 General, have you – how has the vaccine mandates affected your troops and your command? Any at all? Any numbers? We're sitting at 99 percent vaccinated. There are some exceptions to policies. I don't control those. Those go back to the departments, but it's had no impact to combat readiness. Admiral? Any? Again, the service is controlled about the same percentage, maybe a bit higher, but there's been no impact to mission. Domestic extreme education courses are required. Any positive results you've seen out of this? General? Yes. You know, we take on new soldiers, sailors, airmarines each week. We've got to integrate them into the formation, and we have to tell them that any extreme it's not tolerated, and commanders at all levels are focusing on that. It goes against good order and discipline, and it makes us less combat ready. Have y'all had to take these courses? I'm just asking for – I have, yeah, I've participated in them, and I tell you, sitting in there and listening to the different demographics and age groups, I've learned. It's – Admiral? Senator, we owe the service members, the civilian warriors that support us, a safe, healthy place where they can execute their oath that they took for the uniformed members, and for the civilian members, their desire to serve their nation, we owe them a healthy, safe, comfortable place to work. I've taken the same courses. We've actually done some additional things, and I can tell you, I've learned a lot. In just talking with the service members, you know, they're willing to tell you what some of the things they've experienced, and to General Cameron's point, right, there's zero tolerance for any discrimination, sexual harassment, and we're learning a bunch. That's the reason I'm asking these questions, I'm for that, and do we need to make it better? Now, I come from the education field, is there ways we can make it better? Do we need to talk to more people, more commanders, more officers enlisted, and how can we make it better? I think we're a learning organization, and I think we're learning from the junior service members as they give us their experiences, and as we see the different generational gaps. And so, I mean, any help that we can get from the outside, but internally, you know, after-action reports and sharing lessons learned has kind of made us the military that we are today. Good. We've all got to be on the same team as dangerous this world is. You know, one area I believe we excelled in with this Ukraine conflict is the information fight. We successfully countered Russia and Chinese disinformation. This is a fight that both of you and your AOR is going to be important. You know, what tools do y'all need? Do we need any more tools to get out the messaging effectively, you know, because it will ramp up as years and days go by, General? I mean, we have to be able to compete in the information space. It's easier to put a bullet in someone's head than it is to put an ID in their head, and we never send just one bullet or one bomb. It's constant. We've got to be prepared to compete in the information space. We've got to be prepared to make mistakes and react to it. We're not going to get it perfect. I think, again, watching Ukraine, we're watching a country who's able, you know, a leader who's able to shut off the information to his own people, and we've got to figure out ways to be able to penetrate that and get that message out. Thanks, Senator. You know, the changing information space as you articulate is really challenging. Disinformation, misinformation, propaganda. In the Indo-Pacific Command, we've initiated JTFIP in Singapore. And with our partners in Singapore, we've put together an information capability that can lead to the potential identification of violent extremists. That's done with right now nine countries. So we're learning how to do this better. I don't think I have any specific tools right now, but in my 1242 report, you're going to see requests to ensure we can fund those things that we have today and to general the cameras point. As we learn how to go forward, I'm certainly happy to share thoughts with you. One other question, Admiral, and this year's NDAA, we got in an Aegis system for Guam. We just need to find a way to fund it. Your thoughts? Is it still a priority? Absolutely, sir. It's still my number one priority. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Taverhill. Senator Shaheen, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank you both for your testimony this morning. South Korea has a new president. I guess my question is to you, General Bukimera, because he has, during his campaign, appeared to take a more hard line approach with respect to both North Korea and China. Can you talk about how you see his new administration continuing to work with the United States and whether you expect any changes there? Thanks, Senator. Working with the country team, we'll reach out to his transition team, and I look forward to taking what he talked about in his campaign and continuing to move forward when it comes to protecting South Korea and maintaining regional stability. It seems very promising, everything what we've seen on the conservative side in his approach and focus on defense, and now we'll have to figure, see what it looks like in execution. So I don't know if you want to add anything to that, Admiral, but do we expect him to continue to collaborate with us in regional alliances, in the Quad, in looking at things like AUKUS that we are continuing to try and partner with Asian countries on? Thanks, Senator. You know, the alliance with the South Koreans, it's clearly the linchpin to the broad set of alliances that go to the region, really, really important, no matter who is elected. I see at the mill to mill level, alongside my battle buddy, General Le Camre, they are a clear, solid treaty alliance partner. We operate together every day on the peninsula. So again, this is, I think we will continue to work together, and I don't expect any changes. Well, President Eleg Yoon is new to politics, I understand, and has made a number of statements in his campaign about North Korea and about his interest in seeing North Korea