Secretary of Defense James Mattis’s Views on
Climate, Energy and More
These are previously unpublished “Questions for the Record” and replies
following the January 12th Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation
hearing for retired U.S. Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, who is now
President Donald J. Trump’s secretary of defense.
The exchanges below between five Armed Services Committee Democrats and Mattis
mainly focus on climate change, fossil and renewable energy and related security
issues. That was the initial reporting focus that produced them.
There are also discussions of Mattis’s views on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear
weapons program to ISIS, Guantanamo to LGBT issues in the military.
Explore and let us know what excites, irks or confuses you, and share this package with
others. Post comments or get in touch via suggestions@propublica.org.

Senator Jack Reed, Ranking Member (Rhode Island)
Reed: General Mattis, as commander of the First Marine Division during the invasion of Iraq
your quote “unleash us from the tether of fuel” garnered a lot of attention by this committee and
in your advance policy question responses you talked about how combat units are “faced with
unacceptable limitations because of their dependence on fuel” and how you “wanted to be able
to push those limits further”. You also mentioned “our efforts to resupply the force with fuel made
us vulnerable in ways that were exploited by the enemy.” Additionally, you stated this issue
remains a challenge for DOD. As such, I’d like to highlight a recent incident which proves this
problem still exists. Back in July after a coup attempt, the Turkish Government cut off power to
Incirlik Air Base, which as you know is the primary platform for launching coalition airstrikes in
our fight against ISIL.
For roughly a week, deployed units had to operate off backup generators, which is expensive to
fly in fuel and is not the preferred method of operation given the demanding tempo of sorties
and airstrikes against ISIL. I believe this incident proves that renewable energy is not simply an
environmental calculation, but it is becoming a tactical necessity for DOD. If confirmed,
specifically how will you address and make energy resiliency and mission assurance a priority
for DOD, to include acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable energy assets to
improve combat capability for deployed units and on our military installations?

Provided to Propublica.orgMattis: If confirmed, I will examine this issue carefully. In general, I believe that the Department
of Defense should explore alternate and renewable energy sources that are reliable, cost
effective, and capable of relieving the dependence of deployed forces on vulnerable fuel
supplies. The purpose of such efforts should be to increase the readiness and reach of our
forces.
Reed: General Mattis, do you support the J-4’s enforcement of the energy supportability key
performance parameter in the requirements process?
Mattis: If confirmed, I intend to consult with the Department’s subject matter experts on this
issue, including a briefing from the J-4.
Reed: General Mattis, the National Academy of Sciences has found “evidence that the 20072010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria.” Just last year, DOD established a policy to
assess and manage risks associated with the impact of climate change. Earlier this month, the
National Intelligence Council stated that climate change and global health issues pose imminent
and long-term threats through 2035. We on this committee readily acknowledge the Intelligence
Community’s findings in other areas of national security threats. In fact, we held a hearing on
one just last week. There should be nothing political about these scientific and intelligence
assessments. Would you agree that climate change makes it more difficult for DOD to do its job
and poses a threat to our military shipyards and installations?
Mattis: As the Intelligence Community has assessed, where climate change contributes to
regional instability, the Department of Defense must be aware of any potential adverse impacts
this can have on our interests. Moreover, the Department should be prepared to mitigate any
consequences of a changing climate, including ensuring that our shipyards and installations will
continue to function as required.
Reed: General Mattis, to what extent, if any, are Title 10 training exercises dealing with energy
outages? If not, why?
Mattis: I have been out of public service for over three years and I am not current on this issue.
If confirmed, I will call for an update on the current focus of any such training exercises.
Reed: General Mattis, if confirmed, what will you do to mitigate the threat and effects of climate
change, particularly given the investments our country has made in our military installations?
Mattis: If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role
within a broad, whole-of-government response.

Provided to Propublica.org

 Senator Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Shaheen: General Mattis, I’d like to turn to the issues of climate change and
energy and efficiency.
President-elect Trump has dismissed the idea of climate change and even went as
far as
to call it a Chinese-inspired “hoax”. I would like to note that the 2014 Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) issued by DOD cited climate change as a significant national
security challenge for the United States and the world at large. I understand that
while
you were commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command you signed off on a document
called the Joint Operating Environment, which listed climate change as one of the
security threats the military will face in the next quarter-century. Do you believe
climate
change is a security threat?
Mattis: Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of
Defense must pay
attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.
Shaheen: General Mattis, how should the military prepare to address this threat?
Mattis: As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader,
whole-of government
response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its
appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.
Shaheen: General Mattis, in August 2016, Army Secretary Eric Fanning committed
to doubling the
amount of combined heat and power (CHP) installations at Army facilities within the
next 2 years and tripling over the next 4 years. CHP, along with waste heat to power
(WHP) technologies, help make critical infrastructure more resilient, and—when
interconnected with energy storage systems or onsite renewable generation assets,
through micro-grid and smart grid technologies—can provide standby power during
grid
Outages. If confirmed, how would you support the Army’s initiative of increasing
clean energy
installations to improve its current and future capabilities and enhance mission
Effectiveness?
Mattis: If confirmed, I will need to review this initiative and any progress the Army
has made
before making decisions on the initiative’s future.

