Full Pete Hegseth hearing: War secretary grilled on Iran war costs, Russia relationship and Ukraine

[0:00] in uniform do not decide where they are sent or the missions to which they are assigned. [0:09] Congress has a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools, the training, [0:16] and the support that they need to accomplish their missions. On the topic of our service members, [0:25] I would be remiss if I did not know that since January of last year, the department has removed [0:35] a number of senior generals and admirals from their positions, blocked or altered promotion [0:43] lists across multiple services, and intervened in several senior assignments. A recent New York [0:53] Times story reported that about 40 senior officers were removed from promotion lists and more than two [1:02] dozen generals and admirals were fired or sidelined, including Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman [1:14] to leave the Navy. The Times further reports that more than half of those fired or removed [1:23] have been female or black and that for the first time in more than a decade, no active duty female [1:35] naval officers are likely to be promoted to Admiral. I find this deeply troubling. These are men and women [1:46] who volunteered to serve our country and swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution. Over the course of their careers, [1:58] they have earned the support and the trust of their commanders and subordinates, led our men and women [2:08] in uniform and were selected through rigorous command and promotion boards. They have served under presidents [2:18] and defense secretaries from both parties. Reports that women and people of color are disproportionately fired [2:28] or sidelined create the impression that their service is not valued. This is likely to discourage well-qualified women [2:40] and individuals of color from joining our armed forces, thus depriving us of their talent, dedication, [2:50] and patriotism. The United States military is one of the greatest meritocracies in the free world. We need [3:02] to make sure that it stays that way. I now recognize Vice President Murray for her opening statement. [3:12] Thank you very much, Chair Collins, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today. [3:16] I first, too, do want to acknowledge the loss of one of our colleagues on this dais. Like so many, [3:22] I was very shocked and saddened to learn of Senator Graham's passing. We disagreed on many issues, but there [3:29] was no denying the energy that Lindsey brought to this job. And whenever we could, we found common ground [3:36] and managed to get something done. So I just wanted to express that my heart goes out to his family, [3:41] friends, and loved ones today. Now, I want to start with a few facts. 143 days ago, President Trump [3:51] started a war of his own choosing with Iran. He did not consult Congress. He did not get authorization [3:58] from Congress. He did not build a coalition of allies. He did not make a case to the American people, [4:05] nor did he ever win their support. Two-thirds of Americans opposed the war, [4:11] and the president's decision had catastrophic costs. 17 American service members have now died, [4:18] and that includes three who tragically lost their lives over the last few days, and another is still [4:23] missing. Several hundred more have been injured, including nearly a hundred who've been hurt just [4:30] in the last few weeks. We owe all of them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. [4:38] Thousands of civilians have also been killed, and this administration will not tell the public or [4:44] Congress the true financial costs of this war, but we know it is very well into the tens of billions [4:51] of dollars. Tax dollars we could have spent helping people afford health care or building new housing [4:59] have now been lit on fire by a president who blundered us into a disastrous war. And the cost [5:06] to families' bank accounts are staggering. Economic growth has slowed to a crawl. Inflation has shot [5:12] up about 50 percent since this war began. On average, gas costs just under three dollars on February 28th. [5:20] Today it is over four dollars and ticking back up with the strait closed again. Americans have now paid [5:27] more than 70 billion dollars more on gas since this war began. That is over 550 dollars more per household. [5:36] Fertilizer costs skyrocketed in the middle of spring planting, crushing farmers operating on extremely [5:43] thin margins, and costing families more on just about everything they buy at the grocery store. The costs [5:50] of this war have been astronomical. And what it is, what has it been for? What has actually been achieved? [5:58] We hear a different rationale for this war every few days. It was about pre-empting imminent threats, [6:04] which we now know did not exist. It was about regime change, then liberating the Iranian people. [6:12] It was about destroying Iran's nuclear program and its navy. And at one point it was about taking out its [6:18] ballistic missiles until, that is, until the president decided that actually, and I quote, [6:23] it's a little bit unfair for them not to have some. Trump has even suggested the war is about taking [6:29] Iran's oil to, quote, make a fortune. And now the United States' primary strategic objective seems to be [6:38] to actually just reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which of course was fully open, toll-free, before this war began. [6:46] President Trump has, by any objective measure, failed to achieve his goals. Our country is no safer or [6:53] better off than before the war. In fact, we are considerably less safe. Our stockpiles have been [7:00] depleted, and it will take years of production to fully replenish them, no matter how much money [7:05] is thrown at this problem. Our global force posture is much weaker, and assets have been moved now to the [7:12] Middle East. And we are now much further away from a long-term solution to halt Iran's nuclear program [7:19] than we were before Trump ripped up the deal that President Obama negotiated, which secured actual, [7:26] measurable commitments and progress without ever starting a costly war. In fact, there are new reports [7:33] that Iran may have moved nuclear assets into a mountain bunker, which raises concerns about whether Iran [7:40] might restart its program. It used to be a pretty somber and serious thing, a president taking America [7:47] to war and costing lives and taxpayer dollars. But this president has been downright flippant. [7:54] The people I represent worry Trump thinks this is all a game and has sent men and women into harm's way [8:00] without any sort of plan. And now that he's driven that car into the ditch, he wants taxpayers to bail him [8:07] out. As the daughter of a World War II veteran and a Purple Heart recipient, the way this White House [8:14] has blissfully operated with no plan for success is disrespectful to our men and women in uniform. [8:21] These are patriots. They are highly trained and have sacrificed tremendously to keep us safe. They [8:29] shouldn't be forced to put a show on for the president's birthday parade or do the job of border patrol agents [8:35] or risk their lives in a disastrous war that the president clearly failed to think through. [8:41] And as a U.S. Senator, this administration's refusal to explain what it is doing or how this war is [8:47] protecting Americans, its refusal to seek authorization from Congress, and its expectation [8:54] that Americans will now just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful. [9:02] And it's insulting to the people back home that all of us represent. So here we are five months later. [9:08] The strait is closed. The ceasefire hasn't just disintegrated. This this war is now spiraling out of [9:15] control again. The president is threatening escalation and war crimes and suggesting this could be another [9:21] forever war. He has told us over 40 times now that a deal is near and the war will be over soon. But now he is [9:31] asking for 70 billion dollars more and for us to just trust him. It'll work out fine. Look, I've been [9:38] very clear. My Democratic colleagues and I will do absolutely everything to ensure that we do take [9:44] care of our service members and keep this country safe. Chairman Cain, I hope you know that every [9:50] Democrat on this committee deeply respects the sacrifices that you and our service members and their families [9:57] are making. Everyone who signed up to serve our country deserves to be more than an afterthought in [10:04] a war that the president decided to launch despite all the blinking red warnings. But my colleagues and I [10:11] cannot and will not support rubber stamping a request to bankroll this war and whatever other misadventures [10:18] Trump wants to get us into next. The American people want to see a quick and strategic end to this war, [10:26] not 70 billion dollars of their tax dollars sent to keep it going. And I want to make a few important [10:33] points. First, the president's request is not even a primarily a primarily a request to cover the costs [10:41] of the Iran war. This request is chock full of asks to fund unrelated DOD priorities which should be [10:48] considered through our annual appropriations process, not in an emergency supplemental. And that includes [10:54] almost a billion dollars for South Com, nearly a billion dollars to keep deploying the National [11:00] Guard here in DC, and more than a billion dollars for the southern border. Secondly, President Trump is [11:08] making this request as the Pentagon has a record breaking one trillion dollar total budget for FY26, [11:16] including over 75 billion. It is it has in unspent money from Republicans big ugly bill. Understand you [11:24] may have mismanaged your budget, Secretary Hague said, but you have to do your due diligence to fix the cash [11:31] flow problems you've caused before asking taxpayers for more. Third, that the president is now asking for [11:40] all of us to approve tens of billions of dollars in new funding for the war while his administration [11:47] still has yet to share actual cost estimates, essential information to justify this request, and a plan for [11:56] where on earth this conflict goes next. This administration is either hiding the truth from Congress and the [12:02] American people, or if you take at face value what they've said in the few briefings that we've had, they have no idea [12:09] what is going on, and no plan to right the ship, neither of which is acceptable. Now, Trump is also asking [12:16] Congress for over 10 billion dollars to help struggling American farmers who have been crushed first by the [12:22] tariffs, and then by this war which has shot fertilizer and diesel costs through the roof. I'm digging into that [12:29] request, but let me be clear. As we're looking at what farmers might need to weather Trump's storm, we must also help [12:36] families put food on the table. And to do that, we should delay and ultimately reverse Republicans' deep cuts [12:43] to SNAP, which have already kicked at least 1 million kids off of food assistance. Finally, Trump has also [12:52] requested, and I had to read this one twice to believe, 1.3 billion dollars in new funding for the State [12:59] Department for Global Health and Humanitarian Needs. At the very same time, his administration is [13:05] withholding more than twice that amount in funding that has already been signed into law and is [13:12] available for the same purpose. He's also asking for authorities to make U.S. taxpayer dollars subsidize [13:19] the Venezuelan oil industry and to finance the establishment of private investment funds like the [13:24] one he just handed over to one of his ballroom donors. Unfortunately, Secretary Rubio is not here with [13:30] us today to explain those requests, to talk about how this war forced one of the largest evacuations [13:36] of our diplomatic posts ever, or to explain whether, as a national security advisor, he still thinks this [13:43] war is, quote, the right decision, and whether he still, quote, believes in it strongly. So, this is [13:50] really a request to make taxpayers pay for the president's reckless decisions from the Iran war, [13:55] to his trade wars, to his global health cuts, all while doing nothing to help our families back home [14:01] who are suffering because of those decisions. And that, that is what we should be focused on, [14:06] helping people. Because as Senator Padilla and others on both sides of the aisle will tell us [14:11] shortly, there are urgent domestic needs that we should be addressing instead of sending more money [14:18] for Trump to drop bombs overseas. Priorities like disaster relief for our communities that have [14:23] been ravaged by the unthinkable or taking action to lower families costs. You know what's the crisis [14:29] right now? The fact that there are families I hear from back home who are working full time and still [14:35] being forced to decide whether to skip meals so they finally can buy their kids a pair of shoes. [14:41] You know what's the crisis? The fact that hospitals are shutting down and kids are going hungry [14:46] because of Republicans' cuts. Instead of bankrolling the president's war or sending ICE [14:51] 70 billion dollars, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could work with us to quadruple [14:57] our investments to cure cancer or help families afford child care or help them afford to cool their [15:03] homes. Those are policy choices and Republican leadership has chosen to focus on funding war [15:09] and ICE endlessly without a single cent for our American families. So let me close with this. This [15:15] president says we can afford can't afford health care. We can't afford child care. We can't afford housing. [15:22] But somehow we can always afford another war. No price tag on that. Families in Washington state are [15:28] skipping doctor's visits so they can afford groceries. Trump wants to Congress to cut him a blank check [15:34] for a war that no one supports. The American people interest us to spend their taxpayer dollars [15:41] strategically and thoughtfully. This is a huge responsibility. So let me be clear. I'm ready to [15:47] work with my colleagues in a bipartisan way as always to address the needs of our nation and the American [15:54] people. But I hope we can have real conversations about why there seems to always be money for Trump's [16:00] wars but never money for the families back home who are desperate for a little relief. So I look forward [16:07] to today's discussion. Thank you. I will now introduce our first panel of witnesses. Today we're [16:15] going to be hearing first from our colleagues Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Senator Ted Budd of North [16:24] Carolina and Senator Alex Padilla of California. I welcome all of you and Senator Rounds will begin with [16:34] you first. Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity [16:42] to highlight why food security and national security go hand in hand. I'd also like to thank the Trump [16:49] administration for recognizing that input pressures have made it more difficult for American farmers to [16:55] support their own operations. In South Dakota, farming and ranching is more than a job. It's a way of life [17:02] built on hard work, stewardship, and the hope of leaving the land better for the next generation. Feeding and [17:09] fueling the world has never been easy. Producers continue showing up year after year despite drought, [17:16] floods, disease, pests, volatile markets, and other challenges beyond their control. [17:22] This supplemental funding request comes at a critical time. Farmers and ranchers are facing production [17:28] costs that exceed market returns. Higher fertilizer, diesel fuel, seed, equipment, and crop protection costs [17:37] coupled with retaliatory trade practices and continued market uncertainty have put enormous financial [17:45] pressure on producers. Specifically, the projected loss per acre across the country in 2026 for corn is $131. [17:57] For cotton, $342. For wheat, $114. And for soybeans, $80. While we work to [18:08] strengthen America's ability to produce more of what we need here at home and reduce reliance [18:13] on foreign supply chains, Congress should provide stability so producers can remain in business [18:21] and continue producing the best food and fuel in the world. Today's threats extend well beyond [18:28] weather and markets. Foreign adversaries, cyber threats, industry consolidation, arbitrary standards, [18:35] and unfair trade practices impact farmers' ability to produce food, fiber, and fuel. Food security, [18:44] energy security, and national security are connected. We also have an opportunity to strengthen both [18:51] agriculture and energy security by permanently authorizing voluntary access to nationwide year-round sales of [19:00] E15. Giving consumers the option to choose a higher ethanol blend would increase domestic fuel production, [19:08] expand markets for corn growers, reduce reliance on foreign energy sources, and provide families with lower [19:15] cost options at the pump. Given the significant defense investments included in this supplemental, [19:21] I also want to emphasize the importance of fully funding our national defense. We are living in one of the most [19:28] complex and lethal threat environments since the Second World War. And the brave men and women who [19:34] volunteer to defend this country deserve the leadership, training, and equipment, along with resources [19:43] necessary to maintain America's military advantage. Protecting America's food supply, energy supply, [19:50] and national defense are not separate priorities. They reinforce one another. This supplemental provides [19:58] needed assistance to help farm and ranch families endure today's economic challenges, while Congress [20:04] and the Administration continue advancing long-term policies that strengthen American agriculture. I urge my [20:13] colleagues to support this supplemental request to provide stability to our ag producers at this time. Thank you, [20:20] Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Browns. Senator Budd. [20:27] Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify [20:34] this afternoon to provide a voice for the people in western North Carolina. More than 21 months ago, [20:40] Hurricane Helene unleashed an unprecedented amount of rainfall on the Blue Ridge Mountains, causing severe [20:46] flooding and devastating landslides. The storm left behind tens of billions in damage. In December 2024, [20:55] Congress responded by approving a disaster supplemental that provided billions of dollars to western North [21:01] Carolina recovery. Additionally, North Carolina's state government stepped up by committing roughly [21:06] $2.4 billion in state appropriations and redirecting more than $2 billion from state agencies for [21:14] reconstruction. But the Blue Ridge Mountains' challenging terrain has made it uniquely difficult for federal [21:20] programs to operate, resulting in delays and inefficiencies. And there's still work to be done. [21:27] Too many projects in western North Carolina have stalled due to insufficient funding or because of [21:33] financial shortfalls from expensive debris removal and rebuilding efforts. I greatly appreciate that [21:40] President Trump and Secretary Mullen have empowered FEMA to more rapidly reimburse the state and local [21:45] governments for public assistance projects. However, FEMA is only one part of the equation. The [21:51] Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other federal [21:56] agencies play a key role in disaster recovery. And much of the existing disaster funding for those [22:02] agencies has already largely been allocated. When I visit western North Carolina, I see the impacts the [22:09] delays in recovery have caused. Debris still clogs the waterways. Facilities that provide drinking water and [22:17] manage wastewater have yet to be rebuilt. Most concerning, some homeowners are paying mortgages on [22:23] properties that are still unlivable or yet to be rebuilt. Towns have been forced to embrace expensive [22:29] short-term stopgap solutions just to carry out their most basic functions for the residents. In the small [22:37] town of Beach Mountain, there is no long-term water supply. The dam and water treatment plant were heavily [22:43] damaged, forcing the town out of compliance with state safety standards. And as a result, the state could be [22:50] finding Beach Mountain $25,000 per day. Most repairs are needed so that the water treatment plant can [22:58] function long-term. If funded, this process will take at least a year and require significant diversion [23:04] of utilities and or daily water trucks just so hundreds of residents will have to have clean drinking water [23:10] during construction. Three years is too long to wait after a disaster, and we can't delay any longer. Tourism, [23:18] the lifeblood of much of western North Carolina has begun to rebound, but there are still far too many [23:23] areas that are unable to accommodate the travelers they once welcomed. But I want to highlight a few [23:29] examples of success stories to show how ample funding for the last disaster supplemental, paired with [23:35] exceptional planning and project execution, made an immediate impact on our mountain communities. Last July, [23:42] portions of the Blue Ridge Parkway reopened after 57 landslides struck 200 miles of the parkway. This [23:51] Memorial Day weekend, Lake Lure reopened to the public after an incredible debris removal and refilling [23:58] project. And I want to be clear that I fully support President Trump's request to replenish our [24:04] munitions stockpile and strengthen our military. And I'm also appreciative of his efforts to provide [24:09] economic assistance to farmers impacted by disasters and unfair trade practices. However, to address the [24:16] long-term recovery needs of western North Carolina, more federal funds are needed. Every time I'm in [24:22] western North Carolina, people ask me to make sure that they're not forgotten. This is Congress's chance [24:28] to remind them that we're serious about helping them get back on their feet. I'm deeply grateful to the [24:33] members of the committee for holding this hearing, and I look forward to continuing to work with you [24:38] throughout this whole process. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Budd. Senator Padilla. [24:46] Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair Murray, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to [24:51] testify on behalf of the people of California, and especially the survivors of last year's devastating fires [24:58] in Los Angeles County. And I want to acknowledge that some of them are here in the audience today [25:05] advocating for relief, and I'm proud to work alongside them. As many of you recall, 18 months ago, [25:13] 60,000 acres across Southern California burned. That's roughly three and a half times the size of [25:20] Manhattan. Over 16,000 homes, businesses, schools, and other structures were destroyed. And most devastatingly, [25:30] 31 Californians lost their lives. To respond, more than 7,500 firefighters worked literally around the [25:38] clock for more than three weeks to extinguish the fires. And those firefighters weren't just from [25:44] California. Many came from our neighboring states of Oregon, Washington, Arizona, some as far away as Utah, [25:51] Texas, and Montana. Colleagues, because as Americans, that's what we do. We help each other. We don't [26:01] condition our response based on who a community voted for in the last election. When Americans need help, [26:09] we help. Now walking around the Palisades and the Altadena communities during the fires and after the [26:17] fires, you couldn't help but be moved by the scale of the devastation. The images of nothing standing but a [26:26] chimney amongst a pile of ash. Cars literally melted into the streets or the drivers where they had been [26:32] in the past. In the wake of disasters like this, Congress has historically come together on a bipartisan [26:39] basis to provide aid and long-term recovery funding to help communities recover and rebuild regardless [26:47] of whether the disaster was in a state represented by Republicans or Democrats. But instead of following [26:53] that historical practice, this administration has left California waiting for more than a year and a half [27:00] while asking Congress to fund hundreds of billion dollars for other purposes. I want to be crystal [27:07] clear. No disaster impacted community, regardless of where it is located, should ever be held hostage [27:15] or treated as a bargaining chip for other political priorities. Californians in Altadena and the Palisades [27:22] have now waited more than 18 months. Yet long-term recovery funding is still absent from even the [27:28] administration's request. Instead it asks taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on a [27:36] war that Congress has never authorized. A war that's raising gas prices, worsening supply chains, making our [27:43] country less safe and for which 17 service members have already paid the ultimate sacrifice with many more [27:53] seriously injured. Now we know this committee can address disaster relief without tying it to a laundry list of [28:00] unrelated priorities because it's done so many times before, including as recently as December 2024, [28:07] when the committee on a bipartisan basis passed more than 100 billion dollars of relief. There's no reason [28:14] we can't do it again. Congress, we must, excuse me, colleagues, we must reject the premise that it is okay to [28:21] keep survivors waiting for help because the president, any president, decides they need something else from [28:28] Congress to get it. To that end, I do want to thank my colleagues, Senators Tillis, Schiff, and Curtis for [28:36] joining me in sending a bipartisan letter to the committee just yesterday supporting long-term disaster [28:42] recovery funding. Madam Chair, I'd like to enter this letter into the record at this time. Thank you, Senator [28:52] Padilla. I'm not going to just enter the letter to the record. Without objection. Thank you. It will be. [28:58] And I'll be wrapping up soon here. I also want to reiterate what I said earlier. We know the next [29:03] disaster is coming. Anyone who stepped outside of Washington this last weekend or across at least a [29:10] dozen states saw and breathed the very impact of wildfires. And it may be Canada now, but it's going [29:18] to be one of our states next. As of last week, the federal government has already spent over 3.3 billion [29:24] dollars in wildfire suppression this fiscal year, even though the peak of fire season is August and [29:32] September. That's still ahead of us. That should concern the committee. We cannot allow wildfire [29:37] suppression funding to run out before the end of the fiscal year. So in addition to the long-term [29:42] disaster recovery funding, I urge the committee to examine the need for emergency suppression funds [29:48] as well. And I would note that the fire fix, which has provided a steady resource for fighting wildfires, [29:54] will expire in fiscal year 2027. Congress needs to extend and increase that funding to ensure [30:00] firefighters have all the resources they need to respond to the ever-growing threat of wildfires. [30:06] I'll close by reiterating what I said at the outset. Disasters do not distinguish between red states and blue [30:14] states. And when it comes to disaster aid, neither should Congress. So thank you again for holding [30:20] this hearing and allowing me to be a voice for my constituents and for disaster survivors across [30:27] the country. I look forward to working with this committee to ensure that everyone has the resources [30:33] and support that they need to recover and rebuild, regardless of which state they call home. Thank you very much. [30:38] I appreciate the testimony of the entire panel as we consider the supplemental submitted by the [30:49] administration. Your testimony is very helpful to us. Thank you. I will now ask that our second panel of [30:58] witnesses come forward. Well, leave it to our military witness to be on time. While we are waiting for our [32:12] second panel to be seated, let me introduce them. We are joined today by the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, [32:24] the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [32:31] General Dan Kane. These administration officials represent the largest components of the administration's [32:39] request, and we welcome them to the committee today. Secretary Hegseth, we will begin with your [32:47] testimony. Please proceed. Well, Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Senate Committee [32:54] on Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to testify on President Trump's supplemental funding [33:00] request for the Department of War. As you know, we live in a dangerous world that requires bold and swift [33:07] action. Hence, this supplemental request for fiscal year 2026. This request is an urgent, necessary [33:16] injection of resources to address the immediate needs of our department. The supplemental funding [33:21] request is not a substitute. The witness will suspend until order is restored in the committee room. I know [33:45] that individuals feel very passionately, but we must have order in the hearing room so that we can proceed. [33:54] We're now going to move forward with our hearing, and Secretary Hegseth, please proceed. Thank you. The [34:03] supplemental funding request is not a substitute for the President's full $1.5 trillion base budget request. [34:09] 1.5 trillion. Mr. Secretary, please suspend until the order is restored in the hearing room. We will begin [34:27] the timing clock since you've been interrupted twice. Please proceed. 1.5 trillion is what the President [34:42] seeks and what we need to defend the country. The members of this committee understand better than most [34:48] that long-term strategic dominance cannot be funded through one-off supplementals. We will have order [35:05] in the hearing room. Mr. Secretary, please proceed. Collectively, the budget proposals submitted under [35:18] President Trump follow a simple logic. I would ask that the Capitol Police, whose professionalism I admire, [35:33] remove those who are seeking to disrupt the hearing. Please proceed. President Trump's following a simple [35:44] logic. The military requires a generational investment to deliver on peace through strength. We know the [35:52] best way to create peace is to prepare for war, to deter it. And that's exactly what the Department of War is [35:57] doing, building a force so capable that it would be absurd for anyone to challenge it. As the direct result of [36:04] neglected priorities and gross negligence that ignored threats left over from the previous administration, [36:12] President Trump inherited a set of global and domestic crises, deferred maintenance almost across the [36:18] board. Instead of steering the ship through gathering storms, former leaders led our military language [36:24] through social experiments and globalist appeasement, sheer weakness. Under President Trump, we have built a [36:32] different type of department. The Pentagon is no longer run by bureaucrats. Instead, it's led by [36:38] combat-tested veterans and world-class business leaders who are running the department like a business [36:45] and tech titans who are bringing lethal innovation to the battlefield. We're also at a different moment, [36:51] and we cannot afford inaction. If we don't make critical investments right now in tech, in compute, [36:58] in AI, in autonomy, in space, our adversaries who are already making these types of investments could [37:06] outpace us. Without these funds, we face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to also simply [37:13] pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without [37:20] disruption. This supplemental request serves two purposes. Sustain our military readiness to meet this year's new demands, [37:29] and accelerate critical capabilities to replace and augment those we have used in contingencies. But [37:36] make no mistake, this is not a one-for-one replacement. We are upgrading and we are modernizing across [37:42] the force. On the readiness front, we requested 21 billion dollars. This will fund military pay, [37:50] replace much of equipment utilized during recent operations, sustain forward deployed forces, [37:55] and grow personnel and strength while stabilizing mission-critical fueled shortfalls [38:00] and supporting the National Guard. On the capabilities side, we requested 46 billion dollars. These funds will [38:08] expand production lines and accelerate delivery of high-demand munitions. We're talking about solid rocket [38:15] motors, JDAMs, hypersonics, and counter drone capabilities. Additionally, we will use this investment [38:21] to secure digital and space dominance, including resilient satellite networks. Department leadership [38:28] recognizes that appropriating those funds is just the first step. Once funds are appropriated, or [38:35] portioned, excuse me, to the department, we need to promptly execute on them. And that's why we're requesting [38:40] targeted legislative authorities, like Transfer Authority, to prioritize our greatest needs and opportunities, [38:46] multi-year procurement for weapons systems, revolutionizing the speed and scale of munitions [38:52] procurement and new start authorities. Rest assured that every dollar appropriated to the department of [38:59] war will be focused on building the lethality of our joint force and reinforcing peace through strength. [39:07] As I have said before, not fully funding this department, the department of war, and we know what that means, [39:15] that that means 1.5 trillion, given the world that we live in and the disaster of what the Biden [39:20] administration budgets gave us, not funding this department at 1.5 trillion, I believe, is the [39:25] greatest threat that our nation faces. Either we invest in our warriors at this moment of step [39:32] change on the battlefield and growing threats, or this is all just talk. I look forward to working [39:39] with this committee to secure those funds so that our warfighters can continue to do their work every [39:44] day to keep our great republic safe. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General King. [39:54] Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, distinguished members of this committee, I'm honored today to [40:00] appear before you with Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rollins to testify on the Department of War's [40:06] fiscal 2026 supplemental funding request. And I'll note I fondly remember my time at USDA earlier in my [40:13] career where I had the chance to serve there. I'm also joined today by my senior enlisted advisor, [40:19] Secretary Seac Dave Isom. As always, I'm deeply grateful for this committee's continued partnership [40:25] and support for our common defense. I'd like to begin by expressing my deep condolences and that of [40:33] the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the SEAC for the fallen from this past weekend and their families. [40:41] Today, we remember First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, Sergeant Michael Swinton, and Private Isabel Gonzalez, [40:48] and note that the names of our last fallen will be released when we can. I'm humbled daily by the [40:55] profound commitment of the incredible 2.8 million Americans, just like these names that I've just [41:00] mentioned, who make up our joint force and serve our nation every day. Also, on behalf of the Joint Force [41:09] and the Joint Chiefs, I want to express my sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family of Senator [41:16] Graham for their loss and all of you for the loss of your colleague. The Joint Force remains grateful [41:23] for his 44 years of service, both in and out of uniform. There is no doubt he made a difference to the [41:31] safety and security of our nation. On July 22nd, 1940, General George C. Marshall said, and I quote, [41:40] for almost 20 years, we had all of the time and almost none of the money. Today, we have all of the [41:47] money and no time. His words resonate power from powerfully with me today as we find ourselves in a [41:54] somewhat similar situation. I've come to you today to request the necessary funds while in the window of [42:02] opportunity, while time is still on our side. The United States of America faces a global list of [42:10] military challenges in the Middle East, in Europe, in the Pacific, both nuclear and non-nuclear challenges [42:18] and the continued threat of terrorism. We find ourselves living and leading in complex and dynamic [42:26] times. Our adversaries are aligning in their interests, creating simultaneous challenges across [42:33] multiple domains. They are sharing intelligence, combat capabilities, and technology, technology [42:41] that is accelerating the speed of war. It is an imperative that Americans understand that the [42:49] character of war is changing. Advances in technology are fundamentally and irreversibly changing the way [42:57] we fight, which necessitates capital to properly arm America's military. Rapid advancements in AI, autonomous [43:08] systems deliver critical technological advantages to our national defense and simultaneously introduce [43:17] unprecedented strategic vulnerabilities and uncertainty across the world, to include right here at home. [43:23] The low barrier to entry created by affordable, ubiquitous, unmanned systems means our adversaries, [43:31] rogue actors, state and non-state actors, and violent extremists have access to disruptive [43:38] and potentially lethal technologies at scale. We've seen this in Ukraine and we must adopt elements of this [43:45] fight fight for our future fights. Conflict is never confined neatly to the land, sea, or air domains. The modern [43:55] battlefield stretches from the seabed up to cislunar space and beyond, cyberspace, and in the information [44:03] domain, all at the same time. Our nation must be prepared to fight and win across all of them, all the time, [44:12] all at once. In addition, the light speed at which information travels now has compressed our leaders' decision [44:19] space, taking what was once days or weeks in World War II down to milliseconds. Your joint force must be ready [44:28] because the United States military is America's greatest insurance policy. And I acknowledge all of us [44:35] find it difficult at times to pay for insurance before we need it, but we must have insurance before the storm [44:42] comes. The armed forces of the United States of America serves as our nation's ultimate safeguard and our [44:49] insurance policy to preserve, protect, and defend our national interests, security, and prosperity. To [44:57] uphold this responsibility, we require predictable and consistent funding. This will allow us to partner [45:04] effectively with our defense and national industrial bases, building on acquisition reforms that guarantee [45:10] our warfighters receive capabilities at scale before they are required in conflict or combat. I'm struck [45:18] by this season of American history we find ourselves in, and I continue to ask myself, if not now, then when? [45:26] And if not us in this room and the rest of the Congress and the nation, then who? I acknowledge the [45:32] environment we all serve in, but always remember that we are all Americans with deep and abiding love of our [45:39] nation and our military service members and their families. I've come today to ask for your help and your [45:46] support. America's armed forces need 1.5 trillion dollars to meet the military challenges of the future. This [45:53] supplemental is a part of that and to be allowed to use this capital to pay for military personnel operations and [45:59] maintenance expenses and accelerate investments on critical technologies, as the secretary just [46:05] mentioned. It is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we're [46:11] out of time. In closing, I ask all of us to remember our deployed service members around the world right [46:18] now, especially our army teammates who remain deployed after losing their friends and teammates this past [46:24] weekend. And I again ask all of us here in the Senate and across the American people to never forget our [46:31] fallen and their families who continue to show us what courage, tenacity, grit, and commitment to the [46:39] nation looks like. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, General [46:45] Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Collins, Ranking Member Murray, [46:52] and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. [46:58] Let me begin with the bottom line up front. The United States Department of Agriculture is joining [47:04] today the United States Department of War in a fight for America and for American flourishing. After all, [47:13] defending America's ability to feed and fuel and clothe herself is defending America full stop. This can be [47:22] easily forgotten. For centuries, we built farms and ranches and transportation that fed not only [47:28] America, but the world too. For a long time, that prosperity made America strong and made America safe. [47:37] But across the past 100 years, and especially across the last administration, we took that source of [47:43] strength and war and peace, our farms and our ranches and the communities that surrounded them, [47:48] and we hollowed them out. We made them weak and we put them on the precipice of decline and extinction. [47:57] We sent our food production overseas. In fact, 2023 was for the first time a significant net importer of [48:06] our food for America. And in so doing, we replaced American production with massive amounts of imports. [48:13] We allowed and even encouraged the consolidation of agriculture, seed production, processing, [48:23] fertilizer, and beyond into massive industries at scale. Today, nearly 85 percent of our meat packing [48:32] capacity is controlled by just four companies, including two that are foreign-owned. Additionally, [48:38] our largest pork company in America is owned by a China company or China. Four fertilizers in America [48:47] now represent, four fertilizer companies now represent 78 percent of the production versus just a couple of [48:53] decades ago. That was in the dozens. And two seed companies now produce more than 50 percent of the seed [49:01] for America. These are national security implications. When President Trump returned to office, America's farm [49:07] economy faced one of the most difficult economic environments in decades. Between 2020 and 2025, [49:15] the cost of seed rose 19 percent, crop protection rose 30 percent, fertilizer rose over 50 percent, [49:22] fuel and oil rose nearly 33 percent, electricity 36 percent, and repair and maintenance 27 percent. As these costs [49:32] climbed, commodity prices plummeted. Farm income fell by more than 90 billion dollars from 2023 to 2024, [49:41] representing one of the largest single-year declines in history. At the same time, producers saw not one new [49:49] trade deal across the world, resulting in an unprecedented $50 billion agricultural trade deficit. [49:57] American farmers deserve better, and our national security now demands it. As long as we are beholden to [50:04] foreign and even hostile countries for our food and our fuel, our freedom is in jeopardy. Since my first [50:12] day at USDA, we have been committed to addressing this crisis head-on, in addition to implementing the historic [50:19] working families' tax cuts, thanks to so many in this room who worked so hard, moving $40 billion in [50:25] disaster and economic assistance to producers across the country, securing 19 new trade deals, [50:31] and decreasing that $50 billion agricultural trade deficit in one year by 42 percent. This year, [50:40] our corn exports are expected to be at a record-breaking 35 percent, ethanol up 11 percent, dairy up 15 percent, [50:48] and tree nuts up 11 percent. We are making progress, but we have a ways to go. Administrator Zeldin has [50:55] secured the strongest renewable fuel standard volumes in history, and the president continues to support [51:01] year-round E15 for our domestic markets. We have led robust responses to animal health threats, including [51:08] HPAI and the New World Screwworm, and have reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens and partnered with [51:15] producers to strengthen the domestic demand for American agriculture. These are lasting reforms and will [51:22] change the trajectory of American agriculture for the future. The trade agreements will take time to [51:28] fully execute and generate even more exports. The biofuel investments take time to increase the demand for [51:35] American crops, although we're already seeing a 10 percent increase since just an announcement a month ago. [51:41] And of course, on-shoring facilities like fertilizer will continue to take some time to build out. [51:47] But we are confident that the direction of American agriculture is changing for the better, [51:53] but many producers continue to face economic pressure as we build that economic infrastructure out. [52:00] Specialty crop growers across the Northeast, the Mid-Atlanta, the Pacific Northwest, and Florida [52:05] suffered devastating freeze losses this past winter. Producers across the plains continue [52:11] recovering from catastrophic wildfire and events occurring while many operations are still working [52:17] to catch up financially. That is why our proposed proposal includes 10 billion in temporary economic [52:25] assistance for 2026 row crop and specialty crop producers, and also includes 1.1 billion to help [52:32] producers recover from catastrophic freeze losses suffered this past winter. Congress has taken [52:38] similar action over many decades, and we're so grateful for that, but including most recently 2023 and 2024 [52:46] with economic aid and disaster relief aid with the hurricane seasons. I want to be 100 percent clear [52:52] as I close, for the sake of American national security, American existence, and the American future, [52:59] we must, in the long run, end this system that has grown up like a weed and strangled the American [53:05] farmland and food production. Farmers want to farm for their products, not for a government check. [53:12] They want to be free from dependency and free to innovate. We know what happens when they are able to do [53:18] that. They build and feed the greatest republic in the history of man, but when they aren't, well, we know the [53:24] danger that we are in today. But that's why this supplemental is so important. It provides a bridge [53:30] and extends a hand to Americans who need it. It buys the nation the security that we need, [53:36] and it buys us time to deconstruct and then reconstruct a new system, putting our farmers and ranchers first, [53:43] and to restore the system that originally made America great. For our farmers, the defense of American [53:50] freedom continues. They only ask to be free to fight. Thank you so much. [53:55] Thank you for your testimony. We will now begin with questions for our witnesses. As you can see, [54:03] we have a very full attendance of committee members today. So I would ask that all of our colleagues to [54:12] please keep track of the clock and stay within the allotted five-minute question time. With that, [54:19] let me begin. Secretary Hickseth, General Kane, members on both sides of the aisle have questions [54:28] about the authorization strategy, objectives, and conduct of operations in the Middle East. [54:35] Regardless of our differing views, the fact remains that there are must-pay bills and urgent [54:43] requirements facing the department that affect the ability of our military to deter and defend against [54:53] potential aggression worldwide. Portions of the supplemental requests go toward paying these bills [55:03] bills and are necessary to restore readiness, repair, or replace battle damage to aircraft, ships, [55:11] or bases, and address urgent munitions challenges. I understand and am told that some military services face [55:22] near-term solvency challenges. What will be the impact on our troops if additional funding [55:32] is not provided? Are there military exercises, for example, that are at risk of cancellation? [55:43] What message would we be sending to the world? Secretary Hickseth, either you or General Kane. [55:52] Chairwoman, I very much appreciate that question because it's connected to the real-world realities [55:58] of this budget cycle. There is training, training right now and training in the future that would [56:05] have to be curtailed if we did not get our budget needs met and met urgently. And yes, some of that has [56:11] to do with the current budget cycle and how things come together. But we are a department that for four years [56:18] met funding shortfalls under the previous administration. It