EXPLOSIVE HEARING: Senators ABSOLUTELY GRILL Pete Hegseth and Gen. Caine Over Iran, Budget — AC1N

[0:00] banks. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member. Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. [0:06] I appreciate this discussion. I'll just start off. The number one question I get when I'm back home [0:10] from people is basically very simply, when will this war end? We know the costs that the American [0:17] people are paying, both at higher fuel costs, our farmers are paying because of fertilizer cost. We [0:22] know that the whole world economy is paying a great deal for this war. And basically, as I think [0:31] that through, and this is what I want to talk to you about, is that we all know that it's a whole [0:34] lot easier to go to war than it is to get out of war. That's always the tough question. And we've [0:41] got to figure that out. And there are some folks who've written quite a bit about this. One text [0:47] on war by Carl von Kluswitz. Mr. Secretary, I'm sure you're familiar with the book. I know all of [0:54] the men and women in uniform are. It's the most widely read, most influential military strategy [0:59] book in Western history, which is pretty, pretty broad. And it is the core curriculum that is read [1:06] in all the war colleges. I read it when I was at the Navy War College, taking courses. It's part of [1:14] what the U.S. military thinks about when to go to war and then how to get out of the war. [1:19] And one of those core principles it starts with is basically war is the continuation of politics by [1:26] other means. Everybody knows that quote, who's worn the uniform and others too. It basically means [1:32] there's two things about that. It's politics to get in the war and it's politics to get out of the war. [1:37] And in between, we rely on the men and women in the military to carry out those policies. So I want to [1:43] be clear, and I think I speak for all of my colleagues, is that we know the military plays [1:47] an important part. They need to do the job. And nobody, nobody questions the amazing work that [1:53] our men and women in the U.S. military have done and continue to do. They've performed absolutely [1:59] brilliantly, and we applaud all that they have done. However, what we do question is the politics [2:05] part. It's a continuation of politics. So it's our political leaders that get us into war [2:10] and our political leaders who have to get us out of that war, which falls on you, Mr. Secretary [2:16] Hexaf and others in the administration, including the president and his commander in chief. So [2:21] Secretary, are you familiar with the concept in that book of center of gravity? [2:28] Sure. [2:29] So center of gravity is basically, as you know, it's basically the hub of all the power and [2:35] movement. Everything depends on it. And Colossus will say, if you don't take out the center of [2:39] gravity, it's very difficult to win the war. You can have tactical successes, you can have [2:45] military successes, but if you're not focused on that, you're not going to be able to win. [2:50] Basically, he talks about military strikes are tactical, and tactical success doesn't necessarily [2:56] create the political conditions necessary to get the parties to the table to negotiate and get it [3:02] done. So we've got to focus on that. So my question for you, Mr. Secretary, what is the center of [3:07] gravity for Iran? [3:10] Well, the center of gravity, as the president has seen it, and as I see it, and he's talked [3:14] about for 30 years, is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit [3:19] as an extension of the radical ideology they have professed since the beginning of their revolution. [3:24] So the prophetic ideology they profess alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be the [3:32] center of gravity of the rationality of this undertaking, which- [3:35] I appreciate it. I'll ask you to elaborate more. I appreciate it. General Cain, you know more about [3:39] Clausewitz and strategy than I will ever know, including all the folks behind you. What would [3:44] you consider the center of gravity as defined by Clausewitz in this type of war? [3:48] Well, sir, you're not going to love this answer, but I hope you'll respect it. [3:55] War is politics by any other means, and the political side of that necessitates that our [4:01] political leaders determine what is the center of gravity associated with that. From a military-only [4:06] perspective, there's a variety of things academically that we could look at for center [4:11] of gravity, from leadership to will to capabilities to intent, but I'll defer to our political [4:16] leaders to determine what that is. [4:17] Okay, that's fine. That's fair. I don't like it. You're right. [4:20] I know, I know, sir. [4:20] And I know you know the answer to that, and you're just not telling me. I get why you're doing that. [4:24] But I would say, you know, other observers say that basically it's not the leader. Usually, [4:29] if you take out a leader, that doesn't necessarily make the changes. In Iran's case, it's probably [4:35] the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. That's the center of gravity. They're the ones that control the [4:40] country and they're very diverse to do that. The American's center of gravity is probably our economy [4:46] and our ability to maintain public opinion support. We already know the public isn't there. We know the [4:51] impact to our economy. And central to that is the leverage. And I'm running out of time here, [4:54] but the central of leverage is the Strait of Hormuz. That that is bottom line. We have to open that up. [5:02] We have to take that away from Iran. The fact that we haven't done that yet, and we're 60 days in, [5:07] we're just now bringing minesweepers from the Pacific in there. We have some unmanned opportunities, [5:16] but