Provided to Propublica.org

 Shaheen: General Mattis, would you also encourage this approach across all
branches of the
military?
Mattis: I support encouraging cost-effective energy technologies across the
Services which
enhance the energy resilience and mission assurance posture of the Department.
Shaheen: General Mattis, how can our acquisition systems better incorporate the
use of energy in
military platforms?
Mattis: The generation and use of energy has important strategic and operational
implications
for the Department. I support continued investment in new and innovative energy
technologies, particularly through collaboration among civilian academic among civilian
academic institutions, military research laboratories, and defense industry partners.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)
(Formatting and subheadings as delivered)

Massachusetts Innovation and Research
178. General Mattis, will you advocate for the continued funding for the modernization of
the facilities at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] Lincoln Laboratory?

If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department carefully considers the modernization
plan for MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
179. General Mattis, will you commit to visiting the Defense Innovation Unit, Experimental
(DIUx), the Natick Soldier Systems Center, and the MIT Lincoln Laboratory during your tenure
as Secretary of Defense?

If confirmed, I am confident that during my tenure I will have a reason to visit these
important organizations.
Status of Women and LGBT Servicemembers

Provided to Propublica.org

 180. General Mattis, since December 3, 2015, DOD has been implementing a policy of
opening all military occupations, including combat roles, to women – without exception. This
policy makes women eligible to serve in more than 200,000 positions – in infantry, armor,
reconnaissance, and some special operations units – that were previously closed to them. Will
you, in any way, reverse or delay DOD’s integration of women into all military occupations,
including combat roles? Please explain.

As I stated during my testimony, I have no plan to change existing policy in this area.
Service members are in the Profession of Arms. I have every expectation that they will
work together professionally, respectfully, and lethally – as they have for years.
181. General Mattis, if you reverse or delay the integration policy, will you offer evidence
that integrating women into all military occupations without exception has a demonstrable
negative impact on readiness, cohesion, or morale? Please explain.

As noted, I do not have an intention to change existing policy in this area. If problems
are brought to me I will examine them.
182. General Mattis, since the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT)
in 2011 and subsequent Defense Department policies, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) servicemembers who have been serving with honor and distinction have
been able to serve openly without fear of discharge solely on the basis of their sexual
orientation. Will you, in any way, reduce any non-discrimination protections for LGBT
servicemembers? Please explain.

No.
183. General Mattis, if you reduce any non-discrimination protections for LGBT
servicemembers, will you offer evidence that LGBT individuals serving openly has a
demonstrable negative impact on readiness, cohesion, or morale? Please explain.

I do not have a pre-existing agenda to review these policies If I am confirmed.
Military Justice System and Sexual Assault
184. General Mattis, in recent years, DOD has created additional helpful resources for
sexual assault victims, such as the Special Victims’ Counsel Program. In cases of allegations
of sexual assault in the military, why shouldn’t independent and experienced senior military
attorneys be empowered to make prosecution decisions, rather than the victim’s commanding
officer–particularly when the commander involved in that decision is not a lawyer and may be
hostile to the victim? Please explain.

At the present time, I oppose removing disposition authority from military
commanders for any criminal behavior in their units, because removing such authority
would relieve them of the solemn responsibility to ensure the protection of the troops

Provided to Propublica.org

 under their command. I believe it would ultimately make the problem worse, not
better, and would undermine the ability of the military chain of command to ensure
that sexual assault allegations are investigated and adjudicated consistent with the
rules and regulations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. I want to incentivize
all commanders to exercise full authority over good order and discipline and over
their units’ combat readiness, for which I will hold them accountable.
Russia
185.
General Mattis, would both state-sponsored and non-state actor-sponsored
malicious cyber-attacks on the United States constitute acts of war? Please explain and
cite any applicable authority.

United States cyber policies and military doctrine continue to evolve. My
understanding is that a determination of whether a malicious cyber activity constitutes
an act of war would be made on a case-by-case basis by the President, regardless of
sponsor. I further note that a malicious cyber activity does not need to be deemed an
“act of war” to warrant a response. The context for these events is important, and
cyber activities should not be viewed in isolation.
186. General Mattis, when the United States decides to execute countermeasures in
response to malicious cyber activity that we can confidently attribute to a particular state, what
are the primary considerations associated with a proportional response—the malicious nature
of the cyber-attack, the unique vulnerabilities of our adversary, or other factors? Please explain
and cite any applicable authority.