was not a priority to fund [56:22] the Department of Defense under Joe Biden. It also took the munitions and a lot of the — there were [56:27] five supplementals out of this committee that took munitions one for one and sent them to Ukraine [56:33] and had tried to replace them with the same bureaucratic process that was too slow and didn't replace [56:38] them in real time. And then there were threats that were ignored around the world. So you're looking at [56:42] a lot of negligence and a lot of deferred maintenance that this department is having [56:47] to catch up on. And so that's why I call this a generational investment. It truly is. This is [56:52] $1.5 trillion budget with this supplemental being part of it. [56:55] It's how we catch up and get ahead and ensure in the process we're putting soldiers and sailors and [57:01] airmen first — Marines first, guardians — that their pay increases, that the end strength increases [57:07] that have gone up because recruiting is at historic levels are fully funded. So rather than [57:11] trying to play catch up and make sure we're not losing training, we should be ahead of that curve. And [57:15] that's where we think $1.5 trillion can get us. Thank you. Senator Cain — Senator — I keep calling you [57:22] Senator. General Cain, I'm going to ask you to respond for the record because in my remaining time, [57:30] I do want to ask Secretary Rollins a question. Secretary Rollins, as we heard from the previous panel, [57:39] our country has many outstanding recovery needs from disasters and other weather-related events [57:48] over the past two years. As this chart shows, and this is a chart from your department, many have unmet [57:59] weather-related agricultural losses. In Maine, many of our producers are struggling, admit a combination [58:07] of market volatility and disaster conditions last year, which included excessive rainfall in the spring, [58:16] followed by a severe drought. They need relief. Yet the administration's supplemental request does not [58:24] include funding to address these recovery needs. It does have $1.1 billion to help Florida agricultural [58:34] producers rebound from a severe freeze this past winter, but nothing for prior disasters in other states. [58:43] Can you explain USDA's thinking behind focusing your request just on the 2026 freeze, [58:54] rather than on the 2025 disaster declarations that you made? [59:01] Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question. Obviously, the discussions that went on over at OMB [59:10] and with our teams continue, but what I will say is we are obviously 100% in support of any sort of [59:18] disaster relief program for our farmers, whether it's hurricane, tornado, drought, freeze, etc. So, [59:25] look forward to working with you on that, and specifically understanding the larger context here, [59:30] that there's a lot of farmers, a lot of producers who are really hurting, not just in Florida and not [59:35] just from the freeze. So, it's important that we work together to solve for that. Thank you. Senator [59:41] Murray. Thank you, Chair Collins. Secretary Haig-Seth, your department received $150 billion [59:50] last year in the Republicans' big, beautiful bill. It also received a record $839 billion for fiscal year [59:58] 2026, more money than you asked for last year. Combined, that is a trillion dollar budget for the year, [1:00:04] and as I already mentioned, your department has yet to spend half of the reconciliation funds. [1:00:10] Despite that, you are here today asking for tens of billions of dollars more for things that you've [1:00:16] already asked for in your FY27 request or that have nothing to do with Iran. This administration has [1:00:23] tried to sell this as an emergency request, but it may be better understood as an attempt to skirt the [1:00:29] normal appropriations process. Here are just a few of the things requested in this Iran supplemental. [1:00:36] $800 million for the National Guard to patrol D.C. even longer. Over $1 billion for the Army to patrol [1:00:43] the southern border, which is DHS's job. $900 million to support the administration's illegal [1:00:49] boat strikes in the Caribbean. Over $18 billion for munitions, which you've already requested in your [1:00:55] FY27 budget request, and $1.7 billion to pay for your decision to recruit more people than the services [1:01:03] need, which was not contemplated by the FY26 funding bill Congress recently passed. Now, you've already [1:01:11] submitted a reprogramming request on this that our subcommittee is considering now, which really [1:01:16] underscores the point I made in my opening remarks that the problem is not a lack of money, but poor [1:01:21] planning. So I'll be blunt. The truth is your request does not make a lot of sense. So let me ask you a [1:01:28] simple question. Why exactly are billions of dollars more for the National Guard and this administration's [1:01:34] illegal strikes in the Caribbean urgently needed for the Iran war? Well, Senator, I wouldn't, of course, [1:01:42] agree with your characterization, but why this kind of spending is needed is because of the gross [1:01:47] negligence and neglect of the Biden administration inside our department. Ran it like a bureaucracy, [1:01:51] abandoned our strength posture around the world, so we're having to reestablish deterrence. [1:01:58] You mentioned the end strength numbers, and I will acknowledge that we are ahead of schedule on [1:02:03] end strength in recruiting. 8,000 in the Navy, 6,000 in the Army, 4,000 in the Air Force, [1:02:09] because under President Trump there's been record and historic over 30-year recruiting records inside [1:02:14] our department since he won the election because the American people didn't want to sign up for what [1:02:19] Joe Biden was providing our military. And they want to sign up for what President Trump is doing in [1:02:24] his leadership. And so those are good problems to have that we need to fund and a reflection of [1:02:28] momentum. And this budget will allow us to continue the kind of momentum that gets us ahead. [1:02:32] My point is that a lot of this request does not feel like an emergency. And let me move on. [1:02:37] Secretary Hague said, like most Americans, I've had a lot of trouble [1:02:41] following this administration's contradictory statements about the war. On April 8th, you said, [1:02:46] and I quote, their missile program is functionally destroyed. Launchers, production facilities, [1:02:52] and existing stockpiles depleted and decimated and almost completely ineffective. Mr. Secretary, [1:02:59] Iran has been firing at U.S. military bases in the region and ships for the last week. How is it [1:03:06] possible if their capabilities were, quote, functionally destroyed three months earlier, [1:03:11] as she claimed, for them to be doing this now? Well, Senator, Iran is at the weakest point [1:03:16] militarily it has ever been in in the past decade. Certainly, maybe in 47 years, as they've gathered [1:03:22] effectively a terror army. And that terror army was built to try to create conventional capabilities to [1:03:28] defend against a pursuit of nuclear weapons, which meant thousands of ballistics missiles, many of which [1:03:34] we have destroyed, others of which they have put inside facilities and hidden in underground facilities. [1:03:39] That's what terror regimes would do. So I acknowledge they still have capabilities, no doubt. [1:03:43] But the amount of the amount of damage that we've done to them over the course of [1:03:48] these series of operations has put them in the worst place they've ever been. [1:03:50] Okay, well, let me move on. On May 5th, you claimed that Iran doesn't control the strait, [1:03:55] and you said that there was a, quote, powerful red, white, and blue dome over the strait. [1:04:01] If that was true, how did Iran shrink ship traffic in the strait to a trickle again last week? [1:04:08] We pushed almost, I believe, between 400 and 500 million bearers of oil under the nose of Iran [1:04:13] over the course of Project Freedom, which went underground, which I acknowledged after we did so [1:04:18] covertly, because it was more effective to do so quietly than to do so publicly. So we've been [1:04:23] in control of moving traffic through there for quite some time. Will they retain the ability to [1:04:27] recklessly shoot at commercial shipping? And that's what happened. We had a ceasefire, [1:04:30] and then they shot at commercial shipping. Well, you also said at that same press conference, [1:04:37] and I'm going to quote you. You urged Iran to, quote, let innocent ships pass freely. These [1:04:42] international waters belong to all nations, not to Iran to tax toll or control. Last week, [1:04:48] President Trump said the U.S. would charge a 20 percent toll to each ship to pass through the state. [1:04:53] So based on your opposition to tolls, did you talk to the president out of that idea, [1:04:59] or did someone else? Iran's not charging tolls, and they're shooting at ships right now. [1:05:06] But Trump said that he wanted to charge a 20 percent toll. We have a blockade right now of all [1:05:12] Iranian ships and Iranian ports, and it's effective. My time is out. Senator Murkowski. [1:05:20] Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all for being here. Challenging, challenging times. I think [1:05:28] we all recognize that. Secretary Hegseth, I want to ask just specific to Iran authorization. The [1:05:35] administration has made the case that the action in Iran falls under the president's Article 2 [1:05:42] authorities, and we can have disagreement. Reasonable people can disagree about the boundaries of the [1:05:48] presidential war powers and have for a long period of time. But I look at the war powers resolution, [1:05:54] and it's not ambiguous. It requires the president to terminate hostilities within 60 days absent [1:06:01] congressional authorization. So hostilities began February 28th. May 1st, Congress was informed that [1:06:11] hostilities had ended, but yet despite the fact that hostilities had ended, we were still seeing sailors [1:06:19] being fired upon still activity. Then in June, MOU is signed to preserve the ceasefire while negotiations [1:06:29] continue. That MOU has now collapsed, and we are seeing the resumed attacks in the Straits of Hormuz. On July 10, [1:06:38] the administration sends Congress a new war powers notification, effectively restarting the 60-day [1:06:45] clock again. So I'm concerned about this sequence because you have a situation where the claim [1:06:54] essentially allows the president to extinguish the war powers clock just at the moment that it becomes [1:07:00] legally inconvenient through declaration of temporary ceasefire. Then it's reset, avoiding the congressional [1:07:06] authorization that the Constitution requires and the war powers intends. So we had an opportunity in [1:07:13] previous appropriations hearing for me to ask if you felt the administration had all the authority that [1:07:20] it needed. You indicated at that time that no additional authority was not needed. Are you, are you still, [1:07:29] is the administration still taking that position about needing no authorization from Congress at this time? [1:07:35] Senator, I know there's a long, long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly [1:07:43] as a department take the, share the position of the White House that we have all the authorities [1:07:46] necessary at this moment. So, so let me just kind of do a follow-on. In the Clinton administration, [1:07:53] this is 1999, there was a, an operation that was launched, Operation Allied Force, NATO airstrikes [1:08:00] against Yugoslavia. There was not a prior congressional authorization that was sought. President Clinton [1:08:08] notified Congress under the war powers resolution and then sent, subsequent to that, sent Congress an [1:08:17] emergency supplemental funding request. It was about six billion dollars to cover the cost of Kosovo [1:08:23] operations. Congress then passed a supplemental package that re, that covered the, uh, president's request, [1:08:32] plus additional military funding. But Congress never passed a standalone authorization for use of military [1:08:39] force in, in Kosovo. Uh, when the war powers clock was set to run out then in, in May of 1999, the, the, the Clinton [1:08:48] Justice, uh, Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion holding that the supplemental appropriation [1:08:55] itself passed without any authorizing language satisfied the war powers resolution requirement. [1:09:03] So is the department looking to that or intending to rely on that same reasoning that funding alone [1:09:12] can substitute for explicit congressional authorization? Senator, I, I would, uh, I would have to defer to [1:09:19] our, to our legal department and we'll get back to you with our views on that. But as of right now, [1:09:23] we think standalone article two authorities exist for us to conduct this operation on behalf of the [1:09:28] defense of the American people that the president has those authorities and seeking this funding is [1:09:32] important in pursuit of that and our 1.5 trillion dollar budget. But I wouldn't connect the two without [1:09:37] consulting with our legal folks first. In my remaining time, let me turn to you, uh, Secretary Rollins. Um, I [1:09:45] appreciate that you have acknowledged that fishermen are farmers of the sea. Um, I don't know whether you [1:09:52] are aware whether any fishermen will be eligible for any of the supplemental funding. They too have say, [1:09:57] faced many of the same challenges that our farmers have with high fuel costs, uh, the impact from tariffs, [1:10:03] disasters, um, that we have seen, uh, in the 15 seconds remaining. Any help for our fishermen? [1:10:10] Well, I remember having the conversation with you when we were going through the process, [1:10:14] and my commitment to you and to Senator Collins and some of our others on the, across the aisle, [1:10:20] was that it's time for USDA to recognize our fishermen as part of our farmers of the sea. [1:10:24] That's never happened before. We now have an office at USDA focused on fishermen. And so I think as you [1:10:30] all move forward with the supplemental, the conversation, obviously up to you all what that looks like, but [1:10:35] very supportive of treating our, uh, our fishermen similarly to the rest of our farmers. Thank you. [1:10:40] Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Senator Durbin. [1:10:45] Thanks, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you to help me reconcile some numbers. [1:10:52] It's my understanding that this whole supplemental funding request is 87.6 billion dollars, [1:10:58] and most of the funding, 67 billion, is for the Department of Defense. Yet we are told the Department [1:11:04] of Defense still has 75 billion in obligated funding from last year's reconciliation package. Is that true? [1:11:12] Roughly correct numbers. Yes. So you left some change on the dresser before you, uh, prepared to [1:11:20] come for this hearing. What's going to happen to that 75 billion? Well, that 75 is, there's plans and [1:11:27] designs on that part of the rebuild of our military, which had to be undertaken. And so the one big, [1:11:31] beautiful bill gave us specific avenues, but I'd have to get you the exact numbers of what that is left [1:11:36] to be allocated. Does it have to do with the war in Iran? No, this is, this is rebuilding our military from [1:11:41] what was not funded in the past under the Biden administration. So that's, these are, this is from [1:11:45] 2026, one big, beautiful bill, which, which helped move the president's priorities like Golden Dome for [1:11:50] America, move away from all the woke priorities of, of what the Biden administration was pursuing, [1:11:54] give us a chance to start cutting these deals on munitions, all the things that we, he, the president [1:11:59] wanted us to focus on shipbuilding, hypersonics. I mean, the Biden administration ignored hypersonics. [1:12:04] They just decided to pretend like that technology didn't exist and we shouldn't invest in it. [1:12:08] They're our thing. I don't know what Lloyd Austin did for four years. I really don't. [1:12:12] I'm sure. The amount of neglect, the amount of [1:12:15] stale thinking and bureaucracy, it was staggering when we took over. So one big, [1:12:19] beautiful bill gave us a chance to get caught back up. Let me interrupt your speech for a minute, [1:12:22] Mr. Secretary. It's my turn to ask questions. I've been listening patiently while you made your [1:12:27] presentation. You estimated at one point that the cost of the war in Iran was 29 billion dollars, [1:12:35] but then added a caveat that there was a replacement of munitions, for example. [1:12:39] Do you have a new estimate about what the war has cost us so far in this, the fifth month of the [1:12:44] first year of this war in Iran? Senator, the estimate we have as of today is 37.5 billion. [1:12:52] And is the current activity, which we've been told about the exchange of fire back and forth [1:12:57] in Iran, an indication that that number is going to go up in the months ahead? [1:13:01] Mr. Secretary, some of that number captures additional O&M, [1:13:05] mill pay, and other that would be anticipated through the fiscal year. So some of that anticipates [1:13:09] what costs would be going out in the future as well. [1:13:11] Mr. So the new number you've given me is what? [1:13:13] Mr. A 37.5 billion. [1:13:16] Mr. And that represents the cost of the war through what period of time? [1:13:19] Mr. Through now for certain aspects of it, but also mill pay, O&M, other anticipated costs through [1:13:27] September 30th. Senator? [1:13:29] Mr. General Cain, let me ask you a question. [1:13:31] I joined a group of senators somewhere here, Senator Rounds, Senator Coons, Senator Shaheen, [1:13:38] and met with President Zelensky in Turkey during the NATO summit. [1:13:43] He is very explicit in terms of what he needed to win. He feels the momentum in Ukraine is moving to his [1:13:52] side, that he is putting a foot forward instead of back. Is that your feeling? [1:13:58] Mr. Sir, I think the pressure that Ukraine is putting on Russia is substantive at this point. [1:14:06] Mr. Do you acknowledge his request that we help them with air defenses as a high priority? [1:14:12] Mr. Sir, I know he's made the request. Whether or not that moves forward is always a debate [1:14:17] at our civilian leadership, but I'm aware of that request. [1:14:20] Mr. Are you aware of the fact that we appropriated and the president signed into law [1:14:24] $400 billion of supplemental funding for Ukraine, including money for air defenses? [1:14:29] Mr. I am, sir. [1:14:31] Mr. Are you also aware the administration has informed us that that money will not [1:14:36] be available in many aspects until the next president is in office? [1:14:40] Mr. Sir, I'm not aware of that. [1:14:41] Mr. No, that's a fact. [1:14:42] Mr. My understanding was that that capital had been allocated, but I'll have to defer to my [1:14:48] civilian leadership on that. [1:14:49] Mr. I'm sorry to tell you the pay plan tells us to be prepared to spend that money in fiscal year 29. [1:14:55] The new president, whoever it may be, will make that decision. [1:14:59] If you're talking about air defenses and the momentum on the side of Zelensky, [1:15:03] what impact will it have if we cannot fund this for three years? [1:15:06] Mr. Sir, I want to highlight that the incredible work that the Ukraine [1:15:12] industrial base is doing is they scale their own capabilities. [1:15:16] It ranges from their surface-to-air capabilities to their air-to-air capabilities. [1:15:22] I'll note that recently we had the first air-to-air kill where a Ukrainian F-16 shot down a Russian fighter. [1:15:28] So I think their ability to scale their layered defense has come along [1:15:33] a long way over the past couple years with the help and assistance of many. [1:15:40] General, thank you for your service to the country. [1:15:41] I'm sorry for our losses. [1:15:43] I believe 17 servicemen have given their lives in Iran so far and [1:15:48] hundreds, hundreds have been injured. [1:15:50] We should acknowledge that fact. [1:15:52] And let me also say, we're in a moment in history where we can win the war in Ukraine. [1:15:56] That victory would be critically important for those people who have fought for more [1:16:00] than four years against the odds and proven they can put Putin back on his heels. [1:16:05] But instead of finding the money that they need now for air defenses, [1:16:09] we're putting more money into this exchange with Iran, [1:16:11] a war of choice which we never should have entered. [1:16:14] Thank you, General. [1:16:15] Senator Moran. [1:16:19] Chairman Collins, thank you very much. [1:16:21] Let me first begin with just a statement to you, Secretary Rollins. [1:16:25] Thank you for your leadership. [1:16:27] Thank you for your attention to disaster assistance, [1:16:30] hugely significant and important in many states represented here, but across the country. [1:16:36] And it is as challenging circumstances as I've seen farmers in [1:16:41] in my time and represent representing them in the United States Congress. [1:16:47] And I appreciate my colleague, Senator Rounds, for making that case today. [1:16:51] I appreciate the efforts by Senator Bozeman, the chairman of the Ag Committee, and Senator Rounds, [1:16:55] and his vice chairman, Shaheen, for their efforts here on this committee for that effort. [1:17:01] Secretary Haigsteth, let me ask you about your recent visit to the 101st Airborne Division. [1:17:08] You saw the MV-75 Cheyenne. You saw it firsthand and heard from soldiers, as I understand it, [1:17:13] about the next generation capabilities, how they will transform the way we fight. [1:17:18] The Cheyenne has broken through, it appears to me, in the acquisition bureaucracy [1:17:26] to deliver a capability for our warfighting much faster than it otherwise would have happened. [1:17:32] As you look across acquisition, I mean, we're here talking about appropriations, but the ultimate [1:17:38] success we'll have in defending our country is putting that money to work as quickly as possible. [1:17:43] So as you look at acquisition, what would you tell me we learned from the Cheyenne? [1:17:50] Is it a model how the department can, it intends to field the next generation of capacity going forward? [1:17:58] What does the program need from this committee to meet both the schedule and the necessity of [1:18:04] its capabilities? Senator, I appreciate the question. [1:18:08] I think it's in part one of the untold stories of our department is how we try to revolutionize [1:18:13] the speed and scale of new acquisitions and procurement. Some of it through munitions and [1:18:18] ensuring that companies pay for building their own factories and their own assembly lines, [1:18:22] so that we're saving billions and billions as taxpayers while companies invest. And when you [1:18:26] invest in something with your own money, you want to see it succeed ahead of schedule and on time. [1:18:30] Also opening the aperture so it's not just the prime contractors that are competing, but new entrants who make [1:18:35] high cost and low cost capabilities. I think in particular on the Cheyenne and the Blackhawk and [1:18:42] the replacement, the gap that some have identified could exist based on the hesitation on speed and [1:18:49] replacement exists because of an austerity mindset again that goes back to the Biden administration of [1:18:55] divest to invest. And so you end up divesting in certain systems like the Blackhawk before the next one is [1:19:01] online, creating gaps for actual operators. And what we're funding in this supplemental and across [1:19:06] this budget is the ability to do both. Make sure the systems we rely on the battlefield right now [1:19:11] are delivered and that newer entrants that we're going to need for long-range fight to deliver, [1:19:18] to be more survivable in contested environments, which you're talking about. When I had a chance to see it, [1:19:22] the soldiers were proud to be in it because they felt like it would give them greater advantage in the [1:19:26] future. We need to accelerate the timelines of those and deliver them even more quickly. [1:19:31] And when you allow new entrants with all the right incentives, those things happen. And it's [1:19:36] happening in that program. Will that take place? I think you may have just said this, but will that [1:19:39] will take place in this circumstance