we've got to have the capacity to do that. It was clear, even if there was a plan, [5:21] to keep the Straits open, it was not going to be implemented because the assets were not positioned [5:26] in a place to actually open the Straits. If they were, it would have been, we would have seen those [5:32] happening right now. We're not. So we're missing the point here. The center of gravity is going to [5:36] be bringing down the government of Iran in a way that they will want to have a peace treaty so we can [5:42] protect our country from having nuclear weapons pointed our way. But the center of gravity is going [5:48] to be, in a lot of ways, is going to be focused on what happens on the Straits. And Mr. Secretary, [5:53] we've got to see action a whole lot sooner than the Straits. The world community needs it. We're [5:57] not going to bring this war to an end until we seize control of the Straits in a way- [6:01] Which in part is why we have a blockade that has been impenetrable for the Iranians because they [6:06] don't have a conventional navy to contest it, which means we control the Straits. [6:10] But the time of Senator Peters has expired. Let me observe that I very much appreciate [6:19] the senator from Michigan suggesting ways in which our effort in Iran could be more successful. I do [6:29] appreciate that. And let me also observe, Senator Kane, that civilian control goes back well beyond [6:37] Marshall. It goes back to George Washington, who was wise enough to resign his commission [6:44] to the elected membership of the government at that time. Senator Sheehy, you are recognized. [6:53] I think it's important to note that the objective is not to get out of the war. The objective is to win [7:00] the war, not to get out of it. And I think we've allowed the narrative to shift so off target here. [7:05] President Trump did not start this war. We did not start this war. These radical, barbarian, [7:12] savage clerics who have started killing Americans 47 years ago in a unilateral campaign of terror, [7:18] murder, treason, kidnapping, torture, have been murdering our countrymen all over this world. [7:25] Almost every single year, hijacking airplanes, hijacking cruise liners, taking our embassies, [7:30] blowing up our embassies, blowing up our barracks, blowing up our ships, capturing our soldiers and [7:35] murdering them in brutal ways. They started this war. And it would be a lot easier to beat them if [7:42] we didn't have administrations shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets while [7:46] they're actively fighting our own people, while our own uniformed service members have been fighting [7:50] this murderous regime. And we have presidents quite literally shipping pallets of cash to pay these [7:57] terrorists off. It's been a disgrace. It's been an embarrassment to this country for far too long. [8:02] But back to the point, General Kane, I have a specific question for you. I think in this day and age, [8:08] we all know that basically every single operation that we partake in, whether it's stealth bombers, [8:13] whether it's a blockade, our special operations forces are a fundamental shaping and priority [8:19] component to all those. Would you agree? Yes, Senator, I would. And I think for the last [8:25] about 15 years, the special operations community budget has been largely flat, even adjusted for [8:31] inflation. And yet continuously we call on those warriors to deliver the impossible. And they pretty much [8:39] do. We were reminded just a few weeks ago, even after the amazing Maduro raid, when we had to rescue [8:44] one of our F-15 crewmen, yet again, our community came up and did something that probably most people [8:50] thought wasn't possible. And they did an amazing job. But we cannot continue to call on a tiny fraction [8:56] of our military to carry such a heavy load and to have such an op tempo without the appropriate [9:01] resources. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can not just increase the budget, but make sure [9:07] we're shaping their budget in a way that ensures that those warriors are getting the direct support [9:12] for training and sustainment, but also the platforms that they need from mini submarines to unmanned [9:19] aircraft, to manned aircraft, and the platforms that are very unique for their mission are furnished [9:23] and deployed rapidly. So I'd like to talk about the percentage increase of SOCOM's budget, how we [9:28] affect that and how fast we can do it. Well, sir, I'll just highlight my gratitude and appreciation [9:34] for the entirety of the SOCOM Joint Force at Echelon and the work that they do. I'll leave the budget [9:42] numbers and the increased percentages to my civilian leadership, but echo to your point, the exponential [9:50] return on whatever investment they give. These are incredible entrepreneurial leaders at every Echelon [9:57] level. I think there are a lot of people who do great things as the lights dim, as I say that. So [10:02] hopefully they'll see that as a nod towards them. But I'll defer on the budget allocation numbers to the [10:09] comptroller, sir. First of all, I want to second completely your opening remarks, and that's certainly [10:16] our view as well. On the SOCOM budget, I'm going to say I think we need to increase what's in this budget, [10:24] and I've heard from multiple people about that. In fact, that if there is a supplemental, I actually just [10:29] wrote a note to Jay about it. I think SOCOM, given the op tempo, given their direct participation in so [10:36] many of these historic aspects, SOCOM should be part of that supplemental as well. Makes complete sense. [10:41] Who's been shouldering a huge part of the burden? Special Operations Command. So whether it's a supplemental [10:46] or this budget, I fully agree and I think we need to invest more. Great. And I'd ask that particular