Ukraine, but will be strong in the Taiwan Strait. Does deterrence work that way in your experience? No, sir. As I've testified, the global threats are inextricably linked. So deterrence isn't divisible. You can't be strong in the Taiwan Strait but let an authoritarian roll over someone we're trying to support in another part of the world. Do you think that works? No, sir. General, do you think that works that way? Deterrence, it's divisible. We'll be strong here, but weak over there, do you think things are going to be good? No, sir. The world's getting smaller, not larger. Let me ask one final question and it goes to this administration's focus on these issues. Admiral, you have, I think, done a great job in this billet, so thank you again. But you've been talking about overmatch. You've been talking about trending in the wrong direction. You just said we haven't faced a threat like this. That's China since World War II. To me, this is the 1930s all over again. Authoritarian dictators are on the march. They're very aggressive. We've seen this movie before. The big differences in the late 30s and early 40s before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt undertook a massive rebuilding of our military, tripled the size of the U.S. Navy. A lot of people don't know that. By December 1941, we had actually tripled the size of the U.S. Navy. So we are on the way. Unfortunately, this administration and this president are putting forward budgets that shrink the Navy year after year. President Biden recently in the State of the Union said, hey, this is a really dangerous world. I'm like President Roosevelt. No, he's not. No, he's not. He's going in the exact wrong direction. He's shrinking the Navy, shrinking the Army, shrinking the Marine Corps. This budget pushes the building of a new carrier by two years. As Senator Blumenthal mentioned, it goes to one sub a year, which nobody thinks is a good idea. So what kind of message do you think, as we're talking about deterrence, to Xi Jinping or Putin, a Biden administration budget, third year in a row that shrinks the military, shrinks the Navy, is sending to our adversaries, and I know it's a difficult question for you, but did you support a budget that pushes the carrier industrial-based building out and brings us down to one sub a year, which again, nobody on this committee thinks is a good idea? Yes, Senator, as I've laid out to the committee my view of the threat, and it's increased both capability and capacity with no signs of slowing down. I certainly have advocated for a couple things. Number one, no reduction in combat power from the Indo-Pacific theater. But are you being overmatched right now? Right now, again, I am confident in our forces that in crisis or conflict now, the United States would prevail, but the trend's going in the wrong direction. So I have advocated for increased capability, the modernization we need, and the capacity we need to maintain overmatch. One final question. You mentioned a 7% increase. I agree with you of the Chinese budget. It's probably much more. We had a hearing with the DNI and the DIA, Lieutenant General. It was Class 5, and I'm going to say what they said, because they've not gotten back to me. They actually said they thought it was over $700 billion. I've asked them to come and help make that public and explain it. Really important for the people of this country to know $700 billion from the Chinese probably, or maybe more. They've never gotten back to me, so if the DNI or the DIA director, they're listening, they should get back to me on this, make this public. Do you have an estimate of what they're producing, either of you, annually? And I know they say 7% is probably double that. What do you think? Yes, and I don't know if I have an estimate. Again, I don't know if it's even worth comparing, right? The issue is what's coming off the assembly line, and it's significant at, you know, 10 warships, high-end warships alone this year, cruisers, destroyers, you know, full-rate production for J-20s, increased missile systems, satellite systems. To me, that's the metric. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Warren, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So you two are no strangers to the threat that cryptocurrency poses to our national security, as both of you have previously testified North Korea is using crypto to steal money, evade sanctions, and to fund its nuclear weapons program. In 2022 alone, North Korea stole at least, at least $1.7 billion worth of crypto. That is about 6% of North Korea's entire economy and as much as a quarter of their annual defense budget. You know, that is a lot of weapons that North Korea is able to build and fire off, paid for by crypto crime. In fact, let's put this in terms of missiles. Admiral Aquilino, help me out here. Do you know how many intercontinental ballistic missiles North Korea can test with $1.7 billion? Senator, I don't have that specific calculation, but it's more than we would like. It's more than we would like. I like that, but let's do a little math just because it's fun to look at these numbers and eye-opening. So it cost North Korea about $30 million to test an ICBM. These are long-range missiles that North Korea desperately wants because it could give them the ability to target the U.S. mainland. At $30 million to test, $1.7 billion is enough to pay for more than 56 ICBM tests. So does that surprise you, Admiral? It does not. Yeah. So North Korea is stealing about 56 ICBMs worth of crypto in a single year, and the threat is not letting up. Just last week, in a span of two