Pete Hegseth testifies before House defense budget hearing (Full)

[0:00] Defense subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. Today the subcommittee will convene for [0:13] open hearing to receive testimony from the Honorable Pete Hegsif, Secretary of War, [0:17] General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Jay Hurst, performing the duties of [0:24] Undersecretary of War Comptroller. Mr. Secretary, General Cain and Mr. Hurst, a warm welcome to you. [0:31] Thank you for your service to our great nation and I thank you for appearing before the subcommittee [0:36] today. I want to first acknowledge the extraordinary demands we place on all our volunteer force and the [0:42] military families who bear the weight of service alongside their loved ones. Quality of life and [0:49] care for our service members and their families are central to our mission to continue to ensure [0:54] the finest fighting force in human history. We owe everything to their sacrifice and send our thanks [1:02] that they have answered the call to serve. This hearing addresses issues that are deeply [1:07] interconnected and collectively defined the national security challenge of our time. [1:13] Let me begin with the budget. We want to be good partners with the department to ensure that our [1:18] men and women in uniform have every resource they need. But I have serious concerns about how this [1:23] bifurcated budget splits discretionary and mandatory funding on some of our highest priority programs. [1:31] We have significant gaps in needs for our warfighters that we had to address in the FY26 appropriations [1:38] process because of the way mandatory was requested and enacted. The subcommittee needs to understand [1:45] how the resources requested in this budget translates into real measurable improvements in warfighting [1:51] capability. We also need to understand the consequences of this funding approach. We owe that level of [1:58] accountability to the American taxpayers. Next on readiness, the picture demands our honest attention across the multiple domains, [2:07] including munitions, shipbuilding, innovation, and aviation. Questions persist about whether we are building the [2:13] depth and reliance required for a high-end conflict. We have made progress in some areas. I want to acknowledge the [2:20] department's efforts to address these questions. However, progress is not the same as capability in delivering and capability delivery is what we need at this moment demands. [2:31] Finally, that brings me to the threat environment we currently face. The world has grown more dangerous, [2:39] more complex, and more interconnected in its risks. China is modernizing its military at a pace and scale [2:46] that is alarming. Russia continues to wage a brutal war of aggression, and while Iran and their proxies have [2:53] been dealt a severe blow, they remain a threat. Threats to Taiwan, Ukraine, NATO, Israel, our partners in the Gulf, and our [3:04] allies across the globe are not abstract concerns. They are tests of America's credibility and resolve. [3:11] This subcommittee believes deeply in the power of deterrence, but deterrence must be credible and [3:17] credibility must be funded. Finally, Mr. Secretary, both you and your deputy must be commended for your commitment to [3:24] reforming, modernizing, and prioritizing innovation at the department. I've been here a long time. I've watched [3:32] administrations come and go, and I promise you that there are bureaucrats who are trying to wait you [3:37] out. You must demand accountability at every level of your organization to ensure that the change you [3:44] have demanded is taking place. Your call to move more quickly, inject competition, allow new entrants [3:51] to participate requires rigorous and persistent oversight. Otherwise, the forces in the Pentagon will simply [3:58] snap back to the status quo, which does not serve our warfighters or the United States taxpayer. [4:05] Again, thank you for being here. The members of this subcommittee take our oversight responsibilities [4:10] seriously, and we believe the American people deserve straight answers on these consequential [4:16] questions. I look forward to an honest conversation on how we are matching resources to priorities and [4:22] honoring our commitments to meet the moment. Now I recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mrs. McCollum, [4:28] for her opening remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your courtesy of extending this, [4:33] and thank you for your statement. We have a lot to discuss, historical high budget requests, [4:39] the cost of the war in Iran. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate this year that you opened up a dialogue [4:44] with Chairman Calvert, myself, and with our authorizing Senate colleagues. When we last met, [4:50] we asked for information to help us determine what the department needs to ensure our national security. [4:56] We are still waiting for the information. We've asked several times for a complete update on [5:01] munition levels, and it has not been provided. This lacking of delivery timely information for the [5:06] committee is appearing to become a pattern. We've requested briefings on the status of the funds [5:12] appropriated for Ukraine. That took six months for us to be adequately briefed. The reconciliation bill, [5:18] which was enacted on July 4th of last year, we still need the details of how the funds were allocated, [5:24] and that were not provided to us until a 10-month wait. 10 months we waited for that. [5:31] Details have been provided on Golden Dome, but only $185 billion of the program, and that's the initial [5:39] research and development. We still have no idea what the costs are following on for procurement or [5:45] maintenance of the program. The department must do a better job of sharing the information with us. [5:50] With respect to the war in Iran, Mr. Secretary, I saw your comments in the Armed Services Committee. [5:56] It was disappointing that you referred to members of both parties as defeatists. I know you won't [6:01] bring personalities into this at this hearing, and I will not questionize your patriotism, nor will you [6:08] question mine. But the cost of this war continues to rise as forces remain in the region. The Appropriations [6:14] Committee has a fiduciary responsibility to the American people, so we will ask serious questions [6:20] that need to be answered, and that's our constitutional duty. Chairman Calvert and I have asked for a [6:25] breakout of funding needs for Operation Epic Fury. We need to know the impact of what it's having on the [6:30] services executing missions beyond the war. The department notified us that the