This is a complex question for which I’m not yet ready to give a full answer. Each
malicious cyber activity must be examined on a case-by-case basis to evaluate a
variety of factors. For cyber attacks, a response in self-defense need not necessarily
take the form of a cyber action, as long as the response meets the requirements of
necessity and proportionality. If confirmed, I will need to review our policies and
engage with the national security team to better address this complex issue.
187. General Mattis, what are the factors that determine whether malicious cyber activity
— state-sponsored or committed by a non-state actor—against the United States requires a
response? Please explain and cite any applicable authority.

I believe the critical factors include the severity and impact of the attack. I believe that
the United States should consider the use of all elements of national power to respond
to malicious cyber activity when our people, national and economic security, civil
liberties, or public confidence are threatened or the security of an ally is at risk.
Moreover, a U.S. response should occur at a time and place of our own choosing,
within or beyond cyberspace.

Provided to Propublica.org

 188. General Mattis, do you believe it would increase or decrease the likelihood of
further conflict between Russia and Ukraine if the U.S. delivered weapons and other lethal
equipment to Ukrainian military forces? Please explain.

If confirmed, I will need extensive discussions with the Intelligence Community to
answer this question—discussions I have not yet had the opportunity to hold.
Syria
189. General Mattis, do you believe that the United States military should deploy ground
combat troops and/or engage in airstrikes directly against Syrian Government targets in that
country’s civil war? Please explain.

If confirmed, I will examine this complex issue in detail; this question does not lend
itself to a one or two paragraph answer. I am reluctant to give a premature response
until I am better informed on the military and diplomatic aspects of the issue, among
others.
Iran Nuclear Agreement
190. General Mattis, the Iran nuclear agreement places restrictions on Iran nuclear program
in exchange for sanctions relief from the U.S., China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and
Germany (“P5+1”). I believe that the nuclear agreement, which has been in implementation
since January 16, 2016, was and remains the best available option to prevent a nuclear-armed
Iran – especially when considering the realistic alternatives. In your live testimony, you referred
to the Iran nuclear deal as an “imperfect arms control agreement,” but you also observed that
“when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.” If Iran
continues to comply with its nuclear obligations, should the U.S. continue to lift sanctions as
prescribed by the agreement?

I believe we should abide by the agreement and ensure Iran fully complies with its
obligations, to include full cooperation with verification. We should work with our
allies to ensure Iran is held strictly accountable should they pursue a course of
obfuscation or defiance, but our engagement with Iran needs also to account for its
malign activities outside its nuclear weapons program.
191. General Mattis, if the United States unilaterally withdraws from the Iran nuclear
agreement, do you believe that we end up isolating Iran or isolating the United States?
Please explain.

This agreement is not a bilateral arrangement between the United States and Iran; five
other world powers are also signatories. Given this fact, our unilateral withdrawal or
the imposition of unilateral sanctions would have diminished effects on Iran.

Provided to Propublica.org

 192. General Mattis, if the United States unilaterally withdraws from the Iran nuclear deal,
what impact would that decision have on the effectiveness of a sanctions architecture that
attempts to compel Iran to limit its nuclear program? Please explain.

Unilateral sanctions would have a diminished coercive effect on Iran if other members
of the international community did not follow suit. Further, unilateral withdrawal
could inhibit our ability to monitor compliance.
Guantanamo Bay
193. General Mattis, the Guantanamo Bay prison facility has held detainees since 2002
and there are 55 individuals who remain there (as of January 5, 2017). The President-elect,
as a candidate, stated on February 23, 2016 that “we are keeping open” Guantanamo and
“we’re going to load it up with some bad dudes.” Do you believe that continuing to hold these
detainees indefinitely is consistent with our values and the rule of law? Please explain and
cite any applicable authority.

Detention for the duration of hostilities to prevent a combatant’s return to the
battlefield is a fundamental precept of the law of armed conflict. I am advised that U.S.
courts have affirmed this principle and upheld the authority of the Department to
detain combatants under the AUMF. Further, I understand that the Department of
Defense has processes to review whether a detainee requires continued detention. If
confirmed, I would examine our detention policies as part of a comprehensive strategy
review, keeping in mind that international law recognizes our legitimate right to hold
enemy combatants until the end of hostilities.
194. General Mattis, would you recommend adding detainees to the Guantanamo Bay
prison facility or not, and why?

If confirmed, I will examine the issue of detention and the facility at Guantanamo Bay.
I will ensure our military has the right tools available for detaining captured enemy
combatants.
195. General Mattis, what harm would be caused to our national security if the U.S. closed
the Guantanamo facility and transferred the remaining detainees to third-party countries that
were willing to accept them and took appropriate security precautions? Please explain.