days, North Korea laundered more than $23 million worth of crypto that it stole. Now, North Korea isn't the only one using crypto to threaten the U.S. in its interest. Dangerous actors all over the world are using crypto to steal and to finance their illegal activities. One example, pig butchering. Pig butchering is a crypto scam where scammers, often based in China or Southeast Asia, use fake identities to lure people into weeks and even months-long online relationships, fattening them up like hogs for slaughter, before tricking them into sending crypto. General La Camara, I think you have some experience with this crypto scam. Would you be willing to talk about it for just a minute? Thanks, Senator. Not necessarily with crypto scamming me personally, but I do have some experience with being swatted and the number of social media impersonations that are out there. But I have seen that my face has been used for scamming. Yeah, to try to lure people in and think they're dealing with you on this. You have lots of company on this. Last year, more than 40,000 people in the United States lost more than $3.5 billion in pig butchering crypto scams that we know of. Now, pig butchering is just one scam. There are many more. A recent study found that these criminal gangs have stolen and laundered more than $75 billion in crypto in just the last four years. So, General La Camara, would making it more difficult for criminals and rogue states to use crypto to steal and to launder funds strengthen our national security? Yeah, I'd be a qualified yes, but yes. Yes. Okay, I'll take yes. Admiral Aquilino, do you agree with that? I do, Senator. I have over 200 fake websites put out on me every month of which many are soliciting dollars from people who can be fooled. Yeah, you know, crypto is the way this stuff is financed and it's helping rogue states, it's helping terrorists, it's helping criminal organizations fund their operations on a scale like we have never seen before. I've got a bipartisan bill, Republicans and Democrats with 20 senators that would put a stop to it. I think it is time to pass this bill. One last note. I'm almost out of town, but General Aquilino, your command failed to provide this committee with the information required by law to justify your wish lists. I remain deeply concerned that unfunded priorities lists are distracting us from making the most of our resources and focusing on grabbing more money for defense contractors. So we need to get that cleaned up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on time. Thank you, Senator Warren. Senator Scott, please. Thank you, Chairman. Admiral General, thank you for your service. Admiral Aquilino, thank you for... Good luck with your retirement. I'm sure you'll be moving to Florida soon. Hope you enjoy it. Price is a little high right now, so I'd be patient on buying a house. Last August had the opportunity to visit IndoPaycom here firsthand how threats posed by communist China impacted in the U.S., especially the Philippines. I had the opportunity to go look at what the Chinese are doing out in the shoals. Well, on that, the visit was clear that America cannot take its eyes off of the regional increased aggression shown by communist China. He had reinforced my confidence that we got the best military in the world, but we got a pretty formal opponent, and they're out to destroy our way of life. I'm increasingly interested in the congested logistics fight, and not just in the Pacific, but globally. We're going to have to... If we end up in a conflict, we're going to have to resource critical capabilities, and we're going to need the first PRs in a few days of a conflict. They're going to be decisive probably in a great power war. My goal is... I think all of us want to make sure IndoPaycom is ready to get everything they need for the fight. The last time we fought a great power war in the Western Pacific, we were surprised and not ready. Navy reserve logistics squadrons were not even established until five days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But finally, transport squadrons grew to 540 aircraft and 26,000 personnel devoted to the Navy's airborne logistics mission in defeating the Japanese. In the case of the Navy, are you counting on Navy transport squadrons to move logistics into and throughout the Western Pacific, which is thousands of miles? Senator, I'm absolutely counting on all logistics capabilities to support this problem across half the globe. I want to thank Congress for the authorization for the 10 additional tankers, the console tankers. We intend to use those as well. So Maritime Sea Lift, the MSC forces that the Navy provides are critically important. I've also advocated with General Van Oost for not only the tankers, but for strategic airlift at a capacity that will be acceptable, as well as airborne refueling capability. All three of those have been identified as critical needs for Indo-Pacon. So the Air Force has recapitalized about 50% of their C-130s. The Marine Corps has done 100%. The Navy hasn't had the opportunity to recapitalize any of its 32-year-old fleet. Does that concern you? Yeah, the need for intra-theater lift. Again, when you talk about half the globe, the modernization of those airplanes is important, and I certainly advocate for all the services to be able to provide those capabilities when needed. And do you think overall that we're heading the right direction? I think as we work towards modernization, we have the right view. We have to work at speed, and we have to all get on board. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Scott. Senator Peters, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Thank you both for your service. Admiral La Colina, I want to echo the comments made by many of my colleagues here. Thank you for your 40-plus years of service to the nation, and we wish you well in your next endeavors wherever they lead you, but appreciate your service. This question really is for both of you, and it deals with the continuing need for global stability with all of the challenges that we have, particularly in Indo-Pacom. But the Army's new multi-domain task force, I believe is probably the centerpiece of the Army's efforts to respond to these varied global challenges, as I said, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. And when forward positioned, these task forces will enable the U.S. military to freely operate within a very contested environment. So I'd like both of you to respond if you could elaborate a little bit on the critical role that these multi-domain task forces are going to have in the Indo-Pacific region and how do they facilitate your ability to safely maneuver joint forces within your commands. Yeah, thanks, Senator. So first I'll thank General George, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General McConville for it, before him on developing and having the vision for an MDTF critically important in my theater. And as we implement it, the key for that task force is to deliver all the capabilities that have been designed to go with it. So the anti-air capabilities, the anti-ship and anti-land attack capabilities that go with it, those are some of the things we have to go faster and deliver to those MDTFs to realize the entire warfighting capability of that force. But I'm absolutely supportive of what the Army has done to contribute to my theater. Great. Thank you, General. Thanks, Senator. Well, I don't own one of the MDTFs. We do think of it in, you know, that's the noun. I do do the verb multi-domain operations. And since we already sit inside the A-to-A-D bubble, it's a little bit different problem set for me to solve. But the next fight is going to be combined, joint interagency, it's going to be multi-domain. And, you know, I'll probably be asking the Admiral for one of them if hostilities begin again. Very good. Thank you, General. Admiral, the Air Force plans to invest $5.8 billion over the next five years with the goal of fielding 1,000 collaborative combat aircraft by 2030. These CCAs will clearly play a significant role in any future combat, particularly in a contested environment. And successfully operating in these impermissible areas will require joint training across active duty, reserve, as well as guard components in a wide range of environments which will mimic potential conflict zones. So my question for you, sir, is how do you envision these collaborative combat aircraft being utilized and integrated into the Indo-Pacific? And then specifically drilling down a little bit, how could active duty, reserve, and guard components best prepare for this CCA integration and training given the near-term threat that we have in your command now? Thanks, Senator. So when I think about CCAs, that's one aspect of the all-domain, unmanned, collaborative, cooperative, and ultimately integrated all-domain capabilities to be able to prevent conflict in my theater. So along with the CCAs, right, there's unmanned undersea, on the sea, those are above the sea, and that is absolutely aligned with the approach that we believe will be valuable to both deter and then fight and win if need be. So I'm certainly supportive of the CCA piece. Again, on a common theme, faster, faster, faster, I'm not sure 2030 is soon enough. So we have to do that. As it applies to the training, I'm confident that the Air Force will design an approach such that all forces, active reserve, guard can be trained and ready to employ. From my seat, I don't separate those. We have a total force concept, and in my perfect world, it doesn't matter if it's an active duty, reservist, or a guardsman. When they show up, they're ready to fight and they're ready to execute their mission set. So that's what I rely on the Air Force to deliver. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Peter. Senator Budd, please. Thank you, Chairman. Admiral, again, in general, good to see you both. That was an Air Force asset. Do you consider the F-15E a strike eagle to be a capable aircraft? And is there a use case for F-15s in the Indo-Pacific operating in concert with Gen 5 fighters? Absolutely, Senator. So in its fiscal year 25 budget, Air Force plans to divest 26 F-15 strike eagles at the same time buying less than expected F-35, F-15EXs, and other fighters. So are you concerned by the increasing fighter gap or the fighter capacity gap with China? I'm absolutely concerned. Different topic, Admiral. The 2023 NDAA required the DOD to establish a standing joint force headquarters at Indo-Pacom. And that requirement included a deadline for the JTF to be set up by October of 2024. Could you give us a status on the efforts to establish that JTF and any obstacles you might be facing and any assistance that we could provide? At this point, Senator, I think we're on path. My view of the command and control in the theater has evolved over three years, and we can talk about some of that in a classified level. What I can tell you is I advocated and stood up JTF Micronesia as a way to, number one, align our capabilities on Guam. Number two, that was in a near term. In the midterm, it was designed to be a forward station war fighting JTF headquarters. And what I've learned is