standard fuel price for the [6:39] services has increased from $154 to $195 a barrel. That's more we have to pay for fuel, then there's less [6:49] money available for training and exercise that the services need to perform, and the department does [6:54] not have enough general transfer authority to cover these activities without a supplemental. We must [6:59] understand the department what it will do if a supplemental is not sent to the hill or enacted. Now for [7:05] the 25, excuse me, the 2027 request. The baseline budget of the Department of Defense requests over [7:13] $200 million over last year's enacted level. When combined with the mandatory funding for a defense [7:18] request throughout reconciliation, that's an increase of $400 billion, and that includes military [7:25] construction. Together, that's nearly 44% increase of defense spending over last year, and the president [7:32] proposes a domestic investment cut of $75 billion, or 10%. These cuts will have an impact on our national [7:41] security in many ways, particularly cuts to education. The primary concern of the defense budget is that the [7:48] administration split between discretionary funding and the appropriations control, mandatory funding that [7:55] we do not control. Mr. Secretary, the administration is taking an enormous risk by asking for $350 billion in [8:02] the priorities through reconciliation. As we told you in our last meeting, reconciliation is not the best [8:08] way to fund the department. Last year, reconciliation created broken glass. Funding holds for vital [8:14] programs that the appropriators had to fix, and that's why we need the information in a timely fashion. Most of [8:20] your mandatory funding requests are for what you call presidential priorities, Golden Dome, drone dominance, [8:27] munitions, the defense industrial base. What the administration submitted to us for these programs [8:33] was a 28-page document, and that's not enough to properly explain $350 billion in funding. These [8:41] programs will not be completed in one fiscal year, and they will have tails. That will put our department [8:47] and our committee in a very difficult situation next to Congress. Finally, as the chair did, I'm going to take [8:53] this opportunity to thank all of our service members, active duty, National Guard, and Reserve components. [8:58] They serve with honor and distinction, and I want to especially acknowledge those who have served in [9:03] harm's way, including those who have fallen and who have been injured in Operation Epic Fury. Their families [9:09] need to know that we will never forget them and that they have our enduring gratitude and support. [9:14] Gentlemen, I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Ms. McCollum. Before we [9:20] hear from our witness, I'd like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the full committee, [9:24] my good friend, Chairman Tom Cole, for any opening comments. [9:28] Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, my good friend, Ranking Member [9:32] Rosa DeLore, and all the members here. And welcome, Mr. Secretary and General Kane to the committee, [9:38] and we appreciate all of you, and certainly you as well, Under Secretary Hurst. I didn't mean to leave [9:44] you out there. I joined Chairman Calvert and members of the subcommittee by saying at the outset of this [9:50] hearing that the men and women of our armed forces are the finest in the world. They deserve our full [9:55] support and our commitment to giving them the resources they need that will keep them ready for [10:00] the fights of today and tomorrow. Without hesitation, I recognize that a strong, agile, and effectively [10:06] funded defense is not a mere priority. It is a necessity. The current threat environment facing the [10:13] United States is as serious and as layered as anything I have witnessed during my time in Congress. [10:19] The convergence of challenges from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran demands that we all work [10:25] together with a level of seriousness and urgency that, frankly, has not always characterized our [10:31] defense debates in recent years. On the budget, I firmly believe that adequate and stable defense [10:37] funding is a national imperative. And yet funding alone is not enough. Every dollar must reflect clear [10:43] priorities, operational effectiveness, and strategic urgency. The subcommittee has a responsibility to [10:50] ask hard questions about priorities, program performances, and whether the department's acquisition [10:56] processes are keeping pace with the speed at which our adversaries are moving. To that end, I certainly [11:04] associate myself with Chairman Calvert's concerns about a bifurcated funding of the Department of Defense. [11:11] We have questions on the assumption of mandatory funding in the Department's request. We need you to [11:17] be a partner with us on this front. Transparency and communication are critical to ensuring that we [11:22] are aligned as closely as we can be with your needs. And frankly, I do worry in the future, and I hope you [11:29] address this in your remarks. This is the second reconciliation package for defense, and that creates [11:36] eclipses for this committee in the future. At some point, that funding disappears, and we would have a [11:41] massive increase in discretionary funding to sustain it. So how we do that going forward, when we do that, [11:48] is a major concern for this committee, certainly for me personally. I also want to speak directly about the [11:54] issue of our allies and partners. American power is most effective when it's exercised in concert [12:00] with like-minded nations who share our interests and our values. As we look back on 250 years of our [12:06] exceptional history, the truth of that statement is apparent over and over. From those who stood by us [12:15] in our fight for independence to the shared mission against evil during World War II, tyranny falls when [12:22] free nations stand together. America first has never meant America alone. American strength is not [12:29] diminished when allies shoulder their share. It's multiplied, and we must continue to sharpen our [12:35] strategic advantages. And I commend you for working to make sure that our partners are beginning to step [12:42] forward. NATO remains a critical pillar of collective defense, while our alliances across the Indo-Pacific [12:49] are indispensable to building a creditable deterrent against rising aggression in that region. [12:55] I'm interested today in hearing how this budget strengthens those partnerships and how the [13:00] department's working to ensure that our allies are investing at levels commensurate with the threats [13:06] that they, as well as we, face together. The bottom line is simple. We always hope for peace while [13:12] maintaining the strength to defend it. We're committed to ensuring our military remains unmatched, our [13:18] adversaries deterred, and the American people protected. Secretary Hegsup and General Klein, [13:24] we look forward to your candid dialogue. The American people are counting on us to get this right. [13:29] I look forward to being a partner with you in that effort. Again, I thank you for being here today, [13:34] and I thank you all for your distinguished service to our country. For that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [13:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to turn now to the ranking member of the full [13:42] committee. Mr. Laurel for any opening comments. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and Ranking [13:49] Member McCollum, and good to be with you, Chairman Cole and Secretary Hegsup and General Cain and [13:56] Under Secretary Hearst. Welcome to the committee. The president is requesting $1.5 trillion in defense [14:03] funding for the coming fiscal year. $1.5 trillion is an extraordinary sum of money. Congress and the [14:11] American people have concerns about what you plan to do with this money. In fact, we have concerns about [14:18] what you are doing with the more than $1 trillion you already have from last year's appropriations [14:24] and reconciliation bills. How much will the president's, quote, skirmish in CENTCOM cost? [14:32] I know at a recent hearing, $25 billion was cited, but we don't know what that includes or for what [14:39] time period. This was only supposed to last six weeks. We have thus far been unable to get any [14:45] reliable information as to the true cost of this war. The current ceasefire is tenuous at best, [14:56] with attacks on Gulf nations happening just over the weekend. The president tweeted, [15:02] he will not support the latest communication from Iran, which we might agree with if we knew what [15:09] was in it. But there has been a consistent lack of transparency since this war began. [15:16] Media reports suggest there is intelligence that indicates Iran can survive for months at the current [15:22] standoff, which means the cost of deployment of 50,000 service personnel with their equipment will only [15:31] increase, as every additional day this war goes on brings with it additional costs. [15:38] This administration has not presented Congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy. [15:45] Week to week, day to day, hour to hour, the rationale shifts. The objectives change. [15:51] The end game is ill-defined when it is defined at all. If the administration intends to ask Congress [15:58] for supplemental funding for the Iran war, then you need to come back to Congress and testify on that [16:05] request specifically so that we and the American people can fully understand what this administration [16:13] has gotten us into and how it plans to get us out of it. The question must be answered at the end of this [16:21] crisis. What have we accomplished and at what cost? And before you come to the Congress for additional emergency funding, [16:29] we need information. Has the department or any of the services utilized mandatory funding for operational [16:36] activities in CENTCOM? If so, how much and from what accounts? If you can provide us with that breakout, [16:43] it would be enormously helpful. And again, what is the department's estimate of the full cost of the [16:48] operation against Iran to date? The $1 trillion allocated for fiscal year 2026, $1.5 trillion requested [17:03] for fiscal year 2027, and possibly $25 billion for an upcoming supplemental, [17:09] all as the total debt in the United States has reached 100% of gross domestic product. In other words, [17:18] the national debt is now larger than the U.S. economy and about twice the historic average, [17:25] according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The defense budget includes requested funding [17:33] for the expanded Golden Dome for America at $185 billion, though those budget numbers are tenuous, [17:41] a new golden fleet in which three ships are estimated to cost $43 billion, and billions for private equity [17:50] ventures, which do not have well-defined processes or sufficient transparency. With gas prices and inflation [17:58] numbers increasing, the American people just want to afford the basic necessities for everyday life. [18:05] But this administration is not doing anything to help them with the cost of living crisis. In fact, [18:13] the administration is making the problem worse by proposing dramatic cuts across the board to domestic [18:19] programs that support American families. We have the most powerful military in the history of humankind. [18:28] I am extraordinarily grateful, as my other colleagues have pointed out, to the men and women of our [18:34] armed services who sacrifice everything to keep us safe. Their devotion to duty is exemplary, [18:43] and it must be matched by the seriousness and the sobriety of those at the very top of the chain of [18:50] command. And right now, I worry if that standard is being met. I look forward to your testimonies today, [18:57] and hearing the answers to this committee's questions shortly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. [19:03] Thank the ranking member. We'll now begin witness testimony. Gentlemen, without objection, [19:07] your full written testimony will be placed in the record. Secretary Hexif, [19:11] we begin with you for a brief summary of your remarks. [19:13] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee. [19:20] Thank you for the opportunity to testify in full support of President Trump's historic [19:24] 1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for the Department of War. The President's budget request [19:31] reflects the urgency of the moment, as was mentioned by many, addressing both the deferment [19:38] of longstanding problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future fight. [19:44] I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [19:48] and Jay Hurst, our Chief Financial Officer. And I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress [19:55] for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger and more secure America. [20:02] A nation's ability to build, to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its warfighters [20:07] at speed and at scale is the foundation upon which its survival rests. However, upon taking office [20:15] on January 20th of 2025, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out [20:23] by years of America last policies, resulting in a diminished capability and capacity to project [20:29] strength. Offshoring, outsourcing, cost overruns, degraded capabilities. Under the leadership of [20:37] President Trump, our builder in chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting our defense [20:43] industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do at this department. [20:51] We are rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of. One that instills nothing [20:56] less than the unrelenting fear in our adversaries and confidence in our allies. We fight to win in every [21:04] scenario. The $1.5 trillion budget request put forward by the President will build upon the historic [21:11] $1 trillion FY26 top line and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment and [21:17] mismanagement of the Biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure the United States [21:24] continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex [21:29] threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention the budget also includes a historic troop [21:37] pay increase, a building on the pay increases this committee has given, and the budget eliminates [21:42] all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. [21:50] By supercharging our industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, [21:55] we are restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense [22:01] industrial base from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped the Pentagon [22:08] acquisition process from a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from an [22:13] acquisition environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization focused [22:20] on delivering the most for taxpayer dollars. And Mr. Chairman, you're right, it's a war of attrition [22:25] against the Pentagon bureaucracy every single day, and we intend to win it. Over the past year, [22:30] through historic multi-year procurement agreements, smart business deals, we have sent ambiguous demand [22:37] signals to our industry partners to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, [22:43] a revitalization of our great American factories, and massive reinvestment in the skilled American [22:49] workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors. Let me briefly provide you with some [22:56] concrete high-level metrics of what we've accomplished over the last few months. These are announced [23:02] new facilities and investments to support American warfighters. The department has helped stimulate more [23:07] than 250 private investment deals in 39 states, in 180 cities, in 150 different companies worth more [23:15] than 50 billion dollars. This has resulted in 280 new and expanded facilities, more than 18 million new [23:23] square feet of American manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new American jobs. These 50 billion dollars in [23:31] defense investments in new plants, assembly lines, and factories are private investments, not taxpayer [23:38] dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, American companies are investing in [23:44] America with their own capital, a historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization, [23:51] all with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been done before and is long overdue from a [23:58] bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things for America, [24:04] American families, and American workers, and help us ensure our warfighters can defend this great [24:09] country. Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations passed by Congress, [24:16] President Trump's War Department has begun to turn the lights back on in manufacturing towns across this [24:21] country to forge a lethal arsenal of freedom. Where our critical supply chains are threatened, [24:27] the Department of War has acted decisively to inject capital, stimulate production, and prevent [24:33] adversarial exploitation. We are firing up the American economic engine at every level of the [24:39] defense industrial base. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request, serves to ensure that [24:45] this department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability of our fighting force [24:51] from the front lines to the factory floors. This is, admittedly, a historic budget. [24:58] It is a fiscally responsible budget. And it is a warfighting budget. Under President Trump, [25:05] we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing that we will need for generations. [25:10] We are providing for our warfighters and we are putting the people and interests of this country [25:16] first. May Almighty God continue to watch over all of our troops and may we honor the legacy of those [25:22] brave Americans that we've lost. That is our sacred mission that we will continue to execute on. [25:28] Thank you again to this committee for your partnership. And we look forward to answering your questions. [25:33] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Cain, you're now recognized for your remarks. [25:37] Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum. Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro. Thank you for having me. [25:43] And to all the members of the committee, thank you for having me. I'm honored here today to testify [25:48] alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst on the President's fiscal year 2027 budget. [25:55] And I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak about the foundations of America's strength, [26:00] the 2.8 million members of our joint force. I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, [26:07] airmen, Marines, guardians, Coast Guardsmen, and civilians standing the watch for our nation, [26:14] supported each and every day by their families. They could have chosen anything in their path of [26:19] service, but they chose to serve our great country and meet our nation's challenges with courage, [26:26] tenacity, and grit that's keeping our nation strong and safe. I would also like to express my deep [26:32] gratitude for the 40 members of the joint force who we've lost in operations, combat, and training [26:39] during my time as chairman, including 14 who passed during Operation Epic Fury, and our most recent loss, [26:47] 1st Lieutenant Key who valiantly gave his life trying to save a teammate while deployed on a temporary [26:53] duty assignment in Africa, and we continue to hold hope for his teammate. The Secretary and I are deeply [26:59] grateful for each of them and their families, and their names will never be forgotten. As chairman, [27:05] my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of options, military options, [27:11] alongside the associated risks to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the [27:18] President, the