Hegseth defends $1.5T DOD budget request for 2027

[0:00] Secretary Higgseth, thank you for undertaking the arsenal of freedom tour and the great work the [0:06] department's doing to help enhance our capacity and our defense industrial base. Could you tell us [0:11] how last year's reconciliation bill helped enable what you have been able to do and what you think [0:19] this year's FY27 budget request will do on that front? Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your [0:26] leadership and your support on that topic. I mean, coming into this position, we fell in on a lot of [0:30] the reforms you and this committee have been advocating for for a long time, looking for [0:34] somebody that was willing to run with them. And our department have run with those. And that [0:39] reconciliation bill last year was kind of the rocket fuel to initiate President Trump's priorities in [0:45] this department. So we fell in on a department that was focused on a lot of the wrong things, [0:49] going in the wrong direction. And with reconciliation, we're able to put, you know, 22 billion in ship [0:55] building, 22 billion into Golden Dome, 25 billion into munitions, established drone dominance, which [1:01] we're continuing to do this day in this next budget funds. So getting in front of that budget cycle, [1:06] which had been notoriously unpredictable out of coming out of the continued revolution resolution of FY25 [1:13] to fund this and then a bill, a historic bill in FY26 laid the groundwork for this historic budget to [1:20] ensure that we're not coming at a cold start here. We came into this administration. Reconciliation was [1:26] a beautiful tool. We were able to use that through that one big, beautiful bill to fund the priorities [1:31] of this department. We spent on 4 billion on barracks, started immediately getting after the quality of [1:36] life of barracks because of the austerity of the Biden administration. We traded off of maintenance and [1:41] traded off of quality of life to try to fund other things operationally. This budget stops that cycle [1:48] and both invests in sustainment and modernization, which is which is something that's critically [1:53] important. So without that reconciliation bill, I think, Mr. Chairman, we'd be in a very different [1:57] place. So thank you for that. Great. Well, as you are aware, the expansion of the defense industrial [2:02] base is the principal focus of this year's NDAA. So in addition to enacting this budget request that's [2:09] been submitted, we want to work with you to enhance the department's statutory authorities to improve the [2:15] capacity of our DIB. What additional changes in law, such as the additional multi-year block by [2:22] authority, would you recommend that we pursue in this year's NDAA? A few aspects of the acquisition [2:29] transition transformation that's been undertaken by Undersecretary Duffy in acquisitions and sustainment. [2:34] So there's some aspects of that we'd like to codify even more. But you mentioned it. Multi-year [2:39] procurement is incredibly important and one of the most important parts of this bill. When this committee and [2:45] this Congress funds those things, companies are already breaking ground on tens of billions of [2:50] dollars of new plants. You name the we've got 14 in our ammunition council that we're focusing on [2:58] certain ammunitions are 14 that are critical. You know, Pac-3s, SM-3s, SM-6s, THADs, Patriots, [3:04] Tomahawks, AMRAMs, Jasms, you name prisms, you name them. We were building of it too slow and too low [3:12] level. Now the companies are going to pay for those factories and those production lines. And when [3:18] you're, when Congress gives those five to seven year demand signals, they'll then fund it, not just, [3:23] hey, can we get 10 more per month, but can we 2x, 3x, 4x the production, pay for it now, and the [3:31] companies invest accordingly. So it's been a critical aspect of some of what we've done so far, but we need [3:37] more of those five to seven year investments. Great. General Cain, what does the $1.5 trillion [3:43] budget mean for the warfighter and our ability to project forces and secure our interest around the [3:49] globe? Chairman, you know, in my, in my view, this, this represents a historic down payment on future [3:58] security. If, if the budget is approved and ultimately deployed, as we look at the character [4:05] of warfare changing very, very fast, what's layered in, uh, to this budget by our civilian leaders [4:11] will allow us to start getting ahead of where, uh, technology is evolving. And, and as I mentioned, [4:19] the character of warfighting is, is changing pretty quickly. Mass simultaneity, autonomy, undersea, [4:27] space, cyber information, all of those, those ways that are now manifesting themselves on the [4:34] battlefields around the world, um, uh, require a higher end of capital investment. And that's why [4:41] we're grateful for the, uh, opportunity to have this budget make its way to the joint force. So it's [4:46] an important, uh, down payment on the future here, sir. Great. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, with that, [4:52] I yield to the ranking member for any questions he may have. Uh, thank you. Uh, Mr. Hurst, drag you into [4:56] the conversation here. We have not yet received from the Pentagon, the costs of the war. Um, so just for the [5:03] record, we'd like to get that as soon as possible. Certainly the munitions expended, but also [5:08] underreported is we've had a fair amount of equipment, uh, destroyed, including two C-130s [5:13] with the rescuer of our downed airmen. Um, so do you have either A, a cost estimate coming to us [5:19] anytime soon, or B, a specific supplemental request? Thank you for that question. Um, so [5:27] approximately at this day, we're spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury. Um, most of that is [5:33] munitions. There's part of that. It's obviously O and M and equipment replacement. We will formulate [5:37] a supplemental, uh, through the White House that will come to Congress. Uh, once we have [5:40] a full assessment of the cost of the conflict. So you're saying the full cost at this point [5:45] is $25 billion. Yeah, that's our estimate for the cost. Okay. Interesting. Cause we, I'm glad [5:50] you answered that question because we've been asking for a hell of a long time and no one's [5:53] given us the number. Um, so if you could get those details over to us, that, that would be [5:57] great. Um, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the, the nuclear aspect of Iran and the war. And it [6:02] is worth noting that every president prior to this one, including Trump in his first [6:07] term also prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without actually having to go to war [6:12] in Iran. So we need to keep that in mind, but also since the war started, Iran's nuclear arsenal [6:18] has not been weakened in any way. And at the moment in negotiations, what Iran is saying [6:24] basically pay us to open up the straight, that that's their position, which is completely [6:29] untenable. I agree. Um, it's worth noting, of course, that the straight was open before [6:33] the war started. Now we're negotiating to get back to status quo. And Iran's most recent [6:38] offer is to say, we'll talk about nukes later. So what is the plan to actually turn all of [6:43] this lethal kinetic action into an improvement in the nuclear situation? Cause we haven't gotten [6:49] there yet. Play it out for us. How does that happen? How does it actually lead to that result? [6:54] Well, I would take issue with the premise of the question that nothing was done. Operation [7:00] Midnight Hammer was a, uh, a very effective, I didn't say nothing was done. I said in this [7:03] war, ultimately start, well, this is this under this administration, unlike other administrations, [7:08] which cut bad deals and pallets of cash with no ability to oversee whether Iran is actually [7:13] pursuing a nuclear program, which is where we're at, litigate JCPOA or the Iran deal, our view, [7:18] the president's views, that was a very bad deal. Okay. It gave them a bunch of money up front. [7:22] What's the future? To fund, you talked about negotiated deals, funded, allowed them to fund [7:27] their proxies and spread Hamas and Hezbollah all around the region, build up nuclear capabilities. [7:31] That's great. What are we going to do now? President Trump has been clear eyed from the [7:34] killing of Qasem Soleimani to the pulling out of the Iran deal to Midnight Hammer and now to this effort [7:40] to recognize that you have to stare down this kind of enemy who's hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon [7:45] and get them to a point where they're at the table giving it up, uh, in a way that- [7:50] They never have it. So they haven't broken yet. [7:53] Okay. We haven't gotten there yet for all of the Й .. [7:56] Well their nuclear facilities have been obliterated. Underground they're buried, [7:59] and they are watching them 24-7. [8:01] Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. [8:02] So we know where any nuclear material might be we're watching it. [8:06] We're going to be claiming my time for just a quick second here. We had to start this [8:09] war, you just said, 60 days ago because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now [8:16] you're saying that it was completely obliterated?지는ze past. They'd not given up their [8:19] ambitions and they had a conventional shield of thousands of operation midnight hammer [8:24] accomplished nothing of substance it left us at exactly the same place we were before [8:29] so much so their facilities were bombed and obliterated their their ambitions continued [8:36] and they're building a conventional shield let me try again it's the north korea strategy you [8:40] know this very well the north korea strategy was use conventional missiles to prevent anybody from [8:45] challenging them so they could slow walk their way to a weapon president trump saw iran at its [8:50] weakest moment took an action to ensure in a way that only the united states of america could do [8:55] with our israeli partners and yet to ensure their will have invention shield was was brought one of [9:00] the questions we've done if i could get to it so on ukraine a year plus ago your advice the president's [9:06] advice was ukraine had no cards to play they should go cut the best possible deal they could clearly [9:13] that was wrong what did you miss what did you miss about the conflict between russia and ukraine [9:19] that you didn't see that ukraine was going to be capable of doing what they've done in the last [9:23] 14 months what we didn't miss and we're here in this committee is that joe biden with no [9:27] accountability gave hundreds of billions of dollars of our weapons to ukraine uh to an outcome that [9:32] never would have happened to president trump was the president so he pulled out our you guys don't [9:37] talk about that ultimately president trump believes there should be a peace deal uh between russia and [9:42] ukraine but you didn't expect ukraine to be where they're at right now i'm asking you [9:45] just from a strategic standpoint i think ukrainians have shown great courage and i appreciate that [9:50] uh europe is now paying for the web any weapons that we provide all right i yield back thank you [9:56] all right now i want to remind everybody there's everybody wants to get their questions so we are [10:00] going to be strict sticking strictly to the five minute rule today so with that i recognize the [10:04] gentleman from south carolina mr wilson thank you chairman mike rogers for your leadership working [10:10] with president donald trump as the grateful father of four sons who served overseas in iraq egypt and [10:16] afghanistan i especially appreciate war secretary hexath and chief of staff kane for your competence [10:22] service and success military families have never been more appreciated than today and our enemies of [10:28] dictators now understand peace through strength dictators historically are on the run with your leadership [10:35] president trump has given syria a chance with president al-shara replacing dictator aside from damascus who now [10:42] lives in moscow dictator maduro is correctly in a manhattan jail as you successfully revealed in caracas [10:50] that the war criminal putin air defenses do not work the chinese communist party radar failed and [10:56] cuban mercenaries were expendable the cuban dictatorship is failing and the ultimate mass murderer dictator komeini [11:03] is dead of in tehran iran joining the 35 000 people he murdered this year with your leadership american [11:12] morale has never been higher and hopes for freedom of the oppressed people of iran cuba russia and china [11:19] have never been higher and it's just an exciting time to be here with you and mr secretary we continue to [11:26] see the growing nuclear threat of our adversaries as they expand their capabilities with the largest military [11:32] buildup in peacetime in world history by the chinese communist party how critical is it that we continue [11:40] as at the savannah river site in south carolina to develop the plutonium pit processing so that we have [11:47] modernization well congressman i appreciate that question on on nuclear modernization this budget funds [11:55] 71 billion dollars to modernize modernize the triad in ways that we had neglected to do and our nuclear [12:01] triad underwrites everything but i i really appreciate your opening statement i think something that [12:08] obviously uh the media want doesn't want to cover and doesn't want to talk about is the historic [12:14] record-breaking surge in recruiting in our ranks 30-year record in recruiting of americans wanting to join [12:21] our joint force wanting to put the uniform on we're meeting recruiting goals halfway through the year we [12:27] couldn't meet our recruiting goals under the previous administration under joe biden americans didn't [12:32] want to join the military we couldn't get it now we have to turn people away and push them to the [12:37] next fiscal year that's why this budget grows our force by almost 50 000 ultimately additional troops [12:43] into the force that we believe we can recruit that's the best vote of confidence i could imagine [12:50] even better hey mr secretary you're really understating uh leaving no leaving no airmen behind [12:56] hey what an inspiration on easter day uh god bless y'all and what you've achieved with that in mind too [13:02] general kane with your vmi military perspective war criminal putin is losing in ukraine as his 30-day [13:08] special admission is now four years of as the secretary has identified courageous ukrainian success [13:15] led by president vladimir zielinski i appreciate that nato and the eu have unified for ukraine as the [13:23] u.s ranked 17th per gdp in assistance for ukraine ukraine is front line stopping war [13:31] colonel putin from resurrecting the failed soviet union rigging elections in belarus invading ukraine [13:37] keeping troops in moldova and within vashvili invading and rigging elections in the republic of georgia [13:44] as we're transitioning greater responsibility to our nato allies how do we ensure seamless integration [13:49] to deterrence during this shift congressman um we're we're very fortunate to have great leaders [13:58] out in the european theater right now general grinkovic and his leadership team are committed to [14:04] ensuring that that integration and transition takes place in a most combat capable and effective way [14:12] very entrepreneurial leaders out there across the components and with general grinkovic and [14:18] and uh and he's doing a great job out there as the committee knows and indeed as we conclude [14:24] historically president trump miss secretary uh general you have united the middle east nations [14:29] unprecedented to ally with the united states you have united latin america unprecedented to ally [14:36] with united states you've united the indo-pacific unprecedented to ally with the united states and [14:43] united nato and eu unprecedented to ally with united states you're achieving peace and deterrence [14:50] through strength. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from [14:54] Connecticut. Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and General Cain, this morning's [14:59] Wall Street Journal's lead headline reads, quote, Trump tells aides to prepare for an extended [15:04] blockade of Iran. It goes on to describe again the thinking behind the strategy, but also [15:11] talks about how prolonging the blockade is going to continue to drive up energy costs [15:15] all over the world. Given the ever-changing messages from this administration on the war [15:19] strategy and timeline, I really honestly don't expect you to confirm or deny the journal's story, [15:24] but one thing is clear. The number of transits across the Strait of Hormuz has dropped to the [15:29] lowest level since the war began, and commodity markets have stopped listening to the happy talk, [15:34] and crude oil prices this morning have risen to the highest level since the war in Ukraine started [15:39] in 2022. AAA reported this morning that the average price of gas is $4.30 a gallon, up 30 cents in one [15:46] week. Diesel's average is $5.45. My friend Mr. Garamendi says in California it's closer to $8 [15:53] a gallon, and fertilizer prices have also hammered farmers at exactly the same time they're beginning [16:00] planting all across the country. Aside from the damage this war has done to American consumers, farmers, [16:06] and small businesses, I want to focus for a minute on the cost of the war and our military readiness, [16:12] particularly to other combatant commands. Mr. Secretary, you put out a national defense strategy [16:17] in January which listed the threat assessment facing our country. China was number one, [16:23] with the second largest, most powerful military in the world, of course. Russia's nuclear force [16:29] clearly was number two in terms of the threat they posed to the homeland. North Korea, which has missiles [16:36] that actually can reach U.S. territory, was ranked number three. And Iran was described as, quote, [16:43] and accurately, after midnight hammer, that Iran's regime is weaker and more vulnerable than it has [16:49] been in decades. Again, this was before February 28th when the decision was made to go into the military [16:56] strikes on Iran. So today we have three carrier strike forces in central command. The Indo-PACOM, [17:05] which is where Russia and China are operating their navies, 52% of the globe, we have one carrier [17:13] strike group in Japan, George Washington. And the imbalance in terms of just, you know, what our [17:20] commitments and frankly, you know, what our national defense strategy, I mean, is just blindingly obvious [17:26] in terms of what this war is doing. Gerald Ford is on day 312 of its deployment. They've gone through [17:34] fires, plumbing problems, and again, an extended deployment, which, in my opinion, is hitting [17:42] readiness as hard as anything I've seen in the time that I've been on this committee. So, General [17:49] Kane, I mean, in terms of, again, the carrier strike groups that are over there, I mean, assuming that we [17:55] get to some endgame here, Ford is not going over to the Indo-Pacific to buttress the gap that exists [18:02] there today, they've got to go back into pretty heavy repair and availability in terms of trying [18:09] to recover from their deployment. So, again, in terms of just, you know, the decisions about where [18:15] we're putting people and putting really the most powerful part of our Navy, you know, can you explain [18:23] again what that means in terms of the situation in Indo-Pacom, where China is watching, we saw Mr. Rogers, [18:31] pretty powerful presentation in terms of the buildup that's happening in that part of the world. [18:37] How does that align with the National Defense Strategy, which was just put out by this administration [18:42] in January? Well, sir, first, I want to echo your comments on the Ford Strike Group. Fantastic work by [18:52] incredible sailors, not just the Ford herself, but the other ships as well on a historic cruise doing [19:00] incredible work for the nation. Excuse me, how does that balance with the National Defense Strategy? [19:05] Yes, sir, happy to answer the way I think about this. The National Security Strategy and National [19:12] Defense Strategy are frameworks, but a president will employ national force and power based on the [19:20] political and security situations that a president deems appropriate to use that military force. [19:29] There's always trade-offs in all of these things. I am confident that the president always carefully [19:37] considers these readiness trade-offs, and I'm sure he has done so in this case based on the military [19:45] options that we've presented with the associated risks and advice. Well, to make a trade going [19:49] after a regime that's weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades, which is quote-unquote [19:54] from the Defense Strategy's report, it's not, in my opinion, in common sense. Gentlemen, [20:00] the time's expired. As you can tell from looking at the dice, votes have been called, [20:04] so we are now going to stand in recess to the end of this vote. I expect it to take 20 to 25 minutes, [20:09] but we are now in recess. [21:53] All three branches of government to guarantee the protection of the constitutional rights of [47:24] the American people. I thought I'd give you a moment to expound on that because [47:28] this is going to be very important because there's several people who right now in this body are [47:32] going to be considering their support for 702's reauthorization. Well, thank you for that opportunity, [47:39] Congressman. Yes, this department strongly supports the reauthorization of FISA 702, [47:46] and it is not hyperbole to say many of the most important missions we have executed could not have [47:51] happened without the intelligence gathered through FISA 702. So we would urge members to support that so we [47:59] can continue doing the good work of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate [48:03] your comments that I ran. It must never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon. There have been many [48:09] comments that have been made concerning allies who have not assisted or supported the effort. General [48:17] Cain, there have been many allies who have been essential for us to be able to execute the functions [48:25] necessary both for Midnight Hammer and for the current ongoing operation. I'd like to ask you to speak [48:32] for a moment about the essential aspect of the allies that are supporting the effort. There are bases that [48:40] are necessary, our forward operating facilities, both our allies in the Middle East, both our NATO allies, [48:50] those in Europe throughout. We would not be able to undertake this current operation without the use and [48:58] support of facilities that we have in our bases in throughout NATO, Europe and the Middle East. If you could for a moment [49:06] expound on the the integral nature of our facilities that include those bases that are located within our allies. [49:16] Well, Congressman, from a from a purely military standpoint, allies and alliances are important. [49:27] They allow us what you you did a better job than I could on articulating the importance of access, [49:32] basing and overflight considerations. You know who those allies are and the quality of those alliances [49:40] are left our civilian leaders, but certainly we appreciate those allies who've helped us and assisted us [49:46] along the way. General, you would you would describe them as having been essential? Yes, sir. Because [49:53] that's it's very important. I mean, we want to make certain that you know, our that we treat adversaries [49:58] as adversaries and allies like allies, especially those that are essential. The king was here yesterday [50:08] and as he was speaking, he received a standing ovation when he implored this body to continue our support [50:15] for Ukraine in the 2026 national defense strategy. It assesses Russia will be will remain a persistent, [50:24] manageable threat. It specifically identifies Russia's continued threats to Ukraine. And we have, of course, [50:36] the currently president, the presidential continued drawdown authority that can support Ukraine and also [50:44] the president Trump announced Pearl, the prioritized Ukraine requirements list. And in the FY 2026, [50:55] in the AA, there is the 400 million that is included in the European capacity building within the defense [51:02] security cooperation. General, the the last time it went on the House floor with respect to funding [51:12] for Ukraine. There was a vote in the House of over 300 members of the House that supported Ukraine. [51:18] Could you please give us a description of some of the things currently that we're doing operationally [51:23] support Ukraine? Congressman, I a few of those are probably left for classified session. We continue [51:32] through our security assistance group, Ukraine, to assist with some information sharing matters. Ucom [51:40] continues to help. But you would describe it as continuous and ongoing and essential for Ukraine [51:44] with U.S. support? Sir, much of the relationship- The gentleman's time's expired. Chair now [51:49] to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and [51:57] General Kaine, let me begin by thanking the men and women of the United States military for their service [52:03] and their bravery. I recognize that our service members have performed with extraordinary courage [52:08] and tactical skill and they've done incredible things that our country has asked them to. Their [52:14] professionalism and selfless service are not in question and never have been. What is in question [52:21] is the purposes and the strategic direction of this war. Mr. Hetseth, as Secretary of the Department of [52:27] Defense, you are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the Iran war. Any unvarnished review of what is [52:36] happening right now in the Middle East would reveal a geopolitical calamity, a strategic blunder resulting [52:43] in worldwide economic crisis. The result of Trump's war of choice is a serious self-inflicted ruin to [52:51] America. It will take years and a new administration to recover from the grave damage to our standing in [52:58] the world as well as our economy and our military. We must remember that 13 Americans have been killed in [53:06] action, hundreds wounded and thousands of civilians killed, including more than a hundred school children. [53:12] The risk of this conflict was foreseeable. I'm certain that the Department of Defense knew that it was likely [53:20] that in a war with Iran, Iran would create an international economic crisis by blocking the Strait of Hamus [53:27] and thus stopping 20 percent of the world's oil. Was this existential threat considered? Apparently not. [53:37] During the 60 days of Trump's Iran war, critical munitions have been expended at an alarming rate, [53:43] depleting magazine levels below what is thought necessary to hold China at bay. It will take years [53:51] and tens of billions of dollars to restock. A significant part of the necessary navy and marine force [53:59] in the Pacific has been removed and sent to support the Iran war. Our support of Ukraine has suffered as [54:09] supplies and defense systems are diverted to the Iran war. America has lost irreplaceable aircraft, [54:16] radar systems and strategic bases have been shown to be vulnerable. The continued lengthy deployment of [54:25] ships, equipment and personnel has sacrificed readiness. We know what we have lost, but what have we gained? [54:34] Let's consider that the regime in Tehran is still intact with new and more radical leadership, [54:42] as are Iran's ballistic missile and drone forces, as Iran, as is Iran's ability to rebuild their military [54:52] industries. Also, as is Iran's coordination with China, Russia and North Korea, and Iran's ability to [55:01] choke off global energy supplies, and their stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which they only built [55:11] after President Trump shredded President Obama's Iran deal in 2017. Secretary Heseth, you have been [55:20] lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the President. You have misled the [55:27] public about why we are at war. You and the President have offered ever-changing reasons for this war. [55:35] You've misled the public about the progress of the war. While the military has executed this war with [55:43] tactical success, the strategy has been an astounding incompetence, doing immense economic damage to America [55:53] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, with the personal attack on the Secretary, he should have an opportunity to respond. [55:59] He certainly will. No, no, no. It's the gentleman's time. He can use it as he sees fit and add an extra [56:06] five seconds to Mr. Gary Mindy's time. Thank you. You and the President are ever-changing reasons for [56:12] the war. You have misled the public about the progress of the war. While the military has executed [56:18] this war with tactical success, the strategy has been an outstanding example of incompetence. This war of [56:26] choice is a political and economic disaster at every level. Despite the President's promise to lower the [56:32] cost of living, gas prices are up 40 percent, and inflation is soaring so much for lowering the [56:38] cost of living. The President has got himself and America stuck in the quagmire of another war in the [56:44] Middle East. He's desperately trying to extricate himself from his own mistakes. It is in America's [56:51] and indeed the world's interest that he succeed in that. I yield back. [56:56] The gentleman yields back here, and I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman. [57:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. General Cain, [57:05] Secretary Hegseth, Mr. Hurst, thank you so much. I want to go to a statement I've been making here [57:10] for the last several years, and that is we are in the most dangerous national security position [57:16] that this world has been in since 1939. And we know that it's a critical effort that we undertake to make [57:23] sure we can deter through the concept of peace through strength. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to start [57:30] with you. We know that peace through strength has a number of tenets. I think the most important of [57:35] those is presence. And we know that the United States has the Marine Corps Amphibious Ready Group, [57:41] Marine Corps Expeditionary Unit, that provides us that presence. We know there are over 2,000 Marines [57:47] and an aircraft combat unit that are on board those vessels, and they let us do a number of different [57:53] things. That's the crisis response team that gets to go around the world. Today, as we speak, [57:57] we have three ARGMUs that are deployed around the world. Unfortunately, that's an anomaly. It should [58:02] be standard. Secretary Hegseth, the president and the combatant commanders need maximum flexibility to [58:09] respond in multiple places at multiple times to combat and deter these threats. I just want to get [58:16] your perspective on your goal to make sure we have a persistent 3.0 ARGMU presence, [58:23] and to look at how we're going to make sure through our shipbuilding plans that we assure that we [58:27] have the adequate number of amphibs that are being built. I think that number is probably right around 40. [58:33] And then what are we going to do to make sure, too, that the A sub O, the operational availability, [58:38] is going to be at the level where we can maintain an ARGMU 3.0 with the effort we have to put in to [58:44] maintain these ships. So thank you for the question, the substantive question. Ultimately, [58:50] we support 3.0 ARGMU. That presence right now gives us a lot of flexibility. And this budget supports [58:57] moving in that direction to ensure that this administration and future administrations have [59:01] that kind of strategic flexibility with the incredible capabilities the ARGMU provides. [59:07] We saw it in Southern Spear. We saw it on the Maduro raid. We saw it. We see it right now. It's a [59:12] persistent capability. So I think you'll find our shipbuilding investments to meet that as well. [59:18] But if I may. Sure. Yeah. I didn't get a chance. I didn't see a question in the statement from [59:23] the congressman. I hope you appreciate how reckless it is. When I said reckless, feckless, [59:29] and defeatist of congressional Democrats at the beginning, that came after watching you say the [59:34] same thing on CNN this morning, a quagmire. My generation served in a quagmire in Iraq and [59:40] Afghanistan, years and years of nebulous missions and utopian nation building that led us to nothing. [59:47] What we have right now, the way you stain the troops when you tell them two months in, [59:54] two months in, Congressman, you should know better. Shame on you. Calling this a quagmire, [1:00:00] two months in. The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the [1:00:04] battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear [1:00:09] Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies, shame on you for that [1:00:14] statement. And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say I support the troops on one [1:00:18] hand and then a two-month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalence. Who are you cheering [1:00:23] for here? Who are you pulling for? Our troops are doing incredible work. They've done incredible things [1:00:28] for the entirety of this mission and achieved incredible battlefield successes. And you sit there [1:00:34] and go on TV for your clickbait about quagmires. It undermines the mission. Your hatred for President [1:00:41] Trump blinds you to the truth of the success of this mission and the historic stakes that the [1:00:48] president is addressing, which the American people support. Iran's been at war with us for 47 years. [1:00:54] You want to talk about a forever war? For two months, this president has stared them down. He's going to [1:00:58] get a better deal than anyone ever has and ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. I know the [1:01:03] American people support that mission despite your loose talk and words like quagmire. Thank you. [1:01:11] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Cain, I want to quickly go to you. We know all about the need for [1:01:16] exquisite platforms, but we know if we're going to close the gap with our pacing threats, we have to make [1:01:21] sure we have those expendable and intrudible platforms. And we know those nation capabilities are key, [1:01:27] and we have to be able to spin them up quickly because that's the fastest way for us to, again, [1:01:31] deter by peace through strength. Give us your perspective on how you see the urgency of getting [1:01:36] that capacity not only in place, but getting that ability to go to scale and get those capabilities [1:01:42] in the hands of our warfighters. Sir, I think it's critical. And when I look at what OSW above us is [1:01:49] doing and the deputy secretary, as well as Secretary Duffy, and frankly, the national and defense [1:01:55] industrial bases, all rallying around the need to scale, along with the new entrants that are out [1:02:02] there who are coming and bringing products to the joint force. A key is capacity. [1:02:06] Time's expired. Here now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. [1:02:10] Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to thank witnesses for being here today. Mr. Secretary, it's well known [1:02:15] that our defense industrial base and maritime industrial base has declined greatly over time. [1:02:22] It's the shipyards. It's many things that you already spoke about. In my community, [1:02:27] we used to have three shipyards, 40,000 workers. We've lost that critical job skills earned and 40,000 [1:02:36] people who know how to do it. And quite frankly, most of it went overseas because it was cheaper. Well, [1:02:43] cheaper doesn't buy the security we need for our industrial base. I championed a provision [1:02:49] in the 24 NDAA entitled Enhanced Domestic Content Requirement for Major Acquisition Programs. Had to do [1:02:59] with our industrial base making things here in America long before this administration came in. The [1:03:06] goal was to strengthen our supply chains and have that critical oversight, push for greater investments, [1:03:14] much of what you're doing now on these major defense acquisition programs. [1:03:19] So, we passed that in a bipartisan manner because we knew that this was critical and things can [1:03:28] happen. Lo and behold, here we are. There was a reporting requirement in that that calls on you, [1:03:35] the Secretary of Defense, to establish an information repository, issue rules, create a fallback process [1:03:43] to govern the Department of Defense. We wanted to better understand much of what is being done here, [1:03:49] but it's not being reported back to us. I sent to your office on January 8th, followed up on February 4th. [1:03:57] We're years overdue on this report. That will give us insight onto how we're addressing it. We hear what [1:04:04] you're saying, but can you commit that we will get that report to us in the next 30 days? [1:04:11] Unless Jay has additional details, I'll make sure we look into it. Whatever we can get to you as rapidly as [1:04:17] possibly we will. We'll also check with the new Navy leadership and make sure they're complying as rapidly as [1:04:23] possible with every aspect that could apply to shipbuilding. That's been our focus on the Navy side. [1:04:29] It's not just shipbuilding, major acquisition programs across the board. This is incredibly important, [1:04:36] and they are ignoring this, and 30 days is being generous, certainly. Second issue is you talk about [1:04:43] championing the American worker and how important this is, yet in the memo on April 9th, you terminate [1:04:50] all the collective bargaining agreements across the DOD, taking away from hundreds of thousands of workers [1:04:56] at DOD their collective bargaining rights that they voted for. There was nothing to indicate there [1:05:02] were any issues with any of the bargaining agreements, yet you decided to take away from them. Over the [1:05:09] last few years, we have increased the wages for those warfighters, incredibly important this year, [1:05:15] up to 7 percent. Yet, on the other side of this, you talk about supercharging the defense industrial base. [1:05:22] We are in this. How do you go and say, yes, we support the warfighters. They can't do their job [1:05:29] unless we are building things that they can use. Yet, no evidence to prove that these collective [1:05:36] bargaining agreements were a problem anywhere across the Department of Defense, under Democrat and [1:05:41] Republican administrations. How do you kind of square that circle that you care about this, yet you take [1:05:47] away their voice on the job? Well, certainly, sir. The great workers that, whether they're contractors [1:05:54] or DOD civilians that do the important work for us, the great ones are going to stay. And we've invested [1:05:59] more in merit bonuses for civilians than any administration previous. So, if you're doing great [1:06:03] work, you're going to stay and you're going to have even more opportunities. But with our ear to the ground [1:06:07] in those shipyards and other factory floors, there were issues with collective bargaining which led to [1:06:12] restrictions to the workforce and our ability to move faster. If I may just point out. And in that case, [1:06:17] you made the decision to provide additional flexibility that we can move faster. You didn't [1:06:20] take it away from the shipyard workers. You took away from Department of Defense employers, [1:06:24] where there hasn't been any issues. Let's be clear. Those are independent contractors, [1:06:29] and they have their collective bargaining agreements, the ones that work for you. The ones that work for [1:06:35] us should be at will, like anybody else, based on their performance. And if they're performing well, [1:06:41] which I'm sure they are, as you've represented, they will have a job at the Department. But where is the [1:06:45] issue that you took away their collective bargaining rights? Why did you do it if it wasn't a [1:06:48] problem? Well, I stated up front, it has been a problem. There are plenty of cases, [1:06:53] whether it's conference or inside our own department, where collective bargaining had led [1:06:57] to arrangements and agreements that minimize the efficiency and effectiveness of employees [1:07:02] at the point of their impact. That's what we were focusing on. And that's why we made the change, [1:07:06] which we very much stand behind. Well, I yield back. The gentleman yields back, [1:07:11] chair, and I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:07:15] Secretary Hexeth. I appreciate the department and the administration's focus on expansion and [1:07:20] innovation in the defense industrial base. That's particularly important for emerging technologies. [1:07:25] For years on this committee, my office has led the effort to ban the procurement of Chinese [1:07:30] communist drones, which pose a significant national security threat. And last year, after years of work, [1:07:36] this committee finally passed my Countering CCP Drones Act, or Section 1709 of the NDAA, [1:07:43] which was fully implemented in December. How does the FY27 budget scale domestic production and [1:07:49] deployment of drone systems to ensure the U.S. has the decisive advantage against our U.S. enemies? [1:07:56] Well, thank you for the question. First of all, thank you for your work on that. [1:08:01] Critically important, when you look under the hood of the ways in which China is trying to use critical [1:08:05] elements of our defense industrial base and supply chain against us or capabilities in the future that [1:08:10] could hamstring us with options for a future president, it's staggering. So drones is one that [1:08:15] not only have we recognized, but thanks to your leadership and the leadership of others, [1:08:19] we are supercharging in this budget. Conservatively, $54 billion in drone and drone dominance and counter UAS. [1:08:27] Jay just slid me a piece of paper. If you add it all up, it could be closer to $74 billion. [1:08:32] We started a defense autonomous working group, autonomous warfare group, excuse me, [1:08:36] to focus on this, but we're going to do even more. We will shortly announce a subunified command, [1:08:41] autonomous warfare. Drones are so central to the future of warfare and where we get them from that [1:08:47] we have to be able to both make the exquisite ones better than anybody else and also the attritable, [1:08:51] swarm, and then the ability to defeat them ahead of our adversary, learning from battlefields like [1:08:57] Ukraine and Epic Fury. So thank you for your leadership. It is front and center in this budget. [1:09:02] I very much appreciate all that the department is doing under your leadership. [1:09:06] One of the concerns I have is recent reporting indicates that while DJI, which is a communist [1:09:11] Chinese drone company, is prohibited from receiving new FCC authorizations, there are still DJI products [1:09:18] such as the DJI Avada 360, widely available in the U.S. through major retailers. These received FCC [1:09:25] authorizations before my provision in the NDAA was fully implemented. So my question to you is, [1:09:31] we need to close this loophole to protect our national security. Will you commit to working [1:09:36] with this committee in my office to ensure that these products that pose a significant risk to our [1:09:41] national security are no longer permitted given the evident threat CCP drones pose to U.S. national [1:09:48] security? Congressman, yes, the department will commit to working with your staff and looking at that [1:09:54] loophole, which we are aware of. And I missed in my first response, of course, [1:09:58] that $54 billion is American-made drone dominance. Absolutely. [1:10:02] That is exactly where they need to be and that's where our focus is. [1:10:05] Great. Another emerging technology that's very important and has a strong tie to my district [1:10:10] is quantum computing. China continues to invest heavily in quantum computing, sensing and secure [1:10:15] communications for military advantage. I represent Rome Air Force Research Lab, which is a hub of research [1:10:21] when it comes to quantum. Secretary Hegseth, how does the budget proposal position the U.S. to maintain [1:10:27] leadership in operationally relevant quantum technologies? The country that dominates in quantum [1:10:35] will dominate the future in C2, in comms, in every way that we fight. And so this makes the maximal [1:10:43] investment possible here at home to ensure that quantum compute and working across the interagency, [1:10:48] by the way. This is not just a DOW issue, this is an interagency issue, to ensure that we've got the [1:10:54] ability to scale and compute, out-compute adversaries who are racing for the same code. [1:10:59] General Kane, throughout my time in Congress, I've pushed for the department to optimize its approach [1:11:04] to quantum and develop a strategic roadmap. In your opinion, which quantum capability areas offer the [1:11:11] most immediate benefit to the joint force and should be priority investments moving forward? [1:11:16] Probably some of their work in crypto and quantum to make sure we can see, sense, understand, defeat, [1:11:22] and protect our own stuff. So that's where I'm most interested in it right now, ma'am. [1:11:26] Great, and I also want to use my remaining time. I just want to invite both of you to [1:11:30] visit Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division, most deployed division in the U.S. Army [1:11:34] since 9-11. In the first Trump administration, I had the honor of hosting President Trump, where he signed [1:11:39] the NDAA in my district, and it's been a privilege to represent them. So I encourage you to visit that [1:11:45] installation before the end of this year. Thank you very much, and I yield back. [1:11:48] General Lee yields back. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton. [1:11:54] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you and I agree that Iran is a national security [1:11:59] threat to us and our allies. Now, earlier, you called us feckless for questioning your war. [1:12:04] Do you think Congress was smart or feckless when it failed to ask tough questions of the Bush [1:12:09] administration and gave them a blank check for Iraq? [1:12:11] Well, if you're trying to compare this war to the Iraq war, which the president is the [1:12:17] first one to call a stupid war, then it's a false comparison. [1:12:20] Okay, well, probably a good idea to ask tough questions. So let me just ask you a few questions. [1:12:25] Did you advise the president that we should attack Iran? [1:12:27] We were, first of all, in this position in the cabinet. We never talk about what we would advise [1:12:34] the president to do or not. Do you think the president or you deserve more? [1:12:37] I've been in every meeting. I understand that, Mr. Secretary. [1:12:39] I'm asking the questions. [1:12:41] I understand that, Mr. Secretary. [1:12:43] I'm asking the questions. [1:12:44] I understand that, Mr. Secretary. [1:12:45] I'm asking the questions. [1:12:46] And he got every perspective possible when it came to this. [1:12:47] I'm just asking what your perspective is. Are you afraid to take ownership of this? [1:12:49] Why? [1:12:50] Do you think it was a good idea or not? [1:12:51] My, when I, as I have consulted the president, do I think it's a good idea to confront a nuclear [1:12:55] bomb? [1:12:56] To start this war? [1:12:57] In the hands of the, imagine what the world would look like right now if Iran had a nuclear [1:12:59] weapon. [1:13:00] Okay, so let's just. [1:13:01] Just imagine. [1:13:02] Which, by the way, every other, every previous administration, including the first Trump administration, [1:13:05] They had one. [1:13:06] Prevented them from having a nuclear weapon. [1:13:08] So, listen, how is this war going? [1:13:10] Do you think we're winning? [1:13:11] Militarily, on the battlefield, it's been an astounding military success. [1:13:15] But are we winning the war? [1:13:16] Absolutely. [1:13:17] Okay, so do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning? [1:13:20] Well, I would say the blockade that we hold that doesn't allow anything to come in or [1:13:26] out of Iranian ports. [1:13:27] Okay, so. [1:13:28] Always. [1:13:29] So we've blockaded their blockade. [1:13:30] So they blockaded us, and then we blockaded their blockade. [1:13:33] That's like saying, tag, you're it. [1:13:35] Or, you know, if President Madison had said, well, the British just burned down Washington, [1:13:39] but don't worry, we're going to burn it down as well. [1:13:43] Chairman Cain, did the military have plans for the idea that Iran might blockade the [1:13:48] strait? [1:13:50] Sir, thanks for the question. [1:13:52] I'll answer it this way. [1:13:55] You know, in this job, I have to maintain trust with a variety of constituents. [1:14:00] Okay, I'm just asking if the military had plans for them. [1:14:03] Yes, sir. [1:14:04] As always, my point in this is, as I explain the role, my point in this is we always offer [1:14:09] a full range of military options that are carefully considered with the associated risks with [1:14:15] those options and the considerations therein. [1:14:18] So, Mr. Secretary, did you consider this risk? [1:14:20] Of course. [1:14:21] Of course. [1:14:24] This department has looked at all aspects of this risk. [1:14:26] And because this department looks… [1:14:27] But then why did you send the minesweepers, the only minesweepers we had in the Gulf, [1:14:30] to Singapore weeks before the war started? [1:14:33] We have lots of capabilities that you may or may not be aware of at the classified level. [1:14:37] Okay, and so… [1:14:38] To deal with mines. [1:14:39] By the way, would the Trump-class battleships have helped with this? [1:14:41] You're talking about a… [1:14:42] Minesweepers. [1:14:43] …perspective future battleship, which we welcome in the fleet. [1:14:46] Okay, so you're supportive of the battleships? [1:14:48] Yes, sir. [1:14:50] Okay. [1:14:51] How much has Iran profited from your administration lifting the sanctions on Iran when you started [1:14:59] this war? [1:15:00] I can tell you Iran is financially devastated right now. [1:15:02] Okay. [1:15:03] In conjunction with the treasury… [1:15:04] They've earned about $14 billion. [1:15:05] …operation economic fury. [1:15:06] They're at a point where between the blockade and what we've done to them militarily… [1:15:10] Remember, they don't have a navy. [1:15:11] They can't contest the blockade. [1:15:12] Okay. [1:15:13] Between what we've done to the militarily and financially… [1:15:14] What kind of navy can they buy for $14 billion? [1:15:16] They have very few options. [1:15:17] How many Chinese missiles can they buy for $14 billion? [1:15:20] Does that sound like winning? [1:15:22] They're not… [1:15:24] We're insuring and they're not buying Chinese missiles. [1:15:28] Okay. [1:15:29] You know, at the end of the day, this also has a cost to us. [1:15:32] If you… [1:15:33] If… [1:15:34] Let's say this war costs $100 billion. [1:15:35] I mean, you've already said, give us more time. [1:15:37] It's only been two months. [1:15:38] It could go on for 20 years like Iraq and Afghanistan. [1:15:40] Let's just say it costs $100 billion. [1:15:42] What is that to the average American taxpayer? [1:15:44] Do you have any idea? [1:15:45] Well, unlike foolish previous administrations, it won't go on… [1:15:48] No, I'm just asking… [1:15:49] …for years and decades. [1:15:50] But let's just say it's $100 billion. [1:15:51] Sitting in this position, it's hard to imagine how… [1:15:52] Do you know that? [1:15:53] …it's allowed those things to happen. [1:15:54] You were a part of that war. [1:15:55] You know the answer to that? [1:15:56] So was I. [1:15:57] And I never… [1:15:58] I'm just asking if you know what your war costs the average American taxpayer. [1:16:01] Now I know what the answer is. [1:16:02] What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield over? [1:16:04] I'm just asking if you know the cost of the average American taxpayer… [1:16:06] I'm asking you what the cost would be of that. [1:16:07] It's about $600. [1:16:08] So for the American taxpayers out there, my constituents… [1:16:11] Some of the constituents you wanted to represent in Minnesota… [1:16:13] I'm just wondering if they have an extra $600 lying around to pay for your war. [1:16:17] I think that's just a question that we ought to ask. [1:16:21] Now quickly, on March 13th in a press conference, you said we will give them no quarter, no mercy. [1:16:28] In order for no quarter or no survivors is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. [1:16:32] You understand that's murder. [1:16:34] Do you stand by that statement? [1:16:35] The Department of War fights to win, and we ensure that our warfighters have the rules of engagement necessary to be as effective as humanly possible. [1:16:43] Okay, so just to be clear, you called Democratic members of Congress to be tried for sedition for reminding our troops to follow the law. [1:16:49] But when you tell them to commit a war crime, you stand by yourself. [1:16:52] For insinuating that the laws that we're giving them are unlawful. [1:16:55] The gentleman's time has expired. [1:16:56] The chair and I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Desjardins. [1:16:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:17:00] And I thank our witnesses for being here today. [1:17:02] And I'd like to thank you for your commitment to our advancement in space, Golden Dome, and nuclear modernization, all which are critical. [1:17:11] And also, I understand we're going to start some reproduction of the MQ-9 Reaper drones, which you, Mr. Secretary and Ms. Secretary, share in my great state of Tennessee. [1:17:23] And we know the 118th Air Wing, the National Guard, operate at Berryfield and conduct many of these missions. [1:17:30] And they do so with great precision. [1:17:32] So thank you for that. [1:17:34] Secretary Hegsteth, you commissioned as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard in 2003. [1:17:39] You've been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay. [1:17:43] You have been awarded two bronze stars, the combat infantryman badge, joint commendation medals, two Army commendation medals, among other recognitions. [1:17:53] You have seen military actions from both an operational and service member perspective. [1:17:58] Have you ever seen operations with the scope and scale and complexity of Midnight Hammer, Operation Absolute Resolve, and Operation Epic Fury? [1:18:07] Thank you for the question, Mr. Congressman. [1:18:10] Not only have I not seen missions like that, but if you ask, if you earnestly go into our formations right now, and you talk to colonels and majors and staff sergeants and two-star generals, [1:18:22] and you ask them about the environment of our military right now, and its capabilities right now, compared to under the Biden administration, under Obama, they will tell you it is night and day. [1:18:32] Even the ranking member acknowledged that the troops performed incredibly well over the past 15 months and have demonstrated to the world. [1:18:39] These are not new troops in a lot of cases. [1:18:41] These are the same troops with new leadership under President Trump, who gives them every authority, under a department that ensures they have what they need. [1:18:50] I have operators looking at me saying, for the first time ever, we have everything we need to accomplish the mission, both in equipment and in authorities. [1:18:57] That matters when you go 37 hours around the world for Midnight Hammers. [1:19:02] That matters when you go downtown in Venezuela and grab the indicted dictator of a country in the middle of the night in the most fortified location. [1:19:11] That matters at the outset of the Iran conflict. [1:19:14] It matters during Operation Rough Rider, which there's a reason why the Houthis aren't in this fight right now, [1:19:19] because they experienced 50 days of the American military under President Trump. [1:19:23] And that matters in the Caribbean and our fight against designated terror organizations. [1:19:28] This military is unleashed and morale is at a level that this country has not seen for decades and decades, [1:19:34] because of the leadership of President Trump and because this war department allows them to get back to basics. [1:19:40] No more distractions, no more debris. [1:19:43] It's simple accountability, training standards, lethality, and they respond to it. [1:19:48] And it's that response that's manifest in highly and historic, successful military operations, [1:19:53] led by our incredible joint force, who are grateful to have a commander-in-chief that has their back. [1:19:59] Well, I can tell you for that, our nation, myself, and all of us are incredibly grateful. [1:20:03] Secretary Hegseth and General Kane, with your vision and steadfast commitment to our nation's service members, [1:20:08] you have both overseen the beginning of a generational transformation of our armed services. [1:20:13] This budget request reflects that commitment by building and sustaining our defense industrial base, [1:20:18] increasing service member pay, housing, and benefits, robust funding for Golden Dome missile defense and space capabilities, [1:20:25] and the emphasis on the peace through strength doctrine outlined in the National Defense Strategy. [1:20:31] Based on the Defense Department's recent track record of successful missions, [1:20:36] can you share some examples of military action that illustrate exactly how your leadership and vision for the Department of War [1:20:42] is translating the peace through strength doctrine into an operational reality, [1:20:47] and what psychological impact that may have on our near-peer adversaries such as China and Russia? [1:20:52] And I'd like to get both yours and General Kane's perspective, if you can take 30 seconds each. [1:20:56] I'll keep it brief. [1:20:57] Re-establishing deterrence is one of the core pillars of what we set out to do after Afghanistan, [1:21:02] after October 7th, after the war in Ukraine, after Lloyd Austin went AWOL for a week and no one seemed to care. [1:21:09] The world took notice of that. [1:21:11] And through the actions we've taken swiftly that I just laid out, [1:21:14] the world has recognized that American power is back, [1:21:17] and the willingness to utilize it shows that we can achieve peace through strength. [1:21:20] And General Kane, in terms of our adversaries? [1:21:23] Yes, sir. [1:21:24] You know, when we look at the totality of actions that we've done over the last year, [1:21:31] one thing leaps out at me that I think is clearly and unambiguously seen by our adversaries [1:21:36] or those that may consider it, and that's our ability to integrate and synchronize a whole range of capabilities [1:21:44] that we have in the joint force, information, cyber, you know, deception, jamming, air power, sea power, land power, et cetera. [1:21:54] And I think that ability, and I'm so proud of our joint force, those young individuals. [1:22:00] Gentlemen, the time's expired. [1:22:01] Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal. [1:22:04] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, General Kane, Mr. Hexeth, and Hurst for being here today. [1:22:11] I associate myself with the comments of ranking member Smith and Mr. Garamendi, [1:22:17] so that I won't repeat a lot of what has been said. [1:22:20] Mr. Hexeth, I recently realized that we have something in common. [1:22:25] I'm also a fan of Pulp Fiction. [1:22:28] And no, the movie is not an accurate portrayal of the Bible. [1:22:31] You know what I'm talking about. [1:22:34] This president and his administration have claimed to be the most transparent of all time. [1:22:39] With that in mind, I'd love to get some straightforward, straightforward answers today. [1:22:44] Some estimates show that the Trump administration's war of choice in Iran is costing taxpayers around $1 billion every day. [1:22:54] In addition to spending taxpayer money on a war they don't want, it is also driving up costs. [1:23:00] The cost of gas while the cost of living is skyrocketing under this administration's policies. [1:23:06] To me, and I assume to the American people, it is unclear why we started this war, how it will end, and what anyone gained from it. [1:23:16] Mr. Hexeth, about how much money has been spent on this war to date, and how much more do you anticipate spending? [1:23:26] Well, as our comptroller laid out, the estimate is less than $25 billion at this point, as far as an expenditure. [1:23:33] And the question I would ask this committee is, what is it worth to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon? [1:23:38] Considering the radical ambitions of that regime. [1:23:41] I mean, almost every member of this dais at some point has said, whether it was... [1:23:45] Thank you for your answer. [1:23:46] I'll proceed to my next question. [1:23:47] That Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. [1:23:48] Thank you for your answer. [1:23:49] President Trump is the one that's willing to make sure it doesn't happen. [1:23:51] Supposedly, we had taken care of the nuclear capability last time around. [1:23:56] And now this war, we're at it again, because obviously we said we did, but we didn't. [1:24:02] In a way that the United States military can do. [1:24:05] I want to reclaim my time. [1:24:08] We know that the cost of oil and gas has gone up as a direct result of this war. [1:24:12] And the American people are feeling that pain at the pump. [1:24:15] In an attempt to alleviate the high price of gas caused directly by this president, he lifted sanctions on Russian oil. [1:24:24] The way I see it, this is a massive gift to Putin and Russia's struggling economy. [1:24:30] Mr. Hegseth, is there any concern that easing sanctions against Russia will allow Putin to continue funding Russia's illegal war against Ukraine? [1:24:45] Well, we've seen Russia's and Putin's inability to make effective battlefield gains, just like their inability to defend the Maduro regime with the billions of dollars of systems the Russians sent to Venezuela in order to defend him, which were defeated in 15 minutes. [1:24:58] So Russia's military capabilities are no match for ours. [1:25:01] And you don't believe easing the sanctions is helping Russia? [1:25:06] Well, we have the best energy team in the planet at the White House. [1:25:10] It's just a yes or no. [1:25:11] This is not deja vu. [1:25:13] It's a simple yes or no. [1:25:14] I understand the energy dominance that this administration has unleashed. [1:25:17] All right. [1:25:18] Well, I'll proceed to my next question. [1:25:20] Last week, it was announced that the Department of Defense is no longer requiring service members to get their annual flu shot. [1:25:27] Now, this is an easy one for you. [1:25:28] It's a softball. [1:25:29] Don't screw it up. [1:25:30] Don't screw it up. [1:25:31] The rationale was to, and I quote, restore freedom to our joint force. [1:25:36] This has been a requirement since 1950 because it is an effective at preventing the spread of flu among our troops. [1:25:46] It's not some new woke requirement as you like to lean on for much of your rhetoric. [1:25:52] This decision is actively making our military less safe and less. [1:25:57] And I think that's a good question. [1:25:58] I'm going to ask Mr. Hexeth. [1:26:00] At this time, there are plans. [1:26:01] Are there plans to remove the mandatory requirement of other vaccinations like measles, mumps and polio? [1:26:05] We made very clear in our announcement that it applies to service members having a choice as it pertains to the flu vaccine. [1:26:16] Don't you think that's a little reckless? [1:26:21] No, I think allowing well-informed Americans who serve our country to make a choice is not reckless. [1:26:29] And commanders will still have latitude, say, for a submarine or something else to make a decision for a unit about whether it could be mandatory in a particular circumstance. [1:26:37] But overall, our troops have earned the right to be able to choose about something like that related to their health. [1:26:42] Mr. Hexeth, I stand by what I said last time you were here. [1:26:47] You were incompetent then. [1:26:49] You're incompetent now. [1:26:51] And you're the gift that keeps on giving when it comes to incompetence. [1:26:54] With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:26:56] The gentleman yields back. [1:26:57] The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly. [1:27:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:27:04] Secretary, don't you think it was extremely reckless to mandate COVID vaccines for the healthiest and most unlikely to get COVID and kick them out of the service if they did not comply with a, although legal, crazy order from the previous administration? [1:27:24] Don't you think it was reckless to require that those soldiers and Marines and sailors had to take that COVID vaccine? [1:27:31] Congressman, thank you for the question. [1:27:32] Not only do I think it was reckless, but we point out the nature of the emergency and lack of actual data on it. [1:27:38] We think it wasn't, may not have been legal. [1:27:40] And as a result, we're working very hard to ensure that any service member who was pushed out is brought back in. [1:27:46] If they were forcibly pushed out with back pay and rank and everything that comes with it, those soldiers and troops of conscience who had to make that choice. [1:27:55] Very good. [1:27:56] We think they're the best troops in our force. [1:27:57] Listen, I'm grateful that we have two great National Guardsmen sitting at that table today. [1:28:01] As a long-time serving guardsman who just retired, I'm so proud of y'all and what you mean. [1:28:07] For our total force. [1:28:08] It's not a National Guard. [1:28:09] It's not a Reserve. [1:28:10] It's not an Army. [1:28:11] It's not a Navy. [1:28:12] It is a total force. [1:28:13] And thank you all for recognizing that. [1:28:15] I just want to go back to some of the Iran stuff. [1:28:18] I don't know. [1:28:19] Maybe they're in a different world than I'm living in. [1:28:21] But from where I live since 1979, Iran has been at war with the United States, although we refuse to acknowledge it. [1:28:28] Whether that's Hezbollah, whether that's the Houthis, whether that is Hamas, whether that is trying to build nuclear weapons, exporting terror everywhere. [1:28:39] I know for a fact when I was in Iraq, both tours, that EFPs made by Iranians killed our troops. [1:28:48] I know for a fact that many of the munitions, I know for a fact many of the militias in Iran that were Shia base were there to attack Americans at the willing knowledge of the Iranian government. [1:29:04] Do you agree they've been at war with us and are still at war with us and the world since 1979? [1:29:11] Of course. [1:29:12] For 47 years, from Beirut to Baghdad, Iran has sought the most dangerous weapons in the world to try to achieve death to America. [1:29:21] And if they were to get the most dangerous weapon in the world, a nuclear weapon, they would most certainly use it, which is why this is at the level of seriousness that President Trump was willing to address it. [1:29:32] And that's what I think so many in this body misrepresent. [1:29:35] North Korea is the lesson. [1:29:37] Everybody thought North Korea shouldn't have a weapon. [1:29:40] Under the Clinton administration, they gathered so many ballistic missiles that their ballistic missile shield allowed them to blackmail the region and the world to say, we're going to get a nuke and you can't do anything about it. [1:29:50] Under this administration, them weakened by the 12-day war and what happened with Midnight Hammer, President made a bold choice on behalf of the American people to say never will Iran, with their view of death to America and death to Israel, [1:30:02] have a nuclear weapon because if they have it, they'll use it. [1:30:05] And he's taken that bold action in a way I think the American people, when they understand the nature of that threat, and they do, they support it. [1:30:12] Chairman Cain, wow, I've been around a long time. [1:30:18] Can any other military in the history of the world pull off Venezuela, Midnight Hammer, and Epic Fury the way that our great warriors that defend and project power for our nation, [1:30:31] are you aware of any other nation in the history of the world that could have done that? [1:30:35] I'm not, sir, and I remain very proud of the joint force. [1:30:39] I'll also say we're a learning organization and we're going to continue to look at the things that go right in any operations that we're tasked to do, [1:30:47] and we're going to get better every day. [1:30:49] So we do not want to sit on the successes and assume future successes. [1:30:54] We owe it to the nation