care be [10:54] given the era of beards and guns and kicking in doors, as much fun as that was for all of us, [11:00] it's coming to a close and we're going to be going back to our roots as specialized commandos, [11:05] whether it's undersea, Arctic, airborne operations. And as we all became kind of one joint soft force [11:11] during GWAT, quite frankly, that was an easier problem to resource for, to budget for and acquire [11:17] for. It's going to be a lot harder now when our operators go back to their service corners and needs [11:22] platform specific technologies and training. Submersibles aircraft take years to acquire, [11:27] years to specify. It's not just buying more ARs and body armor and ammo and sending them down range. So [11:32] I think we have to think about the SOCOM budget a little different than we have for the last 25 years [11:36] and make sure we're programming in a way that it's, it's sustained and is protected. Thank you. [11:41] Thank you, Senator Schmidt for, for that insightful exchange. Senator Kelly. [11:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Secretary Hegseth. Safe to say that our [11:54] weapons like SM3s, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles have capabilities that are unmatched. That's why they [12:01] cost a lot, take a long time to produce. Your budget requests $31.8 billion to expand production capacity [12:10] for critical missile stockpiles. Is that correct? $31.8 billion? I'm looking at $53 billion for [12:18] munitions acceleration over 14 critical munitions of which the ones you listed are a part. So I believe [12:24] more than that. Yes, sir. More than $20 billion more. So we've been working together to grow the [12:31] industrial base because we're all worried about how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict [12:36] against China. Since the start of this war, you've made it a point to highlight the number of strikes [12:43] the U.S. military is carrying out, citing that more than 13,000 targets had been struck as of April [12:51] 8th. On March 2nd, you said, and this is a quote, this was a massive, overwhelming attack [12:56] across all domains of warfare, striking more than a thousand targets in the first 24 hours. [13:02] On March 10th, you said, yet again, our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran. [13:07] On April 6th, you said, and this is another quote, the largest volume of strikes since day one of this [13:14] operation. Your department has released video after video of things blowing up. None of us doubt the [13:22] strength of the U.S. military and their ability to do hard things. I understand that better than anybody. [13:29] The questions we should be asking and answering are, what does this cost us and what does it achieve [13:37] for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons and we're using a lot of them [13:44] and a lot of interceptors. Open source reporting has estimated that the military has used an outrageous [13:51] number of patriots. I'm not even going to say the numbers, but a lot of patriots, a lot of bad rounds, [13:55] JASM-ER, tomahawks, very expensive, exquisite. We can't make these munitions overnight and it's clear [14:05] from your budget request that you know that. Can you tell us how many years specifically [14:13] is it going to take to replace these systems? Senator, thank you for the question. I would defer to the [14:21] comptroller on the amount because I think it's a lot higher than 53. If you look at long range fires, [14:25] jasms, alrasms, tomahawks, we're looking at 238 billion. Okay, a lot. We're looking at 40 billion [14:29] for hypersonic. So I actually think it's closer to 330 billion in munitions. Okay, how many years [14:35] to replenish? That's the question. I think that's exactly the right question too, Senator, because [14:39] the time frame we were existing under was unacceptable. Okay, well tell me. What this budget does, [14:44] I mean months and years. Fast. Years. I mean we're building new plants in real time. So just to replace what [14:50] we have expended. I said months. And then you said years. Well it depends on the weapon system. [14:56] But two to three, four x of what we have today. So yes, we're dealing with the reality under the [15:00] previous administration of what they sent to Ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere. Okay, [15:04] I got it. So we fired years worth of munitions. And it is clear that we're, these are being expended [15:13] to try to achieve some objectives. That was the plan. But Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The [15:23] Strait of Hormuz is closed. The uranium regime is in place. The nuclear material still in their hands. [15:33] Americans are being crushed by higher costs. And it's not clear to them at all what the goal of this [15:43] war is. So I've got about a minute and I want to go to another topic. I saw your hearing yesterday and [15:55] I'm going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It's my understanding that the [16:02] definition of no quarter is that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees [16:13] will be executed. Is that your understanding of the definition? The only entity that would kill [16:22] detainees or target civilians is the Iranians. And they're the ones being crushed. So you [16:26] Iranian military and their military capabilities. The question is, I disagree completely with your [16:31] articulation. No, do you understand the definition that I just read you? Because that's the definition [16:37] from your department's law of war manual. Is that your understanding? And I'm going to just get to the [16:43] point here. We fight to win and we follow the law, Senator. Okay, so your quote was, [16:49] we will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. And yesterday you did not [16:56] clarify whether you stand by this statement. So