behave differently. Do we have any concerns about that? Are we working with, do we expect to work with him on how South Korea and North Korea continue to interact, if at all? Yes, Senator. To me, the alliance, I mean, it's an intangible relationship here that we have to continue to work with the Republic of Korea going forward to allow the diplomatic process to work with DPRK and as the trajectory of peace on the peninsula. So we expect to work with them. We work well with the Moon administration, and I expect that we'll continue to work well with the incoming administration. We do respect the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea. Of course, I appreciate that, and appreciate the partnership that we have shared with them in the Indo-Pacific. Admiral, the Women, Peace, and Security Act requires the U.S. government, for the first time, to strengthen the participation of women in conflict prevention and peace negotiations. And I know that INDOPECOM is actually taking a leadership role in implementing this law, initiating trainings around gender and security. Can you talk about why you see that as important and how you're seeing that get implemented in ways that you think will be helpful to us in the future? Yes, Senator, I think I'd start at the foundational level, right? This is about talent. And 50 percent in the United States are our ladies, and there is talent everywhere. So our role in ensuring that the rest of our partners understand it, can benefit from it. These are like-minded nations with like-minded values. So we work hard to transmit that. At the most recent Chiefs of Defense Conference that we had, there were 18 representatives from the region. And one of the specific topics that we discussed was how are we going to more diversify specifically as it applies to women, peace, and security. The Vice Minister of Japan came and gave a presentation, and she's an amazing lady. It was really notable to the rest of the participants. But bottom line, as we all agreed, as one of the three takeaways, is we were going to work towards increased diversity with our female population through the lens of military service. Thank you. I'm really pleased to hear that. Thank you very much. I look forward to further updates as you continue to implement the program. Thank you, Senator Sheehan. Senator Sullivan, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Thank you for your service. You're in the general service and with the service of your families. By the way, you don't have to comment on it. I'm going to take exception and Senator Warren's view of unfunded mandates of some kind of wish list. I actually read them. I'm not sure she has. And I believe they're actually needed priorities. But Admiral, you've been talking about integrated deterrence, the economic impacts of the free world coming together on Ukraine sanctions, all instruments of national power. I think one of the lessons from Ukraine and the brutal invasion by the dictator of Vladimir Putin is that comprehensive economic and financial sanctions have the best chance of deterring conflict when they are clearly articulated and ready to go before the conflict begins. I recently introduced legislation, Congressman Gallagher and the House introduced companion legislation that would mandate comprehensive and devastating economic and financial sanctions against the Chinese Communist Party, key sectors of China's economy, and leaders of the CCP. In the event it initiates a military invasion of the island democracy of Taiwan. I was in Europe recently discussing this with many of our allies and encouraging them to consider similar actions. What's your thought on legislation like that, particularly as it relates to all instruments of American power and the deterrent effect beyond just what you control, which is the military instrument? Thanks Senator. I'll have to go in detail and take a look at the legislation. I haven't read it to date. I guess I think what I would say is as long as it is in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act as a portion of all forms of national power, I would be supportive. Thank you. Let me ask just following up on that. The Chinese Communist Party has already crushed Hong Kong once a bastion of liberty. Unfortunately, I think the free world barely raised its voice. I believe a violent, successful takeover of Taiwan by the CCP would be a sea change in how the world is ordered. Not just the Western Pacific, but the world. I think it could change the history of the 21st century and the ways of the guns of August of 1914 changed the 20th century. What is your analysis of that, especially as it relates to our, the trust, our allied, our treaty ally partners have in the region? Senator, I think most of the nations in the region have the same view. The change in the international world order is at risk. There's economic impacts. There's two-thirds of the global flow of trade flows through that region in the maritime domain. There's expansive second-third-order effects that would be concerning. You know, you mentioned Philippines, Guam, Australia. Can you talk a little bit about Alaska in terms of the fight, in terms of if you need to be ready? Our proximity, which as you know is quite close to Korea, Japan, Taiwan, our military forces, which you have operational control over, over 100 fifth-gen fighters, all kinds of other things, and in related to that, are we becoming too militarily concentrated with our military assets on Guam? I don't think we're becoming too consolidated or too focused on Guam. It's a strategic location. Certainly as Alaska is a strategic location, and Senator, all of those forces that are positioned there would certainly be needed and expected to join any response options. Let me ask my final question for both General and Admiral. I believe the Ukrainian invasion has made it clear that we're in a new era of authoritarian aggression led by two dictators, Putin and Xi Jinping. They're driven by historical grievances. They're often increasingly isolated, which makes them dangerous. They're very paranoid about their democratic neighbors because they can't bring democracy and freedom to their own