Secretary, and the Congress the truth at every turn, and my blueprint for this approach [27:23] has always been General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control and a nonpartisan [27:30] military remains my constant standard, and I strive to follow his example by working with each of you [27:37] and providing clear and candid nonpartisan military advice, and to present this committee with the [27:44] clearest possible assessment of operational risk and readiness and executability within the unclassified [27:52] environment that we find ourselves in today. As the chairman said, we're operating in a delicate and [27:58] dangerous time. Global risk is scaling, and the complexities of the modern battlefield demand [28:04] America's constant adaptation and innovation. America's Joint Forces, operational at its core, [28:12] purpose-built for the realities of a complex world, were organized, trained, and equipped to execute the [28:19] most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. And over the last year, our warfighters [28:27] have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable, adaptable, [28:34] and professional military on Earth. We are able to accomplish this highly complicated work because [28:41] we draw from a deep, enduring reservoir of training, professionalism, and commitment. Our Ops tempo is [28:49] high, but we're designed to sustain it, rebuilding our strength continuously. We rebuild readiness every day, [28:57] we train every day, we learn and sharpen our edge every day. And driving this pace [29:02] and of change and maintaining our superiority requires timely, predictable, and sustained investment in [29:10] a partnership with this committee and the broader Congress, and I appreciate that. And the resources [29:17] that we'll discuss today are critical to modernizing the joint force and ensuring that if whatever threats [29:24] emerge or when called upon, our nation can win. The president's budget supports the department's goals of [29:31] recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base while enhancing our military [29:37] readiness. We will continue to ensure our warfighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready, [29:44] while always taking care of our most precious thing, and that is our people. And while advancing the hardware [29:50] and technology essential to fight, it's the character and competence of our people, particularly the 1.8 million [29:58] members of our enlisted force who make us proud every day. And they're represented today by the senior [30:04] enlisted advisor to the chairman, United States Navy SEAL Dave Isom sitting behind me. While we face dynamic [30:12] and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in our people who every day execute the most [30:19] challenging missions with quiet professionalism. And coupled with the American spirit to outthink, [30:25] outcompete, and relentlessly innovate, we will maintain our decisive edge. But doing so requires your [30:33] continued partnership. It is also graduation season where we welcome a whole bunch of new members to [30:40] the joint force. To include members like Second Lieutenant Archie Dennis, United States Army, who along with his [30:47] Citadel classmates in South Carolina joined the joint force this weekend. And I welcome he and all the other new [30:54] graduates to the joint force. As I close, I humbly ask that we remember right now our deployed teammates [31:01] out there doing our nation's work, going out into the darkness to do the things that we asked them to do. [31:07] And I ask, as always, that we remember not just the 40 fallen that I mentioned earlier, but all of our [31:13] nation's fallen and their families who soldier on. Thank you, and I also look forward to your questions. [31:19] Thank you. I want to ensure each member has a chance to ask questions, so everyone will have five [31:24] minutes for their remarks. I'll begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Secretary Hexiv, for decades, [31:31] Congress and the department have sought acquisition reform and innovative technologies. It's only since [31:37] FY24 that the level of investment started to catch up with the rhetoric. The FY27 budget request includes [31:45] over $950 million for the Defense Innovation Unit, $54.6 billion for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, [31:53] $580 million for the Joint Interagency Task Force 401, and for the counter small UAS. And I believe these [32:02] investments will deliver overdue capability. And this subcommittee will continue to work with you to [32:07] ensure success. I also note there's only $100 million for the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding [32:14] of Innovative Technology. That's surprisingly low given APFIT's success. The subcommittee will continue [32:20] to support APFIT as we have in the past. I invite you to join me at the APFIT Day on the Hill July 21st to [32:28] see firsthand how APFIT is delivering capabilities to the warfighter. Consistent with the desire for [32:34] injecting innovation at scale, for decades there's been increasing demand for increasing resilience in [32:42] the industrial base and more specifically the supply chain. The FY27 budget request includes over $20.2 [32:49] billion for the Office of Strategic Capital and $30.4 billion for the Defense Production Act. As you're [32:55] aware, we're working closely with the industrial base policy team on the Civil Reserve Manufacturing [33:00] Network to ensure the department can qualify and certify second and alternate sources to maximize [33:07] American manufacturing. With the exception of DIU and the Joint Interagency Task Force 401, [33:13] most of the investments listed are in mandatory funding. What was the strategy to heavily rely [33:21] on the mandatory funding sector in this budget? Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. And I [33:27] would first, I would thank you and this committee for your efforts on acquisition reform, many of which [33:35] were had not been embraced by the department before, and a lot of templates on the table that were there for [33:41] us to fall in and run fast with. And so speed, scale, cut and red tape, reducing requirements where we can, [33:48] looking at things like DIU, Replicator, now the dog, and the Defense Autonomous Working Warfare Group. [33:56] All of those were born of collaboration with the committee and efforts of now reformers we have in [34:02] the department who are ready to run with it. As it pertains to the budget, I think there's a reality in [34:09] this town of how, what can get done and how it gets done. And in a perfect world, everything would get [34:15] done in regular order, uh, and with a 1.5 trillion dollar top line, but there are a lot of challenges [34:20] and dynamics, um, some of which I don't control. And ultimately we look forward to working with the [34:25] committee to ensuring however it shakes out, um, that it's full transparency with you and maximizing [34:32] options for the department. And I think, uh, the reconciliation last year was a, was a new vehicle. [34:38] So it took some time, especially because we're doing new things, Office of Strategic Capital, [34:42] different avenues. So figuring out how to deploy that, uh, took longer than we'd like, uh, but we're [34:47] committed to ensuring this year, uh, with that as a vehicle, part of it, that we do it in concert with [34:53] you to ensure the most important things, whether they're in that or, or in regular order, are included in [34:58] the budget. Understand the desire for flexibility. I, you know, I, uh, understand why we're, we're [35:12] breaking this up in order to, in some chunks, uh, to, I guess, more digestible to some degree politically. [35:19] But, um, I would hope we can get a supplemental bill here soon. Uh, obviously that we know that, [35:27] of the munitions issue and we know of the cost of this conflict and we know the cost of other conflicts. [35:35] And so we need to repay those O&M accounts that are going to be used, I suspect, in order to pay [35:40] for this ongoing operation. So, uh, any idea when we're going to get this supplemental? [35:47] Uh, we're well aware of all those dynamics. I think, first of all, uh, the munitions issue, [35:53] issue has been foolishly, uh, and unhelpfully overstated. We're, we, we know exactly what we have. [35:58] We have plenty of what we need. And the reason we're, um, accelerating a lot of this is because [36:03] the department's been static in how it does this kind of business. Not to mention [36:07] the amount that was given to Ukraine for years and years. So we are getting after changing that [36:12] dynamic so that we're not getting a hundred more of something, but the companies are investing. [36:17] So there's new plants. So you're getting two X, three X, four X of those munitions in future years, [36:22] because that's what we need. That's what the, our allies and partners through FMS require. [36:27] And we just haven't been delivering it. So we're, we're in, we're in good shape on that front. [36:31] Whatever we think we need, uh, we will submit. But I'll say even in the conduct of the conflict, [36:36] working with the chairman and Admiral Cooper, uh, ensuring that any munitions we're using, [36:41] where we know what we're trading off of to preserve capabilities. So we have maximum [36:45] optionality across the globe, which we do. Again, though, it would be helpful to get the [36:50] supplemental sooner rather than later for, we can get to work on it. Uh, and now recognize [36:54] Ms. McCollum for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Secretary, [36:59] the House Armed Services Oversight Hearing, Mr. Hurst, uh, stated that the costs for the war for [37:05] operation Epic Fury are at 25 billion. Am I correct with, with that number that used to the hearing, [37:11] Mr. Hurst? Yes, ma'am. That was the cost at that time. At that time. Um, I would request that you [37:19] provide the committee, uh, in writing the specifics of what the department will be requesting in the [37:24] supplemental and the breakouts for the following costs. We talked munitions and Mr. Secretary, I think [37:30] we'd have a more robust discussion on that if we were in a classified setting, but I respect what, [37:36] what, what you shared with us. But this is what I'd like. Uh, a breakout for military personnel, [37:43] operational activities, additional maintenance for deployed ships, munitions used, equipment lost, [37:53] and updated fuel costs. Now we need to know the funding required to cover the damage to the U.S. [38:00] facilities. And if there are any agreements from our regional allies, we hear things in the press [38:05] that would be helping for any new facilities or improvements in CENTCOM. Now, Mr. Hurst, here, [38:12] here, here's, here's the rub. We need that by June 11th. We mark up our bill. And some of these are not [38:19] new asks, but I thought I'd, I'd drill down and be just a little more specific for you. Um, so I know you're [38:28] going to do your best. We'll take the homework assignment in pieces. Anything you can provide [38:34] would be great. Now, under the War Powers Resolution, the administration has 60 days to conclude [38:39] activities unless Congress has declared war or provided authorization. Congress has not done that. [38:45] And I know there's different opinions and it changes from day to day whether or not the War Powers [38:49] clock is paused. But this law states beyond May 2nd, the administration needs congressional authorization [38:56] to continue military operations. And the president just recently said yesterday that epic fury is not [39:02] over. Military operations have continued. We have a naval blockade and both sides are exchanging fire. [39:10] They did so over the weekend. Speaker Johnson, in my opinion, should put an authorization on the floor [39:16] this week. But Mr. Secretary, if Congress does not authorize, if we don't authorize this to continue [39:23] military operations against Iran, you're going to have to have a plan put in place to draw down our [39:30] troops, to reset the region, to protect our assets. Um, and, um, I'm wondering, and that might be in a [39:37] classified situation, but could you provide this committee with plan B? Because if we go there, [39:42] we're going to have to re reset our budget after June 11th, if the War Powers Act, in my opinion, [39:49] should be invoked and, um, it comes to Congress. But we don't know what the outcome would be. Do you have [39:55] a plan B? Uh, ranking member, I would say we have a plan for all of that. We have a plan to escalate, [40:04] if necessary. We have a plan to, uh, retrograde, if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets. [40:10] Certainly in this setting, we wouldn't reveal what the next step may be, considering the gravity of, [40:14] of the mission that the president is undertaking to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear bomb. [40:18] Well, Mr. Secretary, as you know, we can be in receipt of that in a different situation. [40:23] And we would also like that by June 11th. With that, I yield back. [40:30] Thank you, gentlelady. Uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, [40:36] Mr. Secretary, as I said in my opening remarks, I have concerns about the use of reconciliation. I [40:41] don't have any concerns about the amount and, uh, the effort to restore the industrial