that I don't think that happens soon enough. So I've proposed and am briefing out throughout my leadership an approach to put in place a permanent joint task force headquarter construct. And at this point, I haven't identified any needs, but I'll always inform Congress as it applies and goes forward, and you will see that in any follow on report requirements that you direct me to deliver. Thank you for that. Now, my colleagues have already asked about funding for munitions, and I believe that you've requested 3.3 billion for military construction in the Indo-Pacific area of responsibility. So what kind of projects will this request money go towards and where will it be located? Senator, I wouldn't give you all the details, but right now we're looking at 212 projects across the entire theater in almost every nation. Those fundings are required and they support our partners and allies' ability to build out their infrastructure such that we can operate with them in places that are needed. But it applies to runways, seaports, fuel capability, munitions storage. Those are the key aspects of it. You mentioned it in runways, but is it fair to say that these investments, particularly in things like airfields for dispersed operations, will be key to deterring China? Absolutely. So why weren't these items included as part of the Air Force, Army, and Navy's respective budget requests? Yes, Senator, that's a better question for the service components. Admiral, the administration says that it's prioritizing China as its pacing challenge, but you've just sent us a list of unfunded requirements totally more than $11 billion. It's nearly three times more unfunded requirements than you had last year. It seems like something doesn't add up. So how can the administration say that it's prioritizing China if it won't provide you and Indo-Paycom with the resources you need to deter Beijing? And that's, Admiral, a bit of a rhetorical question. So the Biden administration, they just sent over an $895 billion defense budget request. Your unfunded requirements is just an $11 billion total. And just 1% of that, that's 1% nearly of the total amount requested by the Biden administration. Yet the administration seemed that they couldn't find the money. I'm even told that there's $11 billion in unused Pentagon funds that just expired. So I think we all understand that this is a very dangerous time with China on a war footing and conflict increasingly likely in the Indo-Pacific. The only way that we're going to avoid war or win if it comes is if we put our money where our mouth is. That means that if we say China is the priority, then we've got to act like it. So thank you for your testimony and thank you for your many years of service. Thank you very much, Senator Budd, Senator Duckworth, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Admiral Aquilino, General La Camera. Thank you for being here today and of course thank you for your many decades of service. I am concerned about the needed investments in our medical ecosystem and infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. As INDO-PACOM prepares the joint force for a conflict with a near-period adversary, our ability to provide life-saving care for service members must remain a priority. Pre-positions in the Indo-Pacific with remote islands will strain our ability to medivac wounded service members to row three and four medical facilities. The golden hour for providing critical medical care won't exist and to improve the outcomes for service members who will likely receive critical medical care near the front lines, we must pre-position life-saving supplies like blood and Class 8 medical supplies as far forward as possible. Admiral Aquilino, how is INDO-PACOM working across the joint force to ensure critical medical supplies such as blood and Class 8 medical supplies are pre-positioned across the region? Thanks, Senator. We've incorporated this aspect in the medical care of our forces in our last set of exercises. We rehearsed some of it. We've moved some medical capability forward as a part of exercises. Again, we take it very seriously. We need to make sure that we can do it and execute at the time of need, that we practice and rehearse. Additionally, we do have allies and partners in the vicinity and we have to make sure that the medical care that's available there, A, we have access to it at the scope and scale needed and we coordinate with our allies and partners to do that. So that's how we're taking it on. Thank you. You actually addressed my next question somewhat. In fact, we have allies and partners like the ROK, like Japan, like Singapore that have medical facilities and standards, which is the joint accreditation agency for the United States hospital system. Admiral, allies and partners, as you said, will be critical given the amount of now given the amount of blood that would be needed during a potential conflict. How are you coordinating? How is Indo-Pacom coordinating with other inter-agency partners to gain access to blood supplies in foreign countries across the region? I think those discussions are ongoing with my from my doctor across the region and our allies and partners that as a part, we highlight it as a part of those exercises and assets. We have not certainly pre-positioned at this point in time, but we have to have the places to do it when needed and we're doing those assessments. Well, the blood cannot really be pre-positioned, but having established agreements to access those blood supplies but it also means that those blood supplies have to be certified to be given to U.S. service