Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth testifies in Senate amid Iran war

[4:14] The hearing is in order. We completed a productive classified session down in the [4:19] skiff and now we will begin the public portion of this hearing. I welcome back [4:23] Secretary Hegseth, General Cain and our Acting Controller Mr. Jay Hurst. I thank [4:30] all of them including their families for their service. For the dozens of [4:34] Americans that regularly watch our hearings my next remarks will be no [4:38] surprise but for new viewers I want to reiterate some context from our remarks. [4:44] I've said this at almost every hearing. We live in the most dangerous security [4:49] environment since World War II. Every uniformed officer who has come before [4:56] this committee has agreed with that statement. First and foremost we're locked [5:00] in a competition with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The competition [5:06] is high stakes and it is about whether this will be an American-led century or a [5:12] century defined by authoritarian autocratic regimes that care little for [5:18] the need needs of their citizens or those in neighboring countries. The [5:23] Chinese Communist Party has accelerated its historic military buildup and its [5:27] predatory economic practices against Americans and countries the world over. [5:33] Xi Jinping leads not only China but also an axis of aggressors. This growing [5:39] alliance cannot be denied. It includes China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. They're [5:46] united around this goal to oppose America's interests and the interest of [5:52] other like-minded democratic countries across the globe. Vladimir Putin's war of [5:57] choice in Ukraine has now entered its fifth year. In Putin's objectives we hear [6:03] echoes of the imperialistic ambitions of World War II's aggressors including Adolf [6:09] Hitler. Vladimir Putin has suffered 1.2 million casualties and failed miserably in his [6:18] military objectives. Along the way he has transformed Russia's economy into one [6:24] fueled by war raising the prospect of an even more aggressive Moscow for the [6:30] foreseeable future. Most of Iran's leaders are now deceased but they and those [6:37] who survived them have consistently sought violence against America, Israel, our Gulf [6:43] allies and the Iranian people. We saw this during the October 7th massacre. During their [6:51] continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and in their desire to engage in nuclear [6:57] blackmail, Iran's ayatollahs have consistently represented a threat to [7:01] American interest. Kim Jong-un has joined Mr. Putin's war of aggression. He [7:09] continues a military and nuclear build-up that threatened South Korea, Japan and the [7:13] United States. Ties have never been closer among these four dictators, among these four [7:20] dictatorships. They support each other's aggressive endeavors, they prop each other [7:27] up financially, and they scheme to undermine America's objectives. We should [7:31] expect them to continue this behavior. This context plays out across every [7:37] dimension of national power, the economy, technology, diplomacy and more. But today [7:43] we're here to talk about the military dimension of this competition. These regimes [7:48] have regularly tried to take by force what they cannot secure through the [7:54] political process. For that reason we must be ready to deter conflicts and if [8:02] necessary to win them. President Trump has used the US military appropriately and [8:07] effectively for American interests. He has viewed our adversaries as a [8:14] united bloc and has taken action in light of that reality. In that mission he is [8:21] to remove the regime's conventional military capabilities and force it back [8:26] to the table for a permanent solution. While we all mourn the tragic loss of the [8:34] 14 service members who've lost their lives in this conflict, we do so knowing the [8:39] world is safer without a nuclear Iran. All of these actions are part of a peace [8:44] through strength strategy. In this approach we seek first to avoid war but we [8:50] take military action when necessary to achieve US interest. And so, Mr. Secretary, I'm [8:56] pleased that you are here testifying today in support of President Trump's [9:00] historic 1.5 trillion dollar defense budget request. That sum will go a long [9:07] way toward rebuilding our military capabilities for a generation. I should [9:11] say up front that this may be a long hearing. There's much to discuss. This 1.5 [9:17] trillion dollar request is chock full of important programs and initiatives that [9:23] are absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the 21st century. I [9:28] think this funding underpins and accentuates three comparative advantages [9:33] the United States possesses over the axis of aggressors. The first comparative [9:38] advantage America enjoys over our adversaries is that we have the best [9:42] innovation and industry in the world. So I hope our witnesses today will cover [9:48] the progress we've made in just the past year rebuilding the American arsenal. Last [9:55] year our reconciliation bill combined with bipartisan appropriation bills [10:01] achieved about a trillion dollar defense budget. This year's request would [10:05] represent a near 50 percent increase. Every penny of it should be money well spent. [10:14] making down payments on crucial transformational capabilities such as [10:19] drone warfare, low-cost munitions, and missile defense. Also last year Congress and [10:28] the executive branch achieved historic acquisition reforms. Consequently we're [10:33] well positioned to make huge gains efficiency this year and in the years to [10:38] come making it much more flexible and a more timely process. I look forward to [10:45] discussing how we might accelerate implementation of these actions. In [10:50] particular I'd like to see the Pentagon do more this year to drive competition in [10:57] the defense industrial base. Competition absolutely drives better outcomes for our [11:04] service members and taxpayers. Of course our people are the final [11:08] comparative advantage we have over our adversaries. We've enjoyed significant [11:13] improvements in recruitment and retention but we need to solidify a merit-based [11:17] environment that fully cares for our personnel. I commend you Mr. Secretary for [11:24] your efforts over the past year to do just that. That task will never be finished of [11:28] course but we embrace it gladly and we salute the progress. We will always be [11:33] striving to care for and equip American service members as much as possible. I look [11:39] forward to more work between this committee and the department this [11:44] coming year. With that I turn to my friend and colleague ranking member Jack [11:48] Reed. Well thank you very much Mr. Chairman and Secretary Hegseth, General Cain, Mr. [11:54] Hurst, welcome and please convey my appreciation all of our appreciation to our [12:00] military service members and defense civilians. We owe them our deepest sense of [12:06] gratitude. Mr. Secretary this is your first public appearance before this [12:10] committee in nearly a year. Since your last public testimony you and President [12:15] Trump have unwisely taken the United States to war with Iran. You ordered attack on [12:22] Venezuela and have directed ongoing illegal boat strike campaign in the [12:27] Caribbean and Pacific. At your direction our forces have bombed Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, [12:35] Syria, Nigeria, and Ecuador. In the United States you have deployed thousands of [12:42] troops to cities like Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland to police [12:47] American citizens and you have personally intervened to end the careers of dozens of [12:53] military leaders without explanation. These actions will have significant and [12:58] long-term consequences. Now you appear before us to ask for a 1.5 trillion dollar [13:07] budget. A 45 percent increase above last year. I must say I'm skeptical and such a [13:14] request demands intense scrutiny. 61 days ago President Trump unilaterally began the [13:22] war in Iran. He had no coherent strategy. He refused to make a case to the American [13:29] people or consult Congress. He failed to present any evidence of an immediate a [13:34] threat and he ignored the advice of military and intelligence experts who [13:39] warned him of the consequences. Today our nation is in a war strategic position. [13:45] The straight-over moves was open. Now it is closed. Thirteen service members have [13:51] tragically lost their lives and more than 400 have been wounded. We have lost dozens of [13:57] aircraft sustained significant damage to our bases in the area and expended an [14:02] alarming amount of our missile inventory. Morale and readiness across the [14:07] force, especially among over deployed units and vessels like the USS Gerald R. Ford [14:13] aircraft carrier, have suffered. Gasoline and fertilizer prices throughout the world [14:19] have surged. American families are bearing the cost of a war they wanted nothing to do [14:25] with and have gained nothing from. And yet, Secretary Hedges, you declared victory a [14:30] month ago. On April 8th you said, in your words, Operation Epic Fury was a [14:36] historic and overwhelming victory. By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran's [14:41] military and rendered its combat forces ineffective for years to come. Let me be [14:49] clear. Tactically, the United States military performance against Iran has been [14:55] remarkable. And I salute the service members who executed this mission with [14:59] skill and bravery. The problem with your statements, Mr. Secretary, is they are [15:03] dangerously exaggerated. Iran's hardline regime remains in place. It still [15:10] retains stockpiles of enriched uranium and its nuclear program remains viable. [15:16] Iran's military retains enough combat effectiveness to keep the conflict at an [15:22] impasse. Its missiles and drones remain a far greater threat than you have [15:26] acknowledged. And the regime has demonstrated it can effectively control [15:31] the straight of our moves when it chooses. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that you have [15:36] been telling the president what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to her. [15:40] Bold assurances of success are a disservice to both the commander-in-chief and [15:45] the troops who risk their lives based on them. Our military has performed [15:50] heroically, but military force without a signed strategy is a path to long-term [15:56] defeat. I'd like to know what options you're considering now, given the course [16:01] from this war and the stalemate President Trump has put us in. More broadly, Mr. [16:07] Secretary, too often you have made dangerous statements that are [16:11] counterproductive to the mission. You boasted about, quote, no stupid rules of [16:17] engagement just days after hundreds of Iranian schoolers were tragically killed [16:22] in a missile strike. You have made troubling statements about showing no [16:27] mercy and no quarter to the Iranians, orders that would constitute war crimes. As [16:32] importantly, while our men and women are fighting and dying overseas, you have [16:37] focused unduly on your own personal agenda. In the past two months alone, you [16:43] have taken upon yourself to overhaul the Chaplain Corps, cancel flu vaccine [16:48] requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, and bar service [16:53] members from attending certain universities. Just this week, you brought [16:58] performer Kid Rock to an army base to go for a joyride or an Apache helicopter [17:03] after dismissing an earlier investigation into the pilots who recklessly [17:09] chose to hover above his home. That runs directly counter to the chain of [17:14] command and maintaining good order and discipline. Most disturbingly, during your [17:20] tenure, you have fired dozens of our most senior military leaders and personally [17:25] intervened to block the promotions of many others. That is a betrayal of the [17:30] merit-based system that forms the foundation of our military. You are hollering [17:35] out the military's bench of experience and high highest performing senior officers [17:40] while making young officers wonder if they should continue to serve. My [17:46] colleagues and I have heard from countless service members throughout the [17:49] ranks, many of whom will be watching right now, who are confused and disturbed by [17:54] your actions. Hopefully you can explain them today. Additionally, this committee [18:00] expects a fulsome update on Operation Southern Sphere. This ongoing campaign [18:05] against suspected drug trafficking boats has resulted in nearly 200 fatalities. The [18:11] administration has failed to explain the long-term objectives of this mission [18:16] or provide any evidence of reduced drug flows into the United States. I would ask [18:22] for a credible answer to this most fundamental question, what is the operation [18:27] actually meant to accomplish? Mrs. X-Ray, you are here to promote the [18:33] President's $1.5 trillion defense budget. While this budget provides funding for [18:39] necessary programs including shipbuilding and drone manufacturing, many other [18:43] critical programs like barracks repair and aircraft procurement would rely on the [18:49] passage of a party-line reconciliation bill. Further, this budget slashes research and [18:55] development, provides no funding for Ukraine, and includes no funding for losses [19:01] incurred from the Iran war. Yesterday, Mr. Hearst testified that Operation Epic Fury has [19:08] cost $25 billion. If nothing else, that help clarifies that we certainly do not need a [19:15] supplemental anywhere near $100 billion, much less $200 billion. And in this record-breaking [19:23] budget, there is no pay adjustments for the civilian workforce, and with inflation that is a pay cut. [19:29] After a year of doge layoffs and a hiring freeze across the department, this is an insult to the [19:36] 800,000 men and women who support our warfighters every day. I cannot imagine a faster way to erode [19:43] readiness and distract from our abilities to deter our adversaries. Ultimately, Mr. Secretary, I believe you are [19:51] causing lasting harm to the military. Like many members of this committee, I had the opportunity [19:58] and the privilege to serve in the military. And every officer knows they are duty-bound to give [20:04] their best professional advice, even if it is not what their superiors want to hear. Because when leaders [20:11] fear to speak honestly, people die, missions fail, wars are lost. The Americans' people's trust in our military took [20:20] 250 years to build. You are dismantling it in a fraction of that time. And trust once long can take [20:28] generations to rebuild. Mr. Secretary, today I hope you'll take a step forward toward rebuilding the trust [20:36] that has been lost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized for your opening statement, sir. [20:45] Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support [20:53] of President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. Chairman, $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for [21:00] the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing [21:06] both the deferment of long-standing problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and [21:12] future fights. I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Kane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [21:18] and Jay Hurst, our Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller. I'd like to start by thanking this [21:23] committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger, [21:28] prouder, and more secure military. Your focus on acquisitions, your focus on efficiency, [21:34] are the reflection in our department as well and in this budget. A nation's ability to build, [21:41] to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its warfighters at speed and at scale is the [21:47] foundation upon which its deterrence and survival rests. However, upon taking office on January 20th, [21:54] 2025, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America [22:01] last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength. Under the previous administration, [22:08] we were offshoring, outsourcing, beset by cost overruns, and degraded capabilities. [22:15] But under the leadership of President Trump, our builder-in-chief, we are reversing this systemic decay [22:21] and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do. [22:28] We're rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less [22:34] than unrelenting fear in our adversaries and inspires historic morale and recruiting in its ranks. [22:41] We fight to win in every scenario. The $1.5 trillion budget put forward by the President will build upon a [22:49] previous $1 trillion FY26 top line and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment [22:56] and mismanagement of the Biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the United States [23:02] continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex [23:09] threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic troop [23:16] pay increase, 7% for junior enlisted, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. [23:23] Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. By supercharging our defense [23:30] industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring American [23:35] commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense industrial base [23:41] from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon acquisition process from [23:49] a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from an acquisitions environment paralyzed [23:56] by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization focused on delivering the most for [24:02] taxpayer dollars. Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements that this committee [24:09] supported, we've cut smart business deals that have sent unambiguous demand signals to industry [24:17] to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories [24:25] and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle [24:31] behind our warriors. Further interruptions of our hearing will will be treated in like manner. We [24:54] appreciate the first amendment rights of Americans to express themselves, but disruption of this hearing [25:03] will not be tolerated. So Mr. Secretary, you may continue. I'll briefly provide some concrete high-level metrics of [25:10] what we've accomplished over just the past few months. These are announced new facilities and [25:15] investments to support American warfighters. The department has helped stimulate more than 250 [25:21] private investment deals in 39 states, 180 cities, and 150 companies worth more than 50 billion dollars. [25:30] It's resulted in 280 new or expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet of American [25:37] manufacturing and more than 70,000 new jobs. These 50 billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, [25:45] and new factories are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's [25:53] business model, American companies are investing in America with their own dollars. A historic demonstration of [26:00] American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been [26:08] done before and is long overdue from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal [26:16] great things for America, for American families, and American workers to ensure that our warfighters have [26:22] everything they need, all American-made. Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations [26:28] passed by Congress, President Trump's war department has begun to turn the lights back on in our [26:34] manufacturing towns across this country, forging a lethal arsenal of freedom. Every policy we pursue, [26:41] every budgetary item we request, serves to ensure that this department remains laser focused on [26:46] increasing lethality and survivability from the front lines to the factory floor. This is a historic budget, [26:54] as you said, Mr. Chairman. This is a fiscally responsible budget, and this is a warfighting [27:00] budget. Speaking of warfighting, the topic of Iran, I'm sure, will come up often today, which I welcome. [27:07] I look forward to sharing the incredible success of our military effort achieved in a matter of weeks. [27:15] President Trump has the courage, has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets a [27:21] nuclear weapon, and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds. We have the best negotiator in the [27:28] world driving a great deal. Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, [27:35] the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of [27:42] congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Defeatists from the cheap seats, who two months in [27:49] seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking [27:55] on a 47-year threat with the courage no other president has had to great success and great [28:02] opportunity for preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Despite this, under President Trump, [28:08] we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing. We're providing for our warfighters, [28:14] and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty God continue to watch [28:20] over our troops wherever they are, and may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we have [28:27] lost. This is our sacred mission, and this is what we will continue to execute on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [28:34] Thank you for that statement, Mr. Secretary. General King, you're recognized. [28:38] Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, members of the committee, and your staff, who we never [28:43] get to say thanks to. Thanks for having me today. I'm honored to be here alongside the Honorable Pete [28:49] Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to testify on the President's Fiscal 2027 Budget. I'm grateful for [28:56] the opportunity to testify today, and I'm thankful for your continued partnership and support of our [29:02] warfighters defending the homeland and our interests around the world. It's a privilege to speak with you [29:09] today about the foundation of America's strength, the 2.8 million members of our joint force, and I am [29:16] continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, coast guardsmen, [29:23] and civilians standing the watch for the nation, supported always by their families. They could have [29:30] chosen a much easier path, any other path, but they volunteered for a life of purpose and passion and [29:37] service. And every single day they rise to meet the nation's challenge challenges from combat operations [29:44] to critical support roles with the courage, tenacity, and grit that keeps our nation strong and secure. [29:52] I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 39 members of the joint force who've passed in [30:01] operations, combat, and training during my time as the Chairman, and specifically highlight the 14 who've [30:09] passed in Operation Epic Fury. The Secretary and I are deeply grateful for each of them and their families, [30:16] and their names will never be forgotten. As the Chairman, my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership [30:23] has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks required to make the nation's [30:31] hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the President, the Secretary, and the Congress the truth at every turn, [30:39] and my blueprint for this role has always been that of General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment [30:47] to civilian control and a non-partisan military remains my constant standard, and I strive to emulate [30:56] his candor, delivering the facts leaders need to hear, not always what they want to hear, and once a decision is made, [31:04] executing it with the absolute dedication while keeping the joint force precisely where it should be. [31:11] That's the demand of our profession. As I sit before you today representing our incredible joint force, [31:17] I want to emphasize my commitment to this committee and to the Congress. I will always follow General Marshall's [31:24] steadfast example by providing clear and candid non-partisan military advice, working together [31:30] to ensure the military remains squarely focused on one thing, being prepared to deter and if called upon [31:38] fight and win our nation's war, and that is our mission. America's Joint Force is operational at its core, [31:45] purpose-built for the realities in a complex world. We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the [31:53] most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. And over the past year, [32:00] our warfighters have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable and most [32:07] professional force on earth. Our shared goal is to ensure the joint force remains the strategic, sustains the [32:18] strategic initiative and advantage and ability to project power to respond to the global challenges on [32:24] our nation's terms. During Operation Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, [32:33] and Epic Fury, the Joint Force executed globally integrated missions alongside our interagency and [32:40] international partners. And once our leaders made a decision, our forces demonstrated the unmatched [32:46] ability to seamlessly synchronize actions and activities from the seabed to cislunar space. We're able to [32:54] accomplish these complex things that we are asked to do because we draw from a deep reservoir of training, [33:02] professionalism, and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, [33:09] rebuilding readiness every day, training professionals every day, and sharpening our edge every day. And [33:16] I am incredibly proud of this joint force team and the leaders at every echelon who command it. As the [33:24] chairman said, we are living in a complex environment. Today, I look forward to discussing how we can sustain [33:31] America's military advantage. And I know this committee recognizes the challenges and the urgency in the [33:37] environment that we face. We're operating in delicate and dangerous times where risk is scaling. And the [33:45] complexity of the modern battlefield demands America's constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership [33:53] with Congress. As a joint force, we're up to the challenge. We're built for this environment. However, [33:59] our continued success is not guaranteed by our past achievements. We must continue to be forward-looking [34:07] and innovate together with the Congress. To drive the pace of change and maintain our superiority requires [34:14] timely, predictable, and sustained investment. And the resources we're going to discuss today are critical [34:22] to modernizing the joint force and ensuring whatever threats might emerge, we are prepared to defeat them, [34:29] to protect our interests, and defend the nation and win. This president's budget for 2027 supports [34:37] the secretary and the department's goal of reinvigorating, recharging the defense industrial base [34:43] and the national industrial base. Enhancing our readiness and securing our military advantage. To ensure that [34:50] our war fighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready while always taking care of our [34:57] people. And that is what truly sets America's joint force apart from each other, especially the 1.8 million [35:05] members, enlisted members of our joint force. It is them, the character, the competence of that force that [35:12] transforms our capabilities into a decisive advantage. And our enlisted force is represented today by the [35:21] senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, United States Navy Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom sitting behind me. [35:29] A teammate who I greatly appreciate and many of you on this committee know from his time in the Indo-Pacific. [35:35] While we face dynamic and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in the extraordinary [35:44] men and women within our joint force who every day execute the missions we ask them to quietly and with [35:51] precision. And coupled with the American spirit to outthink, outcompete, and relentlessly innovate, [35:59] we will maintain our decisive edge, but doing so requires your continued partnership. [36:04] We stand ready today to answer the nation's call. I humbly ask that as we're here today in this [36:11] hearing, we remember those deployed service members who are out there right now doing our nation's work. [36:17] And may we always forget or remember our fallen and never forget them or their families who continue [36:24] to show us what courage looks like. Thank you for your enduring support and I look forward to your questions. [36:29] Thank you very much, General. We appreciate your service. Let's jump right in. [36:34] Secretary Hegseth, let's talk about the money from Reconciliation 1.0 last year. [36:41] There have been some complaints about the speed, but not everything we hear is actually accurate. [36:48] How much of the $154 billion from Reconciliation has the Pentagon put on contract? [36:56] My understanding, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to say what an important vehicle [37:01] Reconciliation was for us and how it gave us a chance coming out of FY25 to advance the president's [37:08] priorities, whether it's drone dominance, Golden Dome for America, shipbuilding, the defense [37:12] industrial base. It was a critical vehicle for us. The number you're looking for is about, [37:17] what I'm looking at, about $26 billion right now. But we've got the floodgates about to open and apply to [37:22] those priorities. Okay, so unfortunately you're starting a bit late through no fault of your own [37:29] because the money was not sent timely by the Office of Management and Budget to the department [37:36] until last month. That's over and done with, but it should be mentioned. Mr. Secretary, where are we [37:41] on the obligation rates as far as a normal appropriation bill? Are we a little behind, [37:51] a little ahead, or what? I would say probably a little bit behind as it pertains to reconciliation, [37:57] but part of that is, as you know, this is a new funding vehicle for the department. And twofold. One, [38:03] you've got to make sure you do it right and do it in a fiscally responsible way in conjunction with the [38:07] Congress to ensure that we meet congressional intent. But also that we've been using it to [38:12] energize our ability to exercise new pathways, to get at problems in different and more dynamic ways [38:18] that don't get stovepiped or stuck in the bureaucracy. So yes, there's been some delays, [38:23] but ultimately I think it's all goodness on the other side, given the new nature of this funding [38:29] vehicle. Right, yes. Well, and things have been done differently and we appreciate that. But Mr. [38:35] Secretary, will you commit to us that you'll keep the committee informed frequently of your efforts [38:41] to get all this money out the door so our industrial base can start building as you have described in [38:47] this new flexibility that we provided them? Absolutely. And you mentioned a few things in [38:56] in reconciliation that you think have been game changers. We've, I do, I don't think we've talked [39:07] enough about some of the game changers. For years we failed to take action on rebuilding America's drone [39:13] industrial base and critical mineral supply chains. After last reconciliation bill and the National Defense [39:23] Authorization Act, we're in a very different position on drones and critical mineral supply chains, [39:29] are we not? Very much so. Mineral supply chains, drones, we went from Jyatta 401 to an autonomous [39:37] warfare group. We're looking at the concept of a sub-unified command and you're looking at $54 [39:42] billion in the FY27 budget dedicated to drone dominance. UAS, counter UAS, ensuring we can scale [39:50] not just exquisite drones but also the attributable ones that are proliferating on the battlefield today. [39:55] We need to be ahead. Are there any other initiatives from last year's bill that you want to point out? [40:01] And you only have a minute and a half. No, the investment in Golden Dome for America, [40:05] the ability to get running on that and we are on schedule to deliver capabilities inside this [40:10] administration. Minerals and shoring up supply chains on minerals. The Office of Strategic Capital, [40:16] which its ability to loan gives 10x to new entrants into the department. The opportunity to fund [40:23] things that wouldn't normally meet the threshold for the department but give them the running room [40:27] to invest in those capabilities and we've already seen fruit from that as well. And briefly, General [40:32] Cain, there's no question that Vladimir Putin's Russia is taking serious action to undermine our [40:40] efforts for success in Iran. Is there any question about that? Senator, I think there's actions and [40:49] activities that are mindful of the hearing room we're in but there's definitely some action there. [40:54] Thank you very much. Senator Reed, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [41:04] Mr. Secretary, you recently fired the Hon. Chief of Staff, General Randy George, [41:09] who's one of the most distinguished and decorated officers of this generation. General George's [41:17] nomination came before us. We reviewed it thoroughly and we concurred. Why did you fire General George? [41:23] Well, as I did then and I'll say now, we thank General George for his service. And out of respect [41:32] to him and other officers, we never talk about the nature of why certain officers are asked to step down. [41:40] But we all serve at the pleasure of the President. And ultimately, my view in coming into this [41:45] department, as I stated in my confirmation hearing, was to change the culture of the department. And it's [41:51] ultimately challenging to change the culture of a department with the same people who are a part of [41:57] or in that department. So I have made many changes with General Officers. We will continue to make [42:02] changes as necessary with General Officers. And they will be in keeping with the trajectory of where we [42:07] would like to take the department. But it doesn't take away from the service of those. And I think you [42:12] you will note that every officer that's been asked to leave has been treated with respect. [42:19] Interesting. Of the two dozen officers that you have fired for reasons unrelated to performance, [42:27] since you have not indicated any cause, 60 percent are black or females. Now, did the President direct [42:35] you to single out female and black officers to be dismissed? Senator, of course not. And as we've [42:44] emphasized at this department from the beginning, the only metric is merit. This, this, members on [42:51] this committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on hype, you know, social [42:56] engineering, race and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy for the department, focusing on [43:01] those things, making decisions based on those things. In President Trump's War Department, we make [43:06] decisions based on only one thing, merit. And that's how we've made decisions going forward. That's how [43:11] we've made them. And that's how we'll make them going forward. Let me go back to General George. [43:15] What did he fail in terms of his lack of merit to continue serving? As I, as I said, I don't talk [43:24] about the nature of dismissal out of respect for these officers. But ultimately, we want to take the [43:30] department in a particular direction, certain services in a particular direction. And we want [43:34] leadership that's running as fast in that direction as possible. And in some cases, we make changes [43:38] accordingly, but do so out of respect to those officers. Well, I think that direction from your [43:43] behavior is an intense interest in Christianity, in nationalism, and in not recognizing the talents of [43:58] women and non-white gentlemen. And that's the wrong direction. I don't know what you're insinuating, [44:05] Senator, but I am not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ. Well, you shouldn't be ashamed. And if [44:10] you want to shame me for it, go ahead. I'm not shaming you. But are you critical of other faiths? [44:18] I am a believer. I'm quite open in that. And our department allows for a multitude of faiths. So I [44:23] don't know what you're suggesting. I've heard the likes of things that people like you suggest [44:27] to try to smear my character, and I won't give into it. No, I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, but [44:36] broadcasting before the national religious broadcasters, stressing the need for more [44:43] Christianity in the military forces, doesn't seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and [44:49] accept all religions. Let me move on. The strategic aspects of this operation in Iran. The president [44:59] declared that we're going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. And [45:06] after more than 13,000 strikes, unclassified assessments conclude that Iran retains more [45:12] than 40% of its drone arsenal and 60% of its ballistic missile launches compared with pre-war levels. [45:21] That's one of his objectives. The second objective was regime change. To the great proud people of Iran, [45:31] I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand, and we will finish take over your government. Well, [45:37] when we finish, we'll take over your government. That has not succeeded. And then one of his other [45:43] things is the onset of the war, the president said, we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear [45:48] weapon. Military operations since Iran have not achieved that goal yet. And it also seems to [45:55] indicate that his pronouncements about Operation Midnight Hammer obliterating the nuclear policy [46:05] and structure of the Iranians was false. So you have not achieved any of the objectives yet that [46:10] has the president mentioned. Well, in this setting, I won't talk about the nature of metrics, which are [46:17] which are classified, as you know, Senator. But I can say that looking at the objectives we set out to [46:22] achieve from the beginning, some of which you laid out, our military cap, our military objectives have [46:28] been stunningly effective. Look, take for example, their defense industrial base, they're completely [46:34] incapable at scale at any level of reconstituting the capabilities you referred to, which is a devastating [46:40] result for any country, especially one whose ambitions are as wide as Iran's. So we've put the [46:47] president in a very strong position to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That's the takeaway [46:53] that's been underneath every single aspect of this. For 47 years, Iran's trying to blackmail its way [46:58] to a nuclear weapon. They were closer than ever before because of bad deals under previous [47:02] administration. President Trump was willing to do something about it and not allow their conventional [47:07] missile shield. That's the North Korea strategy. That's, to be clear, what Iran was pursuing. Hiding their [47:13] nuclear ambitions, revealing them over time, and then building a conventional shield of missiles so [47:19] powerful that no country would challenge them for fear of what would happen if they unleashed that [47:24] arsenal. Weekend after the 12-day war in Midnight Hammer, which did obliterate their their their sites, [47:30] President Trump saw an opportunity because their ambitions continued to ensure that umbrella of nuclear [47:36] blackmail did not allow them to get to a nuclear weapon. And the world is safer because of his bold and [47:42] historic choice. Mr. Secretary, I think that's rhetorical but not factual. Thank you. Thank you, [47:52] Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hurst, General Kane, welcome. Over the last several months, I've worked [48:01] closely with some of the new direct reporting program managers, and I've been encouraged by how they're [48:08] approaching the department's most complex acquisition systems. General White's pulled forward the next [48:15] milestone for the Sentinel program by at least six months. General Guttlein has completed the [48:22] initial blueprint for the Golden Dome architecture and is beginning to build it out. For years, this [48:28] committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of [48:36] threats. And we finally have a partner with the full backing of the department to lead the charge. [48:43] Mr. Secretary, what's the advantage of this new type of program management structure? Well, thank you for the [48:51] question, Senator. It's acquisition authority, technical authority, contracting authority. It's [48:57] consolidating decision-making in one place under a highly screened, highly capable general, General [49:03] White and General Guttlein, who know that terrain extremely well and understand what mistakes have been [49:10] made in the past in programs of that magnitude, and then are given the authority to cut through the red [49:15] tape. That's the key. Success or failure lands with them, and they know it. And as a result, they're [49:22] incentivized to ensure that program, and then given every dollar and authority needed to move it as [49:26] quickly as possible. So whether it's Sentinel, whether it's F-47, whether it's Golden Dome for America, these [49:32] critical strategic assets, the direct report construct, along with Deputy Secretary Feinberg, who is a [49:40] national treasure and is changing the way we do business at this department, is giving us a chance [49:44] to ensure these critical systems are delivered. Thank you. And