I'm going to give you another opportunity to clarify [17:03] if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13th? [17:10] We have untied the hands of our warfighters. We fight to win and we follow the law. Okay, [17:16] so you're not clarifying. So you stand by that statement. So you're the secretary of defense. [17:21] The things you say matter. And your response here, right now, makes it clear to the American people [17:29] exactly why you are not right for this job. It makes it clear to our enemy, Senator. [17:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Sheehy has left the room, but it's been whispered to me that I [17:45] just referred to him in the last exchanges, Senator Schmidt. I don't know if he considered that a [17:51] compliment or an insult, but I would do correct that for the record. Senator Slotkin, I think you were [17:57] next. Thank you. Gentlemen, you're here to ask for $1.5 trillion, 40% more than what we gave you last [18:08] year, a trillion dollars. And I agree with the chairman of this committee that the world has never been more [18:15] dangerous and complicated. And regardless of whether we disagree on the reasons for getting into this [18:23] war, I think we can all agree that we want our military to come out of it safely and successfully [18:29] and as soon as feasible. The administration has taken military action in 10 different places in the [18:40] world in 15 months, more than any president in U.S. history. I think President Trump has really become [18:48] a foreign policy president. And many of those operations, you know, were on the news for a couple [18:52] of days, but then the American public didn't feel them. And I think the difference with this war [18:57] with Iran is that the American public is feeling it in their pocketbooks. Gas in Michigan is $4.99 today, [19:06] the cost of fertilizer, of airline tickets, things that are real to people. Secretary Haig said, [19:12] the president said that you were most keen on this war. He said that you were the most gung-ho about it. [19:21] And I think despite us all wanting to come out of this successfully, it is hard to miss that we are at [19:28] this stalemate, that we don't control the Strait of Hormuz because shipping is not getting through. [19:36] And we can block what they're trying to get through, but nothing is moving and it's costing [19:40] the American public. And I think that's a fundamentally different moment than the rest of [19:46] the military action we've taken. Even in, like, Middle East 101 class, we used to talk about and run [19:53] war games on the Strait of Hormuz. It's a strategic geography that the Iranians have. And I think [19:59] it's just concerning to me that we, you know, we can try and tell the American people that it's going [20:06] great and we're killing it, but until the Strait of Hormuz is open, I don't think we can credibly [20:11] say that with any seriousness. I think the question I have for you, though, is future looking. And it's [20:19] our 2026 elections. The president has been very clear. He said in the State of the Union that [20:25] essentially if his side doesn't win, then the election was rigged. He said that before the 2020 [20:30] election. He's asked for voter rolls for 29 different states. He just asked for Detroit's votes [20:37] or ballots. And we know that in 2020, he wrote an executive order that he didn't sign that said [20:47] to the U.S. military, to the Secretary of Defense, you should go and seize ballots and voting machines. [20:54] A few months ago, he said that he regretted that he ever, that he didn't sign that executive order. So [21:01] the U.S. military has never been deployed. You incorrectly said yesterday that they were [21:07] deployed during different elections. Governors deployed them under their authorities. But the [21:12] federal government has never put the uniformed military at our polls during World War II, [21:19] right after 9-11. We've never had to do that. So, Secretary Hegseth, if the president, who regrets [21:26] not signing that executive order to the then SecDef in 2020, asks you to seize ballots or voting machines [21:35] in states during the 2026 election, will you stand up for the Constitution and say no? Or will you [21:41] salute and do his bidding? Senator, I didn't get a chance to answer the front part of your question, [21:48] which, you know, there was a lot of deferred maintenance under the Biden administration [21:51] that needed to be addressed because the world was in chaos when President Trump was elected. [21:55] It's not a hypothetical. I refuse to accept. You give that answer all the time. You and I have done [22:13] this dance before. Get over it, okay? In 2020, he's the president, your boss, the guy you're performing [22:19] for right now, told the journalists this year that he wished he signed that executive order to your [22:26] predecessor. And your predecessor said publicly, thank God, we didn't actually go forward with it. [22:31] What are you going to do? You're the guy here in the seat. It's not hypothetical. Tell the American [22:36] people, will you deploy the uniformed military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines? [22:42] Are you accusing me of performing? Because you're performing for cable news right now. [22:46] Just answer the question. It's a hypothetical. By the way, in 2024, under the Biden administration, [22:53] 15 states did deploy. Under their governor's authority, when their governors asked for it. [22:57] What did Joe Biden say about that? That's fundamentally, I don't think anything, [23:00] because he needed them for cyber security and for COVID. Trump did it too, under Trump. [23:05] But it was not the federal decision. It was those governors of the states under their authorities, [23:10] okay? It's never been done in our history. Please stand up for the constitution. Do not send [23:16] uniformed military to our polls. Do you have a response to that portion of the question, [23:21] Mr. Secretary? I've never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won't. That goes without [23:28] saying. Thank you for the answer. Senator Duckworth, you're now recognized. [23:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Despite his campaign promise of no new wars, President Trump has been [23:38] obsessed with using the military any chance he gets. From deploying troops to American cities, [23:43] to propping up Maduro's chosen number two in Venezuela, to an endless war of boat strikes in [23:48] the Caribbean Sea, and now in an illegal war with Iran, where hundreds of thousands of our troops are [23:53] in harm's way every day with no exit strategy in sight. This administration hides bad policy behind [23:59] the exceptional military operations and the valor of our uniformed personnel. I've long said Iran is a [24:05] malign actor, but the responsible administration would have managed this short of conflict, [24:10] instead of starting a war of choice. There was no imminent threat to the United States or our troops. [24:15] The military was not the most effective tool to get Iran to capitulate, as we're already seeing [24:20] too clearly now. And using forces made Americans in the Middle East less safe or spiking costs for [24:26] Americans here at home, all through the tune of 14 service members dead, hundreds wounded, [24:31] billions of taxpayer dollars, and untold costs to our military readiness. This administration claims to be [24:36] focused on the warfighter, but President Trump told us when he announced a war from his luxury resort, [24:41] that he expected service members to die. Now, sadly, it's clear how unserious Trump is about his role as [24:48] the commander in chief. His war within Iran has already reminded us how important it is to prevent a [24:53] war, how serious it is to ask the military to wage one under poor strategic direction, how destructive a [24:59] wide-ranging war can be for Americans, for our service members, and how difficult it is to actually [25:05] end one once you start it. The incompetence and casual disregard for our service members' professionalism [25:11] and sacrifice is, in my opinion, a scandal. General Cain, General Cain, can you tell us the status of the [25:20] Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Navy, the entity actively closing the strait? [25:24] Senator, apologies. I was listening to you. I was just trying to write it down. [25:31] No worries. They're mostly destroyed. [25:35] CENTCOM continues to watch them. Not the Iranian Navy? [25:39] No, no. The IRCG stand? Yes, ma'am. [25:41] The smaller, I won't get into any classified materials, but the smaller, [25:47] fast and smaller boats, Boston weather-sized boats, there's still some out there. Yes, ma'am. [25:53] So this administration and the Secretary of Defense has been boasting about sinking the ships [25:57] of the Iranian Navy, but let's call this what it is. It's misdirection. They want us to focus on the [26:02] impressive number of large Iranian ships underwater to distract from the fact that they had no plans [26:06] for the second Navy that Iran owns that has always been a hard problem to address by military force. [26:12] The IRCG Navy, not the Iranian Navy, has been Iran's tip of the spear at the Straits of Hormuz, [26:17] seizing vessels and threatening to target U.S. assets. Iran has long invested in this second [26:23] asymmetrical Navy, specifically to develop capabilities that would be difficult for [26:27] conventional U.S. military forces to target. Iran's advantage was well known to anyone paying [26:32] attention. I have no doubt that competent planners in the Pentagon raised their concerns about a [26:36] quagmire in the strait to leadership. The question is why their leadership did not pay attention to [26:41] this sound advice. Hubris is not strategy, and in war it costs lives. Even if the strait reopens, [26:47] this administration has created a new, less safe world by initiating and then bungling this crisis [26:52] and teaching Iran that it can charge a million dollars a ship to transit the strait. It will [26:57] take a long time for the global economy to bounce back to normal trade flows, and Iran has learned [27:02] again that they can charge a million dollars per ship, creating a new funding line for their [27:05] malicious activity against Americans for years to come. And in the Indo-Pacific, I don't doubt that if [27:13] the worst day comes, our military will step up to challenge and defend Americans and our interests [27:16] with military force. But will they be asked to lay down their lives unnecessarily just because the [27:20] White House was unready and incapable of preventing a crisis boiling over into a war [27:25] in the Indo-Pacific? General Cain, do you agree that the military would benefit from significant [27:29] intra-agency planning by the Department of Defense on actions short of war that can be taken if a crisis [27:35] occurs? I appreciate that question, you highlighting the importance of that. And we have really great [27:43] relationships now on the joint staff with the interagency. I think our relationship in particular, [27:50] I'll just pick CIA, I think it's the best it's ever been. We're really working hard to find the best of [27:56] Title 10 capabilities plus the best of Title 50 to ensure that we deliver really entrepreneurial options [28:04] for our national policymakers to do what you're talking about, Senator. All right, but I am concerned [28:10] because during the recent NDS hearing, I laid out the very real ways that a crisis in just one of the [28:14] dozens of flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific could be devastating for our service members, Americans, [28:19] and our American economy. But since then, this