members, which some of them may not if they don't have, are not complied with our requirements. So I think all of that is critically important. It's good to hear that you're addressing the issue. As you all know, I've been a vocal advocate for a combat credible logistics network shifting a little bit. The ability for the United States to project the joint force in the western Pacific would depend on our intra-theater lift capabilities. Indo-Pacom will have to grapple with moving troops, supplies and equipment across a complicated island chain network and you've I have had conversations on this. Requiring significant investments in water crafts, floating piers and roads. Admiral, where do you see our current gaps in intra-theater lift in Indo-Pacific region and what role do you foresee the Army Corps of Engineers having in tackling this issue? Thanks, Senator. Again, the approach, the Army component has actually moved some water crafts. Some have gone to Japan now. So to properly put those forces in the right place posture-wise is critically important. The intra-theater lift piece I have concern on the overall capacity aspect of it, whether it be C-130s you know C-17s or C-5s as it applies to the lift, the airlift piece and then on the sea lift piece those forces have to be ready to be shot at. Right? So the contested aspect of it they have to be able to operate in ways where they can't be targeted and we have to train and rehearse those aspects so that those are the things that concern me. That's also true for the Medevac piece, right? We're going to have to fight in. We can't just go in and pick up our wounded the way we have in other theaters. I think we're going to have to fight our way in to pick up our wounded and fight our way back out as well. One final question. In peacetime leveraging our Civil Works Program and the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard are important for building cooperation. What new areas can we collaborate with our allies and partners? We're using examples like the Successful Sister Rivers Exchange Program as a model. For example, the Mekong River and the Mississippi River initiatives are a great example. I think it is. Our construction forces and not just the Army Corps but the Air Force Red Teams, Navy CBs again those provide some significant training for those allies and partners to build their capacity to help themselves more often. We've seen some benefits there and we have to continue to do that. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you very much, Senator Douglass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, both of you. Admiral, thanks for your service. You came here about the same time I did three years ago. Time flies when you haven't fun, right? It goes by quick. This for both of you. After President Trump's summit with Kim Jong-un, we announced that we were suspending large exercises like Fold Eagle. Given North Korea's escalation, is it time to go back to that or are we going to continue to do the small ones? General? Thanks, Senator. I would say we are doing large exercises. Just finished Freedom Shield, added live virtual and constructive training to it and then given the training, we talked about the strategic assets that visit the peninsula. Those are all training events for me and incorporating and making sure that we know how to properly employ them if we need to. Yes, Senator, as applied to the DPRK, again, we support General of Camera to ensure that he's got all the assets needed to do a full scale, full blown exercise set. Across the rest of the theater, we've increased the scope and scale of all of our exercises with our allies and partners. For example, Keen Edge was a bilateral U.S. Japan exercise in the past. We just executed that full blown event as a trilateral event with the Australians and we've done that across all of the critical exercise. Balakatan with the Philippines, Cobra Gold with Thailand, Talisman Sabre with Australia. So scope and scale has increased everywhere. Thank you, Adam. On your way out the door, we need a tanker in the Indo-Pacific, KC-46. I always ask about this. You confident in the 46, the availability and the durability? Yes, Senator, I'm confident it's the right tanker to fill our holes, but I am concerned about the magnitude and our ability to deliver enough tankers in this theater in time of crisis. Thank you. I think we all agree on that. China conducts these these circlings around Taiwan quite often. But is there going to be a giveaway to one of these days when one of them is not an exercise? It's an actual attack. Will we be able to distinguish that and how will we be able to do that? Well, Senator, we watch the behavior and actions of the PRC each and every day. We do have some concerns on what it would look like but again, we watch it every day. I'd like to, if you want a different conversation, we have to do it in a classified level. Are you concerned about nickel for our submarines? I know that in our state we make submarines and it's very hard to find and it's going to be a problem as we go along. Are you familiar with that? So critical minerals across the United States is an issue that I am watching. In my job jar, what is required for me is for that war fighting capability to be ready available, sustainable, and be able to execute when needed. If there's critical minerals or supply chain issues, that certainly concerns me. Thank you. And I know this is not either one of your purviews. You might not want to answer this. I'd just like to ask you, most of you, because you have a huge job in the military. And we're looking to pass more supplemental money and obviously for Ukraine, for Taiwan, for Israel. Admiral, can Ukraine beat Russia? Yes, Senator, absolutely. I think they're demonstrating that each and every day. What's the wind look like at the end of the day? I think that the Ukrainian territory is restored. Including Crimea? Again, I'll leave that to General Cavoli and to the policy side. But a place where the Ukrainians can operate in their sovereign territory with the freedoms and values that they want to project. That's what Wright looks like. General? Yes, I think they can win. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tovell. Senator Kelly, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, earlier today downstairs we talked a little bit about militarization in the South China Sea. They now have the world's Chinese have the world's largest Coast Guard. They use it as part of a strategy to assert dominance. You talked about how they're now claiming it as territorial waters. They use coercion and intimidation tactics to bully countries, including the Philippines. And a country we have a mutual defense treaty with. And the Chinese are regularly intimidating Philippine vessels at the Second Thomas Shoal and continue dangerous and escalatory actions that threaten peaceful shipping in one of the world's busiest waterways. Late last year China was upset when the USS Gabrielle Giffords, named after my wife, continued routine operations in the area after conducting joint patrols with the Philippine Navy. Lawful patrols. So as you finish your time as the Indo-Pacom commander and prepare to hand the reins to Admiral Paparo, can you talk about what you've learned about China's actions in the South China Sea and what would happen? We discussed this a little bit downstairs. Some concerns about if there was actually some engagement like escalatory between China and the Philippines and if maybe somebody had gotten hurt. Yes, Senator. So again we continue to articulate that Article 5 of the Mutual Defense Treaty applies if the our allies, the Philippines were to be attacked and then that would change a bit of the scope of what's happening there at Second Thomas Shoal. So I articulate that the bullying behavior is broad and it's across the region from India to the Malaysia to Vietnam all across the region and I think that it would be beneficial for China to be able to interweave into the international order that all countries have defined I believe there's a peaceful way out of this. There's a place for China in this world they're just going to have to understand that the nations of the globe require a set of international standards and behaviors that are acceptable and what they're executing now is not. And how do you feel our relationship is with the Philippine government with regards to Second Thomas Shoal and anything we could work on there I'm going to be in the region next week and that's something if there was something that you specifically would raise with with President Marcos or the Philippine Navy what would that be? I sat with President Marcos twice in the last three and a half months. Number one I thanked him for his leadership, for articulating what is acceptable and what's not. I'm incredibly impressed by Minister of Defense Tedoro's leadership as well as my counterpart General Bronner. They are fighting for their sovereignty, they're fighting for the international rules based order and we continue to support them both in legal domains, in the information space and in the military space as we execute joint patrols and other cooperation activities in the form of maritime domain awareness. So again my message to the Philippines is always you're our ally, we're with you and we're here to help maintain the peace as well as their sovereignty. And just for my own personal information what's going on around Scarborough Shoals? I spent a lot of time down there when I was in West Pack is there similar Chinese activity in that area? Absolutely similar coercive and actions being taken to prevent Philippines from being able to fish there and operate in that vicinity. Thank you Admiral. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In both of you, thank you for your service. I mean it sincerely, I think the candor by which you answer these questions and your accessibility to the members of this committee and I know others is very much appreciated. And for me as a newer member and certainly focusing a lot of my time on this committee on the Indo-Pacific issues your expertise, your service the people from Missouri appreciate it too. So just wanted to say that. Following up I feel like Senator Kelly stole the question that I wanted we've recently written a letter actually to Secretary Austin about this ongoing harassment that happens with the fishing in the South China Sea and particularly the Filipino vessels and it just feels like this thing is that there's a trajectory to all of this. Currently these are not technically PRC Navy vessels Coast Guard, I mean they're all sort of one and the same in many ways right but if you were to predict where this is going and what we need to do to deter this and it's sort of a follow up to the previous question is in a concrete way what are a couple of things that we could do tomorrow to help discourage this because it does feel like we're headed down a road here and we've got obviously a mutual defense agreement with the Philippines that this thing could escalate quicker than people probably realize. Yeah, thanks Senator. So militarily again we execute joint patrols we operate with our Philippine partners