people. And as you both know, the CCP often looks at, as a matter of fact both of them look at, historical grievances as a way to justify current and future claims of aggression. That's happening in Ukraine right now. As you've already mentioned, the Nine Dash Line, South China Sea, Taiwan. In the 13th century, the Juan Dynasty of China invaded and occupied Korea for several decades. To both gentlemen, has the CCP ever mentioned this as a possible pretext for aggressive or future actions against the Korean Peninsula? They seem to do it a lot in other areas of Asia, and this is one area that they have previously occupied. General, why don't we start with you? Thanks, Senator. Again, I think history is instructive, not a blueprint, but I think the answer really lies in the head of Xi Jinping. But have you ever heard that? I mean, the Nine Dash Line, in my view, is ridiculous, but they still trot that out as a map and say, here, this is history. Now we're going to make sure everybody who buys by it. They did occupy and invade Korea. Have you ever heard that from them? I have not. Okay. Admiral, how about you? And because, you know, they're looking at many other areas, again, a lot of times based on historical grievances. Any thoughts? I have not seen that yet, Senator. Again, a lot of focus, obviously, on the reintegration of Taiwan and the extensive claim through all areas inside the Nine Dash Line. I have not seen or heard of them beginning to lay the groundwork for a Korea issue. I think it's something we need to keep an eye on. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feldman. Senator Kelly, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, General, I have a question for each of you. First Admiral, it's about building partner capacity. Security cooperation programs are an important tool for us to achieve our national security objectives. It strengthens our regional security efforts, it assists in combating shared threats and provides valuable intelligence to deter potential aggression. The 2018 National Defense Strategy sought to shift the prioritization of security cooperation activities away from counterterrorism and towards great power competition with Russia and China. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 21 Defense Bill established the Pacific Deterrence Initiative in part to prioritize security cooperation activities in the Indo-Pacific. So Admiral, how is IndoPaycom utilizing security cooperation partnerships to counter Chinese incursions into the South China Sea and deter potential aggression against Taiwan? Thanks, Senator. First of all, when we continue to work with our allies and partners by itself is a huge deterrent value. So that continued exercising operations that is enabled through the security cooperation funding is really important. Second, it helps in some cases to deliver some posture options. So there is an economic benefit and a counter to the one-belt-one road as we work with our allies and partners. And then certainly to build their capacity in the forms of articles that we can either sell or give certainly enhances interoperability and allows us to be able to quickly come together and operate together. So there are multiple benefits. You mentioned the funding. Are you resourced adequately? We'll see when the 23 budget comes out and I've articulated and will highlight my requirement. All right, thank you. General, the U.S. military has not conducted its annual large-scale exercises full-legal and key resolve with South Korea since 2018. I myself, I participated a long time ago in Team Spirit. Least a couple of times and believe that it is critical that we maintain a deterrent. And part of the deterrent is to convince the North Koreans through these exercises that despite their larger force, our ability to operate jointly with our partners is a significant force multiplier. North Korea must know that the U.S. and South Korean militaries are prepared to operate jointly and effectively to repel a North Korean attack. And as we look at the situation unfolding in Ukraine, it is concerning to think that the cancellation of these exercises could be misinterpreted to signal a waning commitment. Do you believe large-scale exercises contribute to deterring potential North Korea aggression? Senator, thank you. I do. His, in the information space, trying to get us to cancel those exercises and potentially reduce our readiness works in his favor and he doesn't have to expend any energy. But while we haven't done the field training exercise that you referred to a full-legal Team Spirit, we have in 2020, last year, we did do our command post-exercise in the spring and the fall and we are scheduled to do it coming up here in it. We're also training at all levels in the field with our allies. When do you expect to be back to do a large-scale exercise? That will be determined as the new administration comes in and working with the Minister of Defense going forward. Could you describe the difference in readiness between pre-2018 and the remaining time, only about 30 seconds, compared to what it is today if you can quantify that in a way? All the reports are that we're able to achieve the same readiness levels. Again, the gold standard for me at the tactical level are the live fires and then force on force, we're able to get the Koreans off the peninsula to our combat training centers and to do that training there. As a commander, obviously more is better, but it's hard for me to speak before my time. Your preference is to do the large-scale exercises on the Korean Peninsula? Yes. My preference is to do as much training as possible at all echelons. Thank you, General. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Senator Hawley, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. Admiral, it's good to see you again. Thanks for your time a couple of days ago. I want to start with something that the NDAA from last year says, section 1247 in particular, it says that it's the policy of the United States to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist a fait accompli that would jeopardize the security of the people on Taiwan. The NDAA also defined that term fait accompli to mean the resort to force by the People's Republic of China to invade and seize control of Taiwan before the U.S. can respond effectively. Tell us why it's important for the United States to be able to respond quickly in order to prevent a fait accompli. Thanks, Senator. Certainly, where our forces are positioned, again, a number forward, but much in reserve on the West Coast of the United States. Credible combat power placed forward has an extremely valuable deterrent value. A, it can respond with speed. B, it's operating in the area and can rehearse. And ultimately, there's no better training than operating in the space you would fight in. And I just want to underline what you said there about the necessity for our forces to be postured forward. Combat credible forces postured forward, that's what will enable us to respond quickly. If I got that right, have I understood your testimony correctly? Yes, sir. Very good. Let me ask you this. We recently heard from a random analyst, Dave Ocminic, who's written that Taiwan, in his view, ought to prioritize asymmetric defenses like the following. Here's a non-exhaustive list. Smart minds, anti-ship missiles that are deliverable from mobile launchers, mobile short air, at short range, rather, air defense missile systems and distributed reconnaissance and communication systems. Why, in your view, why are asymmetric defenses and the capabilities so important for Taiwan to be able to deter Chinese aggression? Thanks, Senator. Again, a defense in depth mindset and model that can deliver, we've heard many cases, the defense of Taiwan being described as a porcupine. Those capabilities allow those effects to be delivered in multiple places, at multiple times, in multiple ways. So I concur with the capabilities articulated. Let me ask you this. You said earlier today that anything that we could do to bolster the defensive capabilities of Taiwan would be desirable. I think that's so important. I've introduced my own piece of legislation, the Armed Taiwan Act, which authorizes $3 billion annually to accelerate Taiwan's deployment of asymmetric defenses and conditions that aid on Taiwan increasing defense spending and undertaking key defense reforms. Here's a broader question for you. We need Taiwan to strengthen its asymmetric defenses, in particular, as quickly as possible, don't we? Can you tell us why that is? Well, I think, Senator, one of the lessons learned as we watch what's going on in Europe is, number one, aggressive nations can take action. So, number one, action against the island of Taiwan could happen, lesson one. Lesson two, there needs to be a readiness level as soon as possible. And for that reason, is it fair to say that it is critical for Taiwan to keep increasing its defense spending and to continue to implement defense reforms in order to achieve that sort of porcupine state that you were talking about earlier? Yes. Let's talk a little bit about some of the physical capabilities that you're going to need in PAKOM in order to deter China. And I'm thinking of things like attack submarines, carrier strike groups, high-end munitions, air-breathing ISR. The thing about all of these physical capabilities is that they can only be used in one place at one time. Am I right about that? It's fair to say? I would say in some cases, there are certain domains that capabilities could be brought to bear very quickly and when I think about space and cyber. Right. Gotcha. But leaving aside space and cyber and thinking about just the physical capabilities, these are sometimes called the high-demand low-density assets that if they get used in one theater, let's say UCOM, then they're not available in PAKOM. And so, there's a trade-off. Have I got that right? I mean, we've got to make choices. Again, depending on the types, right? So bombers can move quickly and we in many cases share those in the same mission across multiple combatant commands, but most at the speed that they can move can only service one at a time. Fair enough. Where I'm going with this is something you and I have already talked about, which is that while we have a current crisis in UCOM, I think as we think about the ongoing challenges that we face in PAKOM, both in the short and in the long term, I want to make sure that DOD is not taking capabilities from your theater that we've absolutely got to have to continue to deter China through a strategy of denial and to using them in other theaters, unless, of course, they're backfilling in some way. So if you want to comment on that, go ahead. If you don't mind, Senator, again, I just want to be very clear that nothing the Secretary has not removed anything that he's allocated to me at this point to a different theater. Very good. Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. And it's about the admirals upcoming 1242 report. Just give us a sense, Admiral, as we anticipate that report and without commenting on the specifics yet because it's not out, but how important will it be for Congress to fully fund the requirements that you have listed in that report in order to do your job of deterrence in PAKOM? Sir, I think what I would say is the Committee and the Congress has tasked me to provide those requirements. I think I'd leave the legislations and the legislating up to this team. What I would do is just thank you for your focus on the Indo-Pacific Command, and I look forward to being able to deliver you those requirements. Thank you, Senator Hawley. Senator Duckworth, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Admiral Akerlino and General La Camara. I appreciate your service to our nation. I want to thank those service members under your commands for their tireless work in tackling enormous challenges that we now face in the Indo-Pacific. As you know, I have been a vocal voice for combat credible logistics, and so we're going to talk about that again today. I've been consistent and loud in this Committee about my concerns because I know how difficult effective sustainment can be, and I know that outrunning supply lines can result in a catastrophic loss of a tempo for military forces. Right now, we are watching an object lessen in the importance