General Cain, can you give us your [49:51] thoughts on why the Golden Dome received, why they must receive that requested $17 billion in funding for [50:00] the fiscal year 27? Well, Senator, it's, uh, as you know, it's a, it's an essential part of our homeland [50:07] security layer defense, and as, as General Guttlein begins to do the work that you're asking about and [50:13] frankly helping to advance, um, you know, the insurance around that down payment, charging the [50:21] defense industrial base with those capital allocations will allow them to get after it much, [50:26] much quicker. We appreciate the help. And if there's a delay in that funding? Well, I, I, [50:32] hopefully there won't be, Senator, because we've got a leader on that account 24-7, 365, but if we do, [50:39] we'll always, um, of course come back and, and talk to the Congress, but also figure out what has to be [50:45] true to, uh, help that constraint get removed in that production system. And that's really what [50:52] we're asking these leaders to do is to be able to get past the theory of constraints. Okay. Thank you. [50:57] Uh, Secretary Hagseth, I agree with your statement on nuclear deterrence. When you said nothing else [51:04] matters if we don't get this right, so we will. We need a modernized nuclear triad and NC3 architecture [51:14] that can credibly deter multiple adversaries instead of an insufficient nuclear force structure based [51:22] on fundamentally flawed assumptions made 16 years ago. Our presidents must also have a more diverse [51:31] set of options so that they can effectively manage more complex nuclear escalation dynamics. So, Mr. [51:39] Secretary, how does this budget request achieve those objectives? Well, thank you for your leadership [51:47] on this issue for a very long time. Uh, first and foremost, it, it invests in it. 71 billion dollars [51:53] in our nuclear triad and NC3 understanding that if you get that wrong, you get everything else wrong. [51:59] Frankly, it's why the Iran effort is so important. Imagine what the situation in the region would look [52:05] like if Iran also wielded a nuclear weapon and the limits it would put on our capabilities in those [52:11] situations. Our adversaries have to deal with that dilemma because of the strength of our nuclear triad. [52:16] So that 71 billion dollar investment, the derpums that have been put over top of it to move those [52:21] systems left, as you acknowledged, uh, it, it's, it's just been a priority since we came into the, into the [52:28] building and we're funding it accordingly. And Chairman Cain, uh, Secretary Hagseth, uh, whoever [52:36] would like to answer this, should our nuclear command control and communication systems like [52:43] the SAOC be given the same level of priority as Congress considers the department's budget request [52:51] as our, as our triad? I, I think so, but I defer to the chairman. Yeah, yes ma'am. We've got to be able to [53:00] see to anything. So, yes ma'am. Thank you. Senator Shaheen, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. [53:09] Um, Secretary Hagseth, Congress enacted 400 million dollars to provide security assistance to Ukraine in [53:16] January. Now, the committee received a notification just yesterday confirming only that the funding would [53:24] go toward Ukraine. It contained no details about the type of equipment, no delivery timelines, nothing [53:31] that is typically included in these notifications. And when asked about the delay in funding, the [53:37] committee was told that Bridge Colby was developing a spend plan, but we've received nothing. So, when [53:44] can we expect the full spend plan for this appropriation? And Madam Chair, can I, if this is not all, [53:51] already part of the record for the committee, can I, um, enter it into the record? We acknowledge and [54:00] are, and are executing on the European capacity building amount of, of 400 million that you referred [54:05] to. Uh, Under Secretary Colby's done a great job looking at, uh, options and worked very closely with [54:12] our European commander, uh, General Grinkowitz. So, his requests of what makes the most sense will inform [54:18] what ultimately, uh, is invested in. Well, this notification says that UCOM coordinated on the spend plan in [54:26] March, but General Grinkowitz told this committee on April 16th, that he had not yet been asked to [54:33] review any spend plan for this appropriation. So, General Kane, have you received the spend plan for [54:40] funds in Ukraine? And have you asked the UCOM commander for his concurrence? Uh, I do not believe [54:49] so, but I will find out, Senator, and get back to you by the end of the day. Thank you. Um, and yesterday, [54:55] Mr. Hearst, you told the House that you needed to seek legal review to appropriate the funds as [55:02] Congress intended. So, can you share with us what the nature of that legal review is? And seems to me [55:10] the law was pretty clear. I saw it. It was part of the, um, defense appropriations bill that we passed [55:16] in January. And as you know, violating congressional intent on appropriating funds is a violation of [55:22] the Impoundment Control Act. So, what's the nature of the legal review that you have to get? Thanks for [55:28] the question, Senator. What we're looking at is if we could use the funds in the same manner as USAI, [55:33] and we had our council look at that. Uh, and so, they provide us a legal opinion on how the funds could [55:37] be used to support European capacity building. And can you share with this committee what that legal [55:43] opinion is? Ma'am, I don't have a copy of that, but we can ask the OGC office if they can supply it to you. [55:49] Um, Madam Chair, can we ask that that, um, legal opinion is shared with the committee? Officially? [55:56] Thank you. Um, also, I don't know who can answer this, but it says that, um, consistent with the [56:08] President's priority to shift the financial burden of Ukraine support to European partners, [56:14] the United States will seek commensurate financial contributions via the prioritized Ukraine requirements [56:21] list, or PEARL, from the European partners for this program. So, um, what's the justification for [56:29] using PEARL when there's $400 million in appropriated funds? Can somebody answer? [56:36] PEARL is a reflection of the President's priority and the belief that any weapons that are supplied are [56:40] paid for by European partners and used as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or somewhere else. [56:45] But that was not the intent of Congress in providing that $400 million. As I understand, [56:50] the PEARL program, um, the Europeans purchase those weapons from the United States and they pay for [56:57] them. But this appropriation was $400 million that Congress expected to be provided to Ukraine, [57:05] not paid for by the Europeans, but provided from the United States to support Ukraine. So, again, [57:14] um, I don't understand what the justification is for using PEARL when that's not the intent that Congress [57:20] provided. So, we're following the intent of European capacity building, uh, and, but at the same time [57:27] recognizing that wherever PEARL can be utilized so that you, the Europeans contribute to that fight, [57:32] uh, per the burden-sharing approach this President takes is important. [57:35] Congressional intent. And that's what I'm asking you. Why you're using PEARL to do something that Congress [57:43] intended to go directly to Ukraine? Well, we look forward to working with you on that. [57:48] What was the legal opinion on this? Have, did you ask the attorneys if the $400 million could be used [57:55] for the PEARL program? Let's get back to you. We'll take it for the record, ma'am. Thank you. And what [58:02] portion of the funding that's committed from the Europeans under PEARL is being used to assist Ukraine [58:09] rather than restocking our own shelves? Can you answer that? Um, that's up to, that's up to Europe. [58:15] Ultimately, uh, Europe pays for at any weapons that we provide and they can utilize them as they see [58:20] fit, whether it's Ukraine or otherwise. Uh, thank you, Senator Shaheen. There've been a number of times [58:27] when our witnesses have, uh, stated both in the closed hearing and up here that they will get back [58:33] to us. And we, we certainly hope that will happen, um, very expeditiously. So thank you very much. [58:40] And thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance today. [58:45] Um, Mr. Secretary, you provided us with a chart here entitled the Arsenal of Freedom, um, which [58:51] includes a lot of sites that you visited. My favorite one is down here in South Arkansas, Camden, [58:57] where you and I had a chance to visit just a couple months ago, um, highlighting the great work that the [59:04] people there are doing to help rebuild, um, our arsenal of freedom. Um, thank you, first off, [59:11] for being there and for your kind words for the workforce of the people of South Arkansas. [59:16] Uh, isn't it fair to say that, that the war in Iran, just like the Ukraine war, uh, before it, [59:24] and still today, that hasn't caused any challenges with our munitions, the way some of our democratic [59:31] colleagues would say, but it's exposed a decades old problem of brittleness and fragility in our [59:37] defense industrial base before you and General Kane took over and that we're trying to address right now. [59:41] Um, in many ways, that's precisely what we're trying to address. We also have a situation where [59:48] President Trump rebuilt our military in the first term and a lot of those munitions and a lot of those [59:53] capabilities were sent to Ukraine under the previous administration to the point where, [59:57] when we ask our commanders or when we look at old plans, the answer often is that was sent to Ukraine. [1:00:03] So the recognition of those two things has, as the president gave us a charge from day one, [1:00:09] to rebuild the arsenal of freedom, to fast forward, not to provide a little bit more of each thing, [1:00:13] but two X, three X, four X, the number of exquisite munitions that we need, the expenditures that we've [1:00:19] seen under this administration, we can, we can account for them and we ensure that other old [1:00:23] plans and elsewhere are well taken care of. So on the munitions front, we're in really good shape, [1:00:28] but we need to accelerate and that's exactly what we're doing. And I think that's an important point [1:00:31] you make is that we're not just trying to fill a hole that was created by epic fury or by support [1:00:38] for Ukraine. We're going to fill that and then go much beyond that for our needs in the future. So we're [1:00:43] never caught where we were over the last several years with these worries about munitions running [1:00:50] short. Is that right, Mr. Secretary? That's exactly right. The president has charged up with not just [1:00:54] replacing anything, but filling it up as he might say to the tippy top and make sure that the remainder [1:01:00] of this term and future presidents have all the munitions they need for any level of contingencies, [1:01:05] especially considering the dangerous world we live in. I want to turn now to operation epic fury. [1:01:09] It's been a smashing military success. Um, unfortunately we have suffered casualties to [1:01:15] include soldiers killed in the line of action. Um, obviously our military takes the greatest steps [1:01:22] possible to protect our troops, whether they are in action or whether they are on bases in the region. [1:01:28] Um, no war that was antiseptic. Uh, Mr. Secretary, could you explain some of the steps we've taken to [1:01:33] try to minimize the greatest extent we can, uh, the number of casualties we've taken in the Middle East? [1:01:39] First of all, every, um, every day we live to ensure that we follow through on the legacy of [1:01:44] those who gave everything. So that's front and center for us. But I can also say, and the chairman [1:01:48] may want to weigh in from the beginning of looking at the, the, the possibility of this contingency, [1:01:53] setting the defense and ensuring that Admiral Cooper and everyone throughout CENTCOM had every [1:01:58] possible measure they could to ensure that our troops are protected and force protection was maximized [1:02:03] was the top priority. Moving assets to the region. We integrated our air defenses with local Gulf, [1:02:09] cut with Gulf countries to ensure our shot doctrine was maximized, whether it's ballistic missiles or on [1:02:15] drones, uh, flowing in the most recent, uh, capabilities to ensure we can intercept drones, [1:02:21] moving troops off the X. I think what people mostly don't know is that a massive effort was undertaken [1:02:28] before this conflict to move as many humans off of targets to other places and maintain operational [1:02:34] security about where they might be to minimize the space with which Iran could hit. We always knew [1:02:40] something getting through was, was a possible, was a tragic possibility. But I can assure you from our [1:02:45] perspective, that was priority number one, as it was Admiral Cooper's to ensure that fortification [1:02:50] and missile defenses were right there when we went on offense, if we had to. [1:02:55] General Cain, do you have anything to add? Well, in addition to just again, mourning our fallen from [1:03:00] the 103rd, what I'll add to the secretary's comments is after every tragic loss, commanders at every [1:03:07] echelon within our joint force are going to go back and look at what was our plan and what lessons we can [1:03:13] learn from this so that we protect and defend, uh, our soldiers, sailors, and other members of the [1:03:19] joint force the next time. Thank you, and I know you do, and I just wanted to give you the opportunity [1:03:23] to speak to what you've done to try to prevent, um, casualties and minimize them. Obviously again, [1:03:29] no war is antiseptic. One final question. I understand you've been accused of lying to the [1:03:32] president. Uh, Mr. Hexeth, have you lied to the president at all about what's happening in Iran or [1:03:37] Epic Fury? No, only tell the truth to the president. General Cain, have you lied to the president about [1:03:42] what's happening in Iran or Operation Epic Fury? Never. I suspected that would be your answer, but since you were [1:03:47] accused of it and deep staters are leaking to the media about it as well, I just wanted to give you [1:03:50] a chance to answer on the record that of course you've always given the president a completely [1:03:54] accurate picture of what's happening. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. [1:03:57] Senator Gillibrand and then Senator Rounds. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before this committee [1:04:02] and thank you for the closed session prior to this. I don't know if you fully appreciate how much the [1:04:08] American people do not support this war. It is an unauthorized war. Normally, when you come to [1:04:14] Congress, it's a way for the American people to be part of that discussion. The American people, [1:04:21] particularly in my state of New York, are upset for a lot of reasons. First of all, this war is [1:04:27] costing so much money, over 25 billion dollars already, estimates a billion dollars a day, and [1:04:33] they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump with higher prices for both fuel, for diesel, [1:04:40] for gasoline for their cars. They're also feeling it with higher grocery costs, and they're exhausted. [1:04:46] They are truly exhausted. On top of that, on top of that, they have so many grave concerns about how [1:04:55] this war is being prosecuted. They read in the paper that 22 schools have been hit. They read in the paper [1:05:04] about a girl's school, hundreds getting killed. We have a debate going on in this country about AI, [1:05:13] a serious debate about AI. And I haven't heard yet from you that you will not allow AI to make final [1:05:20] targeting determinations, even when nuclear weapons are being used. That's a huge issue that we need to [1:05:26] discuss. So I want to start from the top, Secretary Hegseth. Why do you continue to prosecute a war that [1:05:33] the American people aren't behind? First of all, I appreciate the opportunity for that closed session [1:05:41] where we had a unsurprisingly very different discussion than we have here with the cameras on. [1:05:46] We support this because my job is to represent New Yorkers. And I can tell you, when I talk to them [1:05:53] all across my state, they are furious. And they expect me to explain to them why they are furious. [1:06:00] And Senator, when I talk to Americans, and especially when I talk to the troops, [1:06:04] they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after 47 years of [1:06:08] what Iran has done targeting and killing Americans, and what it would mean to the world if Iran's [1:06:13] nuclear ambitions were actually achieved. So the question I would ask to you and to others is, [1:06:18] what is the cost of a nuclear armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people if the world's most [1:06:24] dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon? But the truth is, they don't want war coming to this shore. [1:06:29] And when you do a decapitation operation, the likelihood is going to be exchanged in the United States. [1:06:34] There's no evidence that we are safer because of this war. We did not have any evidence that Iran [1:06:40] intended to imminently attack this country in any way, shape or form. So I disagree with your [1:06:45] assessment that we are under threat. Do you not believe them when they say death to America? [1:06:51] Listen, our adversaries use rhetoric all the time. What I'm concerned about is we are not safer. [1:06:57] And I would just like to know why you have not sought the support of the American people. And [1:07:02] three out of five Americans are against this war today. [1:07:05] I believe we do have the support of the American people. And we have briefed regularly what this [1:07:13] mission looks like and why it's critically important that we undertake it. And I would remind you and this [1:07:17] group that we're two months in to an effort. And many congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, [1:07:23] want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? [1:07:29] And they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. This is a defined [1:07:34] mission set that we have had great success in pursuing against a determined enemy who seeks nuclear [1:07:40] weapons. And I'm proud of the opportunity to remind the American people because they believe in it as [1:07:45] well that they can't have it. You don't care whether the American people support this war. [1:07:50] The American people are quite smart. They understand and see through spin. They know that a regime that [1:07:55] says death to America, that seeks nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver. Did they lie about the [1:08:00] range of their missiles? Because I saw a 4,000 kilometer missile get shot at. How much more will you ask [1:08:04] the American people to pay for this war? Diego Garcia. Right now, do you want it a billion dollars a day? [1:08:09] Do you want two billion dollars a day? You're asking for 200 billion dollars more to fund this war [1:08:14] and to make sure we have. We didn't ask for 200 billion dollars. I don't know where you got that number from, [1:08:18] Senator. I think you got it from the news, which you should be careful what you read in the news. [1:08:22] Okay, Mr. Hegseth. Secretary Hegseth, here's a few more. Let's talk about how you're prosecuting [1:08:27] the war. What is your response to targeting that has resulted in the destruction of schools, hospitals, [1:08:36] civilian places? Why did you cut by 90 percent the division that's supposed to help you not target [1:08:42] civilians? And do you know the impact of a strategic failure at a war when you have so many civilian [1:08:49] casualties? You may have tactically completed a mission well, but strategically is not meeting [1:08:54] your goals because of the harms to civilians. What is the cost of that? Let's leave time for an answer. [1:09:01] No military, no country works harder at every echelon to ensure they protect civilian lives than the [1:09:06] United States military. And that is a ironclad commitment that we make, no matter how, no matter what [1:09:12] systems we use. And why did you cut the department by 90 percent? Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. [1:09:16] There'll be other rounds of questions. Senator Rounds, you are now recognized. Thank you, [1:09:22] thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. [1:09:28] Let me just allow you to finish the answer a little bit with regard to the senator from New York. [1:09:35] Does the United States military ever target a civilian center? Well, thank you, [1:09:42] Senator. Unlike our adversaries, unlike radical Islamists, unlike those that target civilians or [1:09:49] use civilians as shields, the United States military never targets civilians and puts constructs in [1:09:57] place to ensure that the maximum extent possible, we do not harm or hit civilians. Is war a difficult [1:10:04] place with a lot of complexities? Absolutely right. But no country does more and no department does more [1:10:10] than our department. Do you still have all of the resources necessary to assure that every [1:10:17] opportunity to eliminate that as a threat in terms of that happening? Do we still have the resources [1:10:22] available in the department to make sure that we do the best we can never to hit a civilian target? [1:10:27] Every resource necessary at every echelon is available, legal, intel, and otherwise, [1:10:34] to ensure that we minimize at every extent possible civilian casualties. And the suggestion was made [1:10:39] that somehow AI might be used without a human in the loop, which is a classic anthropic talking point, [1:10:45] which is half of what we talked about previously. There is a human in the loop on decisions that are [1:10:51] made. And the suggestion otherwise is to suggest that somehow AI is running targeting. Thank you. [1:10:57] Right now, part of what we're also talking about is not just are we engaged right now in terms of trying [1:11:06] to eliminate the threat from Iran in terms of being a nuclear armed country, but we've also got, [1:11:11] staring with us as well, the fact that we have an ongoing principle threat with regard to a pacing [1:11:16] threat with China. The dual capable B-21 Raider will be a critical part of both our conventional and [1:11:24] our nuclear deterrence against China and Russia. As you know, the Air Force's program of record [1:11:29] includes plans to procure 100 B-21s, but many national security experts and leaders, including [1:11:36] STRATCOM Commander Admiral Corral and Indo-PACOM Commander Admiral Paparo are calling for a greater [1:11:43] number of B-21s. Admiral Paparo testified here last week that he would favor buying 200 B-21s. [1:11:50] Secretary Hagseth and Chairman Cain, could you speak to the progress and the importance of the B-21 [1:11:57] program? And if you agree with the growing sentiment that the U.S. needs to revisit the B-21 program of [1:12:03] record and assess the requirement for at least 200 B-21s to match the global threat, would you speak just [1:12:11] to exactly what that would mean and what the probability of that is? Thank you for the question, [1:12:16] and I appreciate the fact that you're listening to and hearing from combatant commanders, [1:12:21] because that's who we listen to as well, who are looking at the operational plans and what [1:12:24] would be required to ensure we deter and, if necessary, defeat. Assets like the B-21 or the F-47 [1:12:30] are critical to that. That's why we're funding them and increasing the funding and where necessary [1:12:35] would increase the allocation. And I think you see a budget that reflects the reality that we have to [1:12:43] invest in more capabilities, to include the B-21, which is ahead of schedule. And we will be funding to [1:12:50] the tune of $6 billion, and we believe will require a lot more over $100 in the future. But I'll defer to [1:12:55] the chairman. Hey, sir. Thank you for the question. Working through the JROC and the Vice Chiefs, [1:13:02] I'll absolutely stack hands around assessing the requirement. And we're glad to see B-21 on the [1:13:09] flight path, no pun intended, that it's on through operational testing. On the specific numbers, [1:13:17] the one sort of big picture strategic thing I want to say is we want to make sure as we think [1:13:23] through what does air power of the future look like based on the evolving threat, that we're staying [1:13:28] well in front of it. And so that's the only thing we'll look at in the assessment. But I'm on board [1:13:34] with assessing the numbers. I want to make sure we're buying ahead of the technology development [1:13:39] curve so that we give all those young warfighters out there the capabilities that we need well into the [1:13:45] future. Is there any question at all that we're going to need more than 100 B-21s? I want to go [1:13:52] back. Here's how I'll look at it, Senator. I want to go back and look at the O plans right now that we [1:13:57] have to make sure that we allocate those numbers. So I don't believe so, but I do want to take the [1:14:03] due diligence time if you'll allow me to look at that, Senator. Good. I appreciate the opportunity [1:14:08] to visit with you and to clarify what that number should look like in the near future. Yes, [1:14:13] sir. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:14:18] Thank you for being here today. I want to talk about the costs of war. The costs of war include [1:14:27] caring for our veterans. We've had an estimate from Mr. Hurst yesterday that the cost to date in dollars [1:14:37] for this war has been 25 billion dollars, which I believe is well below the actual cost based on [1:14:45] everything that I've heard, everything available to us in various kinds of settings. And I'm going to [1:14:52] ask for a more accurate assessment. But we also know that about 400 service members have been wounded [1:14:59] as a result of this war. When they retire, when they come home, their retirement pay will be docked [1:15:09] dollar for dollar for every disability benefit dollar they receive. Secretary Hegseth, I'd like your [1:15:20] commitment that you will support the major Richard Starr Act that will eliminate this wounded warrior [1:15:29] tax. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Tens of thousands of servicemen and women now are reduced in [1:15:37] their retirement pay literally for every dollar of disability benefits they receive. Well, I appreciate your [1:15:46] focus on this issue and I will tell you of the you mentioned roughly 400 that have been injured [1:15:50] thankfully over 90 percent are returned to duty. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a residual [1:15:55] challenge. And we're tracking that at point of injury to ensure that that is noted even though [1:16:01] they're returned to duty. But but what I'd like is your commitment that you will support the major [1:16:05] Richard Starr. As I have said in the past to other organizations we support the Richard Starr Act. [1:16:11] Thank you. On the issue of cost, Mr. Hurst, does that 25 billion dollar estimate include [1:16:22] all of the costs in terms of damage to our bases, the need to replace planes and munitions, and the [1:16:36] costs of injuries to our servicemen and women? Senator, so for the MILCON facilities replacement cost, [1:16:45] that's probably the hardest thing to estimate right now because we don't know what our future [1:16:48] posture is going to be or the future construction of those bases. Well, you owe it to us. You're here [1:16:52] to ask for appropriations and I would like a more accurate estimate of what has been done that will [1:17:04] require replacement and renovation as well as the other costs. And I think 25 billion is probably less [1:17:14] less than half, maybe less than a quarter of the total cost of war, which is the reason why the [1:17:19] supplemental request is much higher. So I think you owe it to the American people to give us the [1:17:26] straight talk about what the costs have been. Mr. Secretary, I know you have characterized this war as [1:17:36] a astonishing military success, to use your words yesterday, but the American people aren't buying it. [1:17:47] And I know you feel the American people are seeing through the abstruse stuff that is thrown at them, [1:17:57] but one point is irrefutable, which is America never succeeds in war unless the American people are [1:18:05] behind it. And if what you're seeing as success now is winning, I would hate to see what losing looks like [1:18:16] because none of the shifting and contradictory objectives of the war so far have been achieved. [1:18:22] Likewise, let me ask you, yesterday the president said that Ukraine has been, quote, militarily defeated. [1:18:32] I assume you don't agree with that assessment. [1:18:34] The negative nature in which you characterize the incredible and historic effort in Iran is part of [1:18:43] the reason, Senator, why the American people view it the way they do. It's why I looked out at our [1:18:47] press corps at the Pentagon and called them the Pharisees in the press. It's because they look for [1:18:51] every problem. Well, I'm asking you about Ukraine. Do you believe Ukraine has been militarily defeated? [1:18:58] You missed the plank. I would submit, based on my nine trips to Ukraine, that is a false narrative [1:19:05] that the president's buying from Vladimir Putin. We are two months into a historic military [1:19:09] success in Iran, and you want to call it a defeat, and it's defeatist Democrats like you that cloud [1:19:14] the mind of the American people and would otherwise fully support preventing Iran from having a nuclear [1:19:19] weapon. ...administration, and they are bravely fighting our fight, and that is the reason that [1:19:26] I'm pursuing the Russian sanctions bill, which is bipartisan, along with Senator Graham, and why I hope [1:19:31] we will recognize our obligation to release that $400 million, which we've appropriated. [1:19:36] Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Ernst. [1:19:39] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I really do appreciate [1:19:45] your time to be with us. Before I begin some of my questions, I do want to start with something [1:19:52] personal, and both to you, Secretary Hegseth, and to the Chairman, I want to thank you both [1:19:58] for the time that you take to recognize our fallen and those that have given, of course, during this [1:20:06] administration given their all. You have traveled to Dover and have been there to greet those families [1:20:13] and to welcome home the fallen. I've been there with you, and Iowa has been hit, in particular, [1:20:19] very hard. We lost two of our Iowa National Guardsmen from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry [1:20:26] Division. Secretary Hegseth, you know full well, the 34th. But we also lost six members from the 103rd [1:20:34] Sustainment Command Expeditionary, based out of Des Moines, Iowa, during this current conflict. And [1:20:41] again, your presence there meant a lot to the families. It also meant a lot to me. So thank you [1:20:48] very much for taking the time to do that. Secretary Hegseth, you and I have had many discussions [1:20:55] over the course of many months now regarding general officer positions. And, you know, I believe [1:21:03] that we were operating in good faith, as we talked through a couple of those in particular, two Iowans, [1:21:09] General Mingus and General Randy George. I was disappointed to see that their retirements were [1:21:17] hastened over what I believed had been set out by you and the administration. So I just want to [1:21:25] take the time to list out some of General Randy George's accomplishments as Army Chief of Staff. He pulled [1:21:33] the Army out of its worst recruiting crisis since the Vietnam era, exceeding fiscal year 2024 recruiting goals, and [1:21:41] welcoming more than 61,000 new soldiers. Recruitment numbers that both you and the President talk a lot [1:21:48] about, and rightfully so. He cut five percent of general officer positions, 12 positions that were deemed [1:21:56] as non-essential in the Army. And he reduced the Army headquarters by 1,000 personnel. He co-authored [1:22:04] the Army Transformation Initiative, which is a comprehensive response aligned with your directives, [1:22:10] and he testified here in front of Congress and took a lot of heat defending that Army transformation. [1:22:18] He was suddenly let go at the beginning of April, 2026. General George's merits, which I firmly believe in, [1:22:27] he enlisted at the age of 17. He is a West Point graduate. He had four combat deployments. He served in [1:22:35] desert storm Iraq and Afghanistan. He had 38 years of honorable service. He achieved the greatest Army [1:22:43] recruitment and modernization effort in a generation. So I want to thank him for his service. And I would [1:22:52] like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, the speeches that I did honoring General Randy A. George on his [1:23:01] retirement and General James J. Mingus on his retirement. Without objection, they'll be admitted. [1:23:08] Thank you very much. I'd like to to talk a little bit about the audit, Mr. Secretary. I saw the video [1:23:16] that you posted this week calling on the department to pass a clean audit, and thank you for doing that. [1:23:22] It's something that we talked about during your confirmation hearing. Fiscal responsibility at the [1:23:28] department has been a priority of mine for a very long time. And I think it's time that we build on [1:23:34] that momentum. It's extremely important. And that's why I'm pushing for my Receipts Act in this year's NDAA. [1:23:43] It's focused on improving financial traceability and accountability across the department. And if you [1:23:49] could talk a little bit more about the efforts in making sure that we are being much more accountable [1:23:55] to our taxpayers, what is that effort going to entail? When will we see a clean audit? [1:24:02] As I said, Senator, thank you for your work on the audit. That has been a priority of our department [1:24:06] from day one. And we put in place goals and benchmarks to get to FY28, get to 28 for a clean audit. [1:24:14] The Joint Task Force audit, which we announced, was a reflection of even more capabilities we want to [1:24:19] push forward and centralize authority to make sure it happens. Jay's been involved from the beginning. [1:24:24] We also have a new IG. The new IG's focus, one of his focus points, is precisely this. And he's [1:24:30] prepared to work with us to ensure we reach it. So I think at every level and through this budget, [1:24:35] it's a focus. Okay. Thank you. We look forward to seeing a clean audit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:24:39] Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Hirono. [1:24:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I'd like to take a moment to highlight [1:24:49] the true costs of this war, both for the military and everyday Americans. The true cost of the [1:24:57] President's illegal war with Iran. And since the start of the war, 13, 14 brave U.S. service members [1:25:03] have been killed and more than 400 have been wounded. We've burned through over $25 billion in taxpayer [1:25:10] money with no end in sight. And the fiscal year 27 budget request is a massive 42% increase from last [1:25:19] year. Hundreds of critical munitions have been expended and deployments have been extended directly [1:25:27] impacting service members' quality of life, military readiness, and our ability to deter our adversaries. [1:25:36] The relationships with our allies, some of our closest allies and partners have been fractured. [1:25:43] And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which somehow caught the President by surprise, even though [1:25:51] he had to have been warned, is directly contributing to the affordable crisis that Americans are facing. [1:25:58] Energy costs are skyrocketing with the price of gas now at its highest level in almost four years. [1:26:05] In the last few years, instability has driven interest rates to its highest level since September of [1:26:11] last year. The cost of fertilizer is spiking, which will have a direct impact on the cost of food. [1:26:18] This illegal war is driving up costs, undermining readiness, and alienating our allies with neither a [1:26:26] clear rationale for starting this war, nor an exit strategy. And when the President was asked how long [1:26:35] he'll let this war continue. He said, do not rush me. I have a question for our General Kane relating to [1:26:45] women serving in combat. And I'd like to hear your best military advice. Does the mere fact of women [1:26:53] being in combat armed units lower standards or readiness if they meet the physical standards? [1:27:01] Well, ma'am, the standards are set by the civilians. We have examples of women leading well across the [1:27:11] joint force. I'll highlight some of our current commanders engaged in the fight in Epic Fury. [1:27:18] Specifically, one of our bomb squadrons are led by an extraordinary female leader who's doing great [1:27:24] work. But those standards are set by ‑‑ I'm sorry. I didn't mean to step on you. [1:27:28] Very much. I think your answer is that, in fact, it does not lower standards of readiness. [1:27:33] Second question. Should every service member, regardless of gender, be permitted to serve in [1:27:38] any role, including the combat arms, if they meet the standards established? Yes or no? [1:27:45] Is that to me, ma'am? [1:27:46] Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen [1:27:54] any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness? [1:28:00] I apologize. I didn't hear your first question. The, you know, people policies are all set by the [1:28:07] civilian leaders in the government. Could you repeat the question again? I'm sorry, ma'am. [1:28:11] Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any [1:28:17] instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness? [1:28:22] MR. Again, I'll highlight that the standards are set by our civilian leaders. Women continue to [1:28:28] perform well across a range of MOSs and jobs and AFSCs that are out there. [1:28:36] MS. No. I do need to get to a question for Secretary Hicks. Prior to your nomination hearing, [1:28:42] you said women shouldn't serve in combat armed units. At your confirmation hearing, [1:28:47] you reverse course and, excuse me, and you basically said as long as the women meet the [1:28:55] standards, they should be able to serve. But recently, you ordered a review of the effectiveness [1:29:00] of women in combat roles. And I am concerned you are laying the groundwork to reverse the policy [1:29:07] allowing women to serve in these units. Because right now, current law, if you want to change this [1:29:13] policy, a current law requires you to submit a report to Congress justifying such a change. [1:29:20] So, did you order the review to support a potential decision to overturn the policy of having women [1:29:27] in combat roles? MR. We are laser focused on standards. The highest male standard for every [1:29:32] combat arms position should be the standard. And 10 years into this, we are reviewing it, which is what [1:29:38] the American people would expect. Also, there's nothing illegal about a war that defends the [1:29:42] American people and prevents Iran from having a nuclear bomb. MS. You know, you didn't answer [1:29:46] the question. Because the reason that you're asking for this review, I think, has to do with your [1:29:52] earlier position that you don't think women should serve in combat roles. So now we have the study, [1:29:57] and I'd like to ask you, will you reveal the study to the public, to the American people? Will you [1:30:04] make the study public? MR. Will you make that study? MS. Yes or no? MR. We're doing the study for that very reason, [1:30:12] to ensure that real science is applied to this question and not social engineering like the [1:30:17] previous administration. MR. We appreciate your assurance that that will be made public. [1:30:21] MS. Yeah, I think it's really critical that the study be made. MR. Thank you, ma'am. [1:30:26] MS. Thank you. MS. Well, first, thank each of you for being here. Secretary Hitchfeth, [1:30:32] can you talk about, you've had the job for a little bit. What are you most proud of? [1:30:35] And what are your biggest challenges? MR. Well, I appreciate the question. [1:30:40] And what I'm most proud of is the incredible men and women who serve in our nations in uniform, [1:30:48] and what they are capable of when they're given a clear mission and unleashed to do it. [1:30:53] And I think the best reflection of the success of President Trump and this War Department [1:30:59] is the historic recruiting success and the historic morale amongst our ranks. I would encourage every [1:31:05] member of this committee, Democrat or Republican, go into the formations, go into the Air Force [1:31:12] formations, the Army formations, the Marine Corps formations, and talk to corporals, talk to sergeants, [1:31:16] talk to lieutenants, talk to captains, talk to colonels. And what you will find are men and women [1:31:23] more inspired to serve in the military than they have been in a generation. And you see that in the [1:31:28] young Americans who are rushing to recruiting stations at historic numbers, 30-year highs [1:31:34] across the force, we're hitting our recruiting numbers halfway through the year. Why is that? [1:31:39] Because the American people look at what we're doing at the War Department by getting back to basics, [1:31:45] and they're attracted to that. Same with our retention rates, which are now