in the vicinity in order to ensure that we can demonstrate resolve but I've also advocated for a broad set of the global nations to identify and speak out against this belligerent bad behavior that's not in accordance with the international community's interpretation of unclos and to validate the 2016 Tribunal against China's illegal claim that that is Chinese sovereign territory it is not so articulating that and not just from the Philippines not just from the Philippines in the United States I'm talking about the EU nations I'm talking about the UK I'm talking about the Middle Eastern nations the Pacific nations right this is one step today this is not an Indo-Pacific problem this is going to be a global problem. Right and they're also the CCP is now making claims additional claims in Vietnam right and they're sort of marking additional territory who else do you see sort of I mean clearly by China showing their fangs here there are some folks who maybe didn't want to pick a team are certainly coming our way which who else we got the Philippines you know Vietnam who are some other in Australia of course in the South China see there who else do you think is sort of seeing this aggression for what it is Yes, Senator first comment on your first point number one the United States doesn't ask any nations to choose we support the rights of all nation to have sovereign territory as defined by law we support their freedoms their voice in the international community where everyone gets an equal voice to be able to articulate their needs and security needs so that's what we stand for again we're not asking them to pick sides Yeah you're not I know you're not All of it right I've asked for this discussion globally and I've worked with General Cavoli to help identify this and we're seeing it from UK and EU nations more of them are going to deploy to the Pacific the ASEAN nations are critically important the centrality of ASEAN is important to the region and it's not that they're not seeing it it's a concern about speaking out and being at risk for follow on PRC economic coercion and other behaviors that will negatively impact their nation so the concern is not do they see it will they be able to talk about it Well it's certainly my hope that whether it's a Belt and Road initiative or a BRICS countries are seeing this and the levers that China has then once they've got their hooks into you they're real General I want to ask you I know that traditionally there's been a sort of a the Korean Peninsula was its own sort of thing the South China thing was its own sort of thing I think that we've realized that this is all obviously very interconnected how do you see this what we do our friends and our allies and the support that we have in the Korean Peninsula and those strategic alliances that we do have matter I think for deterrence with China how do you see that as a development and I think you've been a great leader on this point Thanks Senator I think that what starts locally goes regional and globally pretty quickly and we're seeing it there were impacts with COVID there were impacts with Ukraine globally that we feel on the peninsula our focus is on protecting the Korean people as the United Nations Commander it's to maintain the armistice but it's to react the inherent right of self-defense never goes away so we will protect ourselves response requires consultation with our Korean allies and and then any kind of retaliation or further escalation I think we've always got to be prepared for if somebody tries to take advantage of an incident or crisis someplace else in the Indo-Pacific Thank you both again Thank you Mr. Chairman Thank you Senator, Senator Rosin please Thank you Chairman Reid for holding this hearing I'd like to thank you Admiral Aquilina for your service and of course wish you so well in your forthcoming retirement and you and your family but maybe get to travel for fun now that you're going to retire and that'll be a little bit different and of course General we thank you for being here today and for your service as well I want to talk a little bit about autonomous capabilities because during one of my visits to Central Command I visited Task Force 59 and I was deeply impressed and just amazing things they're doing their ability to utilize autonomous capabilities to quickly apply lessons learned it's not only innovative it's also really effective so Admiral Aquilina can you elaborate how Indo-Pacific command is integrating these autonomous capabilities and leveraging that commercial off the shelf technology to enhance our strategic posture and how do these initiatives like Task Force 59 and managing costs and compete with China Thanks Senator so we've been experimenting and rehearsing and practicing with unmanned capabilities in the Pacific Fleet and in Indo-Pacom now for going on six years we didn't generate a separate Task Force to do it to run out of the Pacific Fleet headquarters so those efforts are critical to our approach for devote deterrence and then for our ability to fight and win as a matter of fact Admiral Paparro as the Pacific Fleet commander as we sit here is executing an integrated battle problem that's got about 20 different unmanned capabilities being integrated into our exercise so pulling those together being able to deliver them being able to command and control them through the required autonomous and command and control links that we need that's where the focus is so not just what does that thing do it's how do you take a thousand of them and be able to employ them in a way that's effective That's fantastic thank you