and challenge of an effective logistics plan with Vladimir Putin's disastrous invasion of Ukraine, and that's a neighboring country with whom he shares a border. While Putin's ineffective approach to sustainment generally strikes with his patterns of arrogance and strategic failure, I hope that we are thinking critically about how much greater the sustainment problem will be if we are called to defend our troops and allies in your area of responsibility a very far distance from home. Admiral Aquilino, where do you see the greatest gaps in Indo-Paycom's ability to conduct logistics in a contested environment, and how are you planning to fill those gaps, and what areas of the upcoming budget requests are most critical for your success, whatever you can share us in this unclassified environment, obviously? Thanks, Senator. The posture initiatives that we've laid out, and again, I look forward to coming to briefing you at a classified level on the approach, the plan, the hubs, the spokes, the different legs of our logistics plan. I'd love to show it to you. But the posture, the places that we're going to have to set up critical, the transfer from one place to another and then into the region, whether it be sea lift, airlift, those are the second set of capabilities that we're interested in. Thank you. Same question to you, General. Well, thanks, Senator. Sustainment operations is a focus item for me, and it's commander's business. I've made it very clear to my subordinate commanders. My discussions with Admiral Aquilino, it's, you know, when does strategic movement become operational maneuver, and what combat power is going to have to be used to secure those lines of communication will be a discussion that we'll have in a crisis and in conflict. As we get different capabilities on the peninsula, where that line is, we might be able to provide that capability and working with the Rock Navy, Rock Air Force, et cetera. That'll all be part of the integration going forward. But I can assure you that sustainment operations, not just getting to the pen, getting those supplies, but also in the fight in defending the peninsula is a priority. Thank you. Gentlemen, last week, I met with General Van Ofos, Commander of the U.S. Transcom, who was visiting from Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. And she assured me that our strategic legislative requirements will play a larger role in the upcoming NDS. And I look forward to seeing the details when that NDS is released. But I will be closely watching to see how the department implements and resources that strategy going forward. Admiral Aquilino, I know you've been working closely with U.S. Transportation Command, which I think is important, given the unique challenges of the tyranny of distance that poses to Transcom in your area of responsibility. One particularly concerning mission I discussed with Transcom was patient transport, wounded warriors. It's clear that in a contested environment in Indo-Pacom, we will not be able to evacuate patients from theater as quickly as we were able to in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're more challenges. There might need to be a dwell time of maybe five hours, six hours, or 12 to 24 hours before we can transfer them to the next mode of transport. In the event of a conflict in Indo-Pacom, we will need to think outside the box established over the last 20 years in order to effectively care for our wounded. This is an area that I am ready and willing to support. Admiral, would you commit to sharing any analysis your command is conducting on medical mobility with me and this committee once it's completed? And will you commit to working directly with my staff on ways that we can partner with you to tackle this potential problem? Senator, absolutely. So we've been working through a set of con ops on what does it look like and as you articulated in a really complex theater, most of it water. We've said again through this lens of hub, spokes, transition stations, so I'd be glad to show you how we're thinking about it. But your point is really valid. This theater and this operation, we won't be able to meet the golden hour. Yeah. One final question. I'd like to move on to strengthening our partnerships in the region. Senator Blumenthal did talk about this August submarine deal and how bold the Australians are. They're all in. They put all their chips in with us. And as you and I discussed last year, I think we need to match their bold commitment to the partnership if we're going to make it successful, especially when it comes to submarines. Admiral, how can you support implementation of the August deal in your operations and planning for the region? And from real perspective, how can Congress support this partnership and be equally as bold, especially when it comes to components of the deal, such as their building the capacity to build their own submarines? Thanks, Senator. I think step one is to let this report run out, right? So they have some decisions to make, which are significant decisions as we work through the submarine portion. Once they identify a couple of key ways forward, you heard the other day they decided they're going to have a base on the East Coast. I think now we can kind of step in, partner with them and work towards some of these posture initiatives. We work towards nuclear power school. We can partner with riders on submarines. There's a bunch of things we can do, but they really have to make some choices first. And I'm confident they're looking to go as fast as possible as well. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Duckworth. Senator Scott, please. Thank you, Chairman. First, I want to thank each of you and everybody in your command for your service. Admiral, given your unique position in the Indo-Pacific Command, you have observed the Communist Chinese regime. Is it your personal opinion that General Secretary Xi will take over Taiwan by force if he sees the opportunity? Senator, I don't think I would try to predict. I think what I would tell you is the mission that I've been given is, at number one, to prevent this conflict. At number two, if deterrence fails to be able to fight and win, which leads me to a place that says I need to be ready, should he make that choice. Thank you. Admiral, in your personal opinion, do you believe that this administration is giving proper attention to the possibility of Communist China invading Taiwan? I think as stated by the Secretary and the Administration, the priority theater, most consequential theater for the future of the United States is the Indo-Pacific Theater, and the most concerning strategic competitor is the PRC. So I think that articulation and that priority has been well stated, Senator. Admiral, has a Pacific Defense Initiative been properly funded and does it provide the right counter to Communist China and its threats in the region? I thank the Committee for support to the Indo-Pacific, and as articulated in the Law Center, I'll continue to provide the requirements as identified and tasked by the NDAA to identify my critical requirements. And again, I thank the Committee as we work through the legislation process. As you know, I submitted my unfunded list. It was based on that report, and I'll continue to do so. Thank you. Admiral, as we discussed the last time you were before us, I have introduced legislation that calls for the building up of Taiwan's defenses, as well as preparations in the United States that will allow us to aid Taiwan if Communist China attacks or tries to change its government using military coercion. My bill also calls for a more transparent, realistic, and necessary policy change. We must announce clearly that our position toward aiding Taiwan is not ambiguous. Communist China should know that we will come to Taiwan's defense, and since we last spoke, even the Japanese government made clear that it would not tolerate a Chinese military move against Taiwan. So here's my first question. Do you believe that preventing Communist China from controlling Taiwan is a strategic necessity for the United States? Senator, I completely support the One China policy operating in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act that communicates reassurances, and I think that's going to be a policy decision. I think there are certainly implications, but I'm standing by to support the requirements and tasks as identified by the National Security Council. After the administration's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and the failure to be able to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, do you believe that this is emboldened Xi to try to take Taiwan by force? I think we're still trying to learn what President Xi Jinping has learned from this event, and we continue to watch to try to identify, has he learned the correct lessons as it applies to the changing world order and the concern that we see in the Ukraine. Thank you. General, with the election yesterday in Korea, and even before that, have you seen any change in South Korea's attitude towards Communist China and concerned about the risk of Beijing's aggressive actions? Thanks, Senator. There's a relationship that they have, a diplomatic and economic relationship, and a cultural relationship that they have with China. I have not seen any major changes in that relationship. The current administration has been on a working towards peace declaration as its priority. So as we've watched China's aggressive actions, do you think the the the German public in Korea is taking note and now that as they've watched Putin invade Ukraine, has that had any impact on the attitude in South Korea to want to bolster their their defenses and support what we're doing to help defend them? It's hard for me to ask her to have been stateside since the invasion began. So I just anecdotally are getting reports on on kind of the reaction. The political reaction is that President Moon has taken action against the Russians from a sanctions perspective, and it's costing them economically. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Rosen, please. Well, thank you Chairman Reid for holding this hearing. Thank you so much to our witnesses here today for your service to our nation and really your expertise in these important areas. I'd like to focus today on cyber artificial intelligence and the importance of maintaining our technological edge in general, particularly as it relates to this region. So I want to work, talk about first cyber threats because some of the most devastating cyber attacks that have targeted the United States, well they've originated from China and North Korea. And just this week a cybersecurity firm reported that a Chinese state sponsored hacking group successfully compromised the networks of at least six U.S. state governments since May of 2021. So Admiral Aquilino, what are you doing? What are we doing to defend against Chinese state sponsored cyber threats? And what more should or could we be doing to deter these malicious activities? Thanks, Senator. So you've highlighted a certainly a concern that we worry about not only in our own networks but on our ally and partner networks, whether they be state actors or non-state actors, the potential impact is significant. In close coordination with my partner General Nakasone, who has that responsibility to defend the defense global information grid and to work with our allies and partners, we're linked very closely. He works in lanes both in the defensive lane and has the ability to work in the offensive lane as well. So that partnership is consistent. We have both identified the critical requirements on both sides and he continues to support us. And it is important that we work with our partner countries in collective collaborative. General Nakasone, what are the U.S. forces in Korea doing to deter and mitigate North Korean cyber threats? Thank you, Senator. Again, our concern is making sure that our networks are protected and making sure that our alliance networks are protected from those cyber attacks. We do practice it on a regular basis and an exercise coming up that will be part of the exercise. Make sure we're protecting it. And how quickly do you feel you can respond when you have that exercise? How quickly do you receive your reports on those, gentlemen, after your exercises that