merit-based. [1:31:50] Our best sergeants, our best leaders are staying. That's exactly what we want. So we've made changes [1:31:56] to change the environment. The renaming of the department to the War Department is not just a [1:32:01] name. In fact, it's restoring it to the original name of the department set by George Washington, [1:32:06] but it's an ethos as well. That warrior ethos lives inside the heart of each one of these men [1:32:11] and women, and we're unleashing it. I'm proud of the, I mean, you name it, the border, the missions, [1:32:16] yes, those are all incredible demonstrations of that, but it's the people and the urgency of Americans [1:32:21] to want to be a part of it that is the best affirmation, Senator. Thank you. So we've talked about [1:32:26] the importance of not relying on Chinese drugs for our military. Can you just talk about what [1:32:33] you're doing to make sure that we don't continue to rely on China for anything, including our drugs? [1:32:38] Oh, drugs. Absolutely. We can't be dependent on China on anything that's critical to our supply [1:32:46] chain, even if it's the national industrial base and not just the defense industrial base. And you've [1:32:51] been a leader on that. This committee's been a leader on that, on shoring, bringing manufacturing here, [1:32:56] bringing critical capabilities here is central to the interagency and the NSC, but also our department. [1:33:04] If any critical weapon system is reliant upon something China could change at a moment's notice, [1:33:09] then we have a true challenge to our ability to produce for the American people. And so we're [1:33:15] finding all of those, changing them, on shoring it, reviving the defense industrial base allows us [1:33:22] to ensure we're separated from China on anything that's critical. Thank you. Can you talk about the [1:33:27] importance of foreign military sales to our allies and our partners and what you're doing to make sure [1:33:32] that whether it's what you're doing right now in Iran or any potential conflict in Asia, [1:33:39] our partners have the best assets to be able to be a great partner? Absolutely. Foreign military sales [1:33:48] has been a huge problem for a long time because the department didn't prioritize it and organized to [1:33:52] deliver efficiently on it. So we're working with the state department. We've changed the way we do business [1:33:56] internally. The executive order, the America first arm strategy, prioritizes what we sell into whom, [1:34:03] a catalog approach. But it took us, this committee would be astonished to know how long it took us just [1:34:09] to get our arms around who we're selling to what and by what processes, which means there was no strategy [1:34:14] behind ensuring we're sending the proper demand signal to industry and delivering those systems on time [1:34:20] and under budget to those countries, which you can imagine is frustrating to partners who are relying on [1:34:25] those to be able to step up and burden share. So foreign military sales is critical to our own defense [1:34:31] industrial base, more customers, more customers for our companies that employ more American workers to ensure [1:34:36] our allies are properly armed for the fights and they can stand alongside us. So FMS is a big one for us, Senator. [1:34:41] Senator Cain, I just want to commend you and everybody in the military for what you did in Venezuela and [1:34:50] then what you've done in Iran. The willingness of the American military to fight and win, do you think [1:34:57] it's changing the calculus for Beijing and Moscow? Senator Cain, I know they're watching and I'm incredibly proud [1:35:07] uh of the joint force um and their ability to integrate and synchronize a range of activities and [1:35:14] I suspect that my counterpart in China is watching very closely and envious of uh what our joint force [1:35:22] is capable of doing if ordered to do so. Well thank each of you and thank everybody that serves under you. [1:35:29] Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Cain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hurst, I want you to just confirm something [1:35:35] for me about the president's submitted budget. 1.5 trillion dollars is about a 40 plus percent [1:35:42] increase from FY26. Am I right that not a penny of that is to go to a pay raise for the 800,000 [1:35:52] civilians who work for the Department of Defense? We have uh 4 2 point or 4.2 percent of a civilian salary [1:35:59] set aside for bonuses uh to make sure we can recognize high performers in the civilian workforce. But you have [1:36:04] guaranteed pay raises for the active duty in the Guard and Reserve component but no guaranteed raises [1:36:09] for there are guaranteed raises for the military but you know the last year this department's given [1:36:13] out more civilian bonuses. Well I you know if we're if we're gonna increase the defense budget by that [1:36:18] much I would hope the committee would take a look at this um Chairman Cain and I like the sound of that [1:36:24] Chairman Cain um General Cain I want to ask you a question about Southern Spear it's an operational [1:36:30] question I know from your background that you carefully act to keep military actions within [1:36:37] the rules of war. What legal justification could there possibly be that would allow the U.S. military [1:36:46] to strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats without a showing of [1:36:52] evidence that there's narcotics on those boats? Well sir as you know our our job is to show the range of [1:37:00] options the associated risks and then take those execution uh orders transmit them down to the [1:37:07] co-coms on legally appropriate and legally backstopped actions. Could you could you give me a legal [1:37:15] justification that would authorize striking boats that do not have evidence that they're carrying narcotics? [1:37:23] I don't know I apologize I didn't mean to interrupt you I I don't have a copy of the [1:37:27] the order issued to South Com with me today it's classified in its own right which clearly articulates [1:37:34] based on a variety of criteria what constitutes a valid military and legally valid target [1:37:42] in that theater and I know I just want to say I know and trust that our commanders at Echelon are [1:37:48] rigorously following that legal opinion and those legal boundaries upon which we've been issued those orders [1:37:56] and and and general kane I would encourage again my colleagues I am at a disadvantage I've seen the [1:38:02] legal opinion but I can't talk about it because it's classified I've seen the targeting criteria but [1:38:07] I can't talk about them because they're classified I've seen the secret list of DTOs against whom we have [1:38:13] declared war that even they haven't been informed of but I can't talk about it because it's classified [1:38:20] but I would urge all of my colleagues to go to the SCIF and read the targeting criteria and get briefed [1:38:26] about it and then also look at all of the files of all the strikes that have taken place I've done that [1:38:31] with the first 46 strikes or so and I think there's a profound mismatch between what is occurring and [1:38:40] the underlying assumptions in the legal opinion and I would just encourage my colleagues to dig into this [1:38:45] to Secretary Hegseth and General Kane the war powers resolution specifies that a war initiated [1:38:51] by a president without congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days it can be extended [1:38:58] by an additional 30 days if quote the president determines and certifies to congress in writing [1:39:04] that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the U.S. armed forces requires the continued use [1:39:11] of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces we're right [1:39:17] at the 60-day deadline is the president intending to either seek congressional authorization for the [1:39:24] war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days [1:39:31] to remove U.S. forces from the war just briefly on the previous question there we do know that these [1:39:39] are designated terrorist organizations so we treat them like the Al Qaeda of our hemisphere [1:39:42] just as a note but that was not the question I asked I know I know there's more to that question [1:39:47] I just think it's important for the public to understand that there's no willy-nilly targeting [1:39:51] of of drug boats we know exactly who these people are affiliated I was asking about what's on the [1:39:55] boats on the on on on Iran uh ultimately I would I would defer to the White House and White House [1:40:00] Council on that however we are in a ceasefire right now which our understanding means uh the 60-day [1:40:05] clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire so you're not in that's it's our understanding just so you know [1:40:11] okay well I I do not believe the statute would support that I think the 60 days runs maybe [1:40:15] tomorrow and that's going to pose a a really important legal question for the administration there [1:40:22] we have serious constitutional concerns and we don't want to layer those with additional [1:40:27] statutory concerns I yield back Mr. Chair thank you very much Senator Sullivan thank you Mr. Chairman [1:40:33] thank you gentlemen for your testimony uh Mr. Secretary I mentioned in the classified hearing today but [1:40:39] I do think the 1.5 trillion dollar top line is historic it meets the needs and the other thing [1:40:47] is I mentioned in our earlier meeting um you know the president's done a really good job of getting [1:40:52] other allies NATO and Asian allies to step up meet a five percent GDP of defense spending and um in many [1:41:02] ways that's what this is doing as well so isn't that important as well in terms of our global leadership [1:41:07] what you and the president are uh providing is that example as well I think uh the more we step [1:41:13] up the more the world should look at the American leadership and example and step up as well and [1:41:18] they're going to do that it helps we will it remains to be seen whether some of our allies actually step [1:41:24] up to their commitments but that is that is the hope let me uh go to an element of that budget that I [1:41:29] I mentioned in the classified hearing you know I always like to put this chart up in different hearings we [1:41:35] have the examples so we a lot of our uh adversaries the Chinese the Russians in my AOR in the Arctic in [1:41:43] the North Pacific these are the numbers just recently eight is incursions easy incursions by the Russians [1:41:49] by the Chinese by the way the green ones are joint Russian Chinese strategic bomber task forces joint [1:41:57] Russian Chinese naval task forces uh this is America right this is a a really important part of uh [1:42:05] our national defense so I was pleased to see that one of the elements in the budget was what's [1:42:12] referred to by the air force as the j bear fighter town recapitalization given how strategically important [1:42:20] that air force base is um general can you talk a little bit about that recapitalization it's uh uh for [1:42:29] uh building out what is a very strategic base but old a lot of these uh facilities are from the 1950s [1:42:40] the goal of in the air force's language was to have a recapitalization to provide a new state-of-the-art [1:42:46] fighter facility capable of supporting multiple platforms now and well into the future 6.9 billion dollar total [1:42:54] authorization 2.2 billion dollar appropes for this year can you talk about the importance I was glad [1:43:00] to host you at j bear recently can you talk about the importance of this element of the president's [1:43:05] budget yes senator thank you thank you for uh for that and you know our investment up at j bear is [1:43:11] essential to modernizing the nation's ability to project power and capabilities and really bolsters [1:43:19] our effort in not only the indo-pacific but also in the high north in the arctic which i know is [1:43:25] something that's passionate to you the arctic is certainly becoming more operationally and [1:43:30] strategically valuable and we need to be thinking proactively around how we're going to set the [1:43:37] the conditions for us to offer a range of options to the secretary and the president about power [1:43:42] projection uh across a range of capabilities and fighters is certainly one of them in the recap effort [1:43:49] that's there um you know it is uh it is our ability to protect that flank is a national imperative and [1:43:56] something that we want to keep uh focused on and we appreciate the efforts uh across this committee [1:44:02] and the rest of the congress to help us with that thank you uh mr secretary one of the things [1:44:06] that i've been talking about and i think is really important now is american energy and us being a [1:44:13] energy dominant president put a recent executive order out highlighting highlighting the need to [1:44:20] accelerate uh the ability to produce lng uh in america we have a huge lng project that we're getting [1:44:30] close to getting off the ground in alaska would be huge for our military in terms of uh energy for our [1:44:36] military huge for our allies and can i get your commitment to work with me and this committee [1:44:43] you mentioned in your testimony the office of strategic capital this to me is one of these projects [1:44:51] that i think would be absolutely critical for our national security we talked about this just in [1:44:56] admiral paparro's testimony last week he was talking about the alaska lng project is hugely strategic [1:45:03] kind of a private sector american counter to the chinese belt and road initiative i think it'd be [1:45:09] a great opportunity to work with the office of strategic capital can i get your commitment mr [1:45:13] secretary to do that on this project yes very aware of that project and i think it's a the office of [1:45:18] strategic capital is a great place to look at partnering great i appreciate that uh finally i'm just [1:45:24] going to ask uh 47 years of war that we've had with iran um my colleagues on the other side of the [1:45:31] aisle that you know they talk about uh these civilian uh casualties these are all horrible horrible [1:45:40] whenever there's any civilian casualties but just general um do our forces target civilians ever [1:45:49] sure not never intentionally and i don't know in any particular case of unintentional but we don't do [1:45:56] that that's our core to our american values or how we approach things that's one one do our adversaries [1:46:01] target civilians yes sir like the kudz force yes sir i think it's really important as we keep bringing [1:46:07] this topic up uh to remember who we are and thank you senator sullivan uh senator sullivan do you uh ask [1:46:14] unanimous consent to have the two exhibits added to the record yes sir mr chairman without objection that [1:46:19] will be done senator king thank you mr chairman we've had a lot of discussion about iran i'd like to talk [1:46:25] about several other aspects of the budget the first is the way the budget's been constructed [1:46:31] ever since i've been here until last year we've had bipartisan budgets and bipartisan national defense [1:46:38] authorization acts and passed by majorities i voted for all of them and all of a sudden in this year 25 [1:46:47] of the budget is essentially out of the process and will be passed presumably through some kind of [1:46:54] reconciliation which is by definition a partisan exercise mr secretary why not what all those items [1:47:02] of housing or golden dome whatever why aren't they in the in the regular budget why do we suddenly have [1:47:07] a two-part budget where the this committee and the congress generally has oversight and and and input [1:47:15] to a process where a quarter of the budget is is essentially a slush fund well senator i appreciate [1:47:22] the question i wouldn't characterize a quarter of it as a as a slush fund but i recognize that we see [1:47:27] it as a in totality as a 1.5 trillion dollar budget but why multiple separation why the two pieces [1:47:33] multiple vehicle as you know there are multiple dynamics uh that play into why there are multiple [1:47:38] vehicles but we are fully committed with working to the committee to ensure that the right vehicles [1:47:42] are utilized to get precisely this amount 1.5 trillion why should we you didn't answer my question why are [1:47:48] there two pieces why why not for time immemorial we've done budgets here we've never to my knowledge [1:47:54] we've never used this reconciliation process for a defense budget before what's what's what's going [1:48:00] on why my understanding of the reason for the vehicles is to ensure we actually get to 1.5 trillion [1:48:07] which is the most important bottom line the most important bottom line is that top line of 1.5 trillion [1:48:12] to fund what we need and we think this process is the most effective way to get there senator well [1:48:18] what you're really saying is we don't want to deal with that pesky congress and their appropriation [1:48:22] process i i think it's i think this is significant mr chairman that we're we're basically abdicating a [1:48:28] quarter of our responsibility in terms of this budget let me move on uh one of the factors of this [1:48:35] budget that hasn't gotten any publicity is uh that there's zero funding for ukraine that's correct [1:48:41] isn't it mr hurst that's correct there's no usa funding in this budget and there was 400 400 [1:48:47] billion 400 million that was appropriated last year by a bipartisan bicameral act of congress [1:48:54] what's become of that money my understanding is not a dollar of it has been dispersed it was released [1:49:03] very recently and again we got these funds i believe in march and it takes time for funds to [1:49:08] flow through the department but it's going to get put to work very shortly we're going to work the [1:49:12] ucom commander to make sure we use these funds in the most appropriate way possible i didn't want [1:49:16] senator sullivan to be the only one with an exhibit uh this indicates what's happened to our support for [1:49:22] ukraine over a period of years the orange bars are u.s support uh the blue bars are europe as you see [1:49:30] europe is 99 in the year 2026 same thing with humanitarian and other aid uh to ukraine and yet this [1:49:39] is uh i believe an existential struggle for uh the future of democracy where we had an aggressive [1:49:45] country invade a neighboring country without any justification whatsoever and by the way that [1:49:51] invading country is the major winner so far of the war in iran uh they've gotten the estimates are 40 to [1:49:59] 80 billion dollars of additional revenues from oil and the relief of sanctions as a result of the war in [1:50:04] iran uh secretary hegseth why are we abandoning ukraine senator if you would hold that chart back [1:50:12] up i i think that's a beautiful chart i think that's exactly what we want we want europe stepping [1:50:19] up and funding and shouldering the burden they are rich countries worth 20 trillion versus economy of 2 [1:50:25] trillion europe can step up europe can fund it and they have through our pearl initiative and through [1:50:30] our european command that's exactly what the american people want to see is other countries stepping up and [1:50:35] funding that if it's if it's that important to europe which i understand why it is and the [1:50:39] incursion of russia and the bravery of the ukrainians then european countries should pay for it and that's [1:50:44] exactly what that chart says and that's the administration policy so we don't have any we don't [1:50:48] have any interest in what happens in ukraine is that what you're saying it's only the europeans [1:50:53] i'm saying the threat is far closer to rich and capable countries in europe and they should step up to [1:50:58] lead the charge and that's why that chart is a good thing to see they have stepped up but i think the [1:51:03] american people should understand that we've stepped back in fact stepped back to the point of abandoning [1:51:08] this is a war that never would have happened under president trump and he supports ending it through [1:51:12] a deal and he's pursued that so far it hasn't happened uh i'm at a time i want to talk about dto's [1:51:19] who designates but uh we'll take that up later thank you senator king uh uh senator schmidt thank you [1:51:26] mr chairman and uh it's a proposal that i'm following my friend from maine missouri and maine came into the [1:51:31] union at the same time but we couldn't disagree more on this particular point we may have to [1:51:36] separate here um i actually think it's interesting that ukraine just came up because we've heard uh [1:51:42] from my colleagues on the other side um discussion about the cost of what the ongoing american effort [1:51:49] there was never a never a discussion about the 200 billion dollars we were sending to a foreign [1:51:54] country