Conflict involving U.S. forces is ongoing, and these detainees are part of the conflict.
There is a risk in releasing or transferring them. I understand that the law allows
transfer if that risk can be mitigated, and the law requires the Secretary of Defense to
confirm a number of factors related to both the transfer country’s capabilities and the
individual detainee. If confirmed, I would carefully examine these factors before
approving any detainee to leave Guantanamo.

Provided to Propublica.org

 Countering the Islamic State
196. General Mattis, Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) is the DOD’s name for U.S. military
operations in Iraq and Syria since August 2014 against the self-proclaimed Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria (ISIS). What about OIR would you do differently? Please explain.

If confirmed, I will ensure that our strategy for Iraq and Syria is regionally
integrated, and accelerates the defeat of ISIS.
197. General Mattis, do you believe that the other 67 members of the Global Coalition to
Counter ISIL are making sufficient contributions to take ISIS fighters off the battlefield and
reduce the group’s control of territory in Iraq and Syria? Please explain.

If confirmed I will need to assess these countries’ contributions to the campaign.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
198. General Mattis, the U.S. has been conducting military operations against ISIS since
August 2014. The terrorist organization has branches and controls territory in countries other
than Iraq and Syria, such as Afghanistan and Libya. Congress has failed to pass an
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for ISIS despite the President submitting a draft
to Congress in February 2015. In an article on March 4, 2015, you wrote: “A strong
‘Authorization to Use Military Force’ (AUMF), supported by a majority of both parties in both
houses of Congress, will send an essential message of American steadfastness to our people
and to the global audience. Its passage will demonstrate our country’s fundamental unity and
enable a broader commitment to deal firmly with a real and growing menace.” Please explain
what limits you would recommend in an AUMF against ISIS, including the geographic scope,
duration, and the circumstances under which it would be acceptable to deploy U.S. ground
troops in direct combat operations.

If confirmed, I will examine this important question and work through the national
security team to advise Congress on our conclusions. The aim of the AUMF would
need to be the destruction of the ISIS threat.
199. General Mattis, the United States is no longer engaged in combat operations in
Afghanistan, and our force strength there has decreased to approximately 8,400. Would you
recommend revising, or repealing altogether, the 2001 AUMF that precipitated our invasion
of Afghanistan? Please explain.

Although the United States no longer leads offensive combat operations in
Afghanistan, we remain in an armed conflict against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and
associated forces. It is my understanding that U.S. forces continue to rely on the 2001
AUMF and the President’s constitutional authority as the Commander in Chief as the
basis for the use of force when required in Afghanistan. If confirmed, I would be open

Provided to Propublica.org

 to looking at whether a revision to the 2001 AUMF would make sense for our mission
in Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia’s Military Operations in Yemen
200. General Mattis, since March 2015, the Saudi-led coalition has engaged in aerial
bombardments of Houthi rebel targets in Yemen, which has resulted in the deaths of over
4,000 civilians and more than 7,000 wounded. Through foreign military sales (FMS), the
United States has provided combat aircraft, attack helicopters, bombs, air-to-ground missiles,
ships, and military training to the Saudis during its military operations in Yemen. Would you
support a halt to the sale of any U.S. air-to-ground munitions to the Government of Saudi
Arabia unless the President can certify that: (1) Saudi Arabia is not providing funding, material
support, or lethal aid to individuals or groups designated by the United States as foreign
terrorist organizations; (2) Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners are taking all feasible
precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects to comply with their
obligations under international humanitarian law, which includes minimizing harm to civilians,
discriminating between civilian objects and military objectives, and exercising proportional use
of force in the course of military actions it pursues for the purpose of legitimate self-defense;
(3) Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners are making demonstrable efforts to facilitate the flow
of critical
humanitarian aid and commercial goods, including commercial fuel and commodities not
subject to sanction or prohibition under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2216
(2015); and (4) Saudi Arabia is taking all necessary measures to target designated foreign
terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and affiliates of ISIS as
part of its military operations in Yemen? Please explain.

The crisis in Yemen threatens key U.S. interests, including freedom of navigation
through the Bab al Mandeb, and opens the possibility of Yemen becoming a safe haven
for terrorist organizations with Iran’s active support. If I am confirmed I would work
with the State Department and other government partners to consider any conditions
or contingencies the United States should impose on Foreign Military Sales.
Islamophobia and Combating Terrorism
201. General Mattis, the fight against terrorism requires allies – both governments and their
citizens – in the Muslim world. As we combat this threat with our diplomatic and military tools,
we should make it clear that we distinguish between the vast majority of the world’s 1.7 billion
Muslims who practice their religion peacefully and reject terror – and the terrorists who try to
pervert Islam. The incoming National Security Advisor, retired Lieutenant General Michael
Flynn, has called Islam a “cancer” and claimed that fearing Muslims is “rational”. From 2010 to
2013, you commanded CENTCOM, where you were responsible for U.S. military operations in
Northeast Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southern Asia. Is it important to our
national security and our alliances in the Middle East and around the world to avoid
demonizing an entire religion? Please explain.