and to the citizens to constantly improve, no matter how well something goes. [1:31:01] So I'm incredibly proud of the joint force. [1:31:04] That said, I'm even more proud when they come back after that. [1:31:07] They go into a team room and they start debriefing to make sure that we do it better next time, whatever it may be. [1:31:13] And my final point, I just want to talk about what a stroke of genius it was, greater than I would have thought, to blockade the ports of Iran. [1:31:22] And that blow economically to their entire economy and to their leadership and everything else, it's going to take a little bit of time to play out. [1:31:31] But that was so smart because it is more effective than any bombs. [1:31:35] And those bombs were effective in Midnight Hammer. [1:31:38] They continue to be. [1:31:39] But until we kill their will to create a nuclear weapon, they will always be a nuclear threat because they've advanced far enough along. [1:31:46] But that blockade was so important. [1:31:48] And it amazes me now we're crying about high gas prices when they were $2 a gallon more just four years ago or five years ago under the previous administration. [1:31:57] With that, I yield back. [1:31:58] The gentleman yields back. [1:31:59] Chairman, I'll recognize this gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna. [1:32:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:32:03] Secretary Hegsett, tomorrow is two months since the war has begun. [1:32:07] You've testified that it was $25 billion in cost in terms of the munitions we used and what we paid for it. [1:32:15] But when you add to that the damage that was done to our bases and today's dollars for buying replacement munitions and replacement aircrafts, what has the total cost been over the last 60 days? [1:32:28] That number right now reflects the total cost that we're seeing. [1:32:34] Including buying in today's dollars, the new weapons and replacements and including the damage there? [1:32:40] That's your testimony? [1:32:41] If there's adjustments to that, I would defer to the comptroller on that. [1:32:44] And how much are you seeing in terms of, are you asking in terms of supplemental funding just for the Iran mission from this committee? [1:32:53] If and when a supplemental is submitted, the majority of it would not just be for, would not be. [1:32:59] But what would be the ballpark for Iran? [1:33:01] I would say it would be $25 billion. [1:33:02] I would say it would be $25 billion. [1:33:03] I would say it would be $25 billion. [1:33:04] If you come back, you want to revise those numbers because all the experts are disagreeing with you when it comes to today's dollars and damage. [1:33:08] But you can revise it. [1:33:09] How much did it cost American taxpayers in terms of the strike to the Iranian school where kids were killed? [1:33:14] Do you have that number in terms of the missiles we used? [1:33:19] As I've said, that unfortunate situation remains under investigation. [1:33:20] You don't know how much it cost the taxpayers? [1:33:21] But I wouldn't tie a cost to that, to anything. [1:33:22] That's a reasonable question. [1:33:23] No, sir? [1:33:24] I mean, our taxpayer money was going there. [1:33:25] Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war? [1:33:33] I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb. [1:33:46] I'm going to give you that opportunity. [1:33:50] and food over the next year because of the Iran war? [1:33:56] I would simply ask you what the cost is [1:33:57] of an Iranian nuclear bomb. [1:33:58] I'm going to give you that opportunity. [1:33:59] I would simply ask you what the, [1:34:01] you're playing gotcha questions about domestic things. [1:34:03] I'm not. [1:34:04] You're asking, you're saying it's a gotcha question [1:34:06] to ask what it's going to be in terms of the increased cost [1:34:09] of gas. [1:34:09] Why won't you answer what it costs to prevent Iran [1:34:11] from getting a nuclear bomb? [1:34:12] I give you that, sir. [1:34:13] But let me. [1:34:13] What would it cost? [1:34:14] What would you pay to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb? [1:34:16] Do you? [1:34:17] What would you pay? [1:34:18] I reclaim my time. [1:34:19] Do you not know? [1:34:20] You had no one do the analysis of what the increased cost [1:34:23] of gas and food on the American people are going to be? [1:34:26] What is the cost of Iran holding that straight at issue [1:34:28] with nuclear weapons? [1:34:29] It's $631 billion, which means it's an increase [1:34:34] of $5,000 a year for American households. [1:34:37] Now, let me give you this point. [1:34:39] You're saying that your operation is preventing a nuclear run. [1:34:43] Will you acknowledge that there is an economic cost [1:34:47] to the American people for doing what you believe [1:34:50] is necessary to make Iran denuclear? [1:34:52] Will you acknowledge the economic cost? [1:34:55] We have an incredible economic team [1:34:57] that's managing this better than what the previous [1:35:00] administration did to our economy? [1:35:01] You acknowledge there's a cost. [1:35:03] What the previous administration did for the inflation? [1:35:04] You don't even know what the, you know what's upsetting? [1:35:05] I reclaim my time. [1:35:06] What the previous administration did with COVID? [1:35:07] And you're going to lecture this administration [1:35:09] about the economy? [1:35:10] You know what is upsetting? [1:35:11] Incredible. [1:35:11] You didn't even do the analysis on how much [1:35:13] it's costing the American people. [1:35:15] It's one thing if you said, okay, cost the American people $5,000, [1:35:18] but we think it's worth it. [1:35:20] That's what we've done in World War II and other wars. [1:35:23] Here's what it costs. [1:35:23] You got to pay for it. [1:35:24] You don't even know what the average American is paying. [1:35:28] You don't know what we paid in terms of the missiles [1:35:30] that hit the Iranian school. [1:35:31] You don't know what we're paying in terms of gas. [1:35:33] You don't know what we're paying in terms of food. [1:35:35] Your 25 billion number is totally off. [1:35:38] It's the incompetence. [1:35:40] It's the incompetence. [1:35:41] Let me ask you this. [1:35:43] Certainly, maybe here we'll find agreement. [1:35:45] There were still 440 pounds of low-enriched uranium, correct, [1:35:48] when President Obama, after the JCPOA? [1:35:51] Is that accurate? [1:35:53] The amounts and types are classified. [1:35:56] Okay. [1:35:57] Will you acknowledge that there were 970 pounds of uranium [1:36:01] enriched after Trump tore up the JCPOA? [1:36:06] The JCPOA was a terrible deal that allowed Iran a path [1:36:09] to a nuclear bomb. [1:36:11] You deal with vague platitudes. [1:36:13] I'm just asking you about numbers. [1:36:14] You don't know what gas costs, you don't know what food costs, [1:36:17] you don't know what the operation costs. [1:36:19] You know, I get sound bites, but how about numbers? [1:36:23] Do you know how much the enriched uranium was [1:36:26] after you ripped up the JCPOA, Trump did? [1:36:29] I'll give you a number. [1:36:29] I know that, as was stated by early on, [1:36:32] the price of gas is twice as expensive in California. [1:36:34] Your home state is anywhere else in the country [1:36:36] because of the horrible policies your state pursued. [1:36:38] You know what? [1:36:39] It used to be that that type of stuff worked, [1:36:41] and then you started to lose the people that you campaigned [1:36:45] you wanted to be for because you said [1:36:47] you won't get us into bad wars. [1:36:50] You said you wouldn't, you would bring down the prices. [1:36:52] You know what I'm sad for? [1:36:53] I'm sad for all the people who voted for Trump. [1:36:56] I'm sad for them because you betrayed them. [1:36:58] You've betrayed a lot of that MAGA base. [1:37:01] And you know who knows that? [1:37:02] J.D. Vance knows that. [1:37:03] That's why he's upside down. [1:37:05] I recognize this gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon. [1:37:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:37:09] I thank all three of you for being here today. [1:37:12] It's a real privilege to be a part of this committee. [1:37:14] We are the most bipartisan committee out of 20 in Congress. [1:37:18] We have a tradition of voting on NDAAs [1:37:21] with large, large majorities year after year. [1:37:24] And it's important not to be a Republican first in here [1:37:26] or a Democrat first. [1:37:28] We're Americans trying to ensure that our country [1:37:30] is well defended. [1:37:31] And in that spirit, I compliment the operations in Iran. [1:37:36] I served 30 years in the Air Force. [1:37:38] We were attacked repeatedly by proxy groups from Iran [1:37:42] on every deployment I was on. [1:37:43] They were the number one threat where I was located. [1:37:45] I've lost friends, like at Khobar Towers. [1:37:48] Iran with a nuclear weapon would have been [1:37:51] an existential threat to our country. [1:37:53] And if they had a missile that could hit New York, [1:37:55] they would have done it. [1:37:56] They would have done it two months ago. [1:37:58] So I support our operations there. [1:38:00] I think it was good that we got Maduro out. [1:38:02] You know, I would say it would be important [1:38:03] to get the representative government [1:38:06] that duly won their election there, [1:38:07] and not good to replace one dictator with another dictator. [1:38:09] But Maduro was bad for their country. [1:38:12] And I support our 5% GDP spending. [1:38:15] There's no way to modernize our nuclear force, [1:38:18] sixth generation fighters, [1:38:19] take care of our men and women in uniform [1:38:21] without being a 5% GDP. [1:38:24] But also in the spirit, [1:38:25] I share a bipartisan concern of the firings [1:38:29] that we've seen at the Pentagon. [1:38:30] Four of the six service chiefs, [1:38:32] for example, the Coast Guard, [1:38:35] we had a huge bipartisan majority here [1:38:38] that had confidence in the Army chief of staff [1:38:41] and the Secretary of Navy. [1:38:43] And I would just point out it may be constitutionally right. [1:38:46] You have the constitutional right to do these things, [1:38:47] but it doesn't make it right or wise. [1:38:50] Now, my first question is dealing with the housing allowance. [1:38:52] So I've been working for the last two or three years. [1:38:55] Our housing allowance is underpaying people [1:38:57] in certain areas. [1:38:59] And the department that hasn't started [1:39:00] under this administration has been going on for a while. [1:39:03] They take out 5% of the housing allowance. [1:39:05] They send it to other needs. [1:39:08] But that means we're underpaying our servicemen [1:39:10] and women living off base by 5%. [1:39:13] So we tried to fix it with a $2.9 billion line item [1:39:17] to fix housing allowance. [1:39:18] But that money was moved. [1:39:19] So I'll just, Mr. Secretary, [1:39:21] can you tell us how we're going to fix this? [1:39:22] Because we have a shortfall in housing allowance [1:39:25] and we tried to fix it out of here. [1:39:27] And I'd like to get it fixed. [1:39:30] Congressman, I agree with you. [1:39:31] I think that is precisely the kind of quality of life issue [1:39:35] that's been ignored time and time again, [1:39:37] oftentimes with good intentions of trying [1:39:40] to trade off with something else. [1:39:42] But I mentioned the 7% pay increase. [1:39:44] That's just for junior enlisted. [1:39:45] It's 6% from E6 to 03. [1:39:48] And it's 5% from 04 all the way up. [1:39:51] But closing that gap, TRICARE reimbursement's a big one [1:39:56] we're going to look at as well. [1:39:57] If we reimburse TRICARE lower than Medicare, [1:40:00] then no one wants to take TRICARE. [1:40:02] And now you don't have a real network for service members. [1:40:04] So those places where we've pinched pennies [1:40:07] to try to eke out additional budget space [1:40:10] have really hurt service members. [1:40:11] So I'm committed to working with you on that [1:40:14] to close that gap and ensure that folks can live [1:40:17] where they are asked to serve [1:40:19] because they can afford housing. [1:40:21] I think this has already been addressed to a degree, [1:40:22] but I just want to emphasize [1:40:25] we did put $400 million in for Ukraine. [1:40:28] I asked you to execute it. [1:40:29] It's important for most of us in here. [1:40:31] It has overwhelming support. [1:40:33] Also, I'm the chair of the Baltic Security Caucus, [1:40:36] and we've put money in for the Baltic Security Initiative. [1:40:39] These people love America. [1:40:40] They love freedom more than any but where I've ever been. [1:40:43] And they need us. [1:40:44] They're on the front lines with Russia. [1:40:46] I have a question for the chairman. [1:40:49] So we did 29 years of the nuclear alert, [1:40:53] airborne alert, the looking glass mission. [1:40:56] In 1991, we turned that off [1:40:58] because the Cold War turned to our favor. [1:41:01] But I think we're back to where we were at. [1:41:03] Russia's a threat. [1:41:04] China's building a nuclear force to match ours. [1:41:07] I think we need a looking glass, too, [1:41:09] and restore that nuclear command and control survivability [1:41:13] that gives us deterrence. [1:41:15] Russia and China need to know no matter what they do, [1:41:17] we can launch those 400 ICBMs. [1:41:20] What's your vision for the looking glass, too, [1:41:22] or the follow-on? [1:41:24] Well, sir, as you know, right now, [1:41:26] we're looking at all three legs of the nuclear triad [1:41:29] to make sure that that most critical backstop [1:41:32] on our nation's most important day is reliable, [1:41:35] redundant, and workable. [1:41:38] And so we'll take a look at that. [1:41:41] I know the team already deepened analysis on all the, [1:41:44] from NC3 to the end state. [1:41:48] But what I want you to know is the most important thing [1:41:51] is the ability to execute if we had to, and we can. [1:41:55] You know, for 29 years, we had a plane airborne [1:41:57] with the general on board. [1:41:58] And it gave the Pentagon, the White House, [1:42:01] Strachan the assurance that we had a backup. [1:42:04] I think we're back to the future. [1:42:06] And I appreciate your look at it. [1:42:07] I just flew with them, and they were doing great work. [1:42:09] The gentleman's time's expired. [1:42:10] Mr. Chairman, I yield. [1:42:11] The chair now recognized the gentleman from Massachusetts, [1:42:13] Mr. Keating. [1:42:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:42:15] I want to talk briefly about the current U.S. doctrine, [1:42:17] the conduct of the administration in a particular event, [1:42:20] and a series of events, actually. [1:42:23] As everybody in the dais and the witness table is aware, [1:42:26] the Department of Defense law of war manual specifies [1:42:30] that any order to kill shipwrecked persons in an illegal order [1:42:35] would constitute a war crime. [1:42:38] It isn't suggested there's a specific example [1:42:41] to show a clear-cut example of what this entails [1:42:46] in our own manual. [1:42:48] With that in mind, let's look back a few weeks ago [1:42:50] when a fishing crew ended a long day of hard fishing, [1:42:54] scoring a full stock of albacore and swordfish on board. [1:42:59] Without any warning or expectation, [1:43:01] this small Ecuadorian fishing vessel, [1:43:03] operating about 200 nautical miles off the Galapagos Islands, [1:43:07] was militarily engaged by U.S. forces. [1:43:11] It was hit once, then it was hit again. [1:43:13] Not a warning shot, not an interdiction, [1:43:16] but two drone strikes. [1:43:17] Survivors described chaos and severe injuries. [1:43:21] Our U.S. forces then handcuffed the crew at gunpoint, [1:43:24] placed black hoods over their heads, [1:43:26] seized and scrubbed their devices, [1:43:28] and then held them for days. [1:43:31] Ultimately, the crew was released, [1:43:33] given there was no evidence, [1:43:35] no evidence to support any narco activity [1:43:38] or any charges that may be against them. [1:43:41] So to recap, we struck a vessel, we struck it again, [1:43:43] set fire to us as it was sinking. [1:43:46] And as public reports say, even drank their beer. [1:43:49] We detained the survivors and then we let them go. [1:43:53] This should be eye-opening. [1:43:55] Let's go to another example, [1:43:56] the double tap or two strike attack [1:43:59] that took place on September 2nd in the Caribbean. [1:44:02] A vessel was struck, disabled, and then struck again, [1:44:05] killing all but two survivors [1:44:08] that were left clinging to the wreckage. [1:44:11] And this is the thing, we know this happened, [1:44:15] we know how it happened. [1:44:17] And the Defense Department still refuses [1:44:18] to release the follow-up video [1:44:20] of the killing of the shipwrecked survivors, [1:44:22] even though they released the initial one [1:44:26] to the public in major news networks worldwide. [1:44:30] No difference in sources and methods in the two videos, [1:44:33] but still not released to the public. [1:44:36] Of course, the backlash was severe at the time [1:44:39] and perhaps is being forgotten. [1:44:41] And in predictable but ennoble display of character [1:44:44] from this administration, fingers were pointed at one another [1:44:47] as everyone scurried to cover in a tacit acknowledgement [1:44:51] that this was an issue potentially violating [1:44:53] international law. [1:44:55] Now, I've reviewed what's been available, [1:44:57] the phony rationale that these attacks [1:45:01] are about fentanyl trafficking. [1:45:03] When we know fentanyl comes from China, India, [1:45:08] through Mexico, then the baseless argument [1:45:10] that this was about narco-terrorism. [1:45:13] You know, I don't believe a word of it. [1:45:15] This was to create leverage for regime change in Venezuela. [1:45:21] And now the president acknowledged that was about oil. [1:45:25] Beyond the simple need for justice [1:45:26] and exercising American values, [1:45:29] it's important for us to discuss what the U.S. belligerence [1:45:33] in the world stage means to our security, [1:45:36] our ability to marshal cooperation with our allies, [1:45:39] and most importantly, not to normalize these actions [1:45:43] that could endanger the lives of our own service members, [1:45:47] put in similar peril. [1:45:51] Let me be clear about one thing. [1:45:53] Whether it's these particular strikes discussed here, [1:45:56] the one that killed 11 others off the coast of Venezuela, [1:45:59] whether it's the 178 other killings, [1:46:02] with each of these extrajudicial killings, [1:46:06] the administration is pirating American values. [1:46:09] We'll continue to investigate this. [1:46:13] We will. [1:46:14] It'll come forward in the future. [1:46:16] Some days, that second video will be released, [1:46:20] but we've got to stop also using our precious resources [1:46:24] that are being taxed so heavily all over the world [1:46:27] on actions that hurt our military. [1:46:32] They hurt our military, [1:46:33] and they hurt our standing internationally, [1:46:36] and they're hurting our standard here at home. [1:46:40] I hope that we can move forward. [1:46:43] I hope we're going to review whether these are justified, [1:46:47] because I found no justification. [1:46:50] We were given classified information on the second strike. [1:46:53] I can't discuss it, but I must tell you, [1:46:56] it's the most convoluted bullshit I ever heard in my life. [1:47:00] This should be public. [1:47:02] This is our honor. [1:47:03] This is what it makes American a difference maker. [1:47:06] This is what we're proud of. [1:47:07] It's an incredible array of false accusations. [1:47:09] And I yield back my time. Incredible. [1:47:11] The gentleman yields back. [1:47:12] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson. [1:47:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:47:18] Thank you, Secretary Hegseth and General Cain and Mr. Hurst [1:47:22] for your bold leadership and for your time today. [1:47:24] I really appreciate it. [1:47:26] I can't tell you how awesome this hearing is today. [1:47:29] It's fantastic. [1:47:31] From someone who's sat up here for four years [1:47:33] during the last administration, this is a great day. [1:47:36] Despite some of the crazy and disrespectful comments [1:47:38] from some in this room, the Department of War is back. [1:47:41] Today is a win because we are discussing [1:47:43] American power and dominance, national security, [1:47:46] and making America great again. [1:47:48] There may be differences in how we go about that, [1:47:51] but at least we are not wasting all of our time [1:47:53] talking about how to restructure the Department of War [1:47:56] into a social experiment that appeases the far-left woke agenda [1:48:00] that existed for the last four years. [1:48:03] Thank God those four years of the disastrous [1:48:05] Biden administration are done. [1:48:09] On behalf of someone who served 25 years on active duty [1:48:12] and almost everyone I know currently serving in uniform, [1:48:15] thank you, Mr. Secretary, for saving the department. [1:48:19] Okay, my question. [1:48:21] The U.S. Special Operations Command budget [1:48:23] has been relatively flat over the past decade, [1:48:27] failing to keep pace with inflation [1:48:28] and reducing the command's purchasing power by 14%. [1:48:32] I was disappointed to see that SOCOM's FY27 budget request [1:48:35] was only $223 million higher than last year's enacted level, [1:48:40] dropping even further from an already less than 2% [1:48:43] to now just above 1% of the department's overall budget. [1:48:46] All of this comes despite being increasingly asked to do more. [1:48:50] From 2023 to 2025, there was a 35% increase [1:48:54] in combatant command demand for soft capabilities, [1:48:57] and last year alone, SOCOM was unable to satisfy [1:49:01] roughly 70 mission-specific requests [1:49:03] due to resource and capacity restraints. [1:49:06] Secretary Hegg said, I have appreciated the opportunity to meet [1:49:09] with members of your team and leaders like ASW Solick Anderson [1:49:13] and SOCOM Commander Admiral Bradley [1:49:15] as we work to grow the SOCOM top line [1:49:17] for future fiscal years. [1:49:19] Can you discuss the critical role soft plays [1:49:21] in underpinning deterrence, [1:49:24] and do you agree with the urgent need [1:49:26] to grow the SOCOM budget accordingly? [1:49:30] Well, Congressman, thank you for your words, [1:49:32] and I wholeheartedly agree. [1:49:33] When you look at the burden that SOCOM shoulders [1:49:36] on behalf of the Joint Force, [1:49:37] it's incredible and it's significant, [1:49:39] and so many of the things we have accomplished [1:49:41] would not have been possible. [1:49:43] Without the incredible leadership of Admiral Bradley, [1:49:46] General Braga, and others inside that community [1:49:48] and what they do, [1:49:50] I recognize your desire for increased funding [1:49:54] beyond what is in FY27. [1:49:56] We have and will continue to look at that. [1:49:58] That needs to happen. [1:49:59] I think some of the other things inside the budget, [1:50:02] drones, quality of