you can respond to the vulnerabilities that you might find? I think we can respond fairly quickly. I don't, I think that's, you know, we know that that's going to be part of their attack plan and that protecting our networks and reacting to those and making sure that we have the redundancy in our plans. And, you know, the real question is, you know, we rely heavily on digital, but at what level can we quickly switch to analog so that we're not vulnerable from that piece there? And you share those with your partner services so that they can be aware of any vulnerabilities as soon as you find them? Yes, Senator. Yes, Senator. So, General Nakasone is really good. I will tell you, if we, if it's detected, it's a critical information requirement for me. I will know within minutes. Very good. Thank you. As well as all the components. Thank you. I appreciate that components. I have a whole other discussion on software, bill and materials. We can talk about components another day. But again, Admiral, as we discussed when you testified before the committee last year, China is accelerating its military modernization through its cutting-edge technology. And they want to close the technological gap with the U.S. as quickly as possible. They're making investments in AI, robotics, cyber, hypersonics. They're procuring commercial technologies we know that can be adopted for military purposes. So I'm going to follow up on my question from your confirmation hearing last year. Do you believe today that China has achieved technological parity with the U.S. in any of its operational systems? And are there any that you feel that they're outpacing us? What should we be investing on with you to give you the tools to not let that happen? Thanks again, Senator. So let me start with intent, right? The intent of the PRC is to take advantage in every one of those. We continue to be the greatest military on the planet, and we need to keep and continue to keep those advantages. So, number one, through protection, whether they be defense or defense critical contractors or other sources, we have to protect those critical technologies that you articulated in order to maintain those advantages. Thank you. I see my time's up. I hope that we'll have a hearing talking about the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine as we begin to find out more about any particular cyber technological activity we can prepare for our future adversaries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Manchin, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your service and thank you for being here. General Aquilino, recently this committee had a very sobering briefing from the Department in this briefing. It was mentioned that the Marine Corps made the very hard decision to procure Mnemesis anti-ship missile instead of the more traditional equipment, but Congress made a decision to zero that request out in exchange for two CH-53K helicopters, and part of that is built in my State. So, I mention this example because it's one of many, I believe, a majority of my colleagues agree with me in order to compete against China. We've got to do the best thing we can do, not what's politically popular, let's put it that way. What, with that in mind, what domains of warfare do you believe the U.S. still maintains an asymmetrical advantage against China and what weapons systems or equipment do you believe we should procure to widen that advantage? Thanks, Senator. So, I'll start by saying we do have the world's greatest military in all domains, foundational. There are certainly capabilities that we want to go ahead and pursue, and I commend the commandant on making some of those tough choices, right? So, land-based anti-ship fires is a critical component of the strategy and the approach, but it will take the entire joint force. So, that's one example. There's some hypersonic capabilities that we certainly want to continue to pursue and then deliver. We want to be able to continue to work on maned capabilities to provide different alternatives as a part of the contribution. So, there's a number of those. Those are just three examples. General Lukimer, you mentioned in your opening statement your work towards achieving the bilateral conditions-based operational control transition plan between the United States and the Republic of Korea. When fully implemented, the Republic of Korea will assume direct operational control over their military in the event of war with North Korea. So, my question would be, can you explain to the committee if this transition plan is successfully executed, how will the immediate nature of our presence on the Korean Peninsula change? Thank you, Senator. As we go through this conditions-based, bilaterally agreed upon conditions-based op-gon transition, they'll be, we're in the process of working through what are the bridging capabilities and what are the enduring capabilities. So, when the chalk line is finally snapped, it's hard for me to predict right now, based on the capabilities that the Korean military has and what the requirements are. We're also in the process of rewriting our operational plan. What would you consider being the U.S. Forces Korea Commander, how would you lead your force in the event of a war on the Korean Peninsula following the plan's execution? How would I lead the forces? It would be part of the Combined Forces Commander. So, I would become the Deputy Commander of Combined Forces Command and my deputy would become the Combined Forces Commander. I would work underneath him. I'd still retain the title of U.S. Forces Korea and UNC Commander, and then it's still a binational decision-making process between both national command authorities. Admiral, the Marine Corps has taken significant risk in recent years to reorient the service towards our pacing threat, China. Among the many initiatives the Marine Corps is pursuing is orienting the Marine Corps towards developing the Doctrine for Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. What are you doing at the INDO-PACOM Commander to support the Navy and Marine Corps Refine and further operational to this concept? I think the way that I would say, Senator, is