administration has only further diminished [28:23] DOD's ability to prepare for these crises. In fact, as many as one-third of the assets in the Middle East [28:29] originally meant to be in the Indo-Pacific. This war of choice is draining our military resources. [28:35] We need leaders who do everything they can to ensure war fighters only fight when they have to, [28:39] not because of one man's whims and the lack of bravery among the yes-men he surrounds himself with. [28:43] I thank you for your service, General, and I continue to look forward to working with you. [28:48] Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator Rosen. [28:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Reed. Thank you, General, for your service. [28:59] Before I begin my questions for Secretary Hegsteth, I have one brief important question for General Kane. [29:05] General, as you've acknowledged at your confirmation hearing, service members who served at [29:09] locations which another U.S. government agency deems contaminated, like the Nevada Test and Training [29:15] Range, should have the same presumption of radiation exposure as DOE employees who served alongside them. [29:23] But we also must ensure that DOD provides the VA with the records proving that these individuals [29:29] serve there. So this is a problem that DOD has the power to solve. I know we've discussed this. [29:35] So, General Kane, will you commit to ensuring parity for DOD personnel who served in locations that the [29:41] U.S. government has already deemed contaminated, identifying those who served in such locations, [29:46] and providing documentation of that service to the VA so that they can receive the veterans benefits [29:53] that they have earned? You bet, ma'am. And, you know, since our last time together on this, we've continued to chip [30:00] away at removing or figuring out how to get past that one particular blocking in that record so that [30:07] that data flows normally. And I'm committed to trying to solve that for those leaders and teammates who [30:14] are out there at that site. Thank you. We'll look forward to continue to work with you on that. [30:18] So, Secretary Hegsteth, I want to talk a little bit about AI because, of course, our service members deserve [30:24] every advantage we can give them. So, I just want you to help me understand this. In February, on the eve of [30:30] Operation Epic Fury, you publicly designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk. However, this week, it's been [30:37] reported that the White House is now helping agencies get around this decision to access Anthropic's [30:42] technology. So, the administration cannot credibly make both claims simultaneously. So, before I ask you [30:51] about the inconsistency, I just want you to reconfirm what it is you plan to use this technology for. [30:57] It's been publicly reported that the decision to label Anthropic a national security risk was [31:02] influenced by your personal and very public contract dispute with Anthropic when the company said that [31:08] its technology could not be used for fully autonomous weapons targeting or mass surveillance of Americans. [31:15] So, following up on your response to Senator Rounds earlier, can you confirm whether or not there will [31:22] always be a human in the loop when AI is used for lethal targeting decisions? [31:29] Well, first of all, on Anthropic, they would not agree to our terms of service. That would be like Boeing [31:34] giving us airplanes and telling us who we can shoot at. This is not just about Anthropic, though. [31:39] This is about Anthropic. I just want to be clear. And also, Anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic [31:43] who shouldn't have a sole decision-making of what we do. [31:48] So, that's not my question. My question is AI writ large, writ large. [31:49] We follow the law, Senator. Should AI, will you confirm? You said this to Senator Rounds earlier, [31:53] so I'm just asking for you to... We follow the law, but we don't have to sign a different [31:57] terms of agreement with Anthropic. This is not the question. This is not about Anthropic. This is just an [32:03] example. I want you to confirm that whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when AI [32:10] is used in the kill chain for lethal targeting decisions. Will there always be a human in a [32:14] loop or will AI make the decision? You said this to... We follow the law and humans make decisions. [32:24] So, you will confirm what you said to Senator Rounds that a human will always be in the loop [32:29] when AI is used. Which is why... That's part of our terms of service anyway. [32:36] You know... That's how we operate. All I want to say is this. There is a DOD directive. [32:43] 3,000... 3,000.09. Which mandates that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems [32:51] be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment [32:57] over use of force. That is in the DOD. That's why we follow the law, Senator. [33:02] So, the answer is yes, Mr. Secretary. The answer is we follow the law. Absolutely. [33:07] I think this is more important than following the law. I think that people want to know that AI isn't [33:12] going to make lethal decisions and it's critically important. AI is not making lethal decisions. [33:17] That's what we want to hear. We're going to follow on that one. I have just a few seconds left, [33:25] but you keep doubling down on this phrase, Mr. Secretary. You compare journalists, you compare us, [33:33] you compare so many to Pharisees. Pharisees. It's a problematic and historically weaponized term [33:41] that cast Jewish communities as hypocritical or morally corrupt. You doubled down again and said it. [33:48] Words matter. Words matter. What you choose to say, how we choose to say it. How do you justify using [33:55] this language as Secretary of Defense? Words