While the threat posed by Islamic extremism is real, it is a challenge that the United
States and the Islamic world must face together. As CENTCOM commander, I worked
Provided to Propublica.org

 with many of our Islamic allies and partners on a daily basis to address shared
security challenges. Today, we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces and Syrian
democratic forces to defeat ISIS. It is ISIS' stated goal to drive a wedge between Islam
and the West. We should deny them this objective and continue to partner
constructively with those who share our values.
202. General Mattis, as Secretary of Defense, will you speak frankly and forcefully
against this kind of hateful, ignorant, and counterproductive rhetoric? Please explain.

The stated goal of ISIS is to drive a wedge between Islam and the West. We should
deny them this objective and continue to partner with those who share our values. I
have never fought the enemy in all-American formations: our coalitions have included
allies from Muslim countries fighting at our side, a fact I have often pointed out.
Use of Force
203. General Mattis, in your response to the committee’s advance policy questions, you
said that “our diplomatic efforts must be sufficiently funded if we wish the military to be
employed generally as a last resort.” Do you believe that the United States should use military
force as a last resort? Please explain further.

I believe that any decision to use military force must take into account whether other
options have been considered, and, if considered, exhausted. While there may be
exceptions depending upon urgent circumstances, the use of military force should
generally be our last resort.
Civilian Casualty Data and U.S. Military Operations
204. General Mattis, on July 1, 2016, the President issued an Executive Order requiring the
release of information summarizing the number of strikes taken against terrorist targets
between January 2009 and December 2015, along with a range of combatant and civilian
deaths. Going forward, this Order requires the annual release of summary data on
counterterrorism strikes and resulting civilian casualties from each calendar year on May 1st
of the following year. However, this Order excludes civilian casualty data from our
counterterror strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and excludes information about the
location, date, and number of civilian casualties for each individual strike. This Order on
civilian casualty data can be rescinded by the next President. Do you believe that the next
President should rescind or maintain this Executive Order? Please explain.

No military tries harder to avoid civilian casualties than ours, even to the point of
increased risk to our troops. The U.S. military is required to comply with our
obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection
of civilians. If I am confirmed, I will balance the need for transparency in our public

Provided to Propublica.org

 reporting against the need for operational security in any assessments or decisions I
make on this issue.
205. General Mattis, what are your recommendations for further institutionalizing
best practices for tracking and publicly releasing civilian casualty data?

Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of
force. Unlike our enemies, the U.S. military does everything it can to avoid civilian
harm in its operations. If confirmed, I will assess tracking and publicly releasing
civilian casualty data on operations, and explore how to institutionalize best practices
in this regard.
206. General Mattis, since 9/11, the U.S. has been conducting counterterror operations in
countries where conventional forces are engaged in combat as well as areas dominated by
non-state actors. Do you believe it makes our military less lethal or harms our mission to
inform the American people as much as possible about the location, date, and number of
civilian casualties from U.S. military operations? Please explain.

I believe it is important for our military to be transparent about its military operations
so long as this information does not jeopardize operational security, or have the
potential to reveal military and intelligence techniques, tactics, or procedures.
Further, our enemies often use disinformation and allegations of civilian casualties
against us, which is a factor that must be considered.

207. General Mattis, do you believe that the U.S. Armed Forces should continue existing
practices of expressing public regret, offering consolation payments to victims and their
families, and paying for property damage caused directly by U.S. military operations? Please
explain.

I have supported this in the past and come to the confirmation process with no
preset agenda to change existing policy. Commanders should retain this authority
and use it when appropriate.
Nuclear Weapons
208. General Mattis, in your response to the committee’s advance policy questions, you
indicated that the role of nuclear weapons is to “deter nuclear war and to serve as last resort
weapons of self-defense.” What steps would you recommend for the United States to reduce
the risk of accidental nuclear conflict?

The United States must maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent, which
is maintained, postured, and operated in a manner that eliminates the risk of
accidental launch.

Provided to Propublica.org

 209. General Mattis, the United States maintains an arsenal of approximately 7,000 nuclear
weapons that are either active, on reserve, or waiting for dismantlement. In September 2014,
the Obama administration announced a plan to develop, procure, and maintain an enhanced
U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next decade, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated will cost approximately $350 billion over 10 years. A 2014 review by the National
Defense Panel, led by former Secretary of Defense William Perry and retired United States
Army General John Abizaid, concluded: “Recapitalization of all three legs of the nuclear Triad
with associated weapons could cost between $600 billion and $1 trillion over a 30 year period,
the costs of which would likely come at the expense of needed improvements in conventional
forces.” Why is this a cost-effective approach to our national defense? Please explain.