I'm making them prove it to me, right? So, it's a concept for a number of years now and we're working to rehearse it and practice it. What challenges do you see with that? We see certain challenges in capability, delivery, transportation, placement, and posture in some cases. And I ask you both one final question. Knowing what you know and the insight that you have on where we are in the Ukrainian-Russian War, the Putin War. I'm not going to gratiate that by calling it a Russian War, it's a Putin War. The escalation, your concerns about escalating, this war escalating into bringing us into conflict, chances of them breaching over into the NATO allies. Maybe, General Lecomarro, the Marines are first to go, so tell me about if you're ready or not. Thank you for the compliment. I'm sure the comment I would appreciate. I'm the Marine Corps announcer. I'm watching the impact that it will have on the Korean Peninsula and the regional regional stability is my main concern. I don't have the insights of what's really going on. Admiral, your thoughts? Senator, it's part of commander's business to assess three things in everything we do, no matter what theater or where we are. Number one is risk to force. We put in U.S. service members, families, or supporting people in harm's way, so risk to force to make sure I can send everybody back with mom, dad, and the kids after the mission they're complete. Number two, the risk to the mission itself. Am I going to achieve what I'm trying to do and generate the effect that I'm trying to generate? And then number three, risk to escalation. We assess it in every single event, every single operation, and I know my counterparts in UCOM are doing the same thing. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Manchin. Senator Peters, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today and for your service to our country. Admiral Aquilino, there has been significant discussion regarding how our partners in South Asia, particularly India, have responded to the crisis in Ukraine, and I'm concerned that we may be missing the forest from the trees here, and I believe that we, as a country, we need to balance some legitimate Indian concerns with our desire to work closely with them at the same time, and as well as other Quad partners to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific. So my question for you, Admiral, is can you speak to the relationship you have with our Indian counterparts, and what more can we do to strengthen our security relationship between these, our two countries? As Senator Start, I have no concerns that our partners in India are tremendous partners, and the mill-to-mill relationship is probably at its highest point. We continue to do more together. Forgive me for a second, but I will recognize my partner, General Rawat, and his wife, who just recently passed in an unforeseen helicopter incident. But when you talk about tremendous partnership, it's there. What more can we do? Continue the information sharing, continue to support them with the equipment they need up on the line of actual control, and continue to partner and operate together throughout the region. The Malabar exercise with Japan, Australia, the United States, and India is critical, increased, mini-lateral and multilateral engagements with the Indians, and ultimately continue to sell them equipment so we can be more interoperable and more effective together in the military sphere. Admiral, I'd also like to gather a greater sense of what the competition for influence looks on the ground in Oceania. Using Papa New Guinea as an example, in your posture statement, you mentioned that the People's Republic of China is, quote, moving to increase its defense attache footprint in Papa New Guinea, end of quote. This is happening at the same time as the U.S. is strengthening our military ties there, including the 2020 National Guard State Partnership Program expansion. So my question for you is, how have the People and Defense Forces in Papa New Guinea responded to our efforts there, and what more can we do to strengthen our relationship with some of the smaller nations that are in your AOR? Well, the State Partnership Program is critically important. Senator, I have 14 relationships between the National Guard and the nations in the region. That's one aspect. As you know, we're also plusing up our diplomatic capabilities there. In 2019, we put a defense attache, and in 2021, we just added a security cooperation officer. So small investments for big payback to be boots on the ground and to be able to engage with those critical partners. Well, just continuing with that concept, and I appreciate your support for it, your posture statement also discussed how the People's Republic of China entered into a security agreement with the Solomon Islands Police Force. Last month, the State Department confirmed plans to open an embassy in the Solomon Islands to increase our influence before China gets more strongly embedded there. So my question to you is, do you support State Partnership Program expansion to countries like the Solomon Islands? And if you do, what conditions must be met before these partnerships can begin in your opinion? Thanks, Senator. Again, I certainly do support the expansion as if it's funded, and we can sustain it in a way that's open, transparent, in accordance with our values, which is the critical linkage between these countries and ours. This generates the people-to-people ties that bring us closer together. And, as a matter of fact, I mean with General Hockinson tomorrow to have this exact discussion on where else might he be able to start putting some support. Very good. Well, thank you. Thank you for your response, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Pedersen. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today, but more importantly, for your lifelong service and dedication to the nation and that of your families. And please, as I suggested, initially pass on our thanks and gratitude to the men and women in your command and their families for their dedication and selfless service to the nation. I think we all feel that both the Indo-Pacific and the Indian