Watch Video Here

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing to consider the qualifications of three senior Pentagon nominees.

Mr. Austin J. Dahmer, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces; Mr. Robert P. Kadlec, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Deterrence, Chemical, and Biological Defense Policy and Programs; and Mr. Michael J. Borders, Jr., nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment, all appeared before the committee.

Read Chairman Wicker’s opening statement as delivered.

I welcome our witnesses and their families, some of whom I just had an opportunity to greet, and I thank them for being here this morning.? We face a threat environment more dangerous than any since World War II.?I say this at almost every hearing because it bears repeating.? In such challenging times, I’m grateful that these individuals have answered the call to serve.

Let me just pause for a moment and say this morning we remember a long-time public servant who passed away during the night, former Vice President Richard Cheney, a man who repeatedly answered the call to serve.  He was a White House Chief of Staff.  He served as Secretary of Defense. He was elected to the House of Representatives some five times and ultimately to the vice presidency, serving in that role for eight consequential years. So, we are thinking today of his family and loved ones today as the committee meets.

As to our business, I welcome our witnesses. And, first of all, Dr. Robert Kadlec has been nominated as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Deterrence, Chemical, and Biological Defense Policy and Programs.  Last year, Congress created this position because we hoped to align the department’s fractured nuclear management structure. This is an incredibly important position, especially today. China and Russia are rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals while our own modernization programs are behind schedule.

I look forward to working with the department to establish a position in a manner consistent with congressional direction in this NDAA that we are working on right now.  Just last week, the president made it clear that he is aware of our nuclear modernization challenges as compared to our adversaries.  That was encouraging news that the president is putting emphasis on this.  This committee has recognized the issue and proposed we have one position in the Pentagon responsible for nuclear matters, instead of a big bureaucracy.  I will note that we have not yet received written intentions from the department about how they will implement the law considering this position.  I look forward to hearing Dr. Kadlec’s views on how, if confirmed, he will work to ensure the department follows statutory direction and empowers this position to enact the nuclear reforms we so desperately need.

Mr. Michael Borders has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment.  As I have stated to other assistant secretaries with these responsibilities in the Army and Navy, the military branches have for far too long ignored their facilities.  The Air Force is no exception.  It is now required by statute to right the ship and continue to work toward a 4 percent annual plant replacement value by 2030, as was made law in last year through our NDAA – which was signed by the president.  With his experience as the Commander of the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, Mr. Borders is especially qualified to address this problem and get the Air Force back on track.

Mr. Austin Dahmer has been nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces. If confirmed, he would have broad, important responsibilities.  He would oversee the implementation of the National Defense Strategy and the prioritization and execution of the department’s security cooperation initiatives. Mr. Dahmer would be responsible for DOD’s global force posture and its contingency and theater campaign plans.

These responsibilities would effectively make Mr. Dahmer the department’s chief strategist.

He would help build the plans to implement the commander-in-chief’s vision. I make this point, in particular, because I have noticed an unsettling trend this year. At times, Pentagon officials have pursued policies that are not in accord with President Trump’s orders or seem uncoordinated within the administration.

We saw one example of this last week, in the decision to withdraw an infantry brigade combat team from Romania.  I spoke about this in a statement with Chairman Rogers of the House Armed Services Committee.  We noted that this decision did not appear to reflect the policy mandate of President Trump. Just two weeks ago, the president had said that troops would not be withdrawn from Europe.  It is unclear to me how the move fits with the commander-in-chief’s direction.

We’re going to ask that several things be discussed in this hearing, and I hope there are questions and answers in this regard.  The department is allegedly conducting a broad review of U.S. forces stationed abroad.  I say “allegedly” because the department has not formally conveyed to this committee that it is actually undertaking such a review.

We read about it in the newspapers, and last week we saw its earliest manifestation with the abrupt announcement of the withdrawal of an infantry brigade combat team from Romania and Southern Europe.  The timing of this is curious at best.  For a generation, we have insisted that the Europeans do more, and, thanks to President Trump, they are doing more – as their defense spending reveals.  But creating new military force structures and producing the equipment by these allies to accompany it will take years to field.

So, the questions arise: Last week, when the Pentagon abruptly withdrew a brigade from Romania, did our department, did our witness, consult with the Romanians prior to the decision to withdraw the brigade from Europe?

Romania shares the largest border with Ukraine of any NATO ally.  Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine – with whom Romania shares that border. Is there a backfill plan for those forces we are withdrawing?

Is the U.S. planning further drawdowns of our ground forces in Europe?  If so, this committee and this Congress would appreciate being advised as members of the same American team.

Is the department planning to drawdown either of the two brigade combat teams assigned to the Combined Forces Command in the Republic of Korea?

The dictator Putin is rattling his nuclear saber at the United States and NATO, while he’s doubling down on his war in Ukraine.  The U.S. must always weigh the costs and benefits of troop deployments around the world.  I think we would like to know today, “Could we hear thinking of the strategy aspect, strategy portion, of the Pentagon about the signal sent by the decision to reduce troop presence in Europe at this particular time?”

In addition, I have been disappointed to see the president’s decisions apparently slow-walked or reversed at other points this year.  Earlier, Ukraine stopped receiving

our security assistance—even though President Trump wanted to deliver it.  When the president was asked about this, he said he did not know who had ordered this.

In addition, the AUKUS deal was cast into doubt despite the president’s strong support of the agreement—much to the surprise and dismay of Australia, one of our most steadfast allies.

There are strong foreign policy debates in my political party.  We do not have consensus on every issue, and I welcome a healthy discussion on America’s role in the world – and I think the president does too.  I have supported President Trump’s efforts to blend three approaches to foreign policy, and I have supported the president steadfastly in this regard.  He combines a muscular use of the U.S. military, with win-win deals with our allies, and, thirdly, tough negotiations with real red lines for our adversaries.  Amid these debates, I think everyone would expect the president’s national security strategy staff to follow his lead and to implement his vision.

Throughout this year, the committee has had a relatively positive relationship with the Pentagon, especially Secretary Hegseth and Deputy Secretary Feinberg. I have been disappointed to find one exception to that cordiality. Members and staff of this committee have struggled to receive information from the policy office and have not been able to consult in a meaningful way with the shop either on the National Defense Strategy or the Global Posture Review.  This does not match our experience with the first Trump administration, during which we had extensive consultations between the administration, and the Congress, and allies throughout the strategy development process. I look forward to improved interactions with the policy team in the coming months and the new year.  The situation needs to improve if we are to craft the best defense policy.