base. You're [40:47] to be commended for that. And frankly, I think we've underinvested for a long time. So, [40:51] I'm, I'm happy to see a robust number. I am worried about the ability to sustain that number [40:57] through the reconciliation process. At some point that money disappears, uh, and we'll be, [41:04] so give me some sense of how much of this reconciliation money is one time expense that [41:10] you expect to either in dust, use for procurement that may not, you may not need to do again for a long [41:15] time or inject in the industrial base. How much is for day-to-day operations that we would need, [41:22] frankly, to think of as a long-term recurring expense? [41:26] It's a good question, Mr. Chairman. And I'll, I'll defer to Jay on, on details, but I would say a big, [41:31] take for example, the deals that are being cut that will be funded here, that ultimately look [41:36] at companies that make exquisite weapons systems for us. And they say, in exchange for a five to seven [41:41] year contract, which committees like this have authorized for us, the authorizing committees, [41:45] uh, not the appropriating committees, the authorizing committees. And now because they have that clear [41:50] demand signal, they're able to invest in a new plant and they're paying for it. And that's what [41:54] I talked about in my open remarks. So they're building two or three new facilities, but we're [41:58] committed to paying for those munitions for five to seven years from this budget. And ultimately, but the [42:03] nice part is we're saving money because there's no inflation. It's at the cost of it today, [42:07] even when we buy it seven years from now. And that's why you're seeing a $331 billion in munitions [42:13] as part of this budget. There is a, there's a rocket fuel component to this, given the underinvestment [42:18] that exists inside this budget. There will be some tail, obviously. And, and as I acknowledged up front, [42:24] a higher top line from this department's perspective is always a welcome thing. Uh, but the intention is not [42:29] to get anyone stuck in a certain place, but to address the needs of the moment, cut different deals, [42:34] create new dynamics where companies actually invest. So we have, you know, this committee knows [42:39] the exquisite munitions that we're going to be using five to seven years from now, no matter what. [42:44] It's about time we look into the future the way we are with this budget, but you have to fund that. [42:49] And so I think that's, that's a big chunk of, of an increase that you see. I mean, if you're investing [42:54] in the shipbuilding industrial base, the defense industrial base, um, housing and barracks, all of that [43:00] increase, uh, troop pay, we're looking at increasing the top line of the entire force by 50,000 troops. [43:06] That's a, that's an investment into the future. So I would acknowledge that a lot of this does have [43:11] follow on cost. Uh, but some of it is something we're going to pay for now and benefit from the [43:15] future. But Jay, I would defer to you. Yeah, Mr. Chairman in this, there's 113 billion dollars, [43:20] uh, for investments in the defense industrial base. I would characterize that as a one time plus up for [43:25] catch up, uh, 35 billion dollars for FSRM to fix all of our poor and failing barracks and other [43:31] facilities of the department. And also some catch up investments in AI and autonomy. And so if you look [43:36] at what we're doing with mandatory, probably about 200 billion of that is a one time expense. Uh, we come [43:40] down to 1.23 for requested top line for FY28. And so we think we can sustain these investments over the [43:47] FIDAP with discretionary dollars after this. Well, that's reassuring. And again, I don't have any [43:53] disagreement with the, what you're trying to accomplish at all. I would remind you that, [43:58] uh, frankly, the use of reconciliation depends on political support in Congress. It can be very [44:05] transitory. Uh, so it's a high risk, uh, strategy as opposed to building things into the baseline. [44:12] Uh, but again, I'm supportive of what you're trying to do in terms of recharging the industrial base. I [44:17] think it's long overdue. Let me ask you a specific question. Um, uh, and you may want to get back [44:23] to me on this. I don't know, but, uh, we've had some discussion over, you know, we lost one E3, [44:31] uh, on the ground. Thank goodness. Uh, it looks like no crew loss. Um, this committee has been [44:38] interested in investing in the E7, uh, Pentagon signed a contract for five additional planes, [44:46] not in the air force budget. Is there going to be a fix to that? Are we, where are we at on thinking [44:53] about the E7? I'm well aware of that dynamic. I know our department had taken the position that [45:00] it was, uh, airborne or other satellite ISR that was probably going to be capable of a lot of that [45:06] in the future. But I think that mindset was indicative of, of, uh, of a mindset that we've [45:12] shed, which is the divest to invest mindset, which was an austerity mindset that we're going to get [45:18] in continued resolution after continued resolution. So we've got to get rid of these platforms in order [45:22] to invest in these platforms. And there are gaps that need to still be filled. And there are systems [45:26] that see it still need to be funded that are used on the battlefield right now, say MQ9s, A10s, [45:32] you name it. Um, I think this and the E7 is one of those. So I, I, we've actually sent it, uh, a budget [45:38] amendment to OMB to add that. I think it has a future. It has a, it has a place on the battlefield. And, [45:43] uh, we'll get more information for you on that as well. Well, I appreciate that. And I particularly, [45:48] though, appreciate the mindset. I think you're a hundred percent right. I've seen this over [45:52] and over again about eliminating platforms on the idea we would immediately use that money for [45:58] new things. And quite often, it just simply didn't happen. We lost the capability, but we did not [46:03] move forward with the investment that we needed. So, uh, again, thank you for, uh, rethinking that. [46:09] We've got a lot more questions, but so does the entire committee, Mr. Chairman. So with that, [46:13] I'll yield back. I just want to make one quick comment when you're talking about the fixing barracks [46:18] and facilities. I hope we also fix the property management systems throughout the department, [46:23] uh, which is woefully needs, uh, attention. With that, uh, recognize the ranking member. [46:30] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, uh, Mr. Secretary, the national security strategy says [46:35] American national