that's not even in nato never in fact when amendments were offered for independent audits of [1:52:01] how that money was spent there was bipartisan opposition to that kind of oversight so i find [1:52:07] it really rich now that there's a complaint that we're not spending money on ukraine and by the way [1:52:15] 30 billion for salaries for bureaucrats pensions and social safety net programs and government [1:52:21] operations to keep the state functioning during wartime that's where american tax dollars were going [1:52:27] 30 billion for bureaucrats in ukraine and we just heard a a speech for more money for ukraine yet [1:52:36] the 1.5 trillion for this country is being balked at i mean i've seen ukraine flags all over this [1:52:43] capital for three years at the same time the same people call the president of the united states of this [1:52:50] country a nazi so i forgive me if if i if i feel like we've lost our bearings a little bit so i'm all [1:53:00] for the america first agenda i'm all for us realigning our priorities i'm all for the national defense [1:53:07] strategies that says our core strategic interests are the homeland the western hemisphere and the rising [1:53:13] threat in china and that means our european allies should step up if vladimir putin is truly some [1:53:21] existential threat and the next hitler that's going to roll through europe you would think by the [1:53:25] way he can't take kiev so you can't have it both ways he hasn't made it to kiev but they would step [1:53:31] up and we better start demanding that because if we want to meet the challenges of the 21st century [1:53:37] in china our priorities our focus has to be somewhere else it doesn't mean abandonment it just means a true [1:53:44] partnership with our european allies who for very very long time have have not stepped up i want to ask you [1:53:50] um mr secretary in your first year one of the things i think that's really gone towards this [1:53:54] morale and recruitment boom that we've seen through your leadership and president trump was finally [1:54:00] taking on the sort of cultural marxism that had taken hold from the highest levels of leadership from [1:54:06] the president united states to your predecessor this obsession with dei could you just walk through [1:54:11] maybe maybe a the worst example that you saw and a way that you address that and how it was affecting [1:54:17] morale well thank you senator first of all i want to uh fully associate myself with the first two [1:54:24] and a half minutes of your comments and i appreciate that perspective very much so i would note [1:54:28] 30 billion dollars for bureaucrats in ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked about today [1:54:33] uh for a existential and critically important war to ensure that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon [1:54:39] that's worth noting i i haven't talked about it as much in these hearings um because this is a budget [1:54:45] hearing about 1.5 trillion that's historic and significant but underwriting the change that [1:54:50] we've seen in our department was a laser focus on getting back to basics and the the key word to that [1:54:56] is merit uh we had a department that was that was uh obsessed with gender ideology and race diversity [1:55:03] equity and inclusion in fact it the mantra you would hear dripping from the lips of generals and with [1:55:09] a serious look on their face was our diversity is our strength which is the single dumbest phrase in [1:55:16] military history of course our diversity is not our strength our unity is our strength our shared [1:55:21] purpose the flag we wear and who we and the constitution we serve to defend and when you clear that debris [1:55:28] away whether it's marxist ideologies or social engineering or political correctness or quotas based on [1:55:35] gender and diversity you get the best of the best rising up regardless of gender regardless of race [1:55:42] motivated by that environment where merit reigns it's accountability standards lethality readiness [1:55:49] training all the debris wiped away that is the secret sauce of the revival of the war department and [1:55:56] why americans are attracted to serving in it and why those inside it why morale is sky high and any [1:56:02] insinuation that it is not are coming from folks who haven't been in our units recently go visit the [1:56:07] troops at every level and their morale is at record level and i want to talk about morale with the 15 [1:56:11] seconds that i have left i want to thank you for um coming to st louis for your arsenal freedom tour where [1:56:16] the next generation aircraft the f-47 is being built by the hard-working men and women in missouri who [1:56:21] take a tremendous amount of pride uh for that aircraft that's going to go further see see further go [1:56:27] faster have a bigger payload and i know there's another decision coming with the faxx but really [1:56:32] appreciate your leadership and thanks for coming thank you senator uh thank you senator schmidt [1:56:37] senator king do you wish to ask unanimous consent to include your exhibit in the record yes without [1:56:44] objection that will be done senator warren uh thank you mr chairman so americans are paying a high price [1:56:51] for donald trump's war with iran we've got 14 service members who are dead over 400 more [1:56:57] who are wounded uh prices are rising for nearly every american family but someone is profiting off trump's [1:57:06] war insiders who know what's going on and who place bets on that inside information on march 23rd just 14 [1:57:16] minutes before trump unexpectedly posted about quote very good conversations on ending the war traitors [1:57:25] suddenly bet 500 million dollars on the price of oil which once trump made his announcement [1:57:33] immediately dropped it happened again on april 7th and then again on april 21st a surge in oil bets [1:57:42] then a trump post and then a huge shift in oil prices in just the space of minutes it looks like insiders [1:57:51] have been making out like bandits using secret information about the war now one u.s soldier has [1:57:59] been charged but that was for betting on capturing maduro months ago not a single person has been charged [1:58:07] in the many many many trades over the middle east war so secretary hegseth do you have any explanation [1:58:16] for these perfectly timed spikes in trading activity other than insider trading um senator all [1:58:27] i can tell you is that everything we've done in our department everything we've done with information [1:58:32] in working with the white house and across the interagency has been completely above board [1:58:36] well so what does it mean do you have any other explanation other than insider trading do you have a story [1:58:44] for why just minutes before there's an announcement there's a surge in trading activity uh senator i'm [1:58:52] more than focused on doing my job and ensuring we execute properly which thankfully under this [1:58:57] administration uh our troops have done incredible things in all these missions my job in all of those [1:59:03] moments is to make sure we're prepared and that's part of the reason why we've been so successful in [1:59:07] these raids in these efforts is that this joint force is you're saying you're not paying any [1:59:11] attention to this insider trading is that what you're telling me that you've paid no attention [1:59:15] to this you haven't noticed it you haven't done anything about it what i'm saying is we're focused [1:59:20] on our mission of executing for the american people and what happens in in markets is not uh embedding [1:59:25] markets is not something we're involved in what happens in betting markets doesn't matter to you [1:59:30] even if the information may be coming from insiders in your office senator it's not something we're [1:59:37] involved in at all and of course we take operational security at every level very seriously in fact [1:59:42] no one's taken operational security more uh seriously than us if you look at what it required to keep [1:59:48] secret midnight hammer and operation maduro the uh absolute resolve with maduro and the steps we've [1:59:56] taken no one's been tighter about ensuring that operational security is with insider trading out of your [2:00:03] office i mean we have we would ensure at every level that inside information is properly safeguarded all [2:00:11] right well obviously you're not uh i'm also concerned about recent reporting on your own financial [2:00:18] dealings with regard to profiting from the war in iran the financial times reported that your broker [2:00:24] tried to buy hundreds of shares in a black rock fund invested in defense companies just before the war [2:00:30] began the law clearly prohibits the secretary that entire story is false has been from the beginning and [2:00:36] was made up out of whole cloth and anybody that looks at it sees how it was worded from the beginning [2:00:41] to make it look like i was involved in something i had nothing to do and never have so any insinuation [2:00:46] that i've ever profited other than serving this nation what what i give what you give what others give [2:00:53] i'm not looking for money i don't do it for money i don't do it for profit i don't do it for stocks [2:00:56] and that's part of the reason why i'm able to be effective in this job because no one owns me no one owns [2:01:01] this department no one owns this president and we can execute for the american people and we do [2:01:06] the law clearly prohibits the secretary of defense from owning stock in the 10 biggest defense [2:01:13] contractors other senators and i sent you a letter with detailed questions about this and you have not [2:01:20] given us a response so i'd like to hear you say did you through your broker at morgan stanley or [2:01:26] otherwise seek to invest in any defense related funds right before trump started the iran war i'll [2:01:35] give it to you as a big fat negative then let me ask you a second question is your broker getting your [2:01:43] personal sign off on any investment in individual stocks bigger fatter negative he's not getting your [2:01:51] sign off before he makes investments in defense stocks can i refer you to i'm not making investments [2:01:57] i am asking does he know that he has to get your sign off before he does that of course i don't know [2:02:04] what you're looking for but you're going to find it thank you thank you senator i would like to enter [2:02:10] into the record the ethics agreement that the secretary of defense has signed that he will sign off [2:02:17] personally before his broker makes any attempt to buy defense stocks is there objection thank you without [2:02:25] objection it will be admitted uh senator uh banks thank you mr chairman secretary heck seth um you're [2:02:33] doing a great job i i've been in washington for 10 years several secretaries of defense now secretary of [2:02:40] war you're the best that we've had since i've been in washington what you've done to restore readiness [2:02:46] uh restore military recruitment get the pentagon focus on war fighting is is second to none and i i i [2:02:52] appreciate what you and president trump and general kane are doing very much in fact uh general kane [2:02:57] according to the department's 2025 china military power report quote china believes the next revolution [2:03:05] in military affairs will occur when militaries transition to intelligentized warfare and fully [2:03:11] integrate artificial intelligence big data advanced computing and other technologies into the joint [2:03:19] force end quote can you describe general in greater detail how the p pla is using ai to enhance its [2:03:28] military capabilities uh you bet senator um you know they are attempting to integrate uh ai across the [2:03:37] range of their war fighting functions which extends to uh command and control information advantage [2:03:44] intelligence um certainly kinetic uh and non-kinetic uh capabilities and to a certain extent sustainment [2:03:53] i'll note that that so are we and in many cases we are out in front of them i want to commend our chief [2:03:59] digital uh and artificial intelligence officers inside the joint force at the co-coms with the services [2:04:07] who are also leaning very far in as we march towards a digitized joint force that allows us to cease and [2:04:16] see in a command and control of force better the china military power report also goes on to note that [2:04:24] the chinese ai sector remains quote constrained by its limited access to high performance ai chips general [2:04:34] kane how big of an advantage is it for the american war fighter that america's arsenal of compute is [2:04:42] bigger than china's sure it's a it's uh it's critical to us and you know while i acknowledge there's there's [2:04:51] all kinds of chip issues in this it is important to us to uh to continue to scale at that and i'll highlight [2:04:57] a lot of the work going on up at fort meade that the committee's helped to advance in the cyber capability [2:05:03] so we appreciate the help with that if that advantage were eroded and china were able to [2:05:07] develop more advanced ai capabilities as a result what are some of the potential consequences for [2:05:13] american war fighters well sir it could it could certainly put us at risk and that's why we're [2:05:19] leaning in so hard um there's always a balance between commerce and uh and and protection i acknowledge [2:05:28] those are policy matters i think is what you're uh starting to get towards um but on a pure military [2:05:34] only standpoint um we we that we would see some defense in depth eroded from that secretary hex said [2:05:41] do you agree that enhanced chinese ai capabilities put could could put american service members at risk [2:05:49] uh senator we absolutely have to stay ahead uh the advantage that ai provides applied to any number of [2:05:55] capabilities whether it's domain awareness targeting cycles you name it uh ai and leveraging it and [2:06:01] that's why we've made it the forefront i mean it's ai first with everything that we do integrating it at [2:06:06] every potential echelon to ensure we can respond faster if if we're if we're better at that than any [2:06:12] adversary is it's going to give us an advantage and we have to maintain that i agree do you agree that [2:06:16] we should do everything in our power to ensure that american service members go into battle with an [2:06:22] overwhelming and fear-inducing technological advantage particularly with ai always uh overwhelming [2:06:31] is is the goal in every scenario uh earlier this year the pentagon issued updated guidelines that [2:06:37] prohibit department funds from supporting grants and contracts involving fundamental research collaboration [2:06:44] with blacklisted chinese entities how important are those restrictions to safeguarding our technological [2:06:50] leadership have to have them uh especially when you look at the power of models and [2:06:56] all of those things and you you have connections to entities that could have connections to [2:06:59] your adversary and you can uh you can have degradation of your advantage again this is where [2:07:04] i appreciate your leadership mr secretary uh which has been second to none and i know that [2:07:09] you will work with congress to help codify those restrictions and encourage taxpayer dollars that [2:07:15] to to never advance the capabilities of our enemies and our adversaries i appreciate both of your leadership [2:07:21] um we've come a long way in a couple of years from i mean the night and day difference between the last [2:07:27] administration and this administration is apparent to every hoosier that i talk to so i appreciate your [2:07:33] leadership i yield back thank you very much senator banks senator peters thank you mr chairman ranking member [2:07:40] gentlemen uh welcome uh to the uh committee i appreciate uh this uh discussion i'll just start off the [2:07:45] the number one question i get when i'm back home from people uh is basically very simply when when will this war [2:07:50] end uh we know the cost are uh that the american people are paying both at higher fuel costs our [2:07:56] farmers are paying because of fertilizer cost we we know that the uh the whole world economy is paying [2:08:02] a great deal for this war and basically when i as i think that through and this is what i want to talk [2:08:08] to you about is that we we all know that it's a whole lot easier to go to war than it is to get out of [2:08:13] war that's uh always the tough question uh and we've got to figure that out uh and there are some folks [2:08:20] who've written quite a bit about this uh one one text on war by carl von klauswitz uh mr secretary i'm [2:08:27] sure you're familiar with with the book i know all of the men and women in uniform are it's the most widely [2:08:33] read most influential military strategy book in western history which is uh pretty pretty broad and it is the [2:08:40] core curriculum that is read uh in all the war colleges uh i read it when i was uh the navy war [2:08:47] college uh taking courses uh it's part of what the u.s military thinks about when to go to war and then [2:08:53] how to get out of the war and one of those core principles uh it starts with is basically war is [2:09:00] the continuation of politics by other means that everybody knows that quote who's worn the uniform and [2:09:06] others too it basically means there's two things about that it's politics to get in the war [2:09:11] and it's politics to get out of the war and in between we rely on the men and women in the [2:09:16] military to carry out those policies so i want to be clear and i think i speak for all of my colleagues [2:09:22] is that we know uh the military plays an important part they need to do the job and nobody nobody [2:09:27] questions the amazing work that our men and women in the u.s military have done and continue to do they've [2:09:34] performed absolutely brilliantly and we applaud all that they have done however what we do question [2:09:40] is the politics part it's a continuation of politics so it's our political leaders that get [2:09:45] us into war and our political leaders who have to get us out of that war which falls on on you mr [2:09:52] secretary hexaf and others in the administration including the president and his commander uh in [2:09:56] chief so secretary are you familiar with the uh the concept in that book of center of gravity sure so [2:10:05] center of gravity is is basically as you know is it's the basically the hub of all the power [2:10:10] uh movement everything depends on it and class which will say if you don't take out the center [2:10:15] of gravity it's very difficult to win the war you can have tactical successes you can have military [2:10:22] successes but if you're not focused on that you're not going to be able to win basically he talks about [2:10:28] military strikes are tactical and and tactical success doesn't necessarily create the political [2:10:33] conditions necessary to get the parties to the table to negotiate and get it done so we've got to [2:10:39] focus on that so my question is for you mr secretary what is the center of gravity for iran well the [2:10:47] senator of gravity as the president has seen it and as i see it and he's talked about for 30 years is is [2:10:52] their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit as an extension of the [2:10:57] radical ideology they have professed since the beginning of their revolution so the the the prophetic [2:11:03] ideology they profess alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be the center of gravity of the [2:11:09] the rationality of this undertaking which i appreciate i'll elaborate more i appreciate it [2:11:13] general kane you know more about uh clauswoods uh and strategy that i will ever know including all [2:11:19] the folks behind you what would you consider the center of gravity as defined by clauswoods in this [2:11:24] type of war well sir i i uh you're not going to love this answer but i hope you'll respect it [2:11:31] war is politics by any other means right and the political side of that necessitates that our [2:11:37] political leaders determine what is the center of gravity associated with that from a military [2:11:42] only perspective there's a variety of things academically that we could look at for center [2:11:47] of gravities from leadership to will to capabilities to intent but i'll defer to our [2:11:52] political leaders okay that's fine but that's fair i don't like it you're right but i know i know [2:11:57] and i know you know the answer to that and you're just not telling me well i get why you're doing [2:12:00] that my inner i would say you know other observers say that basically it's the it's not the leader [2:12:05] usually if you take out a leader that doesn't necessarily uh take make the changes that in [2:12:10] iran's case is probably the islamic uh revolutionary guard as to that's the center of gravity they're [2:12:16] the ones that control the