life, [1:50:04] there will be things that are applied to that community [1:50:06] even more so, we believe, [1:50:08] to ensure that they're taken care of properly. [1:50:09] And then there's facility questions [1:50:11] that are outstanding also, which we're examining. [1:50:13] So we're committed and we want to work with you. [1:50:16] Where we've missed something, [1:50:17] we need to get it right, [1:50:19] because they are at the front lines. [1:50:20] Thank you, and that leads into my next question. [1:50:21] I just want to ask this real quickly. [1:50:23] But this year's budget request of $54.6 billion [1:50:27] for the DOG, for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, [1:50:30] is a vital step to unleash American drone dominance [1:50:33] and rapidly integrate autonomous and unmanned systems [1:50:35] across the joint force. [1:50:35] And we've talked about that a little bit here. [1:50:37] However, my concern is only $1 billion [1:50:39] of this proposed funding is included in the base request, [1:50:42] with the remaining $53.6 billion [1:50:45] dependent on future reconciliation package. [1:50:47] While I understand the flexibility this approach provides, [1:50:50] I remain concerned about the potential gaps created [1:50:52] if such a package fails to occur, [1:50:54] or if funding for the DOG is not included [1:50:56] in future budget request. [1:50:58] And like you said, I'm hoping that SOCOM [1:51:01] is a big part of this. [1:51:02] But to avoid critical capability gaps, [1:51:05] how is the department planning to fully fund DOG [1:51:07] at the $54.6 billion if reconciliation stalls, [1:51:12] or does the department intend to transition funds [1:51:16] for autonomous requirements into the base budget [1:51:18] for future years? [1:51:20] And additionally, as you mentioned, [1:51:21] how will the department ensure SOCOM receives [1:51:24] and executes portions of this funding [1:51:25] to meet future mission requirements? [1:51:28] It's the right question, [1:51:29] and we plan to work hand in glove with this committee, [1:51:31] with OMB, with the White House, [1:51:33] to ensure that that reconciliation package [1:51:35] is properly tailored and timed, [1:51:37] so that it is passed, so that critical money gets there. [1:51:39] So we're not looking to FY28 or FY29, [1:51:42] because we need those capabilities right now, [1:51:44] which is why I appreciate the chairman's opening question [1:51:46] about reconciliation. [1:51:47] It is a critical vehicle in this calendar year [1:51:52] to ensure this department is fully funded [1:51:54] to meet the threats of the future. [1:51:55] Well, thank you. [1:51:56] Once again, I think you guys are doing an incredible job. [1:51:58] I appreciate your leadership, [1:51:59] and thank you for your time today. [1:52:00] I yield back, Mr. Chair. [1:52:01] The gentleman yields back. [1:52:02] Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, [1:52:04] Ms. Houlihan. [1:52:05] Thank you, Mr. Chair, [1:52:07] and I appreciate you, gentlemen, for being here today [1:52:10] and for the opportunity to have a face-to-face conversation [1:52:13] with each of you. [1:52:15] I have many questions, [1:52:16] and unfortunately, need to start with some that disturbed me, [1:52:19] Mr. Secretary, from your opening remarks. [1:52:22] In your opening remarks, Mr. Secretary, [1:52:24] you reserved more words and more time and more vitriol [1:52:29] to condemn Democrats than you did for Xi [1:52:32] and for Putin combined. [1:52:34] It's pretty telling to me that you decided [1:52:36] to use your words and your time for that. [1:52:39] It turns out that Democrats, [1:52:41] even Democrats in Congress, are patriots as well. [1:52:45] We serve in our uniformed services, [1:52:47] we admire and love our uniformed services, [1:52:50] and we love our country just as much as Republicans do. [1:52:53] In fact, in this body, I and Representative Bacon, [1:52:57] who you just spoke to, [1:52:58] led the junior enlisted pay raises [1:53:01] that you now sit there and laud and take credit for. [1:53:05] We led the closing of the BAH, [1:53:07] which then you ended up poaching and using for other things. [1:53:12] This body led and authorized Ukrainian funding [1:53:15] that is now being withheld. [1:53:17] You also, in your opening remarks, [1:53:19] strangely admonished us here for not being patient [1:53:22] with the results of your two-month war, [1:53:24] a war of your suggestion to this president, [1:53:26] a war of your choice, [1:53:28] a war you executed without congressional consultation. [1:53:32] And so it shouldn't be shocking, sir, Mr. Secretary, [1:53:35] that we have questions. [1:53:36] Indeed, it's constitutionally our right to do so. [1:53:39] So to be clear, despite a brilliant performance [1:53:42] by our men and women in uniform, [1:53:44] despite thousands of tactical successes, [1:53:46] Iran still has nuclear material, [1:53:48] still has air defenses, still has small boats, [1:53:51] and still has the straight. [1:53:53] So despite the fact that your recent comments [1:53:56] indicate that operations appear to be finished, [1:53:59] there clearly is more work that needs to be done. [1:54:02] As mentioned, today is indeed 60 days. [1:54:04] So, Mr. Secretary, how many more months, [1:54:06] just order of magnitude, [1:54:08] do you think that you're going to need [1:54:09] to be able to conclude operations successfully? [1:54:12] And how many more billions of dollars [1:54:14] do you think you're going to ask this body for? [1:54:18] Well, as you know, and as the president has stated, [1:54:20] you would never tell your adversary, [1:54:22] especially once you've- [1:54:23] Sir, I recognize that is the line that you always- [1:54:24] Especially once you've- [1:54:25] But give me an order of magnitude- [1:54:26] Especially once you've decimated their military, [1:54:27] and you control their freight- [1:54:28] React, 4X- [1:54:29] How long you would be committed to the mission. [1:54:31] And the next thing that you mentioned [1:54:32] in your opening remarks- [1:54:32] You know that, you would never do that. [1:54:33] Mr. Secretary- [1:54:34] Is that you called on, which astounded me, [1:54:38] examples of the Afghanistan war, [1:54:40] the Iraq war, and the Vietnam war. [1:54:42] Those are stunning examples to me [1:54:44] of something that didn't go our way. [1:54:46] We had the opportunity to execute on those wars quite well, [1:54:50] but we didn't accomplish any mission, in my opinion. [1:54:53] And I think you would agree on that as well. [1:54:54] My point is, this effort is not those efforts. [1:54:57] That's exactly it. [1:54:58] Is this war shaping up to be that war? [1:55:00] Because it has every indication- [1:55:01] We're shaping up to get the same kind of Democrats [1:55:02] we got in those wars, who were naysayers from the beginning, [1:55:06] undermining the progress of troops. [1:55:07] And we just have a conversation about the country [1:55:09] and the nation and not about parties. [1:55:11] The Democrat Party wanted to socially engineer [1:55:14] the Department of War. [1:55:15] Again, we're having conversations about- [1:55:16] We've had to undo that and get it to a point [1:55:17] where it's capable of protecting power. [1:55:19] And that's exactly what we've done. [1:55:20] Clearly, you're not able to have that conversation. [1:55:21] So I will move on, sir, and I'm going to reclaim my time. [1:55:24] General George, let's talk about a guy who's a patriot, [1:55:27] somebody who every single person here in this dais [1:55:30] and down there in that audience [1:55:32] and out there in this world has huge admiration for. [1:55:35] Why did he get fired? [1:55:39] Well, as with any moves we make with general officers, [1:55:43] first of all, I thanked him for their service. [1:55:45] And ultimately- [1:55:46] My impression is you thanked him by a text or a phone call. [1:55:49] You didn't even do it to his face. [1:55:52] Out of respect for these officers, [1:55:53] we never talk about the nature of their removal, [1:55:55] but every one of them, including myself, [1:55:57] knows that they serve at the pleasure of the president. [1:55:58] So why did you fire him? [1:56:00] Ultimately, out of respect to these officers, [1:56:02] we don't reveal it. [1:56:03] However, I will note, it's very difficult to change [1:56:05] the culture of a department that has been destroyed [1:56:08] by the wrong perspectives- [1:56:09] So you said General George destroyed a culture? [1:56:12] There are many, we've gotten rid of many general officers [1:56:15] in this administration because we need new leadership. [1:56:18] You have no way of explaining why you fired [1:56:20] one of the most decorated and remarkable men [1:56:22] who's ever served in the nation. [1:56:22] We needed new leadership. [1:56:24] And so your answer is a very immature way [1:56:26] of responding to my request. [1:56:28] My next question has to do with my remaining time [1:56:31] about the fact that there apparently are orders [1:56:33] that you've recently given to the Navy [1:56:35] to detail officers to command billets [1:56:38] in special operations where they, [1:56:40] the people who you're detailing, [1:56:41] have already received bad performance reviews. [1:56:44] They've received negative fitness reports. [1:56:46] Is there a truth to that statement, sir? [1:56:48] I'm not aware of what you're referring to. [1:56:50] Have you ever ordered the Navy to add officers [1:56:53] who never screened for special operations major command [1:56:55] to the promotion list for flag officer? [1:56:58] I'm not aware of what you're referring to. [1:57:00] All right, I'll take that for a no. [1:57:02] Thank you, I yield. [1:57:04] Generally yields back. [1:57:05] For everybody's situational awareness, [1:57:07] it's my plan at one o'clock or approximately one o'clock [1:57:10] to recess for about 10 minutes to give the witnesses a chance [1:57:12] to stretch their legs and visit the restroom if necessary. [1:57:16] But with that, we will now go to the gentleman [1:57:18] from Florida, Mr. Jimenez. [1:57:20] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:57:21] And Mr. Secretary, are you aware that Iran [1:57:26] either through our intelligence or they themselves said [1:57:28] they had about 500 kilograms of enriched uranium, up to about 60 percent? [1:57:38] We're aware of what they have or what they believe they have [1:57:40] and what we know they have, but all of that is classified. [1:57:43] Fair enough. [1:57:44] And if indeed they had 500 kilograms of enriched uranium, [1:57:48] how long would it take to take it to weapons grade? [1:57:54] Quickly enough that it's a serious national security problem [1:57:57] for the United States of America, it should be dealt with. [1:57:59] If I said days or a few weeks, would that be inaccurate? [1:58:03] You might be somewhere in the ballpark. [1:58:04] Okay, thank you. [1:58:05] Actually, you can just get that from ChatGDP. [1:58:08] It'll give it to you, okay? [1:58:10] So it's not that classified, all right? [1:58:15] Would you say that our primary mission in this war is to deny Iran [1:58:19] the capability to develop a nuclear weapon? [1:58:23] Yes. [1:58:25] And would you say that a regime that's capable of killing 35,000 [1:58:29] of its own people within a two-day period, are they capable, [1:58:32] if they had the delivery systems, to carry out their threat [1:58:36] to destroy Israel and also to harm the United States of America? [1:58:41] Any regime willing to kill 35,000, and we think it might be more, [1:58:45] 45,000 of their own citizens in cold blood, would most certainly be willing [1:58:50] to use the most dangerous weapon in the world, especially as history teaches us, [1:58:55] when a nation says they will do something, you ought to listen. [1:58:58] And when they chant death to America or death to Israel, [1:59:00] if they got that nuclear weapon, history tells us they might use it. [1:59:03] Well, Hitler said he was going to kill the Jewish and he was going to try [1:59:07] to eliminate the Jewish population and Jews from the face of the world. [1:59:11] Nobody really believes him, but he's really tried to do that. [1:59:13] So when somebody tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, [1:59:17] I think I'm going to take them at their word. [1:59:19] And so would you also agree that now another goal of ours is to make sure [1:59:28] that Iran never blockades the Strait of Hormuz, [1:59:30] never has control of the Strait of Hormuz? [1:59:33] Would that be an objective of ours? [1:59:36] What they're doing right now is effectively piracy. [1:59:39] It's terrorism. [1:59:39] It's threatening international shipping. [1:59:42] And our blockade is signaling to the world [1:59:44] that we actually control that Strait. [1:59:46] And I would ask this committee, [1:59:48] what would this effort look like if Iran had nuclear weapons? [1:59:52] Imagine if not Iran had nuclear capabilities, [1:59:54] what they would do to wield over any advantage they have, [1:59:56] from proxies to funding international terrorism. [2:00:00] Mr. Secretary, also, not only would they do that, [2:00:03] but imagine if we had not become energy independent. [2:00:07] Under the previous administration, [2:00:08] they were hampering our ability to be energy independent. [2:00:12] Under the guise of, you know, the Green New Deal, [2:00:15] which is insanity, by the way. [2:00:17] I'm going to go back a little bit in history. [2:00:20] We were bombed, Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7th, 1941. [2:00:27] Do you know how long it took for the United States [2:00:28] to have its first major victory in World War II? [2:00:31] In the Pacific Theater? [2:00:34] Number of years. [2:00:35] No, it was actually six months. [2:00:37] It was the Battle of Midway, all right? [2:00:39] It was a turning point of World War II. [2:00:42] Could you imagine if we had had the same Democrats [2:00:45] asking then Secretary of War, all right? [2:00:48] Gee, it's been two months, okay? [2:00:51] And we haven't won this war yet back then. [2:00:55] We didn't even have, we didn't win a major battle [2:00:57] for six months. [2:00:59] Your job, the job of the military, [2:01:01] what you've done in the first two months [2:01:02] is extraordinary. [2:01:04] And so, again, for my, a couple of final questions. [2:01:07] Do you know how much money we spent on Ukraine, [2:01:12] helping Ukraine? [2:01:12] Under the previous administration? [2:01:14] No, right now, up to now. [2:01:15] Up to, upwards of 300 billion, 350 billion? [2:01:17] You're probably right, about 300 billion dollars. [2:01:19] And yet I don't hear anything about, you know, [2:01:21] gee, how much money have we spent on Ukraine [2:01:23] from the other side? [2:01:24] The difference between them and me is this. [2:01:27] I support the United States and their efforts [2:01:31] to help Ukraine against a dictatorial, aggressive power [2:01:37] like Russia, which is our second greatest adversary. [2:01:40] But I also support our efforts to make sure that Iran [2:01:43] never has a nuclear weapon. [2:01:46] And so you'll always have my support. [2:01:48] And I'm pretty, I'm pretty consistent in that. [2:01:50] I also support our efforts in what we did in Venezuela. [2:01:53] We still have to go a little bit further [2:01:54] because that remnants of that regime are still there. [2:01:59] And we need to provide freedom for the people of Venezuela. [2:02:02] And also, one thing, for me, I guess, [2:02:05] what I'm looking for in this war with Iran [2:02:07] is to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, [2:02:10] that we have established an inspection protocol [2:02:15] to make sure they never get a nuclear weapon [2:02:17] and that we control the strait. [2:02:18] And they never can control the strait. [2:02:20] Gentlemen, time's expired. [2:02:20] Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crowe. [2:02:24] Thank you, Chairman. [2:02:25] Mr. Secretary, I want to go in a little bit different direction. [2:02:28] Timothy Parlatore served as your private attorney, correct? [2:02:35] Correct. [2:02:36] And Mr. Parlatore also served as private attorney [2:02:40] for President Trump's campaign, correct? [2:02:43] I'm not privy to every professional position that he's held. [2:02:47] Well, I'll help you out. [2:02:48] He did. [2:02:49] And you appointed Mr. Parlatore as your senior advisor, correct? [2:02:55] He does reserve duty on behalf of the Navy. [2:02:58] His title is senior advisor. [2:03:00] You gave him that title, correct? [2:03:01] And I would count him as very much an advisor of mine. [2:03:04] Yep, he travels with you, correct? [2:03:08] Tim Parlatore has been a long-term friend. [2:03:10] He's a great patriot. [2:03:11] He travels with you? [2:03:11] That's not what I asked. [2:03:12] He's an excellent military lawyer. [2:03:14] He travels with you, doesn't he? [2:03:15] He travels with you, doesn't he? [2:03:18] Correct? [2:03:19] There's public Instagram that shows this. [2:03:20] Just say yes. [2:03:21] Yes, of course. [2:03:22] Okay. [2:03:23] He sits in meetings with you and advises you, doesn't he? [2:03:28] He sits in some meetings on occasion. [2:03:29] Yeah, well, he maintains a desk and an office in the Pentagon, does he not? [2:03:34] I'd have to check. [2:03:36] You don't know? [2:03:37] It's a big Pentagon. [2:03:41] You directly commissioned Mr. Parlatore in the Naval Reserve as a Navy commander in March [2:03:45] 2025, did you not? [2:03:47] I was very proud to do so. [2:03:49] And when you did, because he's a Navy Reserve officer, he didn't have to go through the [2:03:53] PPO process, the White House Presidential Personnel Office, right? [2:03:57] He wasn't vetted by a White House PPO. [2:03:59] Uniformed service members don't get vetted by the PPO. [2:04:01] The answer is yes. [2:04:02] He didn't have to be vetted by a White House PPO. [2:04:04] He didn't go through the Senate confirmation process either, did he? [2:04:08] The answer is no. [2:04:12] I don't know what you're getting to, but Tim is a fantastic person. [2:04:14] I'll tell you what I'm getting to. [2:04:15] The answer is no, right? [2:04:16] He does great work. [2:04:17] He does great work. [2:04:18] He didn't maintain a security clearance when you appointed him as special advisor. [2:04:26] Is that right? [2:04:28] I'd have to check. [2:04:29] You don't know? [2:04:31] I mean, anybody that has access to sensitive material is going to have the appropriate [2:04:35] clearance. [2:04:36] Okay. [2:04:37] So when you appointed him as special advisor, he had a security clearance? [2:04:39] I don't. [2:04:41] You're trying to piece together a timeline. [2:04:43] No, I'm asking a simple question. [2:04:44] One of your special, most sensitive advisors, did he have a security clearance? [2:04:47] No, you're playing a gotcha game like you do on TV and everywhere else. [2:04:50] You're trying to thread together details that are connected about something else. [2:04:54] Clearly, you're concerned about my line of questioning, aren't you, Mr. Secretary? [2:04:57] Because you know where it's going, don't you? [2:05:00] I think you do. [2:05:03] So does Mr. Parlatore represent foreign governments? [2:05:06] He has a private law practice, does he not? [2:05:08] From what I understand of his law practice, he does a lot of great work for service members [2:05:14] in the military and other. [2:05:15] He maintains a private law practice. [2:05:16] Does he represent foreign governments or foreign persons in that private law practice? [2:05:21] I don't know. [2:05:21] You don't know? [2:05:22] Somebody who's sitting in your meetings, a special advisor, you don't know. [2:05:27] Does he represent any senior officers who are currently under consideration for promotion [2:05:32] by you or your office? [2:05:35] The only person that makes determinations about senior officers is me. [2:05:39] Answer the question. [2:05:41] Does he represent senior officers who are under consideration for promotion by you? [2:05:45] No, I'm the one that makes decisions about choosing... [2:05:48] Does he represent them, Mr. Secretary? [2:05:50] Does he represent them? [2:05:51] He doesn't represent anyone. [2:05:52] He's a legal advisor and always has been. [2:05:53] But he has clients, does he not? [2:05:55] He's a legal advisor to me on reserve duty and he always has been and he does a fantastic [2:05:59] job. [2:05:59] Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was removed... [2:06:01] I reclaim my time. [2:06:03] Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was removed from an investigation by the White House last year? [2:06:08] I don't know what you're referring to, but not that I'm aware of. [2:06:11] You're not aware of it. [2:06:13] Was it true that you were also removed from that same investigation? [2:06:17] The answer is yes. [2:06:18] No, not that I'm aware of. [2:06:19] You're not aware of it. [2:06:20] That's interesting. [2:06:22] Well, is it true that Mr. Parlatore disparaged President Trump? [2:06:29] I don't know what you're referring to, but no. [2:06:31] Is it true that Mr. Parlatore was accused by President Trump and his lawyers of lying? [2:06:38] What you're accused of is a cute line of questioning that's going nowhere. [2:06:42] Well, it's going somewhere, which is why you're not answering the question. [2:06:46] Was it true that he was accused of lying by the President's legal team? [2:06:52] I'm not familiar to... [2:06:53] You'd have to give me the... [2:06:55] Well, it's right here. [2:06:55] You want to look at the statement from President Trump's legal team? [2:06:57] Anybody can blow up a quote and claim it says something and that's what you're doing and [2:07:01] a little stunt... [2:07:01] Secretary Hegseth, what I'm really concerned about is you purport to have unfaltering loyalty [2:07:06] to President Trump, and yet you are continuously... [2:07:08] Oh, you care a lot about President Trump, don't you? [2:07:10] This is a cute waste of your five minutes, a huge, cute waste of your five minutes that [2:07:16] led nowhere. [2:07:16] I reclaim my time. [2:07:18] You are repeatedly going behind the President's back. [2:07:20] The gentleman from Colorado's time. [2:07:22] Go ahead, Mr. Carlton. [2:07:23] You are repeatedly going behind President Trump's back, appointing people who he has accused [2:07:28] of a lying, who the White House has accused of lying. [2:07:29] The gentleman's time has expired. [2:07:31] And you are not being honest with President Trump. [2:07:32] The gentleman from South Carolina, Ms. Mace. [2:07:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:07:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:07:38] I request unanimous consent to enter a number of documents into the record, the first of [2:07:43] which is a statement from... [2:07:44] The first of which is a statement from Corey Mills' first sergeant stating his forms and [2:07:48] accounts of his military service are falsified. [2:07:51] The second document is a picture of Corey Mills wearing a bronze star from 2019, before he ever [2:07:56] got a bronze star. [2:07:57] The third document is a document that conveys a bronze star medal and his life-saving