I'm going to keep with you Admiral and talk about assisting our partners because it's been widely reported that during Taiwan's recent democratic election they experienced a wide range of cyber attacks throughout their networks it's why I led the Taiwan Cyber Security Resiliency Act and this legislation is included it was included in last year's NDA and it helps Taiwan prepare to counter exactly this kind of attack that they faced and so it's again just another step in assisting our partners and allies to defend against their potential vulnerabilities so do you think you know Taiwan supply chain we've seen so many supply chain issues in the last few years for various reasons do you believe Taiwan supply chain is another potential area that could be targeted by bad actors and how would taking actions to firm up Taiwan's defense supply chains including through enhancing our cooperation between our defense industrial bases maybe help deter China from future aggressive actions yes and I wouldn't limit the issue it doesn't just supply in one place allies all across the region against all our allies, partners and friends the ability to protect both our civilian critical infrastructure as well as our military critical infrastructure is important our security challengers intend and are rehearsing and practicing and attempting to go after all of it so my partnership with the commander of US Cybercom General Hawk has been to my headquarters he understands our priorities he's got forces cooperating with our allies and partners and friends to be able to tighten up their networks such that they can't be intruded against or used against us thank you I'm going to continue on this chain a little bit but going over to you general I want to talk about defending ourselves against unpredictable adversaries because the September 11th commission report famously identified and I'm going to quote a failure of imagination as a critical shortfall of our defense at that time and I think our ability to create and innovate we think about Task Force 59 using things commercially available what we develop what we invest in and so North Korea has really proven to be resourceful and unpredictable adversary so how are US how are US forces Korea excuse me actively working to foster a culture of creativity of imagination innovation critical thinking and anticipation of what North Korea might be doing in its strategic planning and defense operations so we can better understand what we think the new and emerging threats are there thanks senator I don't think DPRK is unpredictable he's laid out the goals of what he's going to do and we're not surprised by that so he's on a trajectory to accomplish those we just finished freedom shield our exercise and I can assure you that taking lessons learned from different places around the globe and throwing different curveballs at the staffs and the component commanders on how to think and act differently as the admiral has challenged to do I have quoted that we cannot have a lack of imagination we can't think that the attack is going to come from one direction we got to think about it in different directions and so our big challenge is turnover and making sure that we are constantly going back and revisiting and and I've also challenged them it's either adapt or perish and so we've got to continue to focus on what the threat is going forward thank you I know my time's up but I have a question for Admiral Aquilina about his retirement it's kind of a fun one can we give him the last word for that? Admiral Aquilina your commitment service to our nation deeply appreciated we're so grateful for your sacrifice so what's your advice for the next command as you leave what insights do you have and what would you tell us that we should be paying attention to? Senator I think first of all I've been working with Admiral Papparo now for three years here and for the last 30 he understands the theater I'd give him a one word set of guidance and that's deliver I think that's a good word thank you it's a great to end on thank you Mr. Chairman thank you Senator Rosen and gentlemen thank you for your testimony I want to make one point before I conclude and that is several of my colleagues have criticized President Biden for sending up a budget of $886.35 billion which by simple arithmetic increases the unfunded priority list what they fail to recognize or ignore that the president was legally required to send that number up there was a limit established in the fiscal responsibility act in 2023 and the reason we passed that act was because there was serious threat of a default on our national debt and I can assure you if we had default on our national debt the issues and the problems and the questions you would be getting today would be much more indeed exponentially more difficult because it would have set off an international economic collapse so Congress that has established a limit and it's Congress that must deal with that limit and I think that has to be made finally let me add to the commendation and congratulations to you Admiral Aquilino and your family for distinguished service for and I think direct might be the word we would use as your nickname if it wasn't long it would be direct and we appreciate that very very much sir. General Locke Hammer I've had the privilege of working with you since you were battalion commander in the 10th Mountain Division thank you for your service and your courage please thank the families that are so important and the men and women who serve in uniform in the United States and your commands and with that I would adjourn here.