country and they're very diverse to do that the americans center of gravity is [2:12:21] probably our economy and our ability to maintain public opinion support we already know the public [2:12:26] isn't there we know the impact to our economy and central to that is the leverage i'm running out of [2:12:30] time here but the central of leverage is the strait of hormuz that that is bottom line we have to open [2:12:37] that up we have to take that away from iran the fact that we haven't done that yet and we're 60 days [2:12:43] in we're just now bringing mine sweepers from the pacific in there we have some unmanned of the [2:12:51] opportunities but we've got to have the capacity to do that it was clear even if there was a plan [2:12:56] to keep the straits open it was not going to be implemented because the assets were not positioned [2:13:02] in a place to actually open the straits if they were it would have been we would have seen those [2:13:08] happening right now we're not so we're missing the point here the center of gravity is going to be [2:13:13] bringing down the government of iran in a way that they will want to have a peace treaty so we can [2:13:19] protect our country from having nuclear weapons pointed our way but the center of gravity is going to [2:13:24] be in a lot of ways is going to be focused on what happens on the straits and mr secretary we've got [2:13:30] to see action a whole lot sooner in the straits the world community needs it we're not going to bring [2:13:34] this war to an end until we seize control of the straits in a way which in part is why we have a blockade [2:13:39] that has been impenetrable for the iranians because they don't have a conventional navy to contest it [2:13:45] which means we control the straits the time the time of senator peters has expired let me let me um observe [2:13:53] that i very much appreciate the the senator from michigan uh suggesting ways in which our effort [2:14:01] in iran could be more successful i do appreciate that and let me also observe senator kane that that [2:14:08] civilian control um goes back well beyond uh marshall it goes back to to george washington who was wise [2:14:18] enough to resign his commission to the elected uh membership of of the government at that time [2:14:25] uh senator sheehy you are recognized i think it's important to note that um the objective is not to [2:14:34] get out of the war the objective is to win the war not to get out of it and i think we've allowed the [2:14:40] narrative to shift so off target here president trump did not start this war we did not start this war [2:14:46] these radical barbarian savage clerics who have started killing americans 47 years ago in a [2:14:52] unilateral campaign of terror murder treason kidnapping torture have been murdering our countrymen all over [2:15:00] this world almost every single year hijacking airplanes hijacking cruise liners taking our embassies [2:15:06] blowing up our embassies blowing up our barracks blowing up our ships capturing our soldiers and murdering [2:15:11] them in brutal ways they started this war and it would be a lot easier to beat them if we didn't [2:15:19] have administrations shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets while they're actively [2:15:23] fighting our own people while our own uniformed service members have been fighting this murderous regime [2:15:28] and we have presidents quite literally shipping pallets of cash to pay these terrorists off it's been a [2:15:35] disgrace it's been an embarrassment to this country for far too long but back to the point general kane i have [2:15:41] a specific question for you i think in this day and age we all know that basically every single [2:15:47] operation that we partake in whether it's stealth bombers whether it's a blockade our special operations [2:15:52] forces are a fundamental uh shaping and priority component to all those would you agree yes senator i [2:15:59] would and i think for the last about 15 years the special operations community budget has been largely flat [2:16:06] even adjusted for inflation and yet continuously we call on those warriors uh to deliver the impossible [2:16:14] and they pretty much do we were reminded just a few weeks ago even after the amazing maduro raid when [2:16:19] we had to rescue one of our 15 crewmen yet again our community came up and did something that probably [2:16:25] most people thought wasn't possible and they did an amazing job but we cannot continue to call on a tiny [2:16:32] fraction of our military to carry such a heavy load and to have such an op tempo without the appropriate [2:16:38] resources so um i'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can not just increase the budget but make [2:16:43] sure we're shaping their budget in a way that ensures that those warriors are getting the the direct [2:16:47] support for training and sustainment but also the platforms that they need from many submarines to [2:16:55] unmanned aircraft to manned aircraft and the platforms that are very unique for their mission [2:16:59] are furnished and deployed uh rapidly so i'd like to talk about the percentage increase of SOCOM's budget [2:17:04] how we affect that and how fast we can do it well sir i'll just i'll just highlight my gratitude [2:17:09] an appreciation for the entirety of the SOCOM joint force at at echelon and the work that they do [2:17:17] you know i'll leave the budget numbers and the increased percentages to to my civilian leadership but [2:17:23] echo to your point the exponential return on whatever investment they give these are incredible [2:17:30] entrepreneurial leaders at every echelon uh who do who do great great things um as the lights dim as i [2:17:38] say that so hopefully they'll see that as a nod uh towards them but i'll defer on the budget allocation [2:17:43] numbers to the to the comptroller sir uh first of all i i want to second completely your opening remarks [2:17:51] uh and that's certainly our view uh as well on on the SOCOM budget i'm gonna i'm gonna say i think uh [2:17:58] we need to increase what's in this budget and i've heard from multiple people about that in fact [2:18:03] that if there is a supplemental i actually i just wrote a note to jay about it i think SOCOM given the [2:18:08] op tempo given the given their direct uh participation in so many of these historic [2:18:13] historic aspects SOCOM should be part of that supplemental as well makes complete sense who's [2:18:18] been shouldering a huge part of the burden special operations command so whether it's a supplemental or [2:18:23] this budget i i fully agree and i think we need to invest more great and i'd ask that particular care [2:18:30] be given uh the era of of beards and guns and kicking indoors as much fun as that was for all of us [2:18:35] um it's coming to a close and we're we're going to be going back to our roots as specialized commandos [2:18:42] whether it's undersea arctic airborne operations and uh as we all became kind of one joint soft force [2:18:48] during g watt uh quite frankly that was an easier problem to resource for to budget for and acquire [2:18:53] for uh it's going to be a lot harder now when our operators go back to their service corners and needs [2:18:58] platform specific technologies and training uh submersibles aircraft take years to acquire years to [2:19:04] specify it's not just buying more ars and body armor and ammo and sending them down range so i [2:19:08] think we have to think about the SOCOM budget a little different than we have for the last 25 years [2:19:13] and make sure we're programming in a way that it's it's sustained um and is protected thank you [2:19:17] thank you senator schmidt for for that um insightful exchange senator kelly thank you mr chairman [2:19:26] gentlemen thank you for being here secretary hegseth safe to say that our weapons like sm3s tomahawks [2:19:33] patriot missiles have capabilities that are unmatched that's why they cost a lot take a long time to [2:19:38] produce your budget requests 31.8 billion dollars to expand production capacity for critical missile [2:19:47] stockpiles is that correct 31.8 uh i'm looking at 53 billion for munitions acceleration over 14 critical [2:19:57] munitions of which the ones you listed are apart okay 53 in that yes more than 20 billion more [2:20:04] so we've been working together to grow the industrial base because we're all worried about [2:20:09] how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against china since the start of this war you've [2:20:15] made it a point to highlight the number of strikes the u.s military is carrying out citing that more than [2:20:23] 13 000 targets had been struck as of april 8th on march 2nd you said this is a quote this was a massive [2:20:31] overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare striking more than a thousand targets in the [2:20:36] first 24 hours on march 10th you said yet again our most intense day of strikes inside of iran [2:20:43] on april 6th you said and this is another quote the largest volume of strikes since day one of this [2:20:50] operation your department has released video after video of things blowing up none of us doubt the strength [2:20:58] of the u.s military and their ability to do hard things i understand that better than anybody [2:21:04] the questions we should be asking and answering are what does this cost us and what does it achieve [2:21:13] for the american people many of these strikes use our best weapons and we're using a lot of them [2:21:20] and a lot of interceptors open source reporting has estimated that the military has [2:21:26] used an outrageous number of patriots i'm not even going to say the numbers but a lot of patriots a [2:21:30] lot of found rounds jasmine are tomahawks very expensive exquisite we can't make these munitions [2:21:38] overnight and it's clear from your budget requests that you know that can you tell us how many years [2:21:47] specifically is it going to take to replace these systems senator thank you for the question i would [2:21:55] defer to the comptroller on the amount because i think it's a lot higher than 53 if you look at [2:22:00] long-range fires jasms l-rasms tomahawks we're looking at 238 okay we're looking at 40 billion [2:22:05] for hypersonic so i actually think it's closer to 330 billion in munitions okay how many years to [2:22:11] replenish that's the question i think that's exactly the right question too senator because [2:22:15] the time frame we were existing under was unacceptable okay well what this budget does i mean months and [2:22:21] years last year i mean we're building new plants in real time though just to replace what we have [2:22:27] extended i said months and then you said years both it depends on the weapon system but two to three [2:22:33] four x of what we have today so yes we're dealing with a reality under the previous administration of [2:22:37] what they sent to ukraine and what they allocated elsewhere okay i got it so we fired rap years [2:22:42] worth of munitions and it is clear that we're these are being expended to try to achieve some [2:22:52] objectives that was the plan but mr secretary this war is stuck the strait of hormuz is closed [2:23:01] the iranian regime is in place the nuclear material still in their hands americans are being crushed [2:23:11] by higher costs and it's not clear to them at all what the goal of this war is so i've got about a [2:23:23] minute and i want to go to another topic i saw your hearing yesterday and i'm going to give you [2:23:31] one more chance to address a question here it's my understanding that the definition of no quarter [2:23:40] is that legitimate office offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed [2:23:51] is that your understanding of the definition well the only entity that would kill detainees or target [2:23:59] civilians is the iranians and they're the ones being crushed so iranian uh military and their [2:24:04] military capability question is you i disagree completely with your articulation no do you [2:24:08] understand the definition that i just read you because that's the definition from your department's [2:24:14] law of war manual is that your understanding and i'm gonna i'm gonna just get to the point here [2:24:19] we we fight to win and we follow the law senator okay so your your quote was [2:24:25] we will keep pushing keep advancing no quarter no mercy for our enemies and yesterday you did not [2:24:32] clarify whether you stand by this statement so i'm going to give you another opportunity to clarify [2:24:39] if that is what you meant do you stand by that statement you made on march 13th we have untied the [2:24:47] hands of our war fighters we fight to win and we follow the law okay so you're not clarifying so you [2:24:53] stand by that statement so you're the secretary of defense the things you say matter and your response [2:25:00] here right now makes it clear to the american people exactly why you are not right for this it makes [2:25:08] it clear to our enemies senator thank you mr chairman um thank you um senator sheehy has left the room [2:25:19] but it's been whispered to me that i just referred to him in the last exchanges senator schmidt i don't [2:25:26] know if he considered that a compliment or an insult but i would do correct that for the record senator [2:25:32] slotkin i think you were next thank you um gentlemen you're here to ask for 1.5 trillion dollars uh 40 [2:25:41] more than what we gave you last year a trillion dollars um and i agree with the chairman of this [2:25:49] committee that the world has never been more dangerous and complicated um and regardless of [2:25:56] whether we disagree on the reasons for getting into this war i think we can all agree that we want [2:26:02] our military to come out of it safely and successfully and as you know soon as feasible [2:26:07] uh the military has taken you all the the administration has taken military action in 10 [2:26:14] different places in the world in 15 months more than any president in u.s history um i think president [2:26:22] trump has really become a foreign policy president and many of those operations you know were on the [2:26:27] news for a couple of days but then the american public didn't feel them and i think the difference [2:26:32] with this war with iran is that the american public is feeling it in their pocketbooks a gas in michigan [2:26:39] is 4.99 today the cost of fertilizer of airline tickets things that are real to people um secretary [2:26:47] hagseth the president said that you were most keen um on this war he he said that you were the most gung-ho [2:26:55] about it um and um i i think despite um us all wanting to come out of this successfully it is hard [2:27:03] to miss that we are at the stalemate that we don't control the strait of hormuz because shipping is not [2:27:09] getting through um and we can block what they're trying to get through but nothing is moving and it's [2:27:16] costing the american public um and i think that's a fundamentally different moment than the rest of the [2:27:22] military action we've taken um even in like middle east 101 class we used to talk about and run war [2:27:29] games on the strait of hormuz it's a strategic geography that the iranians have um and i think [2:27:35] it's it's just concerning to me that we you know we can try and tell the american people that it's going [2:27:42] great and we're killing it but until the strait of hormuz is open i don't think we can credibly say [2:27:47] that with any seriousness um i think the question i have for you though is future looking and it's our [2:27:55] 2026 elections um the president has been very clear he said in the state of the union that essentially if [2:28:01] his side doesn't win then the election was rigged he said that before the 2020 election he's asked for [2:28:08] voter rolls for 29 different states he just asked for detroit's votes um or ballots um and we know that [2:28:17] in 2020 he wrote an executive order that he didn't sign um that said um to the u.s military to the secretary [2:28:25] of defense you should go and seize ballots and voting machines a few months ago he said that he regretted [2:28:32] that he ever that he didn't sign that executive order so the u.s military has never been deployed [2:28:39] you miss correctly uh incorrectly said yesterday that they were deployed during different elections [2:28:45] governors deployed them under their authorities but the federal um government has never put the uniform [2:28:52] military at our polls during world war ii right after 9 11. we've never had to do that so secretary [2:28:59] hegseth if the president who regrets not signing that executive order to the then sec def in 2020 [2:29:05] asks you to seize ballots or voting machines in states during the 2026 election will you stand up [2:29:14] for the constitution and say no or will you salute and do his bidding um senator i didn't get a chance [2:29:22] to answer the front part of your question which uh you know there was a lot of deferred maintenance [2:29:26] under the administration that needed to be addressed because the world was in chaos [2:29:30] just address the election issue please well again that's the most important thing it's what's [2:29:35] happening it's a yet another gotcha hypothetical which is your special it's not that we had an [2:29:40] alternative order under the vide administration in 2024 it's not a hypothetical i refuse to accept you [2:29:47] give that answer all the time you and i have done this dance before get over it okay in 2020 he he's [2:29:53] the president your boss the guy you're performing for right now told the journalists this year that he [2:29:59] wished he signed that executive order to your predecessor and your predecessor said publicly [2:30:04] thank god i hate we didn't actually go forward with it what are you gonna do you're the guy [2:30:09] here in the seat it's not hypothetical tell the american people will you deploy the uniform military [2:30:15] to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines are you accusing me of performing because you're [2:30:21] performing for cable news right now dude but mr secretary we have it's a hypothetical by the way in 2024 [2:30:27] under the biden administration 15 states did deploy under their governor's authority when [2:30:32] their governors asked what did joe biden say that's fundamentally i don't think anything because he [2:30:36] needed them for cyber security and for covid trump did it too under trump but it was not the federal [2:30:42] decision it was those governors of the states under their authorities okay it's never been done in our [2:30:47] history please stand up for the constitution do not send uniform military to our polls do you have a [2:30:55] response to that portion of the question mr secretary i've never been ordered to do anything illegal and [2:31:02] i won't that goes without saying thank you for the answer senator duckworth you're now recognized thank [2:31:09] you mr chairman um despite his campaign promise of no new wars president trump has been obsessed with [2:31:14] using the military any chance he gets from deploying troops to american cities to propping up maduro's [2:31:20] chosen number two in venezuela to an endless war of boat strikes in the caribbean sea [2:31:25] and now in an illegal war with iran where hundreds of thousands of our troops are in harm's way every [2:31:30] day with no exit strategy in sight this administration hides bad policy behind the exceptional military [2:31:36] operations and the valor of our uniformed personnel i've long said iran is a malign actor but the [2:31:42] responsible administration would have managed this short of conflict instead of starting a war of choice [2:31:48] there was no imminent threat to the united states or our troops the military was not the most effective [2:31:53] tool to get iran to capitulate as we're already seeing too clearly now and using forces made [2:31:59] americans in the middle east less safe or spiking costs for americans here at home all through the [2:32:04] tune of 14 service members dead hundreds wounded billions of taxpayer dollars and untold costs to [2:32:09] our military readiness this administration claims to be focused on the war fighter but president trump [2:32:14] told us when he announced a war from his luxury resort that he expected service members to die [2:32:20] now sadly it's clear how unserious trump is about his role as the commander-in-chief [2:32:25] his work within iran has already reminded us how important it is to prevent a war [2:32:30] how serious it is to ask the military to wage one under poor strategic direction [2:32:34] how destructive a wide-ranging war can be for americans for our service members and how difficult [2:32:40] it is to actually end one once you start it the incompetence and casual disregard for our service [2:32:46] members professionalism and sacrifice is in my opinion a scandal general kane general kane [2:32:54] can you tell us the status of the iranian revolutionary guard corps navy identity actively [2:32:59] closing