care [2:08:04] to the wounded. [2:08:05] And according to the soldiers who were there, they said it never happened, according to [2:08:09] the men who were there. [2:08:10] The next document is a transcript of a conversation I had with Brigadier General Arnold Gordon Bray, [2:08:17] who confirmed that he did not review, did not read, did not physically sign the form, [2:08:23] DD, I guess, 638, form 638, that Mills submitted for a bronze star. [2:08:28] And to be candid, he said, quote, I didn't look at it. [2:08:32] I asked to review the email that he sent to Mills' staff about authorizing his signature [2:08:38] for a form he did not review, and he said that he would not share it with me. [2:08:43] That's a future subpoena. [2:08:44] I would like to enter to record a picture of Corey Mills, who says this is the second time [2:08:48] he got blown up, but what he wouldn't tell people that the blood on the pant leg in this [2:08:52] photo is the blood of Sergeant Ray. [2:08:54] It is not Corey Mills' blood. [2:08:56] In the same series of photos he shares when he said he was, quote, blown up, are images [2:09:01] of a Humvee that exploded with severe damage. [2:09:06] That is not his Humvee. [2:09:07] His Humvee purportedly was 50 yards away and suffered no damage and was not blown up. [2:09:11] This is a copy of Corey Mills' marriage certificate with a 9-11 imam at a 9-11 mosque, entered for [2:09:17] the record and redacted with family members' names redacted and protected. [2:09:21] This is a picture of Corey Mills with a purported Russian hooker in Afghanistan, which he, of [2:09:26] course, denies. [2:09:27] And then last but not least, I would like to request unanimous consent to enter into the [2:09:32] record of restraining order against Corey Mills for dating violence. [2:09:37] Thank you. [2:09:39] I just buried my father on Thursday, Mr. Chairman. [2:09:42] My father died with shrapnel in his body. [2:09:46] He had three tours of combat, two in Vietnam, one in 1965 during the coup d'etat of the Dominican [2:09:52] Republic. [2:09:53] And I take stolen valor seriously because we have men and women in uniform that have given [2:09:58] their lives. [2:09:59] And an individual that steals the stories of dead soldiers or injured soldiers have no [2:10:05] right to serve in this body, let alone on this committee. [2:10:09] And so I take it very seriously. [2:10:12] I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and the folks that serve under you in the Department [2:10:17] of War. [2:10:18] As my father lay dying on April 14th, there was only one thing that calmed him down that [2:10:24] gave him the courage to pass on to the next life. [2:10:27] And that was for me to read stories and testimony from three different soldiers that we didn't [2:10:32] have, our family previously didn't have. [2:10:34] We've been doing a lot of research on my father's service when he received the Distinguished Service [2:10:39] Cross with V-Device in 1968 in Dong Zhai. [2:10:42] He rescued every man in that battle, in that firefight, over a two-day period. [2:10:48] He rescued them dead or alive on his own. [2:10:50] He stood up to take fire over and over and over again. [2:10:54] He called on artillery, heavy artillery, onto his position within 100 meters of his position. [2:10:59] The man should have never made it out of Vietnam alive. [2:11:02] And in fact, his commanding officers kept him back in many cases because they thought he [2:11:08] was on a suicide mission because he was just so dangerous out there. [2:11:11] But he saved the lives of so many soldiers. [2:11:14] And so as he was taking his final breaths, I was provided by the Department of the Army [2:11:19] some testimony of soldiers we didn't have. [2:11:21] And diagrams and information. [2:11:23] It was the one thing that calmed him down so that he could pass away knowing that he was [2:11:28] a war hero and knowing that Jesus loved him. [2:11:32] And it changed our family's life and it changed his life in his last moments, his last breaths, [2:11:40] his last hours. [2:11:41] And for that, I am so grateful for the ship that you're running at the Pentagon and the [2:11:45] Department of War. [2:11:46] I have heard from people in the way that you're trying to innovate and trying to change the [2:11:50] way we do business there. [2:11:52] And I'm glad that you're firing people. [2:11:54] There are people there that are getting in your way. [2:11:56] They need to go. [2:11:57] And the efficiencies that you want to bring, whether it's shipbuilding, whether it's cyber, [2:12:00] whether it's AI, whether it's public-private partnerships, we have never seen a secretary [2:12:05] at the Department of War who has been as innovative as you have. [2:12:09] So I can't say enough good things about you right now. [2:12:13] I was impressed, I was concerned about troops on the ground in Iran early on, and I was [2:12:18] impressed with where we are today, how those soldiers were evacuated, that got in that flight [2:12:24] that crashed. [2:12:25] But everything I have seen, you have surpassed all of my expectations, and I just want to [2:12:31] say thank you from the bottom of my heart. [2:12:33] And God bless you. [2:12:35] Gentle lady yields back. [2:12:36] Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Golden. [2:12:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:12:41] Good morning, Mr. Secretary and General Cain. [2:12:43] I'd like to use my time to drill down on an important decision concerning America's surface [2:12:48] fleet. [2:12:49] That is the future of the DDG-51 Flight 3 Destroyer. [2:12:52] Everyone on this committee knows about the Navy's struggles to successfully design, manage, [2:12:57] and field new classes of ships. [2:12:58] To name a few examples, I'll highlight the littoral combat ship, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, [2:13:04] and the recently canceled Constellation-class frigate. [2:13:07] By any measure, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been a highly successful program that continues [2:13:12] to deliver the Navy a large surface combatant it can depend on. [2:13:16] So the Zumwalt-class destroyers were going to replace the Arleigh Burke. [2:13:19] It's a ship with some interesting capabilities, but the Navy rushed to construction before [2:13:24] the design was complete, and it lacked a workable weapon system that the Navy wanted to outfit [2:13:28] it with. [2:13:29] So the Navy scrapped the program at three ships and went back to the DDG. [2:13:33] I'm in my eighth year on this committee, and the entire time I've been in conversation [2:13:37] with the Navy publicly and privately about the latest Flight 3 destroyer and how critical [2:13:42] a role it will play, it would play, and now is playing for the surface fleet. [2:13:47] And yet even before we delivered one to the fleet, the Navy was already planning the DDG-X. [2:13:51] I'm skeptical about the transition to yet another new class of surface ship, given the troubles [2:13:57] I've laid out already. [2:13:59] From my perspective, we have a proven haul for an Arleigh Burke destroyer that is described [2:14:03] by CNO after CNO again and again and again as the backbone of the Navy's surface fleet. [2:14:09] But now I'm even more skeptical. [2:14:12] The proposal cuts production of the destroyer down to just one ship, scraps the future destroyer, [2:14:18] and proposes $17 billion to build just a single new battleship, a class of ship the Navy decommissioned [2:14:25] in 1992. [2:14:27] Mr. Secretary, when you visited Bath Iron Works, you discussed this budget proposal with shipbuilders. [2:14:32] You said, quote, we're maxing out on DDGs. [2:14:35] It's a workhorse, and it's a damn good workhorse. [2:14:38] You were right about the DDGs. [2:14:40] They are a workhorse. [2:14:41] They're cost-efficient, deadly effective, and feared by our enemies. [2:14:45] And I'm wondering why would we move on so quickly from a relatively new Flight 3 destroyer [2:14:50] that's the gold standard for ballistic missile and drone defense capabilities. [2:14:54] It's a ship that's proven itself time and again recently in the Mediterranean, Persian [2:14:59] Gulf, and the Taiwan Strait. [2:15:01] I understand the Navy wants to field hypersonic missiles, but look no further than the three [2:15:06] Zumwalt ships that the Navy has in the fleet that have been refitted with vertical launch [2:15:10] tubes capable of delivering hypersonic missiles at a great payload at over 17,000 miles this [2:15:18] year. [2:15:19] Perhaps what's most troubling to me is that the battleship plan proposes moving at a pace [2:15:25] that is, I think, extremely dangerous or just high-risk, low-reward to begin construction [2:15:33] so quickly, breezing right through design. [2:15:36] It's well documented that expediting design and preemptively moving to construction is [2:15:41] the greatest recipe for failure. [2:15:45] This represents an unacceptable cost to taxpayers if it fails and leaves America less secure [2:15:52] and our Navy less prepared. [2:15:56] I understand the proposed battleship was a bit of a dream child of the recently departed [2:16:00] Secretary of the Navy. [2:16:01] I want to remind everyone here that recent history is littered with failed efforts to replace [2:16:06] existing, successful programs that remain the best-in-class worldwide. [2:16:11] This isn't the failure of shipbuilders or sailors. [2:16:14] It's a failure by leaders to learn a simple lesson. [2:16:17] If it ain't broke, don't fix it. [2:16:20] My sincere hope is that you, the Navy, and the Congress will pump the brakes on this battleship. [2:16:25] Take the time to get it right, whatever it is. [2:16:28] And for now, focus on the workhorse you can depend on. [2:16:30] America cannot afford a surface fleet without a backbone. [2:16:34] I very much appreciate that perspective. [2:16:38] And the idea of divesting of an asset that's indispensable right now is not just a Navy problem. [2:16:46] I mean, we've seen the same on MQ-9s and Apaches and A-10s and systems that our warfighters [2:16:50] continue to rely on, which is why divesting to invest, which was sold under the previous [2:16:55] administration because of continuing resolutions and insufficient budgets, created a gap where [2:17:00] now you're getting rid of the very things that you need right now, and you don't have [2:17:05] available things of the future that you said you would have because of the way this department [2:17:09] did business. [2:17:10] Always over cost. [2:17:11] Always delayed. [2:17:12] So there's one destroyer, one Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in this budget because, and I hate [2:17:17] to even say it, I'm not going to say it in an open hearing, how many years behind we are [2:17:20] on the backlog of building the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. [2:17:23] So the bulk of the money goes into shipbuilding to fix that, ensure we can get new places to [2:17:28] build more faster. [2:17:29] Then you can fund additional, whether it's this class or the next class. [2:17:34] We're almost over time, I'm going to reclaim and just say in my last seconds here, careful [2:17:38] with the pace, moving through design to construction so quickly as proposed by this budget. [2:17:43] Thank you. [2:17:44] Gentlemen, time's expired. [2:17:45] As announced earlier, we're going to now recess until 10 minutes past the hour of one. [2:17:49] This great country. [2:33:23] Mr. Secretary, a few weeks ago, our Commander-in-Chief President signed an executive order over research [2:33:33] on psychedelic medications, hovering over the veteran space as well as active members. [2:33:40] Could you, and I know you're aware of this, in the health and well-being of the service members [2:33:45] and the veterans is very near and dear to my heart. [2:33:49] We lose over 6,000 veterans a day, a day, a year. [2:33:55] I would love to see that trajectory go to zero. [2:33:57] Can you, at a high level, is the Department of War interested in kind of coming in with [2:34:06] VA, HHS, NIH, and pushing this type of research? [2:34:12] First of all, thank you, Congressman, for all the work you've done on this. [2:34:16] There's no more passionate advocate for him, and it was great to see you in the Oval Office [2:34:20] with your brother and with so many other SEALs who are saying, hey, this option saved my life [2:34:28] or gave me a new lease on life. [2:34:31] And I've heard that time and time again based on that particular approach that the President [2:34:35] has approved through the EO, and I think our Department has shown a willingness to be flexible [2:34:39] and look at new options and new alternatives. [2:34:41] And I think if you talk to Secretary Collins at the VA, the partnership we've had is as [2:34:47] deep as any partnership between the Department of War and the VA has ever existed. [2:34:52] So we've got regular meetings between us as secretaries, but also our chiefs, and then [2:34:57] down into the committees to ensure the flow is consistent. [2:35:00] But if there's something that the VA is doing that we should be looking at that enables [2:35:03] our service members to be better at their job, we're going to entertain it. [2:35:07] So I thank you for your advocacy on it, and we'll take a look at it. [2:35:11] Thank you very much, sir. [2:35:11] And it excites me that the two entities, one couldn't exist without the other. [2:35:17] I've had the opportunity to not only travel the country, but travel the world and visit [2:35:21] our troops, either OCONUS or CONUS. [2:35:25] And I have to say, sir, the morale, the well-being, just the sheer excitement our service members [2:35:34] see and how they're acting today, it kind of takes me back to our generation, if you will, [2:35:41] just to see that kind of that forward memento and that intestinal fortitude kind of glows on [2:35:44] them. [2:35:45] And I think that's a direct correlation to your leadership, sir, as well as the president. [2:35:49] Can you, from your perspective, I'm assuming you're seeing the same thing. [2:35:55] And I think that that blue line that needed to be popped got popped, and our service members [2:36:04] are absolutely leading from the front, and the world has noticed. [2:36:15] Tell me I'm not seeing that just from my own eyes. [2:36:18] No, you're not, Congressman. [2:36:19] And I meant this when I said it. [2:36:20] I would encourage every single member of this committee to talk to lieutenants and captors [2:36:24] and majors and colonels and sergeants and staff sergeants and sergeants major and specialists [2:36:29] who are doing the job right now on the front lines or across the country, and they have seen [2:36:33] a sea change in the environment and the morale and the spirit in their formations. [2:36:38] And it isn't some secret sauce. [2:36:41] It's don't treat us as a petri dish in your social justice exercise or your social engineering [2:36:48] approach. [2:36:49] Just let us do our job. [2:36:50] Let us get back to basics. [2:36:53] Let us train. [2:36:54] Let us choose people and elevate people simply on merit and merit alone. [2:37:00] That's motivating for people. [2:37:01] That's why they join. [2:37:02] That's why they do really difficult things like you did and are away from their families [2:37:07] for a very long time. [2:37:08] They want to defend their kids and grandkids, but they don't want to have distractions and [2:37:12] debris on the inside. [2:37:13] So when we talk to them, they are so grateful for the fact that we're just getting back to [2:37:17] the basics of readiness, training, accountability, discipline, warfighting. [2:37:22] Commanders, squad leaders, you name it. [2:37:25] And to those watching across the country, ask folks who have served, who've been in it, [2:37:30] how they view it. [2:37:31] And they see it under President Trump's leadership fundamentally different. [2:37:35] And we haven't even talked about the border, which is now secure. [2:37:38] I mean, there's the recruiting successes, the fitness and combat standards that have been [2:37:43] restored. [2:37:43] We're treating everybody at the same level. [2:37:45] Sounds like basics, but it all translates into morale. [2:37:49] And then morale translates into readiness. [2:37:51] And that translates into capabilities. [2:37:53] And then when you have a commander-in-chief that unleashes them, it turns into mission success. [2:37:57] And then the world pays attention to what the American military is capable of doing. [2:38:00] And it's on the shoulders of leaders like you who've did it in previous generations [2:38:04] that we're simply doing it again. [2:38:05] So thank you for your leadership. [2:38:06] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [2:38:07] And for everyone in the room that's in uniform, God bless each and everyone in for your service [2:38:11] as well as your families. [2:38:12] Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. [2:38:15] Sorry about that. [2:38:16] I thought you liked me. [2:38:18] I did. [2:38:18] I'm sorry. [2:38:19] That slipped. [2:38:20] General, I yield back. [2:38:21] We're now going to the gentle lady from California, Ms. Jacobs. [2:38:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:38:26] Mr. Secretary, as you know, I represent San Diego, the largest military community in the country. [2:38:31] Right now, as we are speaking, 2,500 San Diego Marines are off the coast of Iran. [2:38:37] Many, many other San Diegans in uniform have gotten 48-hour deployment notices. [2:38:42] So this war in Iran is not theoretical for me or for my constituents. [2:38:47] It's deeply personal. [2:38:48] As you also know, on Easter Sunday, President Trump threatened to destroy Iran's bridges [2:38:55] and power plants, writing, quote, open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll [2:39:00] be living in hell. [2:39:01] Just watch. [2:39:03] And two days later, President Trump wrote, quote, a whole civilization will die tonight, [2:39:08] never to be brought back again. [2:39:09] I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. [2:39:12] My office's phones have been ringing off the hook. [2:39:15] I've heard from so many military families concerned about the President's mental fitness [2:39:19] and whether he's fit to serve as our Commander-in-Chief, given that he's sending their loved ones into [2:39:24] harm's way. [2:39:25] Our troops, who have shown incredible bravery and tactical proficiency, deserve to know [2:39:30] that their leaders are focused and stable. [2:39:33] So, Mr. Secretary, you are with the President a lot. [2:39:37] And it pains me to even have to ask this about our President, but my constituents' lives [2:39:42] are at stake. [2:39:43] Do you believe that the President is mentally stable enough to be the Commander-in-Chief? [2:39:49] Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden for four years? [2:39:52] Mr. Secretary, Joe Biden is not the President. [2:39:55] Mr. Trump has been President for a year and a half, and I'm asking you right now. [2:39:58] You did not. [2:39:58] And I won't even engage with the level of disparagement that you're putting on the Commander-in-Chief, [2:40:02] who indeed is, I mean, every single day. [2:40:07] Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, Biden is not the President. [2:40:09] He's the sharpest, most insightful Commander-in-Chief we've had in generations. [2:40:12] And you want to compare, I mean, you want to ask that question after you and your fellow [2:40:16] Democrats defended Joe Biden, who could barely speak and didn't know what day of the week [2:40:19] it was? [2:40:19] Mr. Secretary, as you know, as you know. [2:40:20] He governed through an auto pen. [2:40:22] He had a Secretary of Defense who went AWOL for a week. [2:40:24] I can't be gone for 10 minutes. [2:40:26] Mr. Secretary. [2:40:27] I will reclaim my time. [2:40:28] Thank you so much. [2:40:29] In a lady's time, she's reclaimed it. [2:40:30] So, as Mr. Jimenez said, we should be taking leaders at their word. [2:40:35] So, is there a reason that we should not be taking our leader at his word? [2:40:39] Iran should not underestimate the will of President Trump and the United States military [2:40:43] to achieve our mission. [2:40:45] Okay. [2:40:46] Well, I want you to know this is not a partisan thing. [2:40:48] In fact, many, many Democrats have had, many, many Republicans have had these same questions. [2:40:54] Marjorie Taylor Greene said he's out of control and he's gone insane. [2:40:58] Candace Owens said the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked. [2:41:01] Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who you used to work with, Alex Jones, Stephanie Grisham, [2:41:06] the list could go on. [2:41:07] So, how do I explain to my constituents that while they are in harm's way, their commander [2:41:12] in chief is posting these unhinged posts? [2:41:15] How did you explain to your constituents what happened on October 6th or what happened in [2:41:21] Afghanistan or what happened with the debacle and the withdrawal in Afghanistan? [2:41:25] Where the troops were left. [2:41:26] But how did you explain that to Joe Biden's leadership? [2:41:27] Mr. Secretary, I'm not asking you about the previous administration. [2:41:28] How did you explain that to the Marines that didn't get medals? [2:41:30] That we restored their medals because of that disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan? [2:41:33] Did you explain that to your constituents when Joe Biden was asleep at the wheel and [2:41:37] he had an AWOL Secretary of Defense? [2:41:38] Okay, Mr. Secretary, how about this next post? [2:41:41] How can I explain this next post to my constituents? [2:41:44] I'm Jewish, so this doesn't really bother me. [2:41:51] But my understanding is that this is quite offensive to many Christians. [2:41:55] So, how do you explain this post? [2:41:57] I'm not here to explain post. [2:41:59] We have an incredible commander in chief who puts our troops first. [2:42:03] I'm here for a budget hearing about our troops. [2:42:05] This is about our troops. [2:42:07] It's a historic budget that's giving us a chance to defeat our adversaries. [2:42:09] And President Trump is doing that in world-class fashion. [2:42:12] This is about our troops. [2:42:14] General ladies, reclaimed your time, Mr. Secretary. [2:42:15] This is about our troops. [2:42:16] This is about who is commanding our troops and if our troops can trust that they are being [2:42:21] sent into harm's way under good strategy. [2:42:22] The mental stability of our commander in chief is deeply important to our troops. [2:42:28] It's deeply important to this country. [2:42:30] It is our troops' lives at stake. [2:42:30] It wasn't important to you during Joe Biden. [2:42:32] I'll remind you that when there were concerns, Democrats came together and he was not our nominee [2:42:38] for president, so I encourage you to do have the same courage that Democrats had. [2:42:42] Mr. Secretary, you keep saying that he is the best commander in chief we've ever had, [2:42:47] the best negotiator. [2:42:48] After the troops. [2:42:48] 13 American troops have died. [2:42:51] More than 380 have been wounded. [2:42:53] The Strait of