The nuclear triad deters potential adversaries, and it also assures our allies and
partners they do not need to build nuclear forces, which aids non-proliferation. Nearpeer competitors are modernizing and expanding their nuclear arsenals. Nuclear
deterrence, and the recapitalization and readiness of our nuclear forces, remains a
foundational element of national strength and security.
210. General Mattis, are you concerned that excessive spending on our nuclear arsenal
would jeopardize our expenditures on conventional weapons? Please explain.

If confirmed, I will advocate for budgets that balance our investments in nuclear
and conventional forces to accomplish a national security strategy that keeps our
country safe.
211. General Mattis, are you concerned that excessive spending on our nuclear arsenal
would undermine our credibility in efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation around the world?

No. I believe it is important to reassure our allies they don’t need to field nuclear
forces. It is important to reduce nuclear proliferation around the world, but it is also
important for our nation to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent.
Climate Change
212. General Mattis, on July 23, 2015, DOD provided Congress with a report entitled
“National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate.” The
purpose of this report is “to identify the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for
each combatant command, the ways in which the combatant commands are integrating
mitigation of these risks into their planning processes, and a description of the resources
required for an effective response.” Do you believe that climate change is real and has an
impact on our national security? Please explain.

I have not had the opportunity to review the report. Climate change is impacting
stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. It is appropriate

Provided to Propublica.org

 for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the
security environment in their areas into their planning.
213. General Mattis, will you continue implementing the steps recommended in this
Report? Please explain.

I have not had the opportunity to review the report. If confirmed, I will carefully review
the steps it recommends and take recommendations from the staff at the Office of the
Secretary of Defense about their implementation.

Senator Mazie K. Hirono (Hawaii)
(Formatting and subheadings as delivered)

Travel Per Diem Policy
1.
General Mattis, an issue I have worked hard on in recent years is travel per diem
policy, and well meaning, but misguided, attempts by DOD to cut back on the reimbursement
rates available to DOD personnel, both uniform and civilian. Specifically, I supported the
reversal of a DOD policy that drastically cut the rates for lodging and meal expenses for
personnel on long- term travel. These cuts have been a significant issue in my State of Hawaii
and elsewhere because of the hardships on the DOD workforce, the negative impact on
military readiness, and the counterintuitive result of increased costs in some cases. The
Republican House voted twice to overturn this policy and there was strong bi- partisan support
in the Senate for a repeal of the cuts, including from several Senators on both sides of the
aisle on this committee.
I fully understand the need to use taxpayer money judiciously, and that DOD has an expansive
set of priorities, but I feel strongly we need to treat our civilian and uniform workforce equitably.
Can you comment on this issue and promise to ensure that we treat DOD personnel fairly
when they travel to fulfill their vitally important duties?

I am not familiar with the specifics of this policy, but I am committed to the principle that all
Department of Defense benefits should be fairly applied. If confirmed, I will ensure the
Department continuously reviews results and analyzes data to ensure our policies best enable
Department personnel to travel in support of the mission.
Compact of Free Association with the Republic of Palau

Provided to Propublica.org

 2.
General Mattis, the United States and the Republic of Palau, an island nation in the
Western Pacific, entered into Compact of Free Association with the U.S. in 1986 that gives
our military authorities the Pentagon calls “vital” to America’s Pacific defense posture which
includes the right of denial of Palauan territory to the military forces of any other nation – socalled “strategic denial”, and it grants to the U.S. the ability to establish defense sites as
requested. The Compact is crucial to preserve broad U.S. military access near geopolitical
hotspots: Palau has territorial lands and water covering a Texas-sized area located between
Japan, the U.S. territory of Guam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Indonesia. In addition, DOD
has recognized the importance of the Compact. Do you agree that the Compact is important
to our national security and our posture in the Pacific theater?

Yes. The Compact has provided access, influence, and strategic denial of access to other
regional military forces while facilitating U.S. military presence near key sea lanes of
communication.
3.
General Mattis, the Compact with the Republic of Palau provided for an initial 15-year
term of financial assistance that expired at the end of fiscal year 2009. A 2010 bilateral
agreement would extend and phase-out financial assistance to Palau (8-year cost of $149
million) and make necessary updates to the Compact but has not been enacted. Last year
DOD, the
Department of State, the Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) supported an amendment I offered that was included in the Fiscal Year 2017
NDAA Conference Report calling on the President to include funding for the agreement in the
fiscal year 2018 budget request. If confirmed, will you support the inclusion of the funding to
implement the 2010 agreement in the President’s Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request?