the strait uh their uh senator apologies i was uh listening to you i was just trying to write [2:33:06] it down uh they're uh um uh mostly destroyed centcom continues to watch them uh not not the iranian navy [2:33:15] no no the ircg yes ma'am the the smaller i won't get into any classified materials but the smaller [2:33:22] uh fast uh and you know smaller boats boston weller size boats there's still some out there yes ma'am [2:33:29] so this administration and the secretary defense has been boasting about sinking the ships of the iranian [2:33:34] navy but let's call this what it is it's misdirection they want us to focus on the impressive number [2:33:38] of large iranian ships underwater to distract from the fact that they had no plans for the second [2:33:43] navy that iran owns that has always been a hard problem to address by military force the ircg navy [2:33:49] not the iranian navy has been iran's tip of the spear the straits of hormuz seizing vessels and [2:33:54] threatening target to target u.s assets iran has long invested in this second asymmetrical navy [2:34:00] specifically to develop capabilities that would be difficult for conventional u.s military forces to [2:34:05] target iran's advantage was well known to anyone paying attention i have no doubt that competent [2:34:10] planners in the pentagon raised their concerns about a quagmire in the strait to leadership [2:34:14] the question is why their leadership did not pay attention to this sound advice hubris is not strategy [2:34:20] and in war it costs lives even if the strait reopens this administration has created a new less [2:34:25] safe world by initiating and then bungling this crisis and teaching iran that it can charge a [2:34:30] million dollars a ship to transit the strait it will take a long time for the global economy to [2:34:35] bounce back to normal trade flows and iran has learned again that they can charge a million [2:34:39] dollars per ship creating a new funding line for their malicious activity against americans for [2:34:44] years to come and in the indo-pacific i don't doubt that if the worst day comes our military will [2:34:50] step up to challenge and defend americans and our interests with military force but will they be [2:34:54] asked to lay down their lives unnecessarily just because the white house was unready and incapable of [2:34:58] preventing a crisis boiling over into a war in the indo-pacific general kane do you agree that the [2:35:03] military would benefit from significant inter interagency planning by the department of defense [2:35:08] on actions short of war that can be taken if a crisis occurs ma'am i appreciate that question you [2:35:14] highlighting the importance of that and we we have really great relationships now on the joint staff [2:35:22] with the interagency i think our relationship in particular i'll just pick cia i think it's the [2:35:28] best it's it's ever been we're really working hard to find the best of title 10 capabilities [2:35:34] plus the best of title 50 to ensure that we deliver really entrepreneurial options for our national [2:35:40] policy makers to do what you're talking about center all right um but i am concerned because during [2:35:46] the recent nds hearing i laid out the very real ways that a crisis in just one of the dozens of flash [2:35:51] points in the indo-pacific could be devastating for our service members americans and our american [2:35:55] economy but since then this administration has only further diminished dod's ability to prepare [2:36:00] for these crises in fact many of the as many as one-third of the assets in the middle east originally [2:36:05] meant to be in the indo-pacific this war of choice is draining our military resources we need leaders [2:36:11] who do everything they can to ensure war fighters only fight when they have to not because of one man's [2:36:15] whims and the lack of bravery among the yes men he surrounds himself with i thank you for your service [2:36:21] general um and i continue to look forward to working with you thank you senator duckworth [2:36:25] senator rosen uh thank you mr chairman thank you ranking member reed um thank you general for your [2:36:33] service uh before my begin my questions for secretary hegseth i have one brief important [2:36:39] question for general kane um general as you've acknowledged at your confirmation hearing service [2:36:44] members who served at locations which another u.s government agency deems contaminated like the nevada [2:36:50] test and training range should have the same presumption of radiation exposure as doe employees [2:36:57] who served alongside them but we also must ensure that dod provides the va with the records proving that [2:37:03] these individuals serve there so this is a problem that dod has the power to solve i know we've discussed [2:37:10] this so general kane will you commit to ensuring parity for dod personnel who served in locations that the [2:37:17] u.s government has already deemed contaminated identifying those who served in such locations [2:37:22] and providing documentation of that service to the va so that they can receive the veterans benefits [2:37:28] that they have earned you bet ma'am and and i'm you know since our last time together on this we've [2:37:35] continued to chip away at removing or figuring out how to get past that one particular blocking in that [2:37:42] record so that that data flows uh normally and i'm i'm committed to trying to solve that for those [2:37:48] leaders and teammates who are out there at that site thank you we'll look forward to continue to [2:37:52] work with you on that so secretary hegseth i want to talk a little bit about ai because of course our [2:37:58] service members deserve every advantage we can give them so i just want you to help me understand this [2:38:03] in february on the eve of operation epic fury you publicly designated anthropic as a supply chain risk [2:38:11] however this week it's been reported that the white house is now helping agencies get around this [2:38:16] decision to access anthropics technology so the administration cannot credibly make both claims [2:38:24] simultaneously so before i ask you about the inconsistency i just want you to reconfirm [2:38:30] what it is you plan to use this technology for it's been publicly reported that the decision to label [2:38:36] anthropic a national security risk was influenced by your personal and very public contract dispute [2:38:41] with anthropic when the company said that its technology could not be used for fully autonomous [2:38:47] weapons targeting or mass surveillance of americans so following up on your response to senator rounds [2:38:54] earlier can you confirm whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when ai is used for [2:39:01] lethal targeting decisions well first of all on anthropic they would not agree to our terms of service that [2:39:09] would be like boeing giving us airplanes and telling us who we can shoot at this is not so that [2:39:13] they were not just about anthropic though this is what to be i just want to be clear and also [2:39:17] anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic who shouldn't have a but that's not my question my [2:39:22] question is a decision making about what we do writ large we follow the law senator i will you confirm [2:39:28] you said this to senator rounds earlier so i'm just asking for you to we follow the law but we don't have [2:39:32] to sign a different terms of agreement that's not the question this is not about anthropic this is just an [2:39:38] example i want you to confirm that whether or not there will always be a human in the loop when ai is [2:39:46] used in the kill chain for lethal targeting decisions will there always be a human in a loop or will ai make [2:39:51] the decision we you said this to what we follow the law and humans make decisions so you will confirm [2:40:01] what you said to senator rounds that a human will always be in the loop when ai is used which is why [2:40:07] i just that's part of our terms of service anyway you know it's how we operate all i want to say is [2:40:16] this there is a dod directive three thousand point three thousand point oh nine which mandates that [2:40:24] autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems be designed to allow commanders and operators to [2:40:30] exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over use of force that is in the dod that's why we follow [2:40:37] the law so they so the answer is yes mr the answer is we follow the law absolutely i think this is more [2:40:44] important than following the law i think that people want to know that ai isn't going to make lethal [2:40:49] decisions and it is critically ai is not making lethal decisions that's what we want to hear we're going to [2:40:55] follow on that one i have uh just a few seconds left but you keep doubling down on this phrase [2:41:05] mr secretary you compare journalists you compare us you compare so many to pharisees pharisees it's a [2:41:14] problematic and historically weaponized term that cast jewish communities as hypocritical or morally [2:41:20] corrupt you doubled down again and said it words matter words matter what you choose to say how we choose [2:41:28] to say it how do you justify using this language as secretary of defense words matter it's a hurt historically [2:41:36] hurtful term why do you continue to use it and what actions are you taking to prevent rhetoric like [2:41:42] this from permeating throughout the department that is going to target specific groups or individuals [2:41:47] of people based on their religion senator i feel like it's a pretty accurate term to for folks who don't [2:41:56] see the plank in their own eye and always want to see what's wrong with an operation as opposed to the [2:42:00] historic success of preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon so i stand by it you stand by calling [2:42:06] people pharisees sir i cannot i cannot stand for that that is wrong it is not respectful to people [2:42:16] and i expect anyone who is in leadership level in our country to be respectful and use respectful terms [2:42:26] and not be an anti-semite um thank you senator rosen um the chair and the ranking member have [2:42:37] no second round questions i'm told by senator kelly that he would like to ask a second question yeah [2:42:46] mr secretary so 1.5 trillion dollars 1.5 is a very round number um you know if you're putting together [2:42:55] a budget you'd come up with these are the problems we're trying to solve this is the capability we need [2:43:03] these are the systems we have to buy and at the end of the day it would spit out a number and it's [2:43:09] probably not 1.5 trillion so to me it feels like that number was just kind of pulled out of thin air [2:43:16] i took a look recently and it it it seems that the defense budget of the rest of the world i'm talking [2:43:26] china russia india every asian country every european country south america everybody else is in the [2:43:34] neighborhood it looked like 1.7 to 1.8 so your request is approaching all defense spending from [2:43:44] everybody else with the exception of us that is a huge amount of money you know when i got here [2:43:50] you know just five years ago it was almost half of that through budget reconciliation you've received a [2:43:59] bunch of money to buy things of some of the weapon systems you know to resupply what we need [2:44:07] i'm just trying to understand you know like where is all this money going to go and if you've figured [2:44:13] out ahead of time what do you want to spend this on and by the way there are systems the president [2:44:20] wants you know he saw last summer how effective iron dome and david sling were and because of that [2:44:30] the president decided we're going to build our own version we're going to call it golden dome [2:44:36] because the president likes the color gold we've seen that see it in the oval office we're going to [2:44:43] call it golden dome and it might cost somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion dollars i've [2:44:47] heard those estimates by the way on that problem i know a little bit about intercepting stuff in space [2:44:55] it's really hard and the physics on this favors the offense there's some things in that program that i [2:45:02] think is really important that we do and try to figure it figure it out but space-based interceptors [2:45:08] to hit multiple targets and by the way it's important how you size the system so i'm trying [2:45:16] to understand mr secretary what kind of detail did you guys did you work out like a detailed plan and at [2:45:23] the end of the day it came out oh it just happens to come out to be 1.5 trillion dollars senator the [2:45:30] exact amount is actually 1.535 trillion dollars and it was a product of a highly rigorous process [2:45:36] throughout our department from co-com commanders to the services with our comptroller with our deputy [2:45:42] secretary with the chairman and myself to ensure the budget reflects the realities of the world we [2:45:46] live in and the capabilities we're going to need and that's why there's 65 building billion for ship [2:45:50] building 120 billion for the defense industrial base 331 billion for munitions 44 billion for quality of life [2:45:58] 71 billion on our nuclear dib you name it we're investing in it and the biggest reason for it [2:46:04] is the under investment of the biden administration i mean what they spent on defense the continuing [2:46:08] resolutions and others undercut the build-up that the president trump had created so yes we're doing [2:46:14] a lot of uh deferred maintenance here around the world and in our department and this budget reflects [2:46:19] it and it's a commitment a generational commitment to the security of the american people and if the rest [2:46:23] of the world won't spend on their defense that's their fault the american department of war [2:46:28] will invest properly to defend the american people and that's what this i've always been supportive [2:46:33] of defense spending in my entire time here and after 25 years in the navy i want to make sure our [2:46:40] folks have what they need i think you should go back and take a look and see if there are places where we [2:46:47] are making investments that we actually don't need there are some systems out there i mean we're constantly [2:46:52] looking and trying to balance do we want you know f47 which i've been supportive of um b21 also [2:47:01] supportive and then we want to make all these other investments in really inexpensive low-cost emission [2:47:08] uh munitions because we suddenly realize that the expensive stuff even with through b21 we can't [2:47:16] really maybe not get close enough but the whole idea behind b21 and f47 is we can penetrate further into [2:47:22] the a2ad bubble so there's some conflict there so i'm just encouraging you to go back and see [2:47:30] you know if there are some systems where we can bring that number the overall number down because [2:47:37] as i look at what the department is trying to field you know some of this stuff in my judgment and [2:47:44] you know i know others might have another opinion some of this stuff we either don't need [2:47:49] or it's not going to work thank you mr chair searcher kelly your time has expired let me just say [2:47:55] you have a great deal of expertise in the area of space and and we do look forward to uh your [2:48:01] contribution as we mark up uh further legislation central blumenthal i understand you have a follow-up [2:48:07] question uh yes uh first of all i want to thank uh you mr secretary for your support for the major [2:48:17] richard star act which i think is tremendously significant uh i'm committed to getting it done [2:48:24] as soon as possible at least before veterans day and i look forward to your help in accomplishing that [2:48:32] goal but i want to thank you for your support i'm sure the veterans of america are grateful for the [2:48:40] the prospective victory there uh i've talked to many of the combatant commanders about lessons learned [2:48:50] from ukraine and uh i think that there is unanimity on the point that there is a lot to be learned [2:49:02] not only about what the russians are doing but what other adversaries could do as well general kane [2:49:08] chairman kane um would you agree that there are lessons to be learned from ukraine uh you bet you [2:49:17] bet senator and there's lessons learned from everywhere and that's really the culture of our joint force [2:49:22] right now is to make sure that across the globe anytime we're in contact with the enemy we're going [2:49:28] back and determining what we can learn from there but um i you know a big one if if you'll allow me a big [2:49:34] one is is uh you know mass and in simultaneity which is something the secretary's taking a strong [2:49:42] role in making sure that we're doing that through uh drone evaluations and things like that moving [2:49:47] forward following up on a question that i asked earlier my last question uh the president said yesterday [2:49:57] that his view is after his conversation with vladimir putin that ukraine has been quote militarily [2:50:05] defeated in your professional judgment has ukraine been militarily defeated sir i haven't i haven't [2:50:14] seen the president's quote but you know i'll i'll go back to something i started with and that's the [2:50:20] important of importance of me maintaining trust with a variety of people and you know a president will [2:50:29] make a wide range of of comments and considerations you don't enter in chief you don't have to go too much [2:50:35] farther i understand the point that you're making thank you i appreciate sir uh in my view ukraine has [2:50:42] not only not been militarily defeated but the point that i was trying to make in the last exchange with [2:50:48] the secretary there's a false narrative based on my last visit to ukraine which was my ninth my [2:50:57] conversation not only with president zielinski but with our own military on the ground as well as our [2:51:06] intelligence community in fact ukraine arguably is winning there is this false narrative russia's [2:51:14] winning putin wants that false narrative to be our official narrative i'm not putting words in your [2:51:19] mouth and you don't have to respond i understand your reasons for not responding but the american people [2:51:25] should know that the president of the united states is undermining our security because ukraine [2:51:32] is holding the line against vladimir putin who will keep going against moldova which i also visited on [2:51:41] my last trip against our nato allies and we still have an obligation under article 5 to come to their [2:51:49] defense just as they did after 9 11 as king charles so eloquently reminded us and my view is and this [2:52:02] observation is hardly novel that china is watching what we're doing in ukraine would you agree sir [2:52:10] i'd agree that china's watching everywhere um and carefully thinking about what their force posture [2:52:17] and approach will be and i think they're learning a variety of things to include the tenacity and grit [2:52:25] of the joint force around the things that we've been ordered to do over the last year but if they see [2:52:31] weakness in our response to russia in ukraine that will affect the deterrence of their possibly [2:52:41] moving against one of our allies or partners in the far east let me uh finally ask mr hurst [2:52:51] your estimate of 25 billion dollars would you share with us what that estimate is based on yeah we can [2:53:00] work to get you a product the details if you'd like and and finally mr secretary is there going to be a [2:53:06] report on the bombing of the school in the first day or so of the war i know you were asked about it [2:53:14] yesterday i'm wondering whether you have a more detailed response that you can share with us as [2:53:22] i've said that's under investigation of 15-6 a general officer from outside the chain of command has been [2:53:26] reviewing it and uh it's still within the parameters of the investigation will there be a preliminary report [2:53:33] in the next few weeks or do you have a time estimate i don't have a time estimate for you but it it uh it [2:53:41] it will be it's right now within the parameters of the length of time that normally these investigations [2:53:46] take i'm i'm asking because in your final response to senator gillibrand you said that great care is [2:53:55] taken to avoid civilian casualties and it would be profoundly significant if that report were made [2:54:01] available in a timely way to show in fact the commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and [2:54:08] learning lessons from the mistake made there thank you senator blumenthal um this concludes today's [2:54:15] hearing i'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony for the information of members questions [2:54:20] for the record would be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of the hearing we [2:54:25] we are adjourned