Hormuz, which was wide open, is now closed. [2:42:57] Less than 90 percent of traffic through the Strait is still not going despite the ceasefire. [2:43:02] The Iranian regime is still in power. [2:43:04] It still has nuclear material. [2:43:06] The war is costing Americans billions of dollars. [2:43:09] And, Mr. Secretary, if you think that this is what winning looks like, [2:43:13] then maybe we should be questioning your mental stability. [2:43:15] Maybe you are the one responsible for this failure, and the president should think about replacing you. [2:43:20] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [2:43:22] Good lady yields back. [2:43:23] I recognize the good lady from Virginia, Ms. Kiggins. [2:43:27] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being with us. [2:43:30] I have the privilege of representing Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, [2:43:33] so Hampton Roads, home to a lot of our East Coast Navy. [2:43:37] And I had the privilege of attending the VFA 106 Change of Command on Friday, [2:43:41] which is our fleet replacement squadron for the aging F-18s. [2:43:45] But what an awesome event. [2:43:47] And to talk to some of the Navy leadership that was there and to listen to them say firsthand [2:43:51] just about the morale of the squadrons that are currently deployed on the USS Ford, [2:43:58] specifically talking to leadership a lot of our children serve. [2:44:01] It's a family business for those of us in naval aviation. [2:44:03] And they're like, don't believe the media. [2:44:05] The morale is amazing. [2:44:06] Those guys are doing tip of the spear mission work. [2:44:08] I live with a retired F-18 pilot husband who also is begging to find a way to get back in the cockpit [2:44:14] because he's jealous of what he sees. [2:44:15] So just that type of mentality. [2:44:18] Thank you for that. [2:44:19] I know that they're doing a mission and keeping them engaged is an important part of the fight. [2:44:23] Along those same lines about naval aviation, I would love to hear, Mr. Secretary, [2:44:27] your thoughts about the future of naval aviation. [2:44:29] I know that this is a budget hearing. [2:44:31] So last year's budget, we had $900 million that we were looking forward to using an F-A-X-X program. [2:44:38] And then the fiscal year 27 request was reduced to $140 million. [2:44:43] And, of course, keeping tabs on the Air Force, $5 billion for their F-47 program. [2:44:49] So we love aircraft carriers. [2:44:50] We love that mobile air superiority piece. [2:44:53] What are your plans for the future of naval aviation? [2:44:55] I kick and scream every day of the week here in this committee about the F-35s [2:44:58] and getting them at our East Coast Master Jet Base. [2:45:01] I know that F-A-X-X is our next-generation strike fighter, [2:45:03] but just would love to hear your plans and timelines for the future of naval aviation. [2:45:07] Well, I appreciate your comments. [2:45:08] And then I would defer to the chairman, too, on it, on the utility, remaining utility of the F-18s, [2:45:14] which are still flying critical missions right now off our carriers and do a fantastic job. [2:45:20] 30-plus years old, but yes. [2:45:22] Yes, correct. [2:45:23] Which is why the issue of the F-A-X-X is important. [2:45:26] It's not a matter of if. [2:45:27] It's a matter of when. [2:45:28] It's a matter of tradeoffs in industry and design and capabilities, [2:45:31] ensuring we're not slowing other things down at the behest of others. [2:45:35] So I think in August, the August time frame, I'm sure you're familiar with that. [2:45:39] Yes, that's correct. [2:45:39] That's what we're looking at. [2:45:40] It's a critical capability that we need to fund for the future of naval aviation. [2:45:45] I would defer if anything you want to add. [2:45:46] Sir, I think you covered it. [2:45:48] The, you know, we don't need access basing and overflight off of a CSG and a CVN. [2:45:54] And so it gives the secretary and the president a lot of options. [2:45:58] And so, and I just want to echo the thanks for the joint force, on behalf of the joint [2:46:04] force, for all three CSGs that are out there getting after it right now. [2:46:08] I share your husband's jealousy, but just want the force to know how much we appreciate [2:46:15] him, especially the Ford. [2:46:17] Thank you. [2:46:17] Thanks very much, General. [2:46:18] And then, Mr. Secretary, just again, representing a big Navy district and having just a concern [2:46:25] for the Navy. [2:46:26] Could you shed any light on why the secretary of the Navy was relieved and what that timeline [2:46:31] to replace him looks like for permanent leadership? [2:46:34] I think that's one of the reasons why we struggle with even, I think, about the basing decisions [2:46:40] and, again, naval aviation. [2:46:42] And that's, I wish we would talk more about just the contributions of our aviators. [2:46:46] But could you shed any light on that issue? [2:46:49] Well, as the president stated, we thank the previous secretary for his service. [2:46:53] Appreciate a lot of the initiatives that he undertook. [2:46:56] Ultimately, it was time for a new leadership and a new direction as far as running fast toward [2:47:01] those objectives. [2:47:01] And so we made a change. [2:47:03] We think it's hard to, personnel is policy. [2:47:06] And the sooner you identify, especially, we've talked about general officers, you know, as [2:47:10] you're evaluating whether they're running with the mission they've been given, you've [2:47:14] got to make a change if they're not. [2:47:16] The same with civilians. [2:47:17] And in this case, we made that change. [2:47:19] And any timeline to replace or have a new secretary of the Navy? [2:47:22] Well, right now we have an acting in Hong Kao who did a fantastic job as the number two [2:47:27] and he'll be acting for now. [2:47:28] And I would imagine we'll know in due time. [2:47:32] Thank you. [2:47:33] And then General Kane, I know you're a VMI graduate and I know you're watching some [2:47:38] of the partisan attacks that have been going on with some of our senior military academies, [2:47:41] specifically in Virginia. [2:47:43] And I was wondering if you had any thoughts or have had any discussions about how we can [2:47:47] remove some of our senior military academies from these partisan state politics. [2:47:51] I think it requires a further discussion. [2:47:53] We had 170 Army ROTC officers that we commissioned out of that school specifically. [2:47:57] But we've seen pushes to shut down, defund, replace their Board of Visitors. [2:48:02] Any thoughts on how we can be more protective of those great schools? [2:48:05] Well, ma'am, you sort of started where I'm going to land on the importance of staying [2:48:10] in politics as the chairman and not unintentionally or inadvertently stepping into a political matter [2:48:17] where I should not. [2:48:18] As the secretary said, people are policy and policies are things that we don't do in the [2:48:24] joint force. [2:48:25] I appreciate all of the commissioning sources that are out there. [2:48:28] General Lady's time to expire. [2:48:30] Chairman, I recognize General Lady from Washington, Ms. Strickland. [2:48:33] Thank you, Chairman Rogers and Member Smith. [2:48:35] And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. [2:48:37] This committee is being asked to consider a $1.5 trillion DOD budget request that funds [2:48:43] not only weapons and system programs, but the people, leadership, readiness, and trust [2:48:48] required to make them effective. [2:48:50] When senior leaders are removed abruptly or merit-based promotions are disrupted without [2:48:54] clear explanation, Congress does have the responsibility to understand the rationale [2:48:59] and operational consequences. [2:49:00] So I'm going to focus on Secretary Hegseth. [2:49:02] And to start, no one is disputing that senior officers serve at the pleasure of civilian [2:49:08] leadership. [2:49:09] The issue in front of this is whether the decision to remove General Randy George strengthened [2:49:13] the Army or created an avoidable disruption during an active operational period. [2:49:19] General George, who also served as commanding general at I Corps at JBLM, has been serving [2:49:24] for four decades, including multiple command and operational leadership roles, culminating [2:49:29] as chief of staff of the Army, responsible for readiness, forced modernization, and the [2:49:34] welfare of over a million soldiers and civilians. [2:49:37] He was removed in the middle of an active conflict involving U.S. operations against Iran [2:49:43] when leadership continuity is most critical. [2:49:46] Public reporting indicates that General George's removal may have followed disagreements over [2:49:50] Army personnel matters, including concerns regarding withheld promotions. [2:49:54] So my question, Secretary, is this. [2:49:57] What specific national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern did General George [2:50:03] present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict, or was he removed because [2:50:09] he challenged some decisions being made? [2:50:12] As I stated earlier, out of respect to these officers, I don't discuss the nature of the removal, [2:50:17] but I would ask an earnest question of you. [2:50:20] Where does General George fall in the operational chain of command? [2:50:22] So I'm asking you, why did you fire him? [2:50:26] Don't change the situation, sir. [2:50:26] You talked about an operational moment. [2:50:28] Please answer my question. [2:50:29] Where does General George fall in the op- [2:50:31] Please answer my question. [2:50:31] No, it's a simple question. [2:50:32] National risk, mission risk, leadership concern. [2:50:35] What did he present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict? [2:50:38] Do you know where General George serves in the operational chain of command? [2:50:42] So I'm asking you my question one more time, sir. [2:50:44] Don't try to flip it on me. [2:50:46] Why was he removed? [2:50:47] Was he a national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern? [2:50:51] We don't- [2:50:51] Yes or no? [2:50:52] We don't talk about the nature of removals, but you also won't answer where he is in the operational chain of command [2:50:57] because he isn't in it. [2:50:59] He isn't in the operational chain of command. [2:51:01] General lady reclaimed your time. [2:51:02] You want to tie it to the war, but you don't know where he is in the territory of command. [2:51:06] It's the general lady from Washington's time. [2:51:08] Under Doty 1320.04, the Secretary of Defense may withhold or disprove forwarding nomination after service recommendations in limited circumstances, [2:51:19] including newly identified adverse information, pending investigations, reportable information, and questions regarding mental, physical, moral, or professional qualification, [2:51:29] incomplete or non-compliant nomination packages, missing certifications, or the need for additional clarification from the military department. [2:51:37] Several colonels were poorly selected for brigadier general were removed or withheld after board selection and service certification. [2:51:44] Which of these specific grounds applied to each withheld officer, and what objective evidence supported these decisions? [2:51:53] Congressman, that was just one of many boards across the services where we will perform similar reviews, [2:51:58] and I anticipate other officers will be removed also. [2:52:01] Okay, but what were the grounds for those? [2:52:03] Again, we don't talk about out of respect for those officers. [2:52:05] We don't talk about the nature of that, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. [2:52:09] We're solving for an institution that needs to be based on merit and professional execution, [2:52:14] and there's been a lot of gender and demographic engineering that's been going on for reasons other than the focus of exactly what we should be doing on the battlefield. [2:52:23] So whether it's that or execution. [2:52:24] I did not raise gender. [2:52:25] That's implied in every statement that everybody makes, and so ultimately, as we review all these boards, [2:52:31] it has nothing to do with anything other than their performance on the battlefield or their performance in their career. [2:52:36] And these people are thoroughly vetted, thoroughly researched, and I guess my question is, [2:52:42] is this about loyalty to Trump, or is it about what's good for the mission? [2:52:48] I understand what you're implying, but it's about the Constitution and our military and its ability to execute, [2:52:52] and I'm going to make sure the president has the finest officers across the force prepared to deliver. [2:52:57] So this committee funds weapons, readiness, recruiting, professional development, and leadership pipelines. [2:53:04] But no amount of money can compensate for a force that may lose trust in the fairness of advancement. [2:53:10] And this is fairness. [2:53:11] We believe in merit. [2:53:12] We have always had a merit-based system. [2:53:14] That's not the argument. [2:53:15] No, we have not. [2:53:15] Not under the Biden administration, we did not. [2:53:17] It became social engineering, not merit, and we're fixing it. [2:53:20] No, it didn't. [2:53:20] No, it did not. [2:53:21] No, it did not. [2:53:22] And when we consider this budget request, we must ensure that taxpayer dollars are matched by sound judgment, [2:53:28] credible leadership, and a personnel system worthy of those who serve. [2:53:32] I yield back, Mr. Chair. [2:53:33] Generality yields back. [2:53:34] Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. [2:53:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:53:39] Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. [2:53:41] I'm sorry I was late. [2:53:42] I was on the floor of the House of Representatives with a vice-a-rule vote, and I did not hear the majority of the testimony. [2:53:52] But, Secretary Higgseth, I respect you. [2:53:56] I do want you to know I disagree with the firing of General George. [2:54:01] I've sent you a letter. [2:54:02] I hope you'll – I look forward to seeing the responses on that. [2:54:07] And I just – I mean, it takes 218 votes to get something across the floor of the House of Representatives. [2:54:14] And with NDAA and with budget plus-ups and everything else, we're going to lose some DEM votes. [2:54:22] I mean, we're going to have to have – I mean, we're going to lose some Republican votes. [2:54:25] I mean, we're going to have to have some DEM votes to do the things that we have to do to fund the Department of Defense. [2:54:33] And I just – I would encourage everybody to keep that in mind because we're going to lose some Republican votes on the plus-up. [2:54:45] But, General Cain, the joint staff plays a unique role in our strategic direction. [2:54:57] The integration of services is what gives us a coherent joint force. [2:55:05] I have seen where disputes in the Air Force and the Army led to the elimination of systems that we needed. [2:55:12] And as the Department has made attempts to right-size various components, could you talk about the importance of the joint staff and the value to the joint force? [2:55:27] You bet, sir. [2:55:28] And I'm incredibly proud of the joint staff. [2:55:32] You know, our job is to integrate options, to deliver those options to our National Command Authority, work with all the services. [2:55:41] And the one area of exclusivity we have pursuant to the 2017 NDAA is as a global integrator. [2:55:49] And our J2, J3, J5, J7 team, J8 all do a fantastic job, along with the one and the six every day, and the four, to really bring the totality of American combat capability together into a range of options and risks that we can then bring to the secretary and the president. [2:56:09] So they are extraordinary in everything they do. [2:56:13] And I appreciate the chance to brag on them a little bit. [2:56:16] Well, I have watched as the Air Force was paying for a system that was predominantly used by the Army in the past. [2:56:24] I'm talking about JSTAR specifically. [2:56:26] It was a ground-moving target indicator that the Army used, but it was coming out of the Air Force budget. [2:56:30] And then I think that dispute led to the stand-down of a system before another system was ready to go. [2:56:38] And that's a dangerous thing. [2:56:42] I spent a fair amount of time in Africa. [2:56:44] From this committee's work and from HIPSE's work, we lost to Air Base 101 and 201. [2:56:54] All of you at that table know what happened there. [2:56:57] I blame that on State Department and the way the State Department handled that. [2:57:03] How do you intend to handle, one is, are we looking at Niger and the potential to get 101 and 201 back? [2:57:11] And I do believe that an apology would go a long way with that country. [2:57:17] As someone who's met with the ministers over there, and interestingly enough, Minister Tumba wanted tractors. [2:57:23] He wanted John Deere tractors, is what he asked for. [2:57:27] But where will we base out of if we can't get Niger back? [2:57:33] And are we looking at getting 101 and 201 back? [2:57:36] Yes, sir. [2:57:37] Well, we all want tractors. [2:57:39] So I echo his thoughts there. [2:57:42] You know, I know General Anderson is doing a lot of work right now, leaning forward, doing a fantastic job, [2:57:48] along with his deputy commander, General Brennan, on looking at the total requirements across the western flank [2:57:56] for access, basing, and overflight. [2:57:58] 101 and 201 are one of many things that they're considering. [2:58:01] I think the key is, what are they going to be able to do with the resources that they have? [2:58:09] And we're always in a resource-constrained environment, Congressman, to put sufficient pressure on the CT adversaries there [2:58:16] in order to hold them at bay. [2:58:17] Well, the middle-to-mill relationships are still good. [2:58:19] Yes, sir. [2:58:20] I've been out with some of the ODA teams over there as a civilian, as a member of Congress. [2:58:26] Yes, sir. [2:58:26] It does bother me that our footprint has gotten so much smaller over there. [2:58:30] But I do know with drones and other things, it makes it much more difficult to have those outposts. [2:58:34] But I appreciate all of you being here. [2:58:35] Sorry that I have not been here. [2:58:37] No, sir. [2:58:37] Appreciate the other work. [2:58:39] Gentleman yields back. [2:58:40] Chair, and I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan. [2:58:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:58:46] Head wounds, heavy bleeding, and then just shrapnel all over. [2:58:50] So folks are bleeding from their abdomen, bleeding from arms, bleeding from legs. [2:58:57] Secretary Hegseth, do you know who said that? [2:59:01] I'm not sure I do. [2:59:02] It was one of our soldiers describing the devastating Iranian drone strike at Port Shweiba, March 1st, in Kuwait. [2:59:09] As you know, six of our soldiers killed, over 30 wounded. [2:59:15] Secretary, do you know the range of the Shahed 136 one-way attack drone, approximately? [2:59:20] It depends on the variant, but it's got serious distance. [2:59:23] Several hundred miles. [2:59:24] Do you know how far Port Shweiba is from Iran? [2:59:29] There's a reason why we took extreme measures of force protection, because we understood the proximity challenges. [2:59:35] Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reclaim my time. [2:59:37] It's well under 100 miles. [2:59:38] Before the war started, there was clear intelligence that Shweiba was high on Iran's target list. [2:59:45] Internal analysis that said the site was indefensible from aerial attack and should not be used. [2:59:51] Yet you sent our soldiers from the 103rd Sustainment Command there anyway. [2:59:57] Is that true or false? [2:59:58] True or false? [3:00:00] Straightforward question. [3:00:01] Are you going to give me a chance to answer or just play gotcha? [3:00:03] Did you send them there or not? [3:00:06] I always, we took proactive measures from the beginning to ensure force protection and defensive posture were maximized across the theater. [3:00:14] Let's talk about what defenses they had. [3:00:17] Prior to the attack, officers on the ground knew our troops were vulnerable. [3:00:21] In fact, they requested additional force protection. [3:00:23] Did they receive it? [3:00:24] Wherever humanly possible, force protection and counter-UAS was always made available. [3:00:31] They did not. [3:00:32] In fact, when asked to describe the base's defense, one survivor who's come forward from the unit said, quote, [3:00:40] I mean, I would put it in the none category from a drone defense capability, none. [3:00:49] So let's be clear, no counter-drone capabilities, no counter-rocket systems, no counter-mortar or counter-artillery, [3:00:54] not even the basic overhead protection that you and I had 20 years ago in Iraq, and now six of our soldiers are dead. [3:01:06] The next day, you downplayed the attack. [3:01:11] You said it was a squirter that squeaked through fortified defenses. [3:01:16] But since then, thankfully, brave survivors have come forward to set the record straight. [3:01:22] One of our surviving soldiers told CBS, quote, painting a picture that one squeaked through is a falsehood. [3:01:36] Another said the unit was, quote, unprepared to provide any defense for itself. [3:01:41] It was not a fortified position. [3:01:45] Another survivor said the building's protection was about as weak as one gets. [3:01:51] Secretary Hegseth, that is obviously in direct contradiction to what you said from the Pentagon podium the next day. [3:01:58] So are you saying that these soldiers, our soldiers, who survived this horrific attack are lying? [3:02:07] What I'm saying is before the commencement of the conflict, we put in maximum defensive posture. [3:02:13] We could. [3:02:13] That's a direct contradiction to what they said. [3:02:15] In this directing, can I speak, or are you just going to monologue falsehoods all over the place? [3:02:20] It's not a falsehood. [3:02:21] We moved 7,500 troops off of the X based on the intel. [3:02:24] Stop. [3:02:25] Based on the intel. [3:02:25] Stop. [3:02:26] Reclaiming my time. [3:02:27] Because you yell doesn't make you right. [3:02:29] Just because you yell doesn't make you right. [3:02:31] I'm reclaiming my time on behalf of these survivors. [3:02:34] You just said what they said is a falsehood. [3:02:37] There's a much larger picture. [3:02:38] There's a much larger picture at play here that included integrated air defenses, bunkers, [3:02:43] moving people off the X to ensure that they were not part of the target. [3:02:47] We moved those troops, and all across the theater, thousands of troops off the X, off of their bases, [3:02:52] because we knew what Iran was going to try to strike. [3:02:54] We knew there would be a tragic moment. [3:02:56] There could be a tragic moment where something could get through. [3:02:59] Of course, that's the consequence of conflict. [3:03:01] Again, I'm reclaiming my time. [3:03:01] Again. [3:03:01] And we remember those six every single day. [3:03:03] I