of the Cheyenne? I believe in this administration, because of the [1:19:45] policies of this administration, it is likely to do so. Just like the B-21, just like the F-47, [1:19:51] just like so many other of our exquisite munitions that otherwise would have taken years and years to [1:19:57] even get into development. We're moving those things left by, in some cases, years. So that we [1:20:01] get them in the hands of war fighters who would need them right now and not held up in bureaucracy in [1:20:06] this town. Thank you, sir. Let me turn to you, General Kane. The department is requesting [1:20:11] significant supplemental to address the ongoing operational demands. Our adversaries are watching [1:20:19] how we resource this moment. Beijing, Moscow, Tehran are all increasingly coordinating their [1:20:27] activities and intelligence. In your judgment, do you believe our adversaries view this moment [1:20:36] as an opportunity to exploit U.S. commitments elsewhere? And how does this supplemental ensure [1:20:41] our deterrence posture and our commitments to allies remain credible in every theater all at once? [1:20:48] Well, sir, thanks for the question. In my job, it's to look across the globe and look at the range of [1:20:54] tradeoffs out there. We are the strongest military in the world. Our adversaries still fear America's [1:21:01] ability to project power at the time and place of our choosing. There is no doubt that they are aligning, [1:21:08] as I've said before. And I think this supplemental and whatever funding structure, [1:21:14] that Congress, working with the executive branch, decides to structure and give us the capital. [1:21:19] We'll use that capital to ensure that we sustain that, sir. You're assuring us that this supplemental [1:21:24] and further efforts will reduce the risks to our nation and its national securities issues? [1:21:29] Yes, sir. I view this, and I've spoken to some of you on the phone leading up to this, [1:21:35] I view this as future investments to buy down risk, similar to what I said Marshall thought through [1:21:41] in those heady days in 1940, where the need to invest capital early to deliver scale is an opportunity [1:21:50] that I hope we don't miss, Senator. General, thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. Senator Reid. [1:21:57] Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary Rollins, I just want to reiterate a point that Senator Padilla made. [1:22:04] We have $10 billion in this request for Midwestern farmers who are suffering because of the [1:22:13] interruption of fuel and fertilizers because of the President Trump's war, unauthorized war. Yet, [1:22:22] many states, blue states particularly, have submitted requests. Rhode Island has one. [1:22:27] February, we had the worst snowstorm in our recent history, and we've been denied by the President. [1:22:34] In fact, if you look at the numbers, 20 percent of blue states seem to get approved and about 80 [1:22:40] percent of red states. I'm making a point, not asking a question. This is unfair. Thank you. [1:22:48] Secretary Hexer, on February 28th, when you initiated this war without authorization from Congress, [1:22:55] the Straits of Hormuz was open and providing vital fuel supplies for the whole world. Now they're closed, [1:23:02] effectively, impacting globally the price of oil and the economies of the whole world. [1:23:09] But the Department of Defense has been planning for potential operations against Iran for many, [1:23:15] many years. And one of their obvious assumptions was that the three or four moves could be closed. [1:23:24] Were you unaware of that? Senator, you are correct. Nobody plans more and looks at more contingencies than [1:23:33] our department. And so, of course, undertaking a historic effort like this, of this scope and scale, [1:23:38] of course, the Strait of Hormuz was front and center in every single aspect of that. [1:23:41] Hence why one of our key objectives to begin with was to sink the entirety of Iran's navy, [1:23:47] which its conventional navy was sunk. Now, you can't get rid of every single fast boat and every single [1:23:51] machine gun and a fast boat or every single coastal cruise missile. So we acknowledge that if the [1:23:57] state decided to become a terror state shooting at commercial shipping, that would be an ongoing and [1:24:02] contested part of the battle, to include their willingness to mine international water. So one [1:24:07] side weaponized the strait and we've been fighting back the entire time. [1:24:10] So you were completely aware that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed and obviously sinking their ships [1:24:15] has not affected their ability to effectively close the straits. Did you... [1:24:20] We had U.S. boats that surrendered to Iranian ships under the Biden administration. [1:24:24] So their navy was effective in expedited ways in the past. [1:24:26] Listen, we're talking about the war you started. Not a situation in which oil was flowing freely. [1:24:33] There was no conflict. We weren't losing personnel as a result of Iranian actions. So, [1:24:40] your fallback to the Biden administration is just a very, very obvious excuse for what I think is [1:24:50] probably, as you described so often, gross negligence. You did not fully inform the president [1:24:55] that you would be in a situation where the Strait of Hormuz could be effectively closed, [1:25:00] oil prices could surge, and effectively the Iranians could maintain their ability to strike back as they [1:25:09] are right now. They just killed some of my servicemen last weekend. [1:25:12] This battlefield and all the dynamics of it, of which the chairman and I are responsible for ensuring the [1:25:18] president understands every branch and sequel of what could happen, and we did. The fact that those [1:25:23] contingencies all were part of the possibility, and we understood that, is all the more reason why [1:25:28] President Trump deserves the kind of praise he should get for undertaking this effort, having [1:25:32] the courage to ensure that crazy Islamists can't have a nuclear weapon to hold us at issue. [1:25:38] And he's been willing to stay committed to that, regardless of the challenges... [1:25:41] Excuse me, so he should be praised. He should be praised for starting a war without authority, [1:25:47] creating a situation in which the world economy is suffering tremendously. We have to have extra [1:25:53] money for our farmers, and we have no outcome, at least no really realistic outcome in sight yet. [1:26:01] Let me switch to General Cain. General Cain, these airstrikes have not yet deterred and defeated the [1:26:08] Iranians. Do you think airstrikes alone will do that? [1:26:11] Sir, I think academically, as you look across the totality of history, air power's got limits, [1:26:19] and we always have to be mindful of those. I think where America's area of exclusivity is, [1:26:25] is when we bring the totality of the diplomatic, informational, economic, and pair that with the [1:26:32] military, and there's a lot of that work going on. [1:26:34] Well, the military, the next step would be escalation by ground combat. [1:26:38] Do you anticipate that escalation? [1:26:41] Sir, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypotheticals. What I can tell you is we always [1:26:46] develop an unbelievable amount of options and the associated risks, and then my main job [1:26:53] is to always ensure that leaders understand those options and the risks. [1:26:57] Now, if you employ ground troops to seize objectives, which I would assume would be the first stage, [1:27:04] are you prepared for an extended guerrilla war, which would likely happen in that area? [1:27:08] Sir, with all due respect, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypothetical situations, [1:27:14] on whatever decisions the president may or may not take in the future. [1:27:19] Have you advised the president that a ground combat would be very expensive in the lives of armed [1:27:26] soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and also could probably lead to an extended [1:27:34] unconventional war in that area? I don't see the Iranians sort of [1:27:38] throwing the hands of saying, you know, welcome to Iran. [1:27:41] Senator, I always advise the president on a range of military options and all of the risks that are [1:27:50] contained within that. But I have to keep my military advice to the president private, sir. [1:27:55] But well, thank you. Thank you, sir. Senator Hoven. [1:28:00] Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Rollins, I want to thank President Trump. I want to thank you for [1:28:06] including farm bridge assistance in this supplemental request. I know I've worked very hard to get [1:28:11] included. I know you have worked very hard to get included. And I want to thank you and your whole [1:28:16] department for your work on it and for this vital support of our farmers and ranchers. What I want to [1:28:22] ask you about though is actually crop insurance. The number one risk management tool that our farmers have [1:28:27] is crop insurance. And the buy-up option is critically important. It covers 67 million acres, 67 million [1:28:37] acres of farmland in this country. It was decommissioned and we need to get reinstated. Again, [1:28:47] you and I both worked very hard on this. Please update me on where we are in terms of getting that [1:28:52] buy-up option for crop insurance reinstated. We are 100% supportive of that and are moving forward [1:28:59] to execute that buy-up option. Thank you for your leadership on that, Senator. [1:29:03] Thank you for your support. Also Assistant Secretary Fortas for his support. It's very impactful, [1:29:13] very important and will make a big difference for our farmers right now. So thank you for that. [1:29:17] Thank you. Secretary Heggseth, [1:29:21] are Russia and China helping Iran? And if so, how? Well, Senator, as the chairman alluded to, [1:29:31] there's definitely adversary alignment, attempts to do so. And there are many ways that we deter that, [1:29:39] some of which are and the depth and extent of it ought to remain classified and it should. But there are [1:29:45] ways in which both of those countries are limiting at different levels enabling some of the things Iran [1:29:52] is doing. Yes. General Kane, would you like to add? Sir, I'd rather not opine on the specifics [1:30:02] because that would divulge what we know and I never want the adversary to know what I know. I just want [1:30:10] to know it. And hopefully we'll get a chance to do that. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Happy to do that in the [1:30:15] SCIF, sir. So this relates both to the funding but also again to how we achieve our objectives with Iran. [1:30:24] And we're seeing continued, I think, improvement and progress on this. But essentially where we can, [1:30:35] and hopefully our allies will, they need to step in there with us. But where we get to the point [1:30:40] where we can operate in the Strait of Hormuz but keep Iran blockaded. We're continuing to get better at [1:30:48] that. But that's how we keep, they'll never do anything that they say they're going to do. They've [1:30:52] proven that over and over. We have to keep the pressure on. But if we can do that effectively, [1:30:56] we keep the pressure on and achieve our objectives. Tell us where we are in getting that accomplished. [1:31:02] Senator, I think that's a really good point. That's effectively what we did to create the pressure [1:31:07] that led to the circumstances of the MOU, which was a, we're running that, running a route where ships, [1:31:12] and we did it covertly in cooperation with Gulf countries and others who were willing to take, [1:31:17] take some of the risks with our protection and then maintain the blockade. So effectively, [1:31:21] oil is coming in and out. Oil prices are coming down. But our blockade is staying and the pressure [1:31:25] is mounting on Iran. That's something we have done and can continue to do. We moved into an MOU where [1:31:30] Iran said, we won't shoot at shipping. And then they turned, the IRGC turned around and decided to start [1:31:35] shooting at commercial shipping again. At which point the president, I mean, as he should, cannot tolerate [1:31:40] that. And so we respond, as he said 10 times, you shoot at ships, we're going to shoot at you overwhelmingly, [1:31:46] which we have been doing now for, I believe it's a 10th consecutive evening. So consequences come with [1:31:52] the willingness to shoot at commercial shipping. Our blockade has been reimposed and is effectively [1:31:57] impenetrable. We mount, we got seized a ship inside the Arabian Gulf as well. So there's a lot of [1:32:04] different angles to it. A lot of levers we can pull. And ultimately, a lot of the strikes that Admiral [1:32:10] Cooper and CENTCOM have been undertaking are taking Iran's ability to see and sense away in the [1:32:15] Strait of Hormuz, which has tactical benefits for us. And that's what this funding is about. [1:32:20] This funding is about making sure that we and our allies can operate in the Strait of Hormuz, [1:32:25] which helps bring down energy prices for every single American consumer, and that we force Iran [1:32:31] to meet our objectives. Isn't that what this package is all about? [1:32:34] This is a peace through strength package. That's what 1.5 trillion has always been about, [1:32:41] a generational investment at a, as the chairman alluded to, a step change moment. We need to be [1:32:47] able to do it at speed, at scale, with autonomy, with AI, with height, with exquisite high cost and [1:32:52] low cost to be ahead and get, stay ahead so that you're not just able to do what we need to do in [1:32:58] the Strait of Hormuz, but deter adversaries like Russia and China from getting involved in future [1:33:02] continuances. And just General Cain for any follow-up that you would like on that issue. [1:33:06] Sir, I wouldn't have anything to add. Okay. Again, thank you. And thank [1:33:10] you to all of our men and women in uniform. We appreciate them so much. Senator Shaheen. [1:33:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Hegseth, since you last testified before this committee, [1:33:24] we finally received the spend plan for the 400 million FY26 appropriation for Ukraine security [1:33:31] assistance. This funding was passed back in January, and now there are only three months left [1:33:37] in this fiscal year. And while I appreciate that we now see what most of the funding is intended for, [1:33:45] I just heard from the CEO of one of the manufacturers of the defense articles that are contained [1:33:52] in the spend plan that they not only haven't received funding, but they haven't even seen a contract. [1:33:57] So when are we going to see a contract for those defense articles that are contained in the spend [1:34:03] plan for Iraq? I'm sorry, for Ukraine. For Ukraine. Senator, I'll have to get back to you on the [1:34:11] specifics of the timeline of that. I'll talk to our policy shop as well as the UCOM commander to [1:34:14] determine where that's at. Well, you've told this committee that you've barely spent half of the [1:34:19] $150 billion in reconciliation funding. And if you still have $75 billion available, why are you asking the [1:34:27] American people to absorb the cost of a war they don't support instead of asking for transfer [1:34:33] authority for unspent reconciliation funding, especially if you can't even get $400 million [1:34:39] in Ukraine funding out the door? As I mentioned earlier, Senator, that money from the one big, [1:34:45] beautiful bill is otherwise allocated to the rebuilding of our military with priorities of the [1:34:49] President like Golden Dome for America and hypersonics and other munitions investments that we made up [1:34:54] front as we tried to adjust the Biden budget budget into an America first budget. And so reallocating [1:34:59] that away from those priorities is Robin Peter to pay Paul. Those are allocated to rebuild. [1:35:03] But my point is, if you can't spend it on a timeline that makes sense, why do you need to come [1:35:12] back and ask for more money? Wouldn't it be better to spend money that you already have? And one of the [1:35:17] things I noted was, or at least I think that this supplemental doesn't include funding to repair damage [1:35:23] to our bases or to our military infrastructure in the region. And I have not heard that we've gotten [1:35:30] the full extent of any of those damage estimates. So should we expect another request to address [1:35:37] that military construction costs? And at what point do you stop asking Americans to foot the bill [1:35:44] for a war they don't support on top of an inflated budget request and billions in reconciliation funds [1:35:52] that you still haven't spent? Well, Senator, I obviously don't agree with your characterization of [1:35:57] that. I appreciate that. But you didn't ask me. But I want you to answer my question. I know you don't [1:36:02] agree with my characterization. I don't agree with yours either. Well, I one of the reasons I care, [1:36:09] I take issue with that characterization is something that Senator Durbin said when he talked about Ukraine [1:36:13] and he talked about winning. And I appreciate as much as anybody winning a war. But I sit in front of a [1:36:18] committee that wants to talk about winning a war that's been going on for four years and talks about strategic [1:36:22] strategic defeat of a conflict that's been going on for four months to prevent Iran from getting a [1:36:27] nuclear bomb. I want I would hope for some perspective in this town of the historic nature of [1:36:31] what President Trump is undertaking. Do you want radical Islamists to have a nuclear bomb that can stare [1:36:36] down the world? I don't want to hear your speech because I have limited time. I don't understand. [1:36:38] You can't answer my question. Then I will move on to my next question. Secretary Rollins, the timber industry has [1:36:47] also been hard hit, as you know, by trade wars, by drought, by wildfires, by other natural disasters [1:36:54] that are increasingly common in New Hampshire, which is the second most heavily forested state in the [1:37:00] nation. The one of the things that we really need, as you know, because we've had this conversation, [1:37:07] is a research program and Forest Service staffing on the ground in a variety of ways, but particularly at [1:37:14] Bartlett Experimental Forests, these small investments in research and staffing and sound management [1:37:22] help make the forest economies healthier and more competitive. I very much appreciate your having [1:37:28] staff visit Bartlett last week with my staff and with staff from the governor's office, but can you [1:37:35] commit to restoring staffing at Bartlett and to keeping the facilities there open now that you've seen [1:37:41] the critical nature of that research? Why don't I follow up with you? I have not gotten a report from [1:37:50] their visit, so I would like to do that first, but obviously you and I have been in a continuing [1:37:54] conversation about that. The good news, there's no doubt our timber industry is in distress and has been [1:37:59] for a long time. The fact that we import 90 percent or something from other countries of our lumber needs [1:38:05] is crazy. We're changing that, but the good news, we had more board feet sold last year than any time in 30 [1:38:12] years. This year we're going to exceed that target again. So we're making the right moves on this, but [1:38:17] there's no doubt that research is important to that, as we've discussed, and I'll follow up with our team [1:38:22] and then we'll reconnect. Thank you. I appreciate that. As you pointed out, research is critical to ensuring [1:38:28] that the timber economy continues to be successful. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kennedy. Thank you, [1:38:40] Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here today. General, in the war between Russia and [1:38:49] Ukraine, who do we want to win? Sir, I want Ukraine to win. Is Russia America's friend? I'm sorry, [1:39:01] sir, I couldn't quite hear your question. Is Russia America's friend? I think that depends on your [1:39:08] definition of friend. I think it's a complicated relationship, but no, I don't think they're our [1:39:16] friends. Thank you. If we could cut off Russia's cash flow, which depends substantially on its sale of [1:39:34] oil. Would that help Ukraine win? Sir, I think militarily anytime you can restrict resources and [1:39:42] cash flows against an adversary. General, I have so much respect for you. Yes, sir. But I have so little [1:39:50] time. Yes, sir. I'll try to be briefer. Give me succinct answers. Yes, sir. It would assist a- But help, [1:39:57] wouldn't it? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. If we could stop people, entities, and countries from buying [1:40:09] Russia's oil, that would help cut off its cash flow, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. We have a bill to do that, [1:40:18] as I'm sure you're aware. We have the votes today to pass it overwhelmingly. I have also have enormous [1:40:34] respect and admiration for our majority leader, Senator Thune. But I hope everybody on this panel [1:40:44] will today contact Senator Thune and ask him to bring that bill to the floor. We should vote on it [1:40:57] at a minimum of next week. Some of my colleagues, General, want America to just stop in Iran, [1:41:12] in the blockade, bring all of our warriors home. What would be the consequences of that, [1:41:22] in your estimation? Sir, I think termination criteria is always a political decision. [1:41:30] However, I assess that Iran will continue to be a challenge moving forward. So we have to [1:41:38] be thoughtful about that. Will they put tolls on the straight? I don't know, [1:41:42] sir. That's a decision that's a hypothetical and will depend on what happens in the future. [1:41:45] It's not hypothetical. We've got a blockade to stop them. [1:41:49] We do, sir. That's putting economic pressure on Iran. General, I want you to look in the eye. [1:41:52] I'm not asking you for, I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I know your advice to the president [1:41:59] is private. But this is serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. Now, what happens if we come home [1:42:11] and we're not going to be a threat? And we're not going to be a threat. And we will need to prepare [1:42:23] military options to do that. Will they toll the straight? Sir, that's a hypothetical question. [1:42:27] And I don't know the answer to that. Oh, it's not hypothetical. You come, we come home. It's not [1:42:33] going to be hypothetical. You know that, General. And I do too. And I appreciate your discretion, [1:42:41] but we're down to it. We need some hard answers and some straight talk. What will happen, Pete? [1:42:48] Senator, I would agree with the chairman, but the likely outcome is they would try to impose their [1:42:55] will on the waterways in ways that the world would not like. Call it a toll, call it a fee, [1:43:01] call it an exchange, call it control. They would do something that they would try to hold it at issue. [1:43:05] Yes, sir. Would they try to commence development again of a nuclear warhead? [1:43:13] Part of the reason President Trump had to have the courage to do what he did after Midnight Hammer [1:43:19] is that they didn't give up their ambitions, even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated. [1:43:23] So this is a regime hellbent on nuclear ambitions and President Trump's willing to go after. [1:43:27] Guys, we need straight answers. We need straight answers. Do we have the ability [1:43:34] to destroy whatever is underneath Pickaxe Mountain? Senator, a lot of our capabilities are classified, [1:43:45] but if anybody in the world can reach anything on God's green earth, it's the United States military, [1:43:50] the most powerful military in the world. It's all about options and trade-offs. [1:43:53] All right. I'm going to take a little extra time because others got it, Madam Chair. I won't [1:43:57] abuse it. Secretary, are shrimpers farmers? [1:44:02] Absolutely, yes. They're farmers of the sea. [1:44:06] Are oyster harvesters farmers? Yes. In this USDA, yes. [1:44:10] Are they having to compete with other countries who grow oysters and shrimp in a ditch and shoot them [1:44:18] full of antibiotics? 