matter. It's a hurt, historically hurtful term. [34:01] Why do you continue to use it? And what actions are you taking to prevent rhetoric like this from [34:06] permeating throughout the department that is going to target specific groups or individuals of people [34:12] based on their religion? Senator, I feel like it's a pretty accurate term for folks who don't see the [34:21] plank in their own eye and always want to see what's wrong with an operation as opposed to the historic [34:25] success of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So I stand by it. You stand by calling people [34:31] Pharisees. Sir, I cannot, I cannot stand for that. That is wrong. It is not respectful to people. And I expect [34:41] anyone who is in leadership in our country to be respectful and use respectful terms and not be an anti-Semite. [34:52] Thank you, Senator Rosen. The chair and the ranking member have no second round questions. I'm told [35:05] by Senator Kelly that he would like to ask a second. Yeah, Mr. Secretary. So 1.5 trillion dollars, 1.5 is a [35:15] very round number. You know, if you're putting together a budget, you'd come up with these are the [35:22] problems we're trying to solve. This is the capability we need. These are the systems we have [35:29] to buy. And at the end of the day, it would spit out a number and it's probably not 1.5 trillion. [35:35] So to me, it feels like that number was just kind of pulled out of thin air. I took a look recently and [35:45] it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the world, I'm talking China, Russia, India, [35:53] every Asian country, every European country, South America, everybody else is in the neighborhood. [35:59] It looked like 1.7 to 1.8. So your request is approaching all defense spending from everybody [36:09] else with the exception of us. That is a huge amount of money. You know, when I got here, you know, just [36:15] five years ago, it was almost half of that. Through budget reconciliation, you've received a bunch of [36:24] money to buy things, some of the weapons systems, you know, to resupply what we need. I'm just trying [36:32] to understand, you know, like, where is all this money going to go? And if you've figured out ahead [36:38] of time, what do you want to spend this on? And by the way, there are systems the president wants. You [36:45] know, he saw last summer how effective Iron Dome and David's sling were. And because of that, the president [36:55] decided we're going to build our own version. We're going to call it Golden Dome because the president [37:01] likes the color gold. We've seen that. See it in the Oval Office. We're going to call it Golden Dome, [37:08] and it might cost somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion dollars. I've heard those estimates. [37:13] By the way, on that problem, I know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space. It's really hard. [37:20] And the physics on this favors the offense. There's some things in that program that I think is [37:27] really important that we do and try to figure it out. But space-based interceptors to hit multiple [37:34] targets. And by the way, it's important how you size the system. So I'm trying to understand, [37:41] Mr. Secretary, what kind of detail did you guys, did you work out like a detailed plan? And at the [37:47] end of the day, it came out, oh, it just happens to come out to be 1.5 trillion dollars. Senator, [37:54] the exact amount is actually 1.535 trillion dollars. And it was a product of a highly rigorous [38:00] process throughout our department, from COCOM commanders to the services with our comptroller, [38:05] with our deputy secretary, with the chairman and myself, to ensure the budget reflects the realities [38:10] of the world we live in and the capabilities we're going to need. And that's why there's 65 billion [38:14] for shipbuilding, 120 billion for the defense industrial base, 331 billion for munitions, [38:20] 44 billion for quality of life, 71 billion on our nuclear dib. You name it, we're investing in it. [38:26] And the biggest reason for it is the underinvestment of the Biden administration. I mean, what they spent [38:31] on defense, the continuing resolutions and others, undercut the buildup that President Trump had [38:36] created. So yes, we're doing a lot of deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department. [38:42] And this budget reflects it. And it's a commitment, a generational commitment to the security of the [38:46] American people. And if the rest of the world won't spend on their defense, that's their fault. [38:50] The American Department of War will invest properly to defend the American people. [38:55] And that's what this budget stands for. I've always been supportive of defense spending in my entire time [39:00] here. And after 25 years in the Navy, I want to make sure our folks have what they need. I think you [39:07] should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we are making investments that we [39:13] actually don't need. There are some systems out there. I mean, we're constantly looking and trying [39:18] to balance. Do we want, you know, F-47, which I've been supportive of? B-21, also supportive. [39:26] And then we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive, low-cost munitions [39:35] because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff, even through B-21, we can't really maybe not get [39:41] close enough. But the whole idea behind B-21 and F-47 is we can penetrate further into the A2AD bubble. [39:48] So there's some conflict there. So I'm just encouraging you to go back and see, you know, [39:55] if there are some systems where we can bring that number, the overall number down. Because as I look at [40:02] what the department is trying to field, you know, some of this stuff in my judgment, and, you know, [40:08] I know others might have another opinion. Some of this stuff we either don't need or it's not going [40:14] to work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [40:16] Senator Kelly, your time has expired. Let me just say, you have a great deal of expertise [40:21] in the area of space and we do look forward to your contribution as we mark up further legislation. [40:29] Senator Blumenthal, I understand you have a follow-up question. [40:32] Yes. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your support for the Major Richard [40:42] Starr Act, which I think is tremendously significant. I'm committed to getting it done as soon as possible, [40:51] at least before Veterans Day. And I look forward to your help in accomplishing that goal. But I [40:57] want to thank you for your support. I'm sure the Veterans of America are grateful for the [41:04] prospective victory there. I've talked to many of the combatant commanders about lessons learned [41:14] from Ukraine. And I think that there is unanimity on the point that there is a lot to be learned, [41:26] not only about what the Russians are doing, but what other adversaries could do as well. [41:32] General Cain, Chairman Cain, would you agree that there are lessons to be learned from Ukraine? [41:39] You bet. You bet, Senator. And there's lessons learned from everywhere. And that's really the [41:45] culture of our joint force right now is to make sure that across the globe, anytime we're in contact [41:50] with the enemy, we're going back and determining what we can learn from there. But a big one, if you'll [41:57] allow me, a big one is mass and simultaneity, which is something the Secretary's taking a strong role in [42:07] making sure that we're doing that through drone evaluations and things like that moving forward. [42:12] Going up on a question that I asked earlier in my last question, the President said yesterday that [42:21] his view is, after his conversation with Vladimir Putin, that Ukraine has been, quote, [42:28] militarily defeated. In your professional judgment, has Ukraine been militarily defeated? [42:37] Sir, I haven't seen the President's quote, but, you know, I'll go back to something I started with, [42:43] and that's the importance of me maintaining trust with a variety of people. And, you know, [42:51] a President will make a wide range of comments and considerations as the Commander-in-Chief. [42:58] You don't have to go too much farther. I understand the point that you're making. [43:01] Yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate it, Senator. [43:04] In my view, Ukraine has not only not been militarily defeated, but the point that I was trying to make in [43:11] the last exchange with the Secretary, there's a false narrative based on my last visit to Ukraine, [43:20] which was my ninth, my conversation not only with President Zelensky, but with our own military on [43:28] the ground, as well as our intelligence community. In fact, Ukraine arguably is winning. There is this [43:37] false narrative. Russia's winning. Putin wants that false narrative to be our official narrative. I'm not [43:42] putting words in your mouth, and you don't have to respond. I understand your reasons for not [43:47] responding, but the American people should know that the President of the United States [43:53] is undermining our security because Ukraine is holding the line against Vladimir Putin, [44:00] who will keep going against Moldova, which I also visited on my last trip, against our NATO allies, [44:09] and we still have an obligation under Article 5 to come to their defense, just as they did after 9-11, [44:19] as King Charles so eloquently reminded us. And my view is, and this observation is hardly novel, [44:28] that China is watching what we're doing in Ukraine. Would you agree? [44:32] Sir, I'd agree that China's watching everywhere and carefully thinking about what their force posture and [44:41] approach will be. And I think they're learning a variety of things to include the tenacity and [44:49] grit of the joint force around the things that we've been ordered to do over the last year. [44:53] But if they see weakness in our response to Russia and Ukraine, that will affect the deterrence of [45:03] their possibly moving against one of our allies or partners in the Far East. Let me finally ask Mr. Hurst, [45:13] your estimate of $25 billion. Would you share with us what that estimate is based on? [45:21] Yeah, we can work to get you a product, the details if you'd like. [45:26] And finally, Mr. Secretary, is there going to be a report on the bombing of the school in the first day or so of the war? [45:37] I know you were asked about it yesterday. I'm wondering whether you have a more detailed response that you can share with us. [45:45] As I've said, that's under investigation of 15-6. A general officer from outside the chain [45:49] of command has been reviewing it and it's still within the parameters of the investigation. [45:54] Will there be a preliminary report in the next few weeks or do you have a time estimate? [46:01] I don't have a time estimate for you, but it will be, it's right now within the parameters of the length [46:08] of time that normally these investigations take. [46:10] I'm asking because in your final response to Senator Gillibrand, you said that great care is [46:19] taken to avoid civilian casualties and it would be profoundly significant if that report were made [46:26] available in a timely way to show, in fact, the commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and [46:32] learning lessons from the mistake made there. [46:35] Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. This concludes today's hearing. I'd like to thank our witnesses [46:41] for their testimony. For the information of members, questions for the record would be due [46:46] to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing. We are adjourned.