want to finish. [3:03:04] But don't play games with raising your voice and pointing fingers. [3:03:05] I'm not playing games. [3:03:06] I want to finish with one more quote from a survivor of the attack. [3:03:10] And I have this on the record. [3:03:12] Telling the truth is important. [3:03:15] And we're not going to learn from these mistakes if we pretend these mistakes didn't happen. [3:03:20] Secretary Hanks, those soldiers told the truth. [3:03:25] Those soldiers are braver than you are. [3:03:27] I commend that. [3:03:27] They are asking for accountability. [3:03:29] They deserve accountability. [3:03:31] And I'm asking for the same, starting with you. [3:03:33] And as I said a year ago, you need to resign immediately. [3:03:37] I commend those soldiers. [3:03:38] And I yield back. [3:03:38] Gentleman yields back. [3:03:39] Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon. [3:03:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:03:44] Secretary Hankseth, I want to tell you something right now. [3:03:47] You focused our military once again and finally. [3:03:49] And you've shaped it into the meritocracy. [3:03:52] And you've dramatically increased the United States' ability to project power. [3:03:55] And when needed, lethality. [3:03:58] And, I mean, and as a result, our deterrents have never been more evident the world over. [3:04:03] So thank you. [3:04:06] General McCain, you mentioned in your opening remarks, George Marshall. [3:04:11] Unfortunately, some of your immediate predecessors [3:04:13] were clearly one type of a general. [3:04:18] They were Democratic generals. [3:04:19] One of them, even in this committee, [3:04:22] used politically charged rhetoric of the left. [3:04:25] And I don't want Democratic generals. [3:04:26] And for that matter, I don't want Republican generals either. [3:04:29] I want American generals. [3:04:31] You, sir, are an American general. [3:04:33] You know exactly what we're doing. [3:04:35] We need generals, a Joint Chief of Staff, [3:04:37] that knows, understands, respects, and embodies your role [3:04:41] to serve this republic, the troops, and the mission. [3:04:44] And that is precisely what you're doing. [3:04:46] And I want to thank you because you do remind me of George C. Marshall. [3:04:50] He was a great American, and so are you. [3:04:53] Secretary Hegseth, what do you know of any nation-state [3:04:56] that ever enriched uranium to 60% that then didn't make a nuclear weapon? [3:05:01] Well, first of all, I want to second your comments about the chairman, and I agree. [3:05:04] I appreciate how he does his job. [3:05:07] Usually when a country pursues at that level, it's pursuing a nuclear weapon. [3:05:12] 100% of the countries that have reached 60% enrichment [3:05:15] have then produced a nuclear weapon. [3:05:18] And is it true that Iran was in the process of building such a swarm of UAVs [3:05:24] and ballistic missile shield conventionally, [3:05:27] once they wanted to bake the cake [3:05:28] because they had all the ingredients to make the nuclear weapon, [3:05:30] it would have been damn near impossible for us or anyone else to prevent them? [3:05:33] As I pointed to, the president was wise enough to understand [3:05:36] that at its weakest moment following the 12-day war and Midnight Hammer, [3:05:40] now was the time to degrade their conventional capabilities, [3:05:43] the umbrella they were building of missiles, long-range, short-range cruise missiles, [3:05:48] one-way attack drones that they were going to use [3:05:50] to blackmail the countries around them [3:05:52] to not do anything about their nuclear program [3:05:54] when they broke out from 60%. [3:05:56] We knew that to be their intention, [3:05:59] and something had to be done about it, [3:06:00] and President Trump had the courage to do it. [3:06:02] Well, President Trump, there's been a lot of quotes [3:06:04] that people have been mentioning in his words, [3:06:06] and I wanted to mention some that I thought were interesting. [3:06:09] Here's a quote. [3:06:09] I will take no options off the table [3:06:11] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama. [3:06:14] Iran will never get a nuclear weapon, Joe Biden. [3:06:17] I will never hesitate to take whatever action necessary, [3:06:20] and I will never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. [3:06:22] All options are on the table, Kamala Harris. [3:06:25] And this one, we would totally obliterate Iran. [3:06:28] That's a terrible thing to say, [3:06:30] but those people who run Iran need to understand that. [3:06:32] Hillary Clinton, 2008. [3:06:34] So it seems to me that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, [3:06:37] Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Donald Trump [3:06:39] had something in common. [3:06:40] They weren't going to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, [3:06:42] and some of them, four of them were all words, [3:06:44] and one of them took action. [3:06:46] There's 93 million. [3:06:47] We're involved in a land war in Asia. [3:06:49] I get it. [3:06:49] It's complicated. [3:06:51] 93 million people, much larger than Iraq, [3:06:54] but 80% of their country hates their guts. [3:06:57] This is a regime that murdered 40,000 of them [3:06:59] and gunned them down in the streets. [3:07:00] They're responsible for over 600 American deaths. [3:07:04] How long was World War II? [3:07:07] Do you have any idea? [3:07:07] In days? [3:07:09] I have it right here. [3:07:09] In days, exactly. [3:07:10] I got it multiplied by 365, but... [3:07:12] Yeah, it's 1,347 days. [3:07:14] Korea was 1,129, [3:07:17] and our involvement in World War I, [3:07:19] which was rather quick, was 585. [3:07:21] How long we've been involved in Iran? [3:07:24] I'm just shy of 6-0 days. [3:07:27] 6-0 days, two months. [3:07:28] And what is the degradation of their Navy right now, Secretary? [3:07:32] Their conventional Navy is destroyed. [3:07:34] They had three drone aircraft carriers. [3:07:37] They have none. [3:07:38] They had 11 submarines. [3:07:39] They had none. [3:07:39] They had different frigate classes. [3:07:42] They have none. [3:07:42] They may have small speed boats at this point, [3:07:45] Coast Guard-type vessels, [3:07:46] but their conventional Navy is gone. [3:07:47] Air Force? [3:07:49] Likewise. [3:07:50] Functionally destroyed. [3:07:51] Command and control? [3:07:51] It's hard for them. [3:07:54] There's a reason why there's a challenge [3:07:56] in communicating around a deal, [3:07:58] is because their command and control [3:07:59] is fundamentally broken, [3:08:00] as far as who's in control [3:08:01] and how they communicate. [3:08:03] We could make very good arguments [3:08:05] that the serious nature of any action [3:08:08] in a country like Iran, [3:08:10] there were good things to consider [3:08:12] before doing it. [3:08:13] There were also very good reasons [3:08:14] to do it. [3:08:16] The fact of the matter is, [3:08:18] ladies and gentlemen, [3:08:19] Republican, Democrats, [3:08:20] we're here now. [3:08:22] This is an evil regime. [3:08:23] We can fundamentally reshape [3:08:25] not only the region, [3:08:26] but the world. [3:08:27] They were the largest exporter of terror [3:08:28] and ballistic missile technologies. [3:08:31] We need gentlemen to win. [3:08:34] Secretary, General Cain, win. [3:08:37] I yield back. [3:08:38] Gentleman yields back. [3:08:39] Chairman, I recognize the gentleman [3:08:40] from Pennsylvania, Mr. Deluzio. [3:08:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:08:43] We all just heard [3:08:44] pretty powerful reporting, [3:08:47] courtesy of Mr. Ryan, [3:08:48] from many of our wounded troops [3:08:50] who were injured [3:08:51] in the attack in Kuwait. [3:08:54] Mr. Secretary, [3:08:54] you heard direct quotes [3:08:55] from some of them [3:08:56] via CBS's reporting. [3:08:58] They were willing to talk to the press. [3:09:00] Things like they were unprepared [3:09:02] to provide any defense [3:09:03] for themselves in the unit. [3:09:05] Things like, [3:09:06] we were moved closer to Iran [3:09:08] to a deeply unsafe area [3:09:09] that was a known target. [3:09:12] Your spokesperson, Sean Parnell, [3:09:14] in response to that reporting, [3:09:15] said it was not true. [3:09:18] Do you agree with that? [3:09:19] He's calling these guys liars? [3:09:22] I'm not calling our troops liars, [3:09:24] and I don't know [3:09:25] if what you're representing [3:09:26] is correct or not. [3:09:27] I'll take you at your word on that. [3:09:28] But all I know [3:09:29] is that we took every effort possible [3:09:31] at the commencement of this campaign [3:09:33] to ensure the defense of our troops, [3:09:34] to include moving them off of known bases [3:09:37] to places that were not known, [3:09:39] and we had intel were not known, [3:09:42] and then those were fortified [3:09:43] with bunkers and other fortifications [3:09:44] with theater air defenses. [3:09:46] Was our concern [3:09:47] that something could be true? [3:09:48] I'm going to pause you there. [3:09:48] I'm going to give you a chance. [3:09:50] Secretary, I'm going to give you a chance. [3:09:51] You're disparaging me [3:09:51] that I don't care [3:09:52] I'm asking you [3:09:53] whether you think they're liars or not. [3:09:54] That's what I asked you. [3:09:54] You and you are disparaging me [3:09:56] that I don't care [3:09:56] about the passing of our troops. [3:09:57] Nope. [3:09:58] I asked if you thought they're liars, Terry. [3:10:00] That's disparaging [3:10:01] and smearing in every way. [3:10:02] Nobody cares more [3:10:03] about the fate of our troops. [3:10:04] Nobody cares about [3:10:05] the health of our troops. [3:10:06] Nobody wants to bring them all hope [3:10:08] more than I can. [3:10:08] Secretary, I understand, [3:10:10] but he controls the time. [3:10:11] He controls the time. [3:10:13] You get to control your answer. [3:10:15] And the gentleman's ready. [3:10:17] If we're allowed to answer. [3:10:18] Mr. Chairman, thank you. [3:10:19] Secretary, my question was clear [3:10:20] whether you thought [3:10:21] they were liars or not. [3:10:22] You don't seem to want to answer it. [3:10:23] We can move on. [3:10:24] The other part of what [3:10:25] your spokesman said, [3:10:27] and you just reiterated here, [3:10:28] was that, [3:10:29] and I'm quoting your spokesman, [3:10:30] every possible measure [3:10:31] has been taken [3:10:32] to safeguard our troops. [3:10:33] End quote. [3:10:34] You're mean to tell us, [3:10:35] and I'll give you a chance [3:10:36] to clarify, [3:10:37] there is not a single [3:10:38] additional thing [3:10:39] you could have done [3:10:39] to protect those troops [3:10:40] who are now wounded, [3:10:41] six of whom are dead. [3:10:42] I'm telling you [3:10:44] that as a department, [3:10:45] we did every conceivable thing [3:10:47] at my level [3:10:48] and every echelon down [3:10:49] to ensure the maximum [3:10:51] force protection for our troops. [3:10:53] We live in a dangerous world [3:10:54] and a dangerous place [3:10:55] against a determined enemy [3:10:57] that can't have a nuclear weapon, [3:10:58] and that requires sacrifice [3:10:59] and risk. [3:11:01] And it tragically, [3:11:02] in this case, [3:11:03] it meant six Americans [3:11:04] lost their lives [3:11:04] and others were wounded, [3:11:05] and we all know that, [3:11:07] and that's part of the cost. [3:11:09] But it does not mean [3:11:10] we didn't care, [3:11:10] and it doesn't mean [3:11:11] we didn't commit. [3:11:12] I didn't ask you that. [3:11:12] It doesn't mean [3:11:13] we didn't do everything possible, [3:11:14] which we did. [3:11:15] But let's be clear [3:11:16] about what was done. [3:11:17] There were T-walls there, [3:11:18] essentially. [3:11:18] There was no overhead protection. [3:11:20] The known threat [3:11:20] in that environment, [3:11:22] and I think we all here [3:11:22] understand it, [3:11:23] is overhead drone strike. [3:11:25] There was no protection [3:11:26] for overhead drone strike, [3:11:27] so I'm struggling [3:11:27] to understand [3:11:28] how your answer [3:11:29] and your spokesman's answer [3:11:30] is that every possible measure [3:11:32] was taken. [3:11:33] We can move on. [3:11:34] Mr. Chairman and Chairman Cain, [3:11:36] I want to ask you something [3:11:37] about a different topic. [3:11:39] Folks at home [3:11:39] know you're the senior [3:11:40] military officer [3:11:41] in our armed services. [3:11:42] They may not have [3:11:43] as much of an understanding [3:11:43] of your role [3:11:44] in the chain of command. [3:11:45] You're outside [3:11:46] the operational chain of command, [3:11:47] but you are [3:11:47] the president's [3:11:48] and the secretary's [3:11:49] senior military advisor. [3:11:51] So I want to ask [3:11:52] a very basic thing, [3:11:54] what you would expect [3:11:55] our commanders [3:11:56] in the field, [3:11:57] our troops to do, [3:11:59] should the enemy [3:12:00] lay down their weapons [3:12:01] and try to surrender. [3:12:02] What would you expect [3:12:03] commanders in the field [3:12:04] to do? [3:12:06] Well, sir, [3:12:07] I think I'll go back [3:12:09] to something I said earlier [3:12:10] with deep respect [3:12:12] for your question, [3:12:13] but I think you're trying [3:12:14] to take me [3:12:15] to a partisan place here [3:12:17] and I can't let you do that. [3:12:19] General, as always, [3:12:20] I respect your desire [3:12:22] to avoid it. [3:12:22] I'm not trying to put you [3:12:23] in a partisan place. [3:12:23] No, no, and I know that, [3:12:25] but our officers [3:12:27] and enlisted service members [3:12:29] always follow lawful orders. [3:12:31] There's a checklist [3:12:31] for them to do that, [3:12:33] and I'll stay in the middle. [3:12:37] Very good. [3:12:37] Understood, General. [3:12:39] Secretary, let me give you [3:12:39] a chance, [3:12:40] and you've been asked [3:12:40] about this earlier. [3:12:41] You said in, I think, [3:12:42] your press conference, [3:12:44] essentially, [3:12:44] and I'll quote you here, [3:12:45] no quarter, [3:12:46] no mercy for our enemies. [3:12:49] That's the end of the quote. [3:12:50] Is your guidance [3:12:51] that you expect our troops [3:12:53] in harm's way [3:12:54] if there's a foreign enemy [3:12:56] surrendering, [3:12:57] laying down their arms [3:12:57] they're supposed to provide [3:12:58] no quarter and kill them? [3:13:02] You denied it, [3:13:03] but you were indeed [3:13:04] trying to take the chairman [3:13:05] to a partisan place. [3:13:06] That was General Milley. [3:13:07] That was the previous administration [3:13:08] which played politics. [3:13:10] We don't play that way. [3:13:10] It's a simple question. [3:13:11] I'm asking what you meant. [3:13:12] We fight to win, [3:13:13] and we ensure the rules [3:13:14] of engagements are such [3:13:15] that our troops [3:13:16] have every authority possible. [3:13:18] I'll give you another chance. [3:13:19] In saying that, [3:13:20] are you trying to tell [3:13:21] commanders that that's [3:13:22] what you expect? [3:13:23] You're in the chain of command. [3:13:25] It's a simple question. [3:13:26] I understand that. [3:13:26] My commanders know [3:13:27] exactly what the guidance is [3:13:28] with each and every mission, [3:13:30] and they know every tool [3:13:30] they're supposed to be effective. [3:13:32] Secretary, in refusing to answer it, [3:13:32] I think you speak volumes. [3:13:34] I think that's a dangerous thing. [3:13:35] We all know the expectations. [3:13:36] We know the law of war. [3:13:38] We know what is lawful. [3:13:39] I'd expect our commanders [3:13:41] to understand that as well. [3:13:42] I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [3:13:42] Gentleman yields back. [3:13:43] Chair, and I recognize [3:13:44] a gentleman from Guam, [3:13:46] Mr. Moylan. [3:13:50] Thank you. [3:13:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:13:52] Secretary Headstaff, [3:13:53] thank you for your continued [3:13:54] attention to Guam. [3:13:56] Really appreciate it, [3:13:57] and while leading [3:13:58] the War Department here, [3:13:59] and I'd like to remind [3:14:00] my colleagues that one [3:14:02] of your first official trips [3:14:04] as Secretary was to visit Guam, [3:14:06] and during your confirmation hearing, [3:14:09] you identified the island [3:14:10] as America's most strategic [3:14:12] location globally, [3:14:14] and this commitment [3:14:15] does not go unnoticed here. [3:14:17] So I thank you, [3:14:18] Mr. Secretary, for that, [3:14:19] and as we continue [3:14:21] our buildup for the defense [3:14:23] of our nation in Guam [3:14:25] and the people of Guam [3:14:26] as we have many active [3:14:29] duties personnel, [3:14:30] but we also have a lot [3:14:31] of Department of War [3:14:32] civilian personnel too. [3:14:34] And right now, [3:14:35] one of our most consistent, [3:14:36] my most consistent question [3:14:38] from my constituents [3:14:39] have been asking is, [3:14:41] when would the Living [3:14:42] Quarter Allowance [3:14:42] Authorization [3:14:44] for War Department [3:14:45] Civilians in Guam, [3:14:47] when will it be implemented? [3:14:48] And recently, [3:14:49] your office confirmed [3:14:50] that the guidance [3:14:51] should be published [3:14:52] early May. [3:14:53] Will you work [3:14:53] to keep that timeline? [3:14:55] And will you work [3:14:56] to ensure Living Quarter Allowance [3:14:57] will properly incentivize [3:15:00] local hires [3:15:01] to stay on Guam? [3:15:03] Well, if that's what we stated, [3:15:04] we need to stick with it. [3:15:05] That's been our pledge. [3:15:06] And I think it reiterates [3:15:09] that the amount [3:15:10] we're paying on the pay [3:15:12] for housing [3:15:12] and for quality of life [3:15:13] and living at certain, [3:15:14] especially unique locations, [3:15:15] is usually mismatched, [3:15:17] and it causes staffing [3:15:18] and workforce problems [3:15:19] that we need to address [3:15:21] in a tailored nature [3:15:22] to some of those [3:15:22] unique locations [3:15:23] like Guam, [3:15:24] like Hawaii, [3:15:25] and others in Europe. [3:15:26] So, yes, [3:15:27] we're committed to that. [3:15:28] And I would just note [3:15:29] that in our budget, [3:15:29] we've got almost a billion [3:15:31] for the Guam defense system. [3:15:33] Also, we're investing [3:15:33] in ensuring [3:15:34] that that critical location [3:15:36] you described [3:15:37] is part of our theater umbrella. [3:15:39] Excellent, sir. [3:15:40] Thank you for that. [3:15:42] Another longstanding request [3:15:43] I have from the War Department [3:15:45] has been the increased support [3:15:47] for Guam's power grid. [3:15:49] As you know, [3:15:50] we all, [3:15:50] the one island approach there [3:15:52] and working together, [3:15:54] our water, [3:15:55] our power, [3:15:56] our port, [3:15:57] our airports, [3:15:58] our hospital, [3:15:59] it's all in support [3:16:00] working together [3:16:02] with the military. [3:16:03] Well, one of the important ones [3:16:04] for us is Guam's power grid. [3:16:09] And most of Guam's grid [3:16:10] is owned by the department [3:16:11] and is leased [3:16:13] to the Guam Power Authority. [3:16:15] And as the military demands [3:16:16] upon the power grid increases, [3:16:19] do you see [3:16:21] either O and M funds [3:16:23] or military construction funds [3:16:26] being the best path [3:16:27] for the department [3:16:28] to support Guam's power grid needs? [3:16:31] I'd welcome your input, [3:16:37] first and foremost, [3:16:38] as we have throughout. [3:16:39] But as was noted, [3:16:40] we've got... [3:17:10] ...authority is the only one [3:17:11] in charge [3:17:12] of all the transmission lines. [3:17:13] So where that power source, [3:17:15] and I know there was [3:17:16] some consideration [3:17:17] of the small nuclear reactors [3:17:19] as well, [3:17:19] but the power authority [3:17:20] will be the one transmiss... [3:17:22] for the transmission lines [3:17:23] for all the power [3:17:25] on the island. [3:17:26] So looking forward [3:17:26] to working with your office. [3:17:28] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [3:17:31] Another deep concern [3:17:32] for the people of Guam [3:17:33] has been the cost of housing, [3:17:35] which is often driven up [3:17:37] by large numbers [3:17:37] of servicemen [3:17:38] living on base in Guam, [3:17:41] off base on Guam. [3:17:42] And I've been impressed [3:17:43] by the recent efforts [3:17:44] by joint regional Marianas [3:17:46] to reduce the reliance [3:17:47] on existing housing stock [3:17:49] in both north and south of Guam. [3:17:53] Can you tell us [3:17:54] how the department housing strategy [3:17:56] in Guam will work [3:17:58] to keep homes affordable [3:18:00] to locals [3:18:01] and if increased private sector involvement [3:18:05] would help address [3:18:06] my constituents' concerns? [3:18:09] Well, we've got about [3:18:11] $4.5 billion [3:18:11] for family housing [3:18:12] in the FY27 budget. [3:18:14] It's something we recognize [3:18:15] as a challenge [3:18:16] and impossible recipients [3:18:51] that are deserving of this. [3:18:53] Now, Guam has never had [3:18:54] any Medal of Honor recipients [3:18:57] and there's three names [3:18:59] that we've... [3:19:00] Gentlemen, time's expired. [3:19:01] Thank you. [3:19:02] I would like to point out, [3:19:03] you know, once I recognize a member, [3:19:05] they have control [3:19:06] of that five minutes. [3:19:07] If they want to give a speech, [3:19:08] they can give a speech. [3:19:09] If they want to ask questions, [3:19:11] they can ask questions. [3:19:12] But if you ask a question, [3:19:15] I would hope you give [3:19:15] the witness a chance to answer. [3:19:17] But if they choose not to, [3:19:19] then the witness has to recognize [3:19:20] it's their time [3:19:21] and cut it off [3:19:22] and go back to them. [3:19:23] But I want to... [3:19:23] It's hard, right? [3:19:25] I want to be respectful of each other [3:19:27] and be able to make sure [3:19:28] we maximize the use of this time. [3:19:30] But everybody has to understand. [3:19:31] It's the members five minutes [3:19:33] once I recognize... [3:19:34] The audience [3:19:35] The audience [3:19:35] duró menos de 10 minutes. [3:19:37] Comey was accused [3:19:38] of the martes [3:19:38] for a presumption [3:19:39] of the president [3:19:40] Donald Trump. [3:19:41] This is the second [3:19:42] intent of the government [3:19:43] to process [3:19:44] one of his biggest [3:19:45] opponents. [3:19:46] Comey responded [3:19:47] to the accusation [3:19:48] afirmando [3:19:48] to be innocent [3:19:49] and not to be afraid. [3:19:52] The king [3:19:53] Carlos III [3:19:53] and the queen [3:19:54] Camilla [3:19:54] are in the city [3:19:55] of New York [3:19:56] and they realize [3:19:57] a visit [3:19:58] to the monument [3:19:58] commemorative [3:19:59] of the 11th of September [3:20:00] to also reunirse [3:20:01] with the families [3:20:02] of the victims. [3:20:03] In their visit [3:20:04] the state [3:20:05] the monarch [3:20:05] defended the [3:20:06] democracy [3:20:06] occidental [3:20:07] and alerted [3:20:09] on the climate [3:20:09] climate. [3:20:10] The secretary [3:20:13] of Defense [3:20:14] of the United States [3:20:15] of the United States