100 percent, yes. [1:44:21] And if you eat too much of that foreign shrimp and oysters, you'll grow an extra ear, won't you? [1:44:31] I'm not sure about that, but I know it is not good. And I also know we import 90 percent of our shrimp. [1:44:35] We're affecting the shrimp and the oysters from abroad. [1:44:39] Well, it goes much larger than that. Why are we importing so much from abroad, [1:44:43] which goes to the president's trade agenda? I'm in big trouble. [1:44:46] Yes, you are. Guys, look, we need straight answers now. We're down to it. [1:44:52] Senator Merkley. [1:44:58] Thank you, Madam Chair and Secretary Rollins. I appreciate your partnership on addressing [1:45:02] several issues in Oregon. And I sent you information about a couple others and you responded. [1:45:07] I appreciate it. We'll follow up on the research service. We'll follow up on the concern about in-kind [1:45:13] contributions serving as a match. But I particularly need your help on the fire funding. [1:45:24] And I know you've indicated how important that is. Where we stand now is that the Senate seems [1:45:32] hamstrung that they're seeking to have OMB give them a number on that. Various sources say the number [1:45:40] is probably about five billion. I don't really care if it's 4.5 or 5 or 5.5. The point is that folks [1:45:47] here, senators, are asking for a number from OMB in order to go forward. And when we're looking at the [1:45:53] fires right now in my home state, it's the epicenter of the highest risk in the country. So can we get [1:46:00] your help to get that number and move this process? Yes, absolutely. It is a paramount importance, [1:46:05] especially in the middle of fire season right now. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. And [1:46:10] Chairman Kane, I think there was a sense that the President expressed at the start of the war [1:46:19] that the U.S. military power was overwhelming and would likely produce unconditional surrender [1:46:27] quickly by Iran. And that obviously hasn't happened. Was it your opinion as well? Did you [1:46:35] feel like our military force could produce an unconditional surrender and quick order? [1:46:42] Sir, I won't. With due respect, I won't share my private advice to the President. What I will assure you [1:46:49] and the American people is I always speak truth to power and offer an accurate assessment of what [1:46:55] my assessment is of both our readiness, the plans and activities that might be undertaken, [1:47:01] the associated risks, and the secondary and tertiary considerations that go with those opinions or [1:47:07] options. Thank you. So you feel like the various risks that the Iran would close, could possibly close [1:47:14] the strait despite the destruction of their navy, that the possibility of assassinating their political [1:47:19] leaders and their military leaders could produce a strengthened hardline and weakened reformers, [1:47:26] that Iran would have the ability to sustain its ability to attack sites throughout the Middle East, [1:47:32] that the initial requirements of the war could surely deplete our basically high-end standoff munitions, [1:47:42] that this could affect our relations with our allies. All those were factors well considered in this [1:47:48] decision to go to war? Sir, as I said, I won't opine on or share my private advice to the President. [1:47:54] Yeah, I'm not asking about your advice, President. I'm asking you, did you understand these issues or have [1:47:58] these become revelations as the wars unfolded? Sir, my job is to understand all of the considerations [1:48:05] that go into the carefully considered use of military power. Let me ask you this then. Yes, [1:48:10] sir. I understand why you don't want to respond, but these are all massive risks that seem to be [1:48:17] poorly weighed in the beginning of this misadventure. Currently, there are reports that we have hit the [1:48:24] Banji desalination plant that provides water to about 20 villages or about 10,000 people, and we also [1:48:31] damaged the desalination plant at Keshem Island. Were these deliberate targets by the United States? [1:48:37] Sir, I'm not aware of those as being particular targets, nor am I aware of those reports, and [1:48:43] I'll have to go back and get back to you on that. If you could, I'd appreciate that. You are aware [1:48:48] that infrastructure that civilians rely on to survive is not generally considered legitimate [1:48:52] military targets? Sir, as you know, we have a robust process which considers a target that goes through a [1:48:59] system that looks at a variety of considerations to include what you're alluding to around [1:49:04] both purely civilian or dual-use targets. I have trust and confidence in CENTCOM that they're looking [1:49:10] at the range of those things on a daily basis. It sounds like you are assuring us that we will, [1:49:15] the United States, not target even in retaliatory sense of infrastructure that is generally [1:49:23] considered to be primarily for civilian survival. Sir, as I mentioned, we have a robust process, [1:49:31] and, you know, we have the most professional military force in the world that follows the law. [1:49:34] It would just be nice to have you say yes, because this is international law. [1:49:37] Yes, sir. If you understand the international law. [1:49:39] I do, sir. I've got a lot of lawyers that help me understand it. [1:49:42] Thank you. Yes, sir. [1:49:44] And you'll, will you get back to us on that question of whether we targeted the desalination plants, [1:49:48] and if so, why? My time's up, but I do want to express encouragement to look at what the negotiators [1:50:01] have put forward or advisors as to whether a 10-day break could facilitate returning to dialogue that [1:50:09] might find a path forward. Senator Hyde-Smith. [1:50:14] Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to thank all three of you for being here today. [1:50:19] I am going to direct my first question to Secretary Rollins, and again, I want to commend you publicly [1:50:26] for the outstanding job you're doing at USDA. You know, this is my world. As former Ag Commissioner, [1:50:33] I hear from a lot of producers in Mississippi, and they are so pleased with your performance, [1:50:40] and that is just truly genuine right there. But I'm pleased to see the administration's supplemental [1:50:46] request as for ag producers, because before I comment on that, I just want the entire committee [1:50:52] and administration to take note of the tremendous timber losses as well in places like Mississippi, [1:50:59] due to winter storms and the tornadoes we've had there. It is significant, and I certainly look [1:51:05] forward to working with you with the concerns of the timber sector. Regarding the supplemental, [1:51:13] you know, our row crop producers, as you've mentioned in your opening remarks, [1:51:18] they are truly in a serious situation. I've talked to multi-generation farmers back home who are the [1:51:26] best of the best that did not even plant this year because they could not make the numbers work. [1:51:34] And producers in Mississippi and nationwide, you know, we continue to face these economic conditions. [1:51:40] They're not going away anytime immediately or soon, but we've seen the commodity prices drop and the [1:51:48] input costs just go through the roof. If we want the next generation to stay on the land, Congress, [1:51:55] we're going to have to take this opportunity to provide this critical market assistance for our farmers [1:52:03] and enact policies that build structural demands for commodities like the Buy American Cotton Act, [1:52:11] that year-round E15, all of which would make the paths better, more favorable for these producers going [1:52:21] forward. But I appreciate the administration's effort to this date, including the farmer bridge assistance [1:52:28] program that was so valuable implementation of the updated farm safety net with Working Families Tax [1:52:34] Cut Act, and now the supplemental request before Congress. But will you speak to why it's critical [1:52:41] for Congress to act swiftly to pass this supplemental and the need for us to pass legislation [1:52:48] that drives the demand for farmers' products? [1:52:51] Yes, thank you, Senator, for your kind words. A couple of really important points. Number one, [1:52:57] as we work to open the markets around the world and we're seeing, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, [1:53:01] just extraordinary numbers. That $50 billion agricultural deficit we inherited a year and a half ago [1:53:07] is now down into the 20-ish billion. We expect it to go down significantly this year. Again, the highest price [1:53:14] we've seen in over a year and corn is today and soybeans is today, et cetera. Your point, Senator, [1:53:20] about opening up the domestic markets is really important, whether that's E15, renewable fuel [1:53:25] standards. Obviously, the RVOs came out, which is a reason for the drive up in some of our row crop [1:53:30] prices in the last month, which is really important. But also, as I mentioned, bringing the cost of inputs [1:53:35] down. We are expanding fertilizer, the largest ammonia plant we're going to break ground in Louisiana in two [1:53:40] weeks, reshoring, bringing back to America real fertilizer production. And then also the long term, [1:53:46] we've got to figure out how we are doing these supplementals and these bridge payments, which we [1:53:52] have to do for these farmers to survive. But what we're seeing is just survival. And we're seeing a lot [1:53:58] of the input companies, equipment, seed, fertilizer, make record profit. So we've got to be able to dig [1:54:04] into that as well. But as of today, ensuring that we can keep these farmers farming while we're opening [1:54:09] the markets, while we're bringing down the cost of inputs, is paramount for a secure America. [1:54:14] And that's why this is so important today. Thank you very, very much for that. And, [1:54:19] Secretary Hegseth, thank you for being here and the amazing job that you're doing. I have the utmost [1:54:24] respect for you, your team, and what you're accomplishing. But I, as well, am committed to [1:54:30] ensuring that our warfighters have all the tools necessary to accomplish the mission in Iran [1:54:36] and whatever else that they need to defend our nation's interest. The supplemental request is [1:54:42] in line with that goal. And I'd like to shift my conversation right now quickly to shipbuilding, [1:54:49] which is extremely important to the state of Mississippi and our country's ability to protect [1:54:54] itself. The President's FY 2027 budget requests funding for one DDG 51, while Navy leaders have said [1:55:04] their goal remains to build two destroyers a year. And at the same time, the department is exploring [1:55:10] options for using allied shipyards and overseas fabrication and future naval construction, which [1:55:16] raises questions about the long-term role of the American naval industrial base or shifting work away [1:55:22] from domestic shipbuilders. Shipyards like Ingalls in Mississippi, which I would love to invite you down [1:55:29] to there. It is amazing. And the thousands of suppliers and small businesses they support, [1:55:36] they need the confidence that the work will be there so they can invest in new facilities, [1:55:40] hire and train skilled workers, and expand capacity that we will need in the future. [1:55:46] Will you help or talk to us about the department's short and long-term shipbuilding plan and how it [1:55:51] gives industry the confidence to invest? [1:55:54] You just made the case for this generational investment. Because of the underinvestment, [1:56:00] Senator, in shipbuilding in the previous administration, just static, flat, bureaucratic, [1:56:05] slow, we're having to revitalize that industry. And one DDG is a reflection of a backlog in [1:56:11] capabilities. So as we ramp on more capacity, those numbers of DDGs, the workhorse of our Navy, [1:56:16] will go up as we grow that force. [1:56:18] The senator's time has expired. Senator Coons. [1:56:22] Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Murray. Thank you, Secretary Hegseth, [1:56:27] Secretary Rollins, General Cain for your service. I want to start with the things I know we agree on. [1:56:33] We agree that we should honor our fallen, that we should stop and remember them and console and [1:56:39] comfort their families, that we should be mindful of the hundreds of Americans who've been wounded and [1:56:45] injured in this war in Iran. General Cain, your observations about how our adversaries are aligning [1:56:52] more and more closely. Technology is accelerating and cheap and lethal and easily accessible drones [1:56:57] pose greater and greater risks to our troops, our homeland and our security. And Secretary Hegseth, [1:57:03] that we need to protect our troops wherever our president directs them, that we need to protect our [1:57:08] partners and allies, and that the dangerous radical Iranian regime should never possess a nuclear weapon. [1:57:14] I think we agree on all of these core basic points. Where I think we may disagree is on this [1:57:20] supplemental and on the strategic choices made to achieve some of these core goals. We're 143 days [1:57:27] into a war with Iran, a war of choice that we started with Israel, but did not include, [1:57:32] consult or incorporate our core allies, our NATO allies, our regional allies, the American people and [1:57:39] Congress. And the reason to consult and include our allies and Congress and the American people [1:57:45] is so that when the costs and the length of a war extend beyond what we'd initially imagined, [1:57:51] the American people and their representatives in Congress understand that sacrifice and can continue [1:57:56] to support it. I think your first strategic mistake was to not consult the American people in Congress and [1:58:02] make a clear case for the reasons behind this war. There have been many, lots offered. And I think our [1:58:09] military has executed on the core missions, attack ballistic missile sites, sink the Blue Water Navy, [1:58:17] attack their proxies, constrain their capacity. But I frankly think it was entirely foreseeable [1:58:24] that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, would use cheap, lethal, widely available Shahed drones that [1:58:29] they've led the world in manufacturing to attack our bases, our troops, our partners and allies, [1:58:35] and impose real costs. Higher costs in fertilizer, in fuel, higher costs for the world, and tragically, [1:58:42] increasingly higher human costs for us and for our troops. So, two questions, two general lines of [1:58:48] questioning, if I could. Mr. Secretary, your question says, without these supplemental funds, [1:58:53] we will face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to pay our service members and sustain global [1:58:59] operations without disruption. You've been asked repeatedly, there's $75 billion appropriated, [1:59:05] but unobligated. Can we really not avoid critical short-term shortfalls? What does that mean about [1:59:11] the budget management within the department in terms of unexpected and unbudgeted wars? First, [1:59:20] Operation Southern Spare and then Operation Epic Fury? I would just note, I was sort of updated, [1:59:28] 95% of that One Big Beautiful Bill funding will be allocated by the end of September, in accordance [1:59:34] with congressional intent. So, these are things we are, we said we would spend, and we told you we would [1:59:39] spend them on, and we plan to spend them on those things by the end of September. So, this is a new [1:59:43] request based on new realities of a world we face, stepping up to meet that moment. And ultimately- [1:59:50] Forgive me, Mr. Secretary, but that's news to me, that that $75 billion will be out the door, [1:59:56] appropriated, sorry, allocated and spent by September. And I was simply questioning how we have [2:00:04] ships running out of fuel in the open seas and planes being grounded and- [2:00:08] I didn't say ships were running out of fuel in open seas or planes were grounded. I'm saying we're [2:00:12] happy to make trade-offs. But the operations and maintenance accounts are- [2:00:14] Everything our troops need on the battlefield, they're getting in spades and beyond. [2:00:18] Uh, it's ultimately looking into the future. Can we invest above and beyond that, [2:00:22] the types of munitions fast enough as we upgrade and modernize our- our force? That's what's at [2:00:27] issue here in this $1.5 trillion, this supplemental, and any other additional funding that comes. [2:00:32] Two quite different things. A $1.5 trillion base budget request and a now $76 billion supplemental. [2:00:40] And I was simply going to point to, A, Department of Homeland Security is sitting on nearly $100 billion [2:00:46] in unobligated funds. You haven't requested reimbursement for the millions of- frankly, [2:00:52] billions of dollars the department has spent on law enforcement. Second- [2:00:56] We, um, requested reimbursement and are getting a substantial reimbursement from DHS. [2:01:01] That's good news. And that's news to me. Um, and- and frankly, as we reflect on the service [2:01:07] and sacrifice of those, um, who put their lives on the line of this war, one of the things I've raised over [2:01:12] and over and over is the ways in which this administration has dragged its feet on partnering [2:01:18] with Ukraine in order to deploy the best-in-class sensors, detectors, and counter-drone systems to [2:01:24] protect everything from Dover Air Force Base to our bases in the region, to our troops, to our partners. [2:01:32] I want to see you focus on accelerating the defense of our troops and our nation, [2:01:37] focus on accelerating the defense of our troops and this region, and a strategy that has a real chance [2:01:44] at succeeding at the goals that we agree on. Because the strategy followed, I think, has no credible [2:01:50] likelihood of success. Senator Brett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate all of you being here today. [2:01:59] Um, so since the beginning of the, um, Putin's aggression into Ukraine, [2:02:06] Ukraine, this body has passed five supplemental bills funding different portions of that war. [2:02:15] You mentioned in your opening, Mr. Secretary, about not getting those munitions that had come through [2:02:23] this body quick enough to Ukraine and also being able to replenish those here at home. Can you talk a [2:02:31] little bit more about that? Because I remember the previous administration dragging its feet after this [2:02:38] body gave them directive as to what to do. So can you shed a little bit more light as to what you [2:02:42] were talking about in your opening? Well, thank you for that question. I, sometimes we forget recent [2:02:47] history, which, which under the Biden administration, there were five supplemental requests for Ukraine, [2:02:53] which almost every member of this body voted for to send rapidly in a bipartisan fashion for something [2:02:58] that this committee and the administration deemed to be urgent. Uh, we, President Trump may take a [2:03:04] different view, but that was the view of the Biden administration. And real quick, wouldn't you say it would be [2:03:07] urgent to make sure that our men and women in uniform right now have everything that they need? [2:03:11] I would argue providing for American men and women, as opposed to Ukrainian men and women, [2:03:16] is a higher priority for the United States Senate. So five supplementals that went to Ukraine, [2:03:21] as good as that cause may be, why is that righteous to do? But funding troops in harm's way right now, [2:03:30] given the threat and what they're undertaking, this is a partisan exercise. It's hypocrisy. [2:03:35] And I appreciate you pointing it out. Mr. Secretary, real quick, um, uh, Madam Secretary, [2:03:39] question for you. When the Russia-Ukraine war started, we saw, obviously, costs go up around the [2:03:46] world. In particular, in that region, we know that supplying of fertilizer, you know, was tremendous. We [2:03:52] also know Ukraine was top five when it came to wheat and corn and other things that we utilize, um, you know, [2:03:59] across, across the globe. Um, it's my, it's my recollection that, uh, fertilizer went up about 55%. [2:04:07] Obviously, if we were able to create stability there in the region and have peace, it would, [2:04:13] it would follow that then prices would likely go down over time within the agriculture world as well. [2:04:19] Is that, is that fair? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And when we're looking at the Ukraine [2:04:25] and Russia war and, um, trying to end Putin's aggression, trying to bring peace, General Cain, [2:04:33] if we were to cut off the funding that Russia was getting, would it follow that that would be a driver [2:04:43] that could possibly lead Putin to the table? Senator, yes. And their economy is struggling now. [2:04:52] Thank you. Thank you. And we also know, I saw reports this weekend, that it is said that possibly [2:04:57] Russia and China, which I know you can't comment on right now, but are actually helping Iran, [2:05:05] whether it is targeting our troops, funding and other mechanisms. So I think that we could all agree [2:05:10] that ending that would be helpful. I want to just echo Senator Kennedy's comments that I think the [2:05:16] sooner we can get this bill on the floor and passed, um, it would be, be huge with regards to [2:05:23] Russian sanctions. Um, also want to just talk briefly about the dysfunction of this body. [2:05:28] So my question is for you, Mr. Secretary, and you, General Cain. I would have to think that our [2:05:33] adversaries, and I believe that we need to fully fund our military, making sure that our war fighter [2:05:40] is the best ready, trained and equipped across the planet. I think we have an obligation and a duty to [2:05:45] not only meet the needs of the moment, but to also look at what's to come and be preparing for that. [2:05:50] You talked about an insurance policy. You talk about what we need to do. Then now is the time to do those [2:05:55] things. But I would have to think that the dysfunction of this body, whether it's the full shutdown, [2:06:00] a partial shutdown, a partial shutdown, not being able to pass NDAA, not being able to pass FISA, [2:06:06] I would have to think that our adversaries look at that, and it gives them a little bit more, uh, [2:06:14] credence as to what they're doing abroad. Can either one of you comment on that? Thank you, Senator. [2:06:19] That's why I have said, and I will continue to say, that the inability to properly fund this [2:06:23] department, the Department of War, is probably the single greatest threat our nation faces. [2:06:28] Whether or not we will make a generational investment in not just winning the wars currently, [2:06:32] but deterring the wars of the future, given the step change in technology of this moment, [2:06:37] and the underfunding of the previous administration. You didn't mention continued resolutions, [2:06:41] which is a whole other way our department has foolishly budgeted. So I appreciate you highlighting [2:06:46] that it's very true. Yeah, and General Ken, question for you. Obviously, a shutdown is just, [2:06:51] is a terrible thing for the Department of War and the men and women that you oversee, [2:06:56] but I would assume that a CR is not much better. Can you comment on the effects of that? [2:07:02] Ma'am, the department's done a lot of work to bind together founders, funders, and fighters, [2:07:09] as we look to the challenges that we face in the future, and a CR would hurt badly the effort to [2:07:14] properly arm the joint force. I hope we can work together to do the right thing. [2:07:18] Thanks. The people are depending on it. Senator Schatz. [2:07:21] Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Secretaries and General, for being here. I want to start [2:07:28] by paying my respects to First Lieutenant Tyler Fehan of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, who was among those killed in [2:07:35] Jordan this weekend while serving our country. His courage, selfless dedication, and unwavering commitment [2:07:41] to duty reflect the very best of our armed forces. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, [2:07:48] his loved ones, his fellow service members, and remain forever grateful for his sacrifice. [2:07:59] Secretary, about 190,000 people in the state of Hawaii, believe it or not, voted for Donald John [2:08:05] Trump. And I know a lot of them, and I represent all of them. And one of the reasons that they were [2:08:12] enthusiastic about Donald Trump and you, Mr. Secretary, was they thought that we were going to have [2:08:19] a new foreign policy. And that I think, I'm paraphrasing, but I think you characterized yourself [2:08:26] as a reformed neocon or some such thing. And people were pretty thrilled about the idea that we were [2:08:31] going to, that America First, in their mind, meant that we were going to not do this kind of adventurism. [2:08:41] And so I don't want you to answer me. I want you to answer them. And I want to walk through the sort [2:08:46] of stated objectives of this war at the outset. Regime change. We now have a younger and more radical [2:08:57] regime depleting, eliminating their conventional missile capability. It's true that we've depleted [2:09:05] their conventional missile capability. It's also true that anything the Department of War sets out to do, [2:09:12] it usually succeeds at. So the question is not, do we kick ass? It's when do we decide [2:09:18] to use kinetic engagement to extend our power across the globe? And it's clear that Iran still retains [2:09:28] enough conventional missile capability to attack our bases and our interests in the region. Now, [2:09:36] it's true that the Blue Water Navy is destroyed. It's also true, and you know this, that the IRGC [2:09:41] has something that you may not call a Navy, but it's got capabilities to touch us with drones [2:09:48] and missiles and lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, preventing their nuclear capability. It's also true [2:09:57] that if you bomb the crap out of a place, they're going to have less capabilities by the end of it. [2:10:01] But it's also true that we have not eliminated their nuclear capability. And whatever duration we've set [2:10:07] them back actually pales in comparison to the, and I'll say it, the Obama nuclear deal, which we did [2:10:14] without having to put our people in harm's way. And then the last objective, which has become a new [2:10:22] objective, is open up the Strait of Hormuz. But the Strait of Hormuz was open before this war started. [2:10:30] And so you tell my constituents why this war is going so well. [2:10:35] I think you did accurately portray me as a reformed neocon. And members of our generation in Iraq and [2:10:44] Afghanistan watched administrations on both sides try to project some remaking of a society in the [2:10:50] image of America that spent thousands of lives. I mean, in Iraq, you know, 15, I don't know the exact [2:10:56] number, but tens of thousands between Iraq and Afghanistan, men and women lost. President Trump [2:11:00] said, we're not fighting stupid wars like that again. And he hasn't. That's why we haven't been trying to [2:11:05] remake Iranian society, but simply in a realist America first way, ensure they never have a path [2:11:11] to a nuclear bomb full stop. And he has said as a candidate, and he said for as a private citizen, [2:11:17] Iran can never have a nuclear weapon because radical Islamists with nuclear weapon will wield it over [2:11:21] our head in perpetuity. So President Trump ran on fighting wars differently, and we're doing so [2:11:27] overwhelmingly. And he was very clear as a candidate that Iran can never have a nuclear capability. [2:11:31] So I think he's directly on par with exactly what he said. Let me get a question back in here. [2:11:36] I think we're, I think we're understanding the limits of air power here, because we're basically [2:11:44] at a stalemate. You, someone says the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and we say, well, we're, [2:11:49] we've got a naval blockade, and we're just going to see who blinks first. And the truth is, in order to [2:11:55] sort of change the balance here, change the equation here, some kind of escalation would have to be [2:12:02] considered. And if you're taking that off the table, then we are in a holding pattern. And I [2:12:08] go back to the original five objectives, and none of them have been met. Some of them have changed, [2:12:14] but none of them have been met. And with gas at now 402, with the Brent crude hit 90 today, [2:12:20] up from 72 weeks ago, gas up about a buck nationwide, about a buck 50 in the state of Hawaii. [2:12:27] People want to know, why are we even doing this? Senator Fischer. [2:12:35] Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Higgs, Seth, I appreciated your perspective on the focus [2:12:44] on the four-year war in comparison to a four-month war with a nuclear adversary. And I thought it was [2:12:54] very well said. Thank you. If we want to support Ukraine going forward, I think the best way to do [2:13:04] that is to dramatically increase munition production. And we need more interceptors. We have to be able to [2:13:14] move forward. So do our allies and our friends. And let me emphasize that this supplemental does that. [2:13:23] This is what we're talking about here today. It's one of the things that we're talking about. [2:13:29] As a member of the Armed Services Committee, one of my priorities for over five years now has been on [2:13:36] munition production. General Cain, what happens if Congress doesn't fund this $21 billion request [2:13:45] for additional munitions? Well, ma'am, there's been a lot of work done by the department to partner with [2:13:52] the private sector. I'll acknowledge some of the efforts that the private sector is doing to [2:13:57] utilize their own capital to facilitize factories. If we don't, as a team, figure out how to properly fund [2:14:06] the department, then we're not going to get the munitions and there's going to be a lack of shared [2:14:11] risk between the federal government and the private sector. And I think we're at a point in time in our [2:14:16] history where we need to partner. We need to find an ability to share risk. We need to be better sellers [2:14:23] and buyers on both sides in order to make sure that the young all-volunteer force has the weapons that [2:14:28] they need before they are asked to go do something. What you're saying is we need to be prepared as a [2:14:35] country? Yes, ma'am. And I hope, as I said in my opening statement, that we will find a way to make sure [2:14:43] that we seize this moment and its time in history to ensure that we've got the right mix of munitions, [2:14:50] high, low, scale, autonomous. What's your plan B if the supplemental doesn't pass? What's plan B? [2:14:57] Ma'am, we will always figure things out. We will always have contingencies. We will always [2:15:02] determine a way to create multiple simultaneous dilemmas for adversaries around the world in [2:15:09] order to create time for us to do the work that the Congress and the department needs to do together. [2:15:14] As you've heard me say a number of times in our posture hearings on armed services and also in [2:15:20] classified briefings, we don't have a lot of time, do we, sir? No, ma'am. That's why I said if not now, [2:15:28] then when, and if not us, then who. And I truly believe we're at one of those moments in history [2:15:34] where we have a choice to make, just given what I see on the next couple ridge lines. [2:15:40] And I encourage us to move forward. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, how would this request scale munitions [2:15:48] production and be able to accelerate our delivery times? In the past, previous administrations would [2:15:54] sort of send the same amount of dollars into trying to encourage companies to build another factory and [2:16:00] add an additional shift. What this munition request does is fulfills deals that our department have [2:16:05] cut with these companies. First, multi-year procurement, where these companies that make SM3s or [2:16:11] Patriots or Thads or Tomahawks. That was a priority for our NDAA a couple years ago. Absolutely. And you have [2:16:18] provided that authority, multi-year procurement. And now those companies are spending four billion dollars, [2:16:23] five billion dollars, three billion dollars on building their own new factories that then produce [2:16:29] 2x, 3x, or 4x the amount of munitions than they did in the past, and they paid for it. So actually, in this [2:16:35] budget, which is 21 billion, as you mentioned, it saves 18 billion over the FIDIP on munitions because [2:16:42] we're buying munitions at today's cost and not at five or seven years from now when we will also get them. [2:16:48] I hate to interrupt, but we're running out of time. We also have the the request includes 4.1 billion [2:16:55] for our space-based capabilities. And that includes the AMTI and our space data [2:17:02] network capabilities. And these really underpin the long-range kill chains and allow our warfighters to [2:17:09] detect and also then to attract to track the airborne threats. So, Mr. Secretary, what's the risk to the [2:17:16] joint force if we delay these programs until FY28 or beyond? Senator, not being able to see, not [2:17:25] being able to sense before an adversary is able to engage one of our capabilities, which means falling [2:17:30] behind in the domain of space, which means falling behind at every other domain. Great, thank you. And [2:17:35] General Cain, do you have anything to add on that about why Congress can't wait? I think you make [2:17:41] such an excellent case on that. No, ma'am, I'll stick with the words that I offered. Secretary [2:17:49] Rollins, thank you for your focus on year-round sale of V15 for taking care of the horrible disasters [2:17:56] we've had in Nebraska. We appreciate you coming out. And I have a couple things more, of course, [2:18:02] that I want to bring to your attention. But thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Van [2:18:07] Holland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Rollins, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland [2:18:16] is one of the crown jewels of agriculture research in the United States. And my question is simple. Can [2:18:22] we find some time to get together in the coming weeks to discuss the situation there? Absolutely, yes. [2:18:29] Thank you, Madam Secretary. Yes. Let me let me turn to the the Iran war. We recently lost three [2:18:36] American heroes. That brings the death toll for American soldiers to 18. One is still missing. [2:18:45] Hundreds have been injured. That's on top of the civilian death toll throughout the region that now [2:18:50] stands at several thousand, including the over 150 people killed in the bombing of an elementary school [2:18:57] in Midnaab in Iran. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Gas prices today in the United States [2:19:05] again spiked above four dollars a gallon. And that will also continue to push up costs for groceries and [2:19:12] other things that the families buy. Secretary Hexth, you said in your opening statement, the best way to [2:19:19] ensure peace is to prepare for war. And I agree with you about deterrence. I would also submit that the best [2:19:26] way to ensure peace is not to start wars, because wars are a lot easier to start than they are to end. [2:19:34] General Cain, I heard your testimony saying Iran will continue to be a challenge. And I think it's [2:19:40] pretty clear that that is, in fact, the case. And General, in order for you to develop a military [2:19:51] strategy to accomplish a particular objective, you obviously need to know what those objectives are, [2:19:57] right? Yes, sir. It all it all starts with what what is the political objective? And from that, [2:20:08] we derive military objectives that support whatever that ends. And as you say, that is a political [2:20:14] objective. Yes, sir. So, Mr. Secretary, you've talked a lot about winning. You've talked about [2:20:21] winning in your testimony today. You've talked about winning throughout the Iran war. And we all like [2:20:26] winning. But I think the American people to deserve a definition of what it means to win in Iran, because [2:20:39] this war has dragged out for a lot longer than certainly the president of the United States [2:20:44] indicated. Indeed, the president said on March 24th, and I'm quoting, we've won this war. This war [2:20:54] has been won. Do you know what the president meant by that back in March? Well, Senator, [2:21:00] I would just note that militarily, I mean, Iran has been completely overmatched and crushed from the [2:21:06] beginning, militarily. Their capabilities are nowhere near ours. I would take issue with with your [2:21:11] characterization that we didn't start that we started this war. Iran started this war 47 years [2:21:16] ago, and they've killed the secretary thousands of Americans, including our brothers on the battlefield [2:21:20] in Iraq. With all with Iran has been targeting us back for a long time. Mr. Secretary, [2:21:24] Secretary, we didn't start. Let me let me just ask you this, since you said that what the president [2:21:30] meant by his statement on March 24th, I think that we had sort of defeated Iran militarily. But that is [2:21:39] not the entire objective of this war. I don't think there was ever a question about whether the United [2:21:45] States with its superior military could destroy a lot of Iranian assets, military assets or other assets. [2:21:55] That was never a question. But when most people think of winning the war, they think that that means [2:22:02] the war is going to come to an end because we've won. And the president said back in March that we'd won. [2:22:08] So I guess my question to you is, how are we going to define winning? I hear back in March, [2:22:18] you said about the Iranians, and I quote, whether they will have a ceremony in Tehran Square and surrender, [2:22:26] that's up to them. So my question, Mr. Secretary, reopening the Strait of Hormuz is necessary in order for [2:22:34] us to win, right? That's just a simple yes or no question. [2:22:37] You asked me what the overarching objective is, and I would say ensuring Iran never has a nuclear [2:22:41] weapon. That's been clear from the president from day one. That's why Midnight Hammer was undertaken to [2:22:46] obliterate their nuclear sites. That's why we're watching their nuclear sites. That's why that was a part of [2:22:50] negotiations, ensuring that the next generation of Americans don't have to deal with Iran that wields a [2:22:56] nuclear weapon. Since that's what you're leading with, Mr. Secretary, let me just say this. You said [2:23:02] after Midnight Hammer, and I'm quoting, our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create [2:23:08] nuclear weapons, unquote. Clearly that is not the case based on your testimony today. It's also a fact [2:23:16] that the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in front of the Intelligence Committee that it was our assessment [2:23:21] that Iran did not intend to restart its nuclear program. The president of the United States just [2:23:27] about a week ago said Iran has committed not to develop a nuclear weapon, which, of course, [2:23:32] is a commitment they've made for many years. We need to enforce that. That's what we are doing [2:23:36] under the JCPOA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Browns. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:23:47] I had the opportunity to serve as governor of South Dakota for eight years. During that time, [2:23:56] we deployed over 5,000 young men and women into harm's way, National Guard members from South Dakota. [2:24:04] I attended their departure ceremonies. I attended their welcome home ceremonies, [2:24:14] and I attended 31 funerals. One of the main reasons that I decided to come to Washington was because I [2:24:28] never wanted to see young men and women going into harm's way again if they didn't have the best [2:24:35] leadership, the best training, and the best equipment possible. Now, this body, the Senate, [2:24:47] with regard to the Iranian war, to date this body has chosen not to impose war power limitations [2:24:56] on the president, nor have we pushed for the withdrawal of forces from the theater. [2:25:03] I think the decision to take out Iran's nuclear program and their missile production capacity was [2:25:11] the right one, and it should have been done a long time ago. But when the president did that, [2:25:20] we also assumed that there would be risk involved. And when you put young men and women in harm's way, [2:25:27] you want to do everything you can to make sure that you get in, you get the job done, and you get out. [2:25:32] I think that's what we talk about. Now, today, it has been since February that we now have the Iranians [2:25:41] that are shooting back. We haven't finished the job. I think the question that the American people [2:25:47] have is when the difficult decision comes, because I don't think diplomacy is necessarily working, [2:25:54] and I think most people would say we've got more issues in front of us before this is complete. [2:26:01] For General Cain, when the time comes and the president is asking for the decisions about the [2:26:10] options available to him to appropriately end this war, favorable to the United States, [2:26:17] and to take care of this problem permanently, are you prepared to provide him with the appropriate [2:26:25] options that he is going to have to make a decision to choose from? [2:26:30] Sir, I always provide the president with appropriate options and risks that he can choose from. [2:26:36] And those options that he will have to choose from will cost money, and that's our role here, [2:26:43] because if we don't do it right, young men and women die. The question to you, sir, is this. [2:26:51] You've offered a supplemental request, and I recognize that it's part of a 1.5 trillion overall, [2:26:58] but is this enough money to get the job done, or is this going to just get us far enough until we've [2:27:03] got to come back in here, and in the meantime, we may very well not have these young men and women out of [2:27:09] harm's way yet. That's my question. [2:27:11] Sir, I want to first start with recognizing your 31 fallen from home and mourn their losses. [2:27:19] We carefully consider the use of military force every single day, and the most important thing [2:27:25] that I do is make sure that the president and the other leaders understand the risks and carefully [2:27:30] consider the Dover test, the place you've been many times, and that is, are we willing to go to Dover, [2:27:35] as we will tomorrow, to bring back the fallen. I can't answer the question on what it will cost, [2:27:41] because the enemy has a vote. What I'll commit to you as this plays out, we'll make sure that the [2:27:47] Congress is informed, but because I'm not quite sure how this is going to play out yet, it would be [2:27:52] unwise for me to comment on what a future cost may or may not be, depending on what they choose. [2:27:58] In general, you will provide a plan to Congress, at whatever the appropriate classification level is, [2:28:06] on what resources are required to execute what the president's intent will be to successfully end [2:28:13] this conflict. Sir, I will always make sure that, as we have to, that we're moving data as appropriate [2:28:20] to Congress. Yes, sir. Let me come back in just in terms of follow-up on this a little bit. [2:28:26] Some have criticized Operation Epic Fury for expending many of our munitions stockpiles. [2:28:33] Were our munitions, the inventories of those munitions, and the capacity of our munitions [2:28:40] industrial base sufficient for great power competition with near-peer adversaries like China, [2:28:46] prior to Operation Epic Fury? Secretary Hegseth? Senator, as I laid out, because of the previous [2:28:53] administration, short funding shortfalls, munitions transferred to Ukraine and not replaced, [2:28:59] and then ignoring threats, it built a lot of risk that required, that requires this kind of [2:29:04] investment. So you look at the 67 billion alongside the remainder for 1.5, that's the kind of [2:29:10] generational investment that not just matches peer adversaries near, but far surpasses them, [2:29:15] which I think is your expectation, having been to those ceremonies, which is mine, having been to them [2:29:20] and going to them, is that we give everything possible to the warfighter that they deserve. Senator [2:29:25] Heimrich. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. General Kane, our military is [2:29:33] the best in the world, and so I don't think any of us should be surprised with the technical execution [2:29:40] of its attacks on the Iranian regime's forces. They've been flawless. What I don't want us to confuse [2:29:49] is flawless technical execution with long-term strategic success. And I think one objective [2:29:57] that is relatively modest, because it puts us back to where we were when we started this, but nonetheless [2:30:03] is incredibly important as a critical objective, is that I want to see the strait open again, and I want [2:30:10] to see it open where shippers can transit that strait without being extorted by Iran. And I would love to see [2:30:18] that before our commercial and other oil reserves are exhausted because of the impacts that that will [2:30:26] then have on the pocketbooks of American families. Is that a reasonable objective? And is one, is it one [2:30:33] that you share? Sir, I'll defer on the military objectives to the political leaders who set them. [2:30:42] What I can tell you is U.S. Central Command is working hard to ensure that Iran cannot terrorize the [2:30:50] southern flank down there, and they're doing so every single day and night. And you and the rest of [2:30:56] the Senate would be proud of the actions and activities for the forces that are down there. The [2:31:01] character of war is changing, though, like I said in my opening statement. And so there's a variety of mixed [2:31:07] of munitions that are down there coming at the commercial traffic. But I would like to be clear [2:31:12] and unambiguous with you and the rest of the Senate and the Iranian forces. They have a choice to make, [2:31:19] and they should knock it off. I have no doubt I would be incredibly proud of the actions of our [2:31:26] service members in this conflict. And I hope we can achieve that kind of strategic objection on the [2:31:33] timeline that obviously avoids the worst impacts of the limitations of commercial oil supplies right now. [2:31:44] Secretary Rollins, I want to shift gears. One of the things that you mentioned in your opening statement [2:31:50] that we appear to agree on is that there is simply too much consolidation in a number of agricultural [2:31:57] sectors. You mentioned fertilizer and seeds, but in particular I want to talk about the meatpacking [2:32:03] industry because in a previous Trump administration bailout about 90 million dollars went to the [2:32:09] corrupt Brazilian meatpacker JBS. I think that Congress really intended those funds to go to American [2:32:17] ranchers. So I want to ask you what are you going to do this time around to ensure that the proposed [2:32:24] relief dollars that we're talking about today, that those funds go to American producers instead of to [2:32:30] the very foreign corporations who have created the business model where ranchers bear the risk and [2:32:36] meatpackers reap the profits. Well that's right, and we're obviously at a 75-year herd low. There are [2:32:43] a lot of reasons for that, but I'm working to solve for that. Number one, the Department of Justice is [2:32:48] investigating right now significantly the four, but especially the two foreign-owned. Number two, USDA is [2:32:54] investing significant funds in deconsolidating packing and supporting mid-size and smaller [2:33:01] packers around the country. I know that wasn't your question, but just to answer the bigger question, [2:33:06] which is a really important one. But from my perspective, what the Trump USDA 2.0 has been [2:33:13] hyper-focused on small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers. We have worked really hard on the 40 billion [2:33:19] that has already moved through to make sure that that goes to where it is intended, which is not [2:33:24] multinational foreign agricultural corporations. I very much support the efforts of the Department [2:33:31] of Justice. I think there is a very important antitrust case to be made here. At the same time, [2:33:39] I've watched as your department has rescinded three important rules that were put in place to protect [2:33:46] farmers and ranchers from unfair practices by the large meat packers. Those rules were supported by [2:33:52] the American Farm Bureau and the National Farmers Union. Explain that discrepancy to me. Which rules? [2:34:00] I'm not