If confirmed, I will work closely with the Department of State, the Department of the Interior,
the Office of Management and Budget, and other appropriate entities to fully assess this issue.
I will provide my best advice to the President to inform his budget request.
F-35
4.
General Mattis, recent Chinese and Russian actions seem to reinforce the need to
invest in 5th generation airpower. I would like your commitment to field the F-35 as quickly
and as affordably as possible. In recent years, sequestration and continued budget
pressures have constrained DOD’s ability to ramp up to full rate production on the F-35
program, limiting the most critical driver in reducing cost. If funds become available, what
additional investments could the U.S. Government make to help reduce the cost of this
aircraft and increase the production rate?

I agree with the need to field the F-35 as quickly, predictably, and affordably as possible for
both our nation and for our allies who participate in the program. If funds become available,
I will work to ensure they are invested with care and accountability.
Frigate Roadmap
5.
General Mattis, as you know, the Navy recently released its Force Structure
Assessment calling for 355 battle force ships, including a requirement for 52 small surface
combatants. This revised assessment comes at a great inflection point for the frigate program
writ large. Threat vectors from near peer competitors are driving the need for greater capability

Provided to Propublica.org

 and capacity across the fleet and are increasingly pressurizing taskings on our large surface
combatants. The Navy has responded by pursuing course towards a multi-mission frigate with
increased lethality and survivability. There is strong consensus for the need to move rapidly
towards this more capable small surface combatant. Yet while the timeframe for the detailed
design for this transition has been reduced from 36 months to 12 months, design funding has
not been accelerated, and, in fact, has been reduced from $75 million to $15 million.
Shepherding the frigate program and protecting critical shipbuilding industrial base assets will
require steady leadership at high levels within DOD. Accelerating a new frigate design in onethird of the time and with one-fifth of the funding seems to pose a significant acquisition risk
profile. How might DOD create a roadmap to accelerate and adequately fund a stable design
while simultaneously leveraging the hot production lines that will be necessary to build
towards a 355-ship battle force inventory in a reasonable time frame?

Since my retirement, I have not had access to the detailed information required to responsibly
address this question. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department of the Navy
to ensure your question is addressed in a timely manner.
OBGYN and Pediatric Physicians
6.
General Mattis, during your confirmation hearing, you stated you would not prevent
the expansion of women’s roles in combat positions. As part of the expansion, it is critical
women have access to the health care they need to ensure they are field-ready. Some
members of Congress seek to curtail the role of health providers who they believe are not
necessary to the combat missions. Can you comment on the need to retain OB/GYN and
pediatric physicians to ensure the health and well-being of all enlisted members and their
dependents?

If confirmed, I will ensure that all of the Department’s beneficiaries, including active duty
personnel, retirees, and family members, have access to high quality health care—of whatever
variety is needed—to keep them healthy and our units’ combat readiness high.
LGBT
7.
General Mattis, many LGBT individuals have served this country but were long denied
the ability to live and serve openly. Can you promise to ensure that every member of the
military will be respected regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or identity?

Yes.
Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
8.
General Mattis, DOD and the Military Services are frequently called upon for
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) around the world, often in the wake of
extreme weather events. Systems such as Eagle Vision are often deployed to assist in these
assistance and relief missions. For example, DOD deployed support in 2010 after the
earthquake in Haiti, flooding in Pakistan, and here at home with the National Guard after
Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
Do you agree that HADR is a legitimate military mission for DOD?

Yes. When Department of Defense support is required, the mission should be clearly defined, a
transition plan developed, and core Department missions not affected.

Provided to Propublica.org

 9.
General Mattis, given DOD is frequently called upon when weather crises develop,
how can DOD help shape prevention of these incidents, and if confirmed, how will you ensure
DOD is planning for HADR missions in theater campaign plans, posture reviews, or other
defense planning scenarios?

Each geographical Combatant Command incorporates HADR objectives into its theater
campaign plans, posture reviews, or other defense planning scenarios. If confirmed, I would
continue these efforts and prioritize disaster preparedness activities with partner nations.
Corrosion Prevention and Control
10.
General Mattis, corrosion on systems, equipment, and infrastructure costs the
Department of Defense over $20 billion a year and has been estimated to comprise 15 to 25
percent of a weapon systems maintenance cost. The DOD’s Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight was
established in 2003. As important as this matter is and understanding that we are in a
resource constrained environment, I do not believe that DOD has programmed the
necessary resources and has relied on congressional involvement in order to maintain a
minimal capability.
How can we limit the impact of corrosion on DOD systems and readiness?