tracking. The Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Rule, the Transparency and Poultry [2:34:05] Grower Contracting and Tournaments Rule, and the Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement [2:34:11] Systems Rules. The packers and stockyards, I think, is what you're talking about. So we are [2:34:16] executing an additional review on that. I think that the point is very well made, that sometimes that [2:34:22] inures to the benefit of the larger corporations. As I have begun to make a larger case and a more [2:34:30] vigorous case in the importance of deconsolidation, we'll be taking a second look at that. And I would [2:34:35] love your input. And I would very much support deconsolidation. Thank you. Senator Huston. [2:34:41] Thank you, Chair Collins. Thank you all for being here today. In my brief time in the Senate, I've [2:34:49] learned that we're really good at embracing our oversight role, but oftentimes there are many people [2:34:55] who don't want to do their jobs in terms of funding the government on time and actually doing [2:35:02] the work that we're supposed to do as appropriators. And I'm not for blank checks. I believe everybody [2:35:09] should be accountable, but I also believe we should do our job. And now we have a supplemental funding [2:35:16] request that we're discussing today. We're waiting on getting an NDAA done. Despite the Chair's best [2:35:24] efforts to facilitate forward and appropriations process, there's a question of whether that will [2:35:29] get done on time in September. And my question, I'll start with you, Secretary Hegseth, just to talk a [2:35:38] little bit about what the consequences of failure, what this really means to not do this on time. [2:35:43] Because I've talked to defense contractors. As a former executive, a member of an executive branch, [2:35:50] I know that the legislative branch often thinks, well, no matter when we get this done, we just [2:35:56] wave a magic wand, we pass the bill and it all magically happens. But that's not how it happens. [2:36:01] It takes time for people to, you have businesses out there who you're going to rely on to build these [2:36:06] weapons systems who don't know if they're going to get paid. They can't plan, they can't staff up, [2:36:12] they can't order the equipment, they can't do any of these things unless they know that the money's [2:36:17] actually coming. So what are the consequences of not just doing this, but doing it on time in a timely [2:36:22] manner? Senator, thank you. I think the consequences of dysfunction in funding this department [2:36:28] put at risk, I think, a first time in 25, 30 year reform effort to change how we do business [2:36:36] as a department. We're going to war with the Pentagon bureaucracy because the bureaucracy existed to [2:36:41] defend just a few systems and processes and companies. We need all of American industry [2:36:48] coming into our department. And if you talk to industry, they've never seen anything like what [2:36:52] our deputy secretary and our department are doing right now to run fast at speed. But it counts on [2:36:58] this body and others funding this department in a way that can fulfill the deals that we're cutting, [2:37:02] that saves the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars and gets weapons to warfighters years and years [2:37:08] faster than we ever have in the past. So without the funding, we put at issue all those deals, [2:37:13] all the reforms, all the ways in which we're changing our department to move at the speed of [2:37:17] business. So it's not just dollars and cents, it's demand, it's predictability, it's showing industry, [2:37:24] we will meet you at this moment. And if we can't get past our dysfunction to fund the warfighter, [2:37:28] we put a lot of that at issue. General Kane, same question from a military point of view, [2:37:35] not knowing if, when the funding is going to come, and us not doing our job on time, [2:37:42] what are the consequences to the warfighter? Sir, I'll just add to the secretary's comments, [2:37:47] you know, it'll manifest itself in a range of ways, readiness, capability, munitions, training, [2:37:56] cyber, unmanned autonomy. This is why I'm really asking for the Congress's help here, [2:38:03] for us to look forward at the next couple ridge lines and to be thoughtful about the moves that [2:38:10] we make here. And I understand the environment that we're operating in right now. But whatever [2:38:16] structure the legislature and the executive branch determine, we need predictable capital, [2:38:24] my investor hat on from my previous life, so that we can go out and procure the capabilities that we [2:38:30] need before we need them. And those things are changing. You know, the advancement of small [2:38:37] drones and things like that, we're going to have to make sure that we stay very close with the Congress, [2:38:42] so that as technology develops at a speed that we haven't seen before, that we're staying very [2:38:48] close and partnering with the Congress to enable us to adaptively use that capital [2:38:53] with the appropriators buy-in, so that we're arming the force properly. [2:38:57] Well, I can tell you in interacting with the people who want to build these new generation of [2:39:04] weapons systems, because I think you would agree that we've learned a lot from Ukraine. We've learned [2:39:09] a lot from this conflict about how we were underprepared from the standpoint and from a defense [2:39:17] standpoint. And that we have to continue to modernize our system, the weapons systems. I think it's very [2:39:23] important that we not only do our job, but we do it on time, because you cannot run a Department of [2:39:32] Defense, run businesses who are supplying these things without knowing if you're actually going [2:39:37] to get funded. The whole supply chain, the workforce, everything gets held up when we don't get our jobs [2:39:43] done on time. Yes, sir. I used to work in the private sector for a company that was headquartered in [2:39:48] PICWA, Ohio. And those leaders told me, your entire JOB, Dan Kane, is to deliver quality parts, or in this [2:39:56] case, weapons, on time with shorter lead times and lower costs. And part of why I'm so passionate about this [2:40:02] is because I see how this capital, if the Congress chooses to give it to us, will manifest itself in real [2:40:09] combat capability, lethality, and survivability for our joint force. Thank you. And thank you, Secretary Rollins, for [2:40:17] coming to Ohio and meeting with all of our ag leaders. It was great. Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:40:21] Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary Hegseth, you're requesting billions of [2:40:29] dollars in supplemental funding for a war that you said would last for weeks, and that the President [2:40:34] has no plan or ability to end. At the same time, this still unauthorized and extremely unpopular war [2:40:43] has caused gas, diesel, fertilizer, and other essentials that New Yorkers and our farmers need [2:40:51] across the country, and has become much more expensive. So how do I go back to New York, [2:40:59] and what would you say to them, who are seeing their health care bills rise because massive cuts to [2:41:06] Medicaid, they've seen their grocery and gas bills rise, and this unpopular and unauthorized war abroad is a [2:41:15] higher priority to this administration than their ability to feed their families and provide health [2:41:21] care to their loved ones who are sick? Well, Senator, you're talking about political trade-offs, [2:41:28] and our job is to deliver for the United States military and the President of the United States, [2:41:32] and we look at the cost of a nuclear Iran, and we want to prevent that for future generations, [2:41:37] and that requires funding and supplementals and this budget and next generation capabilities, [2:41:41] and that's why we're here today to request some of that to ensure we can ensure that Iran never gets a [2:41:46] nuclear weapon. So you're essentially saying, you're asking for literally 1.5 trillion dollars for a [2:41:52] war that President Trump said he already won. You're asking for 1.5 trillion dollars, unlimited money [2:41:58] for bombs, but insufficient money in the American, for the American people for their health care, [2:42:04] their food, their housing, and our farmers, Secretary Rollins, who we have cut SNAP program, [2:42:12] we are not funding the losses from emergencies that have happened in blue states, particularly [2:42:20] when we had frost. That's not true. False. That's not true. False. You're not funding it. But back to you, [2:42:24] Secretary Hegseth. And I would like to respond to the fertilizer and the gas. You continue to have your [2:42:28] chance, Secretary Hegseth. There's no reason to be rude. You are asking for unlimited money for bombs [2:42:35] when people can't feed their families, and I don't know how this administration intends to defend those [2:42:40] decisions to the American people. Not unlimited bombs, Senator. I'm asking for the right bombs at the [2:42:46] right time to ensure we can deter our adversaries into the future, and that's why this is a [2:42:50] generational investment, and it was the previous administration that didn't fund this department. [2:42:54] Secretary Hegseth. The reason why they are so upset with you and this administration is because the words [2:43:00] you have used in the past don't add up about Iran specifically. You said that we had obliterated [2:43:07] Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons. The president made the same claim. Yet eight months [2:43:13] later, in February of 2026, the president launched an act of war claiming Iran was within two weeks [2:43:19] of having a weapon. So when you say two very different things, the American people don't [2:43:24] know who to believe or what to believe. They just know they can't afford their health care, [2:43:28] they can't afford their food, they can't afford housing, and our farmers are continuing to suffer. [2:43:33] So, which is true, was it obliterated or wasn't it? What's the status? The nuclear sites under [2:43:40] Midnight Hammer were obliterated, but Iranians foolishly continued to attempt to pursue nuclear [2:43:46] capabilities, which is why we destroyed their defense industrial base and so many of the other [2:43:50] capabilities to ensure they can't get to a nuclear weapon. See, we're staying laser focused on the [2:43:55] objective, and you're trying to make campaign commercials. No, we're not. And that's fine. [2:43:58] So listen to this. You also say that you made the missile program, quote, destroyed and made combat [2:44:05] ineffective, quote, Iran's entire ballistic missile production capacity. Every company that builds [2:44:11] every component of those missiles has been functionally defeated and destroyed, and that [2:44:15] the missile program existing stockpiles were depleted and decimated almost completely ineffective. [2:44:20] So why are there missiles left to hit Jordan and result in the loss of life of our brave men and women? [2:44:27] As we stated from the beginning, the Iranian defense industrial base is effectively gone, [2:44:32] but they do have underground facilities facilities because they're the world's leading state sponsor [2:44:36] of terrorism, and they've spent 47 years trying to hide their missiles under mountains, [2:44:40] just like their nuclear capabilities, because they would like to get a nuclear weapon to wield it [2:44:45] against us. You just don't know what version of the war to believe, because it's either over or it's not [2:44:49] over. It's within two weeks or it's not two weeks. We have no missiles or we have missiles. And that [2:44:54] consternation is why so many New Yorkers are perplexed, stressed out, and find this war to [2:45:01] be incredibly unpopular, because they don't understand the choices that the president's making. [2:45:05] They don't agree with those choices. Secretary Rollins, so you have cut over 160,000 New Yorkers [2:45:13] have been kicked off SNAP. What do you have against hardworking New Yorkers, children who need SNAP, [2:45:18] and seniors who need SNAP? Well, first of all, diesel is down under Biden versus today, [2:45:23] 581 versus 480. Gas is down from Biden today from 484 to 386 today. Fertilizer is down 56 percent [2:45:33] from Biden highs. Prices are higher than when you took office. All of those prices are higher than [2:45:39] when you took office. So you are not making life better for New York farmers. That is not true, [2:45:42] Senator. And let me tell you what New York is stressed out about is the fact that your state [2:45:46] is taking prime farmland and turning it into a solar farms. That is absolutely inexcusable. [2:45:54] I have visited the New York farmers two times, two times in upstate New York. Senator Bozeman. [2:46:04] Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And thank all of you all for your service to our country and our [2:46:10] national security. And I think it's easy for the public to understand how you, Mr. Hagseth, [2:46:19] are, you know, your contribution and the position you're in in general, kind of the position you're [2:46:25] in. But some don't understand the position that our Secretary of Agriculture is in. I gave a presentation [2:46:34] a couple of years ago when Senator Rubio, then Senator Rubio was over here in the middle of it. I was [2:46:39] talking about agriculture. He punched me and said, John, I always tell them that food security is [2:46:44] national security. Now Senator Cotton, who's head of the Intelligence Committee now, has taken his [2:46:50] place. He's doing the same thing. So again, what we're talking about today is very, very important to [2:46:56] our country. Right now, we're in a generational crisis. Our banks, our economists tell us that if we [2:47:06] don't start doing things differently, and the good news is the administration is doing things differently, [2:47:13] is doing things differently. We're going to lose 20, 25 percent of our farmers in the next two or three [2:47:19] years. This is almost daily with farmers about the difficult farm economy, wildfires, flooding, [2:47:28] all the things we've talked about today. My only concern is, is that the supplemental is very much [2:47:34] appreciated. After hearing the testimony today and the concerns, we might need to look at bumping that [2:47:42] up a little bit. But again, that's, we'll discuss that later. The supplemental though, the supplemental [2:47:51] assistance is important in keeping our farmers going, but it's not the answer. Will you just reiterate [2:47:58] again what we're trying to do? We're trying to give farmers a bump, an edge to keep going until the [2:48:06] programs that we're putting in place now kick in. You mentioned fertilizer, you mentioned E15, [2:48:12] you mentioned value-adding our products, both overseas, finding new markets. Can you talk a little [2:48:18] bit about that, the importance of not only the supplemental, but again, what we're doing in [2:48:23] conjunction with that so we won't have supplementals in the future? That's exactly right. The effort to [2:48:29] bring the cost of inputs down is real. Fertilizer, seed, labor, interest rates, etc., number one. And [2:48:38] if we can just get inputs back down to where they were in Trump one, we're going to have a remarkable [2:48:43] recovery in farm company country. But then you add that to the 19 new trade deals, more coming online [2:48:50] every day, the record-breaking exports that we're going to see in a lot of our row crops, but also in [2:48:56] dairy and tree nuts and others, that's going to be a game changer. Then you look at expanding the [2:49:00] domestic market as you talk about whether E15, obviously all of the biofuels. We've already seen corn [2:49:07] and wheat hit record highs or of the highest number for the year after announcing the new renewable fuel [2:49:13] standard. So we're seeing some pretty incredible movement in the right direction. Then you marry that [2:49:18] to all of your work under the Working Families Tax Cut Act, the new reference prices that under the last [2:49:23] administration couldn't get a farm bill. You all did that with the president's leadership. The first [2:49:28] time we're going to increase reference prices in more than a decade combined with a 250 billion [2:49:34] investment in rural America, the largest investment in rural America in American history. This Congress [2:49:41] did that with the White House's leadership. All of that together is going to change the trajectory for the [2:49:48] long term of farming and ranching in America. But to get to that point, that's why the supplemental is so [2:49:54] very, very important. Madam Secretary, I have a letter from Farm Bureau that I want to put into the record [2:50:00] that just outlines requesting relief to sustain America's farmers and ranchers. Secretary Hegseth, [2:50:11] Secretary of State, General Koehn, General Koehn, one of the things that we're concerned about is that in the [2:50:20] military construction aspect of things, we're really not asking for that in the supplemental. I know that the [2:50:30] success of Operation Epic Fury, particularly for our missile interceptors and short-range aircraft, really [2:50:38] basing was a large part of that. Can you tell us how we can help you again try and plus up our military [2:50:47] construction in some way so that we're not going to be faced with this in the future, you know, trying to [2:50:54] double up? Senator, I think by Congress finding the ability to meet up to close to the totality of 1.5 trillion [2:51:03] means we're not making the kind of trade-offs this department has made now for decades. Those are the types of [2:51:08] things, construction, maintenance that fall off when trade-offs occur, and so you dig the hole even [2:51:13] deeper. And what this budget does, first of all, it fully funds the upper list, which is the unfunded [2:51:18] priority list of PACOM, a priority theater, and then it gets at every single substandard barrack that we [2:51:24] have across the department. So we're funding the military construction in a way that we've never done [2:51:29] before to get out of the hole that we've had for a while. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair. [2:51:33] Thank you, Senator Bozeman. To the very patient Senator Baldwin. [2:51:40] Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Vice Chair. And thank you for appearing before our committee today. [2:51:52] To many I represent and to me, this supplemental request is another example of this administration's [2:52:01] misplaced priorities. Instead of spending tens of billion dollars more for this president's war [2:52:10] of choice in Iran, that both houses of Congress, I may add, have voted to end absent explicit authorization [2:52:20] by Congress. We should be focusing on the needs of American families. We could invest this money to [2:52:28] accelerate new cures and treatments for cancer and Alzheimer's. We could use it to help more families [2:52:34] with rising home energy costs. We could use this funding to help more families afford quality [2:52:41] child care. We could use this funding to help more kids get free school lunch. We could use this funding [2:52:49] to restore health care for working families. We could use this funding to support our public schools and [2:52:56] special education. This is a war of choice. And every dollar spent on this war is a dollar not spent [2:53:07] helping families afford housing, health care, groceries, child care at home, investing in the opportunities [2:53:15] for the American people. First, I want to express my condolences and my respect for the 17 American [2:53:26] service members killed in this war since February, including three over the past few days. Their lives are the price [2:53:36] this country has paid for this war. The deadliest day for U.S. forces was on March 1st, when an Iranian drone [2:53:48] struck an army facility at Port Shweiba, Kuwait, killing six soldiers and injuring more than 30 others, including [2:53:58] soldiers from Wisconsin. Soldiers from the units stationed at Port Shweiba told reporters that the [2:54:06] facility did not have adequate air defense capabilities. These soldiers and their families [2:54:15] believe they were sent into harm's way without the defenses they needed. Secretary Hegseth, what would [2:54:23] you say to those soldiers and their families? First of all, that we honor and recognize their sacrifice and what [2:54:30] they've given. I've been in touch with at least one of those families on a regular basis and understand [2:54:35] the pain of losing a loved one is unfathomable, which is why we greeted them at Dover and we'll greet [2:54:41] those again tomorrow. I would say in talking to Admiral Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, before all of this [2:54:47] was undertaken, maximizing defensive capabilities, mostly by moving as many people as possible off the [2:54:53] X, which we did in historic fashion, moving almost 90 percent of Americans in theaters off of where they could be a [2:54:59] target. First of all, bunkers that they would move into early morning. And I will quote from the Washington [2:55:06] Post article of July 12th, Shweiba, this is a quote, Shweiba did not have any of the systems that would [2:55:13] take down the one-way attacks had drones and initial security assessments found that the base was not [2:55:22] adequately protected, end quote. Soldiers at Port Shweiba have also been quoted in news reports saying that [2:55:30] requests for additional medical and drone defense systems were denied prior to the conflict with [2:55:37] Iran beginning. Why were those requests denied, Secretary Hegseth? I would I would confer with [2:55:43] Admiral Cooper, but there were not a single drone or defense request denied at any level that I'm aware [2:55:49] of. We did everything we could to move heaven and earth in every single location to protect every single [2:55:54] American. July 12th, Washington Post also quoted a soldier saying that the unit's request for an [2:56:01] Eagles drone defense system was denied because of lack of assets. That's an end quote. U.S. Army Central has [2:56:11] conducted an investigation into that attack. Do you commit to releasing the findings of that [2:56:17] investigation publicly, yes or no? We'll get you the status of that. I would argue if it was a resource [2:56:24] constraint, that's precisely why we're having this hearing today, to speed up systems to the [2:56:28] battlefield to warfighters as fast as humanly possible. It's been too slow in the past. It needs [2:56:33] to be faster. The reforms were undertaking to do that. Can you commit to releasing the findings of that [2:56:36] investigation publicly, yes or no? I will work with Admiral Cooper to make sure it's handled properly. [2:56:41] Yes, Senator. Thank you. Secretary Hegseth, I traveled to Walter Reed Military Hospital and [2:56:49] met with soldiers who were injured in that attack. What they told me confirmed what other soldiers have [2:56:57] said publicly, that most of these soldiers injured in the attack did not receive proper medical care [2:57:03] in Kuwait, in Germany, or during their initial days back in the U.S. The U.S. military has been fighting [2:57:11] wars in the Middle East for 25 years. Why was proper medical care not immediately available to these [2:57:19] injured soldiers, and why were they not immediately screened for traumatic brain injuries? I'm not taking [2:57:28] issue with the characterization of individual soldiers, but I would argue that every effort was made to [2:57:33] provide every level of medical care possible, understanding how CENTCOM operates. The Senator's time [2:57:38] has expired, and there is a vote on Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being [2:57:45] here. Thank you for service. I want to begin because the last time that I saw you, Secretary Hegseth and [2:57:50] General Kane, was at the Pentagon when you honored Andrew Wolf, who was attacked in here in D.C. in November, [2:58:00] and then the honor that you have given to Sarah Beckstrom and her family who lost her life that day as well. [2:58:06] I think that I know that you've been in constant contact with Andrew and his family, and you also know that the [2:58:13] great faith that they have in the Lord above is what's really brought them to the point where they are now, [2:58:19] so let's keep them all in his prayer. I am interested in Senator Baldwin's question because I do have a soldier [2:58:25] from West