I believe that our Services understand the impact of corrosion on readiness. I am committed to
the faithful stewardship of our assets so that they are ready when we need them. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with you on improving our anti-corrosion outcomes. Unfortunately,
the combined effects of un-forecasted heavy usage in overseas commitments plus the impact of
sequestration have resulted in deferred depot maintenance, including corrosion control. To
best preserve our limited major end items, we need to heal the self-inflicted wound of
sequestration and also to reset our equipment.
11.
General Mattis, if confirmed, will you commit to working with me on this important issue
to include Service and DOD strategies to combat corrosion, research and considering anticorrosion planning early in systems acquisition programs?

Yes.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
12.
General Mattis, dependence on fossil fuels poses an increasing security risk and
financial liability to military installations around the country. Many bases are reducing energy
demand by investing in energy efficiency for housing and other buildings. They are also
developing renewable sources that provide both a reliable supply and price for energy. Do you
support integration of renewable energy and energy efficiency in U.S. military installations?

Yes.
13.
General Mattis, will you continue to support analysis of lifecycle energy costs in
the acquisition process?

Yes.
Climate Change

Provided to Propublica.org

 14.
General Mattis, Secretaries of Defense and military leaders have identified climate
change as one of the highest current and foreseeable risks to U.S. national security,
increasing both combat and humanitarian deployments of U.S. military power and taxing the
resources and budget for the Armed Forces. Do you agree with this evaluation? If so, will you
continue to support military initiatives to reduce the threats of climate change?

I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the
Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation. I
will ensure that the Department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in
the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat
assessments, resources, and readiness.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
(The subheadings are as provided; Gillibrand did not ask climate questions but provided the exchanges
regardless.)

Combat Integration / LGBTQ Servicemembers
Gillibrand: General Mattis, you said, “My belief is that we have to stay focused on a military that is
so lethal that on the battlefield, it’ll be the enemy’s longest day and their worst day when
they run into that force.” Can you define “lethality” and explain how you plan to
measure (or have measured) the impact of recent personnel policy changes on our
military’s “lethality?”
Mattis: Lethality and readiness are related concepts, but lethality specifically pertains to the
capacity of a force to defeat the enemy. The ultimate measure for such capacity is victory
in battle.
Gillibrand: General Mattis, how, specifically, do or will you define and measure the impact of
repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the “lethality” of our Armed Forces? Please
provide evidence or examples.
Mattis: I have been out of service for over three years and have no such example.
Gillibrand: General Mattis, how, specifically, do or will you define and measure the impact of
combat integration on the “lethality” of our Armed Forces? Please provide evidence or
examples.
Mattis: I have been out of service for over three years and have no such example.
Gillibrand: General Mattis, you have questioned whether or not our enemies will fear America’s
Armed Forces if we integrate women, referring in 2015 to “America’s awesome
determination to defend herself”. Are you familiar with the employment of female
soldiers as part of the Kurdish Peshmerga forces currently fighting ISIL?

Provided to Propublica.org

 Mattis: Yes.
Gillibrand: General Mattis, based upon reports from the region, ISIL fear being killed at the hands of
a woman. Do you think perhaps there are ways in which women in combat may actually
create more fear among some of our enemies?
Mattis: I have placed women in combat roles numerous times during my career. They did their
job on the battlefield bravely, and I am confident that this generation of service women
will continue to do so.
Gillibrand: General Mattis, our services branches have also made great advances in ensuring the
ability of transgender Americans to serve openly in our military. As we transition into
the new administration, these policies are still in the early stages of implementation. If
confirmed, will you continue the implementation of this policy as outlined by Secretary
Carter?
Mattis: It is my understanding that the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense is
monitoring the implementation of this policy. As I testified to the Committee, I have no
predetermined agenda to alter any policies established by my predecessors.
Gillibrand: General Mattis, if so, how will you ensure that this policy is implemented across all
Services?
Mattis: As a general rule, all Department of Defense policies are intended to be implemented
across all services. The Department’s leadership must ensure that uniform
implementation is always the case. If confirmed, I will ensure I receive updates on our
progress from the staff and from our Military Department civilian and uniformed
leadership.
Military Justice
Gillibrand: General Mattis, in past testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, you have
voiced confidence in the ability of military commanders to handle cases of sexual assault
within the existing framework provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If you
oppose legislation removing the decision (of whether or not to prosecute cases of sexual
assault) from the chain of command, how do you plan to hold commanders accountable
for command climates that allow for occurrences of sexual assault and instances of
retaliation against survivors?
Mattis: A command climate that allows for retaliation and tolerates sexual assault is wholly
unacceptable. Sexual assault and retaliatory behaviors are both criminal and morally
wrong. I expect that all commanders take this issue seriously, and I will hold them
accountable for enforcing all aspects of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and for
maintaining good order, discipline, and combat readiness.

Provided to Propublica.org