Virginia who is making a very similar complaint, so whatever follow-up we can do, I would like to do that. [2:58:31] I'd also like to recognize the three most recent service members that we lost because we talk about [2:58:37] them as service members and soldiers, but I haven't heard them say their name, and they're so young. [2:58:42] First Lieutenant Tyler James Freehand, Private Isabella Gonzalez, and Sergeant Michael Swinton. You will be, [2:58:50] I guess, greeting their families and, unfortunately, their caskets as they come forward tomorrow. [2:58:59] So my question is, we've heard a lot about why we shouldn't be voting for this supplemental or questions [2:59:08] as to is that really necessary or why. I guess my question, General Kane, is what's the consequence of [2:59:15] not passing this supplemental? Where do you see that hitting us most deeply? [2:59:21] Yes, ma'am. It will manifest itself in a few different places. Most significantly, it'll be in military [2:59:29] personnel related matters. We'll figure out how to pay soldiers and sailors, but that would be a strain. [2:59:36] Operations and maintenance costs, and then the ability for the department to take some of this capital and wisely [2:59:43] invest it in future combat capability and things like AI, UAS, counter-UAS, hypersonics, and space. [2:59:50] So not only would it hit us today, but it could hit us tomorrow as well. [2:59:54] Yes, ma'am. I actually view this as forward-looking. As we look at the future picture and the various risks [3:00:03] that we're facing, the supplemental and the budget, frankly, help to ensure that we are properly arming [3:00:10] the joint force for the myriad of potential contingencies that we face in the future. [3:00:15] Thank you. So as we look at one of the, I think, best successes under your all's leadership [3:00:22] at the Department of War has been the fulfillment of the recruitment in every branch. I remember last [3:00:30] year, I think, or maybe the year before, only the Marines could brag that they had made their records. [3:00:35] And now I think that many, many, the other branches are, you're far exceeding what has previously done. [3:00:42] So that tells me that American young men and women want to serve their country. They want to be safe. [3:00:49] They want to do the right thing. So how does not funding them, and if they think that, [3:00:56] if they think that their salaries may be short, or we're going to have a continuing resolution, [3:01:00] or we're going to shut down the government, how can this chill what has been one of the greatest [3:01:05] successes, I think, in terms of not just today's force, but the force of the future? And Mr. Secretary, [3:01:10] I'll ask you to answer that question. Well, you know, in a brass tax sense, this $1.5 trillion budget [3:01:16] in its totality sees a 7% pay raise for junior enlisted, 6% for your NCOs and junior officers, [3:01:25] and 5% for senior officers. So it's significant reflection of the value we place on top of the [3:01:30] other increases that Congress has provided them. If we were to have to, and we're going to do right by [3:01:35] the troops, we're going to make sure they get paid, but it's going to put strains on training and [3:01:39] readiness and all the other aspects of O&M over time, which makes its way down to the unit level. [3:01:45] When you're saying we're focused on training and readiness and lethality, but we have to cut back [3:01:50] on training because Congress can't get the money we need to the department, that's discouraging at [3:01:55] every single level. And when young men and women join this war department, we want them moving [3:02:01] immediately into the training pipeline at the highest possible level with the best possible equipment, [3:02:05] and they've seen that thus far, and that's led to historic recruiting momentum. We need to keep that [3:02:12] momentum. Yeah, and I would say that it could have the reverse effect if this is troubled waters here [3:02:18] and lack of confidence, which we see on the other side of the aisle there, and questions that I think [3:02:25] wouldn't be asked if it were not of a political nature. We're going to chill our recruiting efforts [3:02:30] here for our young people as they look forward to serving their country and becoming that patriot [3:02:35] they want to be. You're right. Or return to the valley under the Biden administration, where not [3:02:39] only did they not meet the goals, but they had to lower the goals and then didn't meet the lowered [3:02:43] goals. And then now we don't have the readiness we need as a force. Thank you very much. Thank you all [3:02:47] very much. Thank you, Secretary of Agriculture. I'll get to you another time. Thank you. Senator Murphy. [3:02:54] Thank you all for being here today. Secretary Hegseth, the American people either didn't want this war [3:03:01] from the start or were deeply skeptical of this war because they have seen this country make the same [3:03:07] mistake over and over again in wars in the Middle East, and that is to create either unrealistic or open [3:03:13] and ended objectives. You said in March that the United States was, quote, on plan to defeat, [3:03:20] destroy and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capabilities at a pace that would that we have the [3:03:26] world has never seen before. Obviously, as we've discussed here today, that objective has not been [3:03:33] achieved and is not going to be achieved. Iran is adept, more adept than even at the start of the war [3:03:41] at hiding their capabilities or repairing after damage we have done. There's an open report that [3:03:50] when it comes to their missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, 30 of 33 are still operational. [3:03:56] I wouldn't believe all the open reports, Senator. But I've also heard you say in this [3:04:00] hearing that the objectives now seem to be more limited than they were at the outset of the war, [3:04:07] that this is about reopening the Strait and this is about dismantling their nuclear capability. And the [3:04:13] president, of course, has said himself that he thinks Iran has a right to a missile program. [3:04:19] So my question is pretty simple. Is it correct that it is no longer a war objective to destroy [3:04:28] all of their military capacities? This is what the president has said. Have our goals been simplified [3:04:34] to reopening the Strait and to getting into a negotiation over a nuclear program? Now, I don't [3:04:40] think you have a realistic plan to do either of those things, but I think it's important for us to [3:04:45] know what we're funding. Are the objectives much more limited today than they were when you made that [3:04:50] statement in March? So I think the objectives have been consistent and clear from the beginning. [3:04:55] And I would contrast it to North Korea, where a conventional buildup was used to hide a nuclear [3:05:01] capability that eventually evolved to a point where it couldn't be contested. And what Iran continued [3:05:06] to do, even after Midnight Hammer, was trying to build that conventional capability to dare anyone [3:05:10] to stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons. So getting after their conventional capabilities, [3:05:15] missile launchers, defense industrial base, their navy, was all part of ensuring they can't blackmail us [3:05:20] into pursuing a nuclear capability. Laser focused on Iran will never have a nuclear capability. [3:05:26] That's the promise the president has made and that he will keep in every way. I think it's important. [3:05:30] It is still a war objective, either through military action or through a diplomatic agreement, [3:05:36] to destroy and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capacities, including their missile program. [3:05:44] As far as all, when we talked about that from the podium at the outset of this week, [3:05:49] we were talking about their defense industrial base. And if you look at the metrics of their ability to make [3:05:54] more, that it's been overwhelmingly destroyed. Not everything, but overwhelmingly. Now, do they [3:06:00] have missiles in underground bunkers because they're a terror state? Sure, they do. And we've [3:06:04] acknowledged that from the beginning. But their capacity is less today than it's ever been. [3:06:09] They obviously have significant capacity to effectively disrupt the entirety of the Middle East [3:06:15] and oil flows out of the Middle East. And that's not going to change. Let me ask you one more question. [3:06:19] This is a request for supplemental funding because you don't have the funding in your base budget to [3:06:25] do what you need to do, which makes questions about the base budget relevant. There's been a lot of [3:06:30] attention, Mr. Secretary, on the modernization of a luxury jet that was gifted to the president [3:06:35] by the government of Qatar. Reports suggest that maybe as much as $1 billion in your base funding, [3:06:40] an extraordinary amount of money, has been used for an upgrade. And the plane is back in the shop for a [3:06:46] second upgrade. As far as I can tell, never before has an administration not made public the amount of [3:06:51] money for an upgrade or a construction contract on a presidential airplane. Obviously, we don't need or want [3:06:57] to disclose the details of that upgrade. But never before have you withheld from Congress and the public [3:07:04] the total amount of money. I think there are two really important questions here. One, will you make public [3:07:10] the amount of money that you are spending to upgrade this plane? And two, can you commit to this [3:07:16] Congress and this committee that the president isn't going to take this plane with him when he leaves [3:07:22] office? The only thing more insulting to the taxpayers of spending money on a jet they don't need would be [3:07:28] for the president to take it with him, to take it out of our military inventory when he leaves office. [3:07:34] So the Air Force has done an incredible job making that a capable jet that ultimately, [3:07:42] but its capabilities and investment are classified and shouldn't be talked about. [3:07:46] That's not what I'm asking, will you make the amount of money, will you disclose the amount [3:07:50] of money publicly? I would imagine as part of the regular budget process, that's something that we [3:07:56] would look at. And will you commit that the president will not take this jet? But you have to look at the [3:08:00] classification level of certain things that are not devolved for reasons of national security. Will you commit that [3:08:05] the president will not take this jet with him out of federal inventory when he leaves office? [3:08:11] That's not a decision for necessarily me to make and ultimately we're grateful to have it in the [3:08:15] fleet for the Air Force to protect the president of the United States. That's a deeply unsatisfactory answer to the American public. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Folks, welcome to the hearing today. I apologize. Is Senator [3:08:33] Ossoff still here? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't. I went out of order. Senator Ossoff. I'll yield my time to Senator Ossoff. Thank you. [3:08:44] Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for your testimony. And General Kane, let me just begin by [3:08:50] expressing on behalf of all Georgians our immense gratitude and admiration for the service members [3:08:58] who are making tremendous sacrifices and conducting themselves with extraordinary selflessness and [3:09:03] professionalism on behalf of the United States and our state's unified condolences and grief for the [3:09:10] families of the four killed in action and our hope for a swift recovery for the nearly 100 wounded over [3:09:16] the last two weeks. And thank you to you for your service to the nation. Mr. Hegseth, you're requesting roughly [3:09:24] $68 billion for the department through the supplemental, correct? 67, yes. And yesterday, [3:09:34] your department stated publicly, quote, U.S. forces struck Iranian military command centers, maritime [3:09:41] capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran's ability to [3:09:47] continue attacking commercial vessels. That was a press release from your department. Is that a broadly [3:09:53] accurate characterization of ongoing operations? That sounds broadly accurate, yes. On day 14 of this [3:10:01] conflict, Mr. Secretary, day 14, nearly five months ago, you stated that Iran's military had been, [3:10:07] quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective. That was on day 14 of the war. Was that an accurate [3:10:13] statement? They didn't have a navy any longer. It was completely sunk. Their missiles were buried [3:10:20] underneath a lot of their underground facilities and their defense industrial base has been [3:10:23] almost completely destroyed. So as far as a military assessment of Iran's capabilities, it doesn't [3:10:29] didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination absolute zero, but they're- Mr. Secretary, you stated [3:10:34] that on day 14 of this conflict, in the second week of the conflict, you stated that Iran's military [3:10:41] had been, quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective. Was that an accurate statement? Yes or no? [3:10:48] What the American military has done to the Iranian military- Will you answer the question? [3:11:07] What the American military has done to the Iranian military is a historic military defeat? Will you [3:11:10] answer the question? And they're ineffective in that context? [3:11:12] Mr. Secretary, will you answer the question? Under Oph? Three weeks later, you declared victory. [3:11:17] That was now nearly four months ago. Three weeks after you'd already said Iran's military was [3:11:24] destroyed and combat ineffective, you said, quote, Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming [3:11:30] victory. You said Iran's military had been rendered, quote, combat ineffective for years to come. And you [3:11:37] had 160 naval vessels in the Blue Water Navy and they're gone. You said four months ago. [3:11:57] They had 160 naval vessels in the Blue Water Navy and they're gone. You said four months ago. [3:12:01] You said four months ago. And they don't have a defense industrial base. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. [3:12:04] Describe to me a country that doesn't have an air force, a navy or a defense industrial base. [3:12:08] Mr. Secretary. And I will describe to you a country that does not have an effective [3:12:11] military. Mr. Secretary, you stated- It can lob missiles- [3:12:13] Mr. Secretary, you stated four months ago that Iran's military had been rendered, quote, [3:12:19] combat ineffective for years to come. Has Iran's military been, for the last four months, [3:12:26] combat ineffective? It's been set back not just years, [3:12:29] but likely decades, considering it can't hold at the level it did before and not even close. [3:12:33] You stated- It doesn't mean it doesn't have capabilities. [3:12:35] Mr. Secretary, you stated we had, quote, achieved every single objective. Was that an accurate [3:12:41] statement four months ago? The main objective of this was to ensure [3:12:44] that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Their main sites were obliterated. We're watching over them [3:12:49] and we're holding that issue. If they don't give them up at the table, there's other ways we can take [3:12:53] it away. Mr. Secretary, early in the conflict day three, you said one of those core objectives was [3:13:00] to, quote, destroy the missile threat. And as you restated on day five, to, quote, [3:13:05] obliterate Iran's missiles and drones. Those were clearly and repeatedly stated core objectives of [3:13:10] the campaign, which four months ago you declared had been completed victoriously with every single [3:13:17] objective achieved. Were those objectives achieved four months ago? [3:13:21] No one ever stated that every single missile was gone. Ultimately, combat ineffective means [3:13:26] they're not able to dig them out of their UGFs and shoot at us. It doesn't mean they don't have [3:13:30] underground facilities where they put missiles in them and hold on to them because they're the [3:13:34] world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. So we never expected they would stop having [3:13:38] capabilities to shoot. The question is at scale against opponent like the United States of America, [3:13:43] which went toe-to-toe with them and Iran couldn't. You stated on March 8th, day nine of the war on 60 [3:13:49] minutes, you assured the American people of Iranians surrender. Does that remain your prediction? [3:13:55] Ultimately, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon to threaten the United States of America. That has [3:14:00] been the objective and it remains so. So just to review, you will not answer whether your statement [3:14:06] made on the 14th day of the war that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and made combat [3:14:12] ineffective was a truthful statement to the American people as you sit here and ask for tens of billions [3:14:17] more for the conflict. Senator Peters is recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our [3:14:33] witnesses here today. I want to begin by first echoing my colleagues' comments that we've heard [3:14:40] throughout the hearing here and join them in mourning the loss of American service members who were killed [3:14:47] in action these last few days. My thoughts are with their families, with a service member who remains [3:14:53] missing and with all those injured during the strikes. And I will continue to pray for their families. [3:15:00] Secretary Hagsaf, over the course of the war with Iran, I have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the [3:15:08] administration's lack of a winning strategy and repeated contradictions about the state of the war. [3:15:15] And frankly, it doesn't help that you and your president continues to mislead the American people. [3:15:22] You and the president have repeatedly said that the war, as we've heard over and over again, [3:15:27] is almost over or already won. In fact, the president alone has said the war is almost over more than 30 [3:15:35] times. On March 1st, the president said we'll be done in four or five weeks. On March 9th, he said the [3:15:41] war was very complete. On April 8th, he declared total and complete victory, 100 percent, no question [3:15:48] about it. On the same day you declared Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the [3:15:54] battlefield, a capital V military victory by any measure. And yet today, July 21st, we have soldiers [3:16:03] whose remains are sadly going to be returned to their deeply grieving families tomorrow. Clearly, the war is not over [3:16:13] yet. After months of conflict, our strategy to win remains unclear. I have long said the United States [3:16:20] has the strongest military in history in the world, and I have no doubt that our brave service members [3:16:26] can execute any mission and prevail in any battle. But without a clear winning strategy, we're at risk of [3:16:33] being in another forever war that'll put our service members in continued harm's way and continue to [3:16:39] cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Secretary Haigsev, despite your failure to win this war, you are [3:16:47] back now before Congress asking for almost 70 billion dollars in additional funding. You're asking the [3:16:53] American people for a blank check because, once again, the Trump administration's efforts have been [3:16:58] an utter and complete failure to win this war to this point. So my question for you, sir, is how is your [3:17:06] strategy different than what we've seen in the past? So far, we have not seen a strategy that's been [3:17:12] successful. You mentioned nuclear material is the primary goal of the war. It still exists. We haven't [3:17:17] dealt with that issue yet. You talk about the destruction of missiles, and yet the missiles that we saw hit [3:17:22] recent targets are actually somehow more lethal, more deadly, more maneuverable than what we have seen in [3:17:29] the past. So they're obviously improving their munitions. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed, [3:17:37] reminding everybody it was open before the war. Prices were lower for everybody until the war, [3:17:43] and it still remains closed. And of course, tragically, people, service members, our warfighters, [3:17:50] who we care deeply about, are still dying. So what's different, Mr. Haigsev? Secretary Haigsev? [3:17:58] I think your characterization of this incredible effort as a failure is reckless. [3:18:02] And I think it's irresponsible. And I think it smears the sacrifice of the troops that are out there [3:18:06] making on behalf of the American people to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Shame on you [3:18:11] and others who call this a quagmire and a failure, and then you want to turn around and say you support [3:18:15] the warfighter. Either you do or you don't. Is the nuclear material still there, sir? I can get you a [3:18:19] ticket out to CENTCOM and talk to what those Americans are doing, how committed they are to this effort, [3:18:23] and how they want to ensure that Iran never threatens their families with a nuclear weapon. That's the kind of [3:18:29] intensity that our warfighters have about making sure that Iran isn't capable of doing that. [3:18:33] Secretary Haigsev, did you, if you listen to my comments, you told, you would have heard me say [3:18:37] how amazing our warfighters are. I heard failure. The word, I heard exactly what you said. [3:18:41] I will tell you how I use the word failure. Because I use the word failure to their leaders. [3:18:46] You, sir, are the failure. Not the men and women who are on that front line. Not the men and women who hold up [3:18:52] their honor with distinction. But if there's a lack of a winning strategy, they're in harm's way. [3:18:58] Their leaders have failed them. And that's what's happening. We have political leadership. You. [3:19:03] You don't have a strategy. You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war. Win the war. [3:19:09] The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership. [3:19:12] Of course we have leadership. Of course we have leadership. [3:19:14] When will you show some leadership and stand up for your fellow Democrats who won't fund the troops, [3:19:19] who stand and play partisan politics while you don't give us the money. You want to stand up here and talk [3:19:23] about the troops. You won't show any political courage to actually fund our department. Because [3:19:27] you have trump derangement syndrome and can't actually commit to anything meaningful. So I put [3:19:32] this on you, Senator. Secretary Hegshoff, you have trillions. You have over a trillion dollars. [3:19:37] You're asking for one and a half trillion dollars. It's not a question of money. It's a question of [3:19:42] leadership and understanding what it takes to actually win. Political cowardice of Democrats who won't fund [3:19:49] the troops. Senator's time has expired. This will conclude our hearing. I want to thank our witnesses [3:20:01] for being present and the committee for what has certainly been a vigorous discussion. For any senators [3:20:10] who wish to submit additional questions for the record, those questions will be due in seven days on [3:20:20] Tuesday, July 28th by 5 p.m. I'm going to ask the Rink, the vice chair, if she has any final comments. [3:20:32] I do very quickly. And thank you, Chair Collins. This was really an important discussion about the [3:20:36] state of this tragic and disastrous war and how we should be spending Americans tax dollars on families [3:20:43] instead of this president's war of choice. Unfortunately, this hearing has done exceptionally little [3:20:49] to justify the president's request or to instill confidence that this administration has an exit [3:20:54] plan or a strategy to end the war. This war has cost us a lot. The last thing we should be doing is [3:21:00] rubber stamping another 70 billion dollars to help Trump keep it going. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, [3:21:06] Vice Chair Murray, I'm compelled to respond to your comments by pointing out that it is the duty of this [3:21:14] committee to have a hearing when we have this kind of supplemental request. So I think that your [3:21:23] comments was not appropriate. This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.