power depends on a strong industrial sector capable of meeting both peacetime and wartime [46:41] production demands. And the national defense strategy directs DOD to quote, supercharge the defense [46:47] industrial base. Uh, DOD's, uh, uh, 2027 budget overview appears to use that same framing. Yet, uh, [46:55] your department's budget request cuts over $5 billion from the industrial base in the aviation sector [47:04] alone, effectively shutting down all current army aviation platforms. Uh, these are [47:11] current production platforms the force relies on for lift, for sustainability, disaster response, [47:17] homeland missions, et cetera. Uh, how did the department arrive at the conclusion that reducing [47:23] procurement for these army aviation platforms strengthens rather than weakens the aviation [47:29] industrial base? Well, I very much appreciate that question. And I actually think it's something [47:34] we're taking another look at. Uh, I think it's not that every aspect of, there are some very good [47:39] things in the army transformation is initiative and there are some things that we've needed to get [47:44] another look at. And so I think you'll see a review of, of, of some of those things and we'll get back [47:49] to you on that. Of, of the, of the aviation sector? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And with that, but was there an [47:54] analysis, uh, about the impact, uh, um, of the requested procurement reduction? Did you all do an analysis [48:01] of production line, suppliers, workforce, restart risk prior to the decision, uh, to cut the funds? Well, we'll get that from [48:10] the army and get that to you. I, I don't have it in front of me, but I would imagine. Okay. I very, very much [48:15] would love to see that before the subcommittee marks up the appropriations bill, uh, uh, coming up. Let me just [48:22] quickly, um, can you provide the committee in writing the department's assessment of the minimum [48:29] sustaining production rate for the Black Hawk and Chinook industrial base, the supplier base risks associated [48:38] with this budget request and the funded mitigation plan. If production falls below those levels, [48:47] can you provide us with that information? I think that's critically important. I think, I think we should [48:50] get that to you. And I think those platforms are critical to the force right now. We need to make sure we're [48:54] able to sustain that. I think you made the point you all have that industrial base readiness is a [48:58] strict strategic issue. It's what the national, uh, uh, security strategy, uh, you know, recognizes. And I look forward to [49:06] hearing, you know, more about how cutting the billion dollars in the base investment aligns with that [49:11] shared goal. Um, let me just, uh, a question to you, General Kane, despite the precipitous drop in [49:16] procurement for army aviation platforms, your budget request invest heavily in modernization. I'm a [49:24] believer in modernization. I think that's necessary. I support investing in future capability, but Congress [49:30] also has to understand the transition risk. The department is asking us to accept reduced procurement [49:39] of F aircraft. The force uses today while relying on future systems that are not yet fielded and general [49:48] from a joint force readiness perspective, uh, what is the department's plan to avoid a mobility lift [49:56] sustainment gap if current aviation capacity declines faster than replacement capability arrives? [50:05] What are the decision points where the department would revisit the reductions? If future vertical lifts [50:11] schedules slip, if costs rise or operational demand remains higher than expected? Well, ranking member, [50:18] I appreciate the question. And any time we're looking at military options to our political leaders, [50:24] we do bake in and can carefully consider that transitional risk because it links back to risk to force [50:33] our military forces and risk to missions. And as we look forward over the life cycle of this budget [50:39] and beyond into the FIDEP, you know, we're always looking at the evolution of those operational plans [50:46] and then the decision points along the way to make sure that we can match the combat capability [50:53] and capacity required to achieve the desired effects that are baked within those operational plans [51:01] across the COCOMs. And I commend the Army, uh, who's looking closely at the two platforms that you're most [51:08] interested through your line of questioning and the work that Under Secretary Obadal has been doing to look at [51:14] rotary link, rotary wing lift requirements as we move to the future. But in the end, we have to have mobility on the [51:21] battlefield. Um, it has to be survivable, uh, in the, in the conflicts and, uh, engagements it will have. [51:28] And so we, we remain very closely focused on those requirements. [51:32] Well, I, I, I, I appreciate that. And my only concern is it is not whether modernization is important, [51:39] but I understand with some of those efforts that we're not, we are looking, uh, for a future date is next year, [51:46] the year after, uh, so forth because it's, it's not been, it's not been fielded. Uh, but what we need to [51:52] take a look at, and I think you understand this is whether the department is managing this transition, [51:58] uh, in a responsible way. In my view, what we cannot afford to do is to create a near term aviation gap. [52:06] We weaken the supplier base and then ask the Congress to come back and rebuild that capability and that [52:14] capacity at a greater cost. Because when you destroy the infrastructure, it's very, very difficult [52:20] to bring that back and the skilled workforce that it takes, uh, to deal with that. So, uh, very clearly [52:27] this information, and if you can supply this to our committee, would be very, very helpful in our [52:31] moving forward. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, John. Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [52:38] You know, you thread a very difficult needle in that, and there's been a lot of comments made, [52:48] and I associate myself with a lot of these comments on the fact that here we are trying [52:52] to figure out a base budget at the same time of a supplemental and at the same time talking [52:58] about reconciliation in order to be able to meet the needs of the joint force going forward. Uh, [53:04] and my friend, the ranking member of the full committee talks about capability gaps. When you [53:11] have to do it this way because of the lack of certainty and the political dynamics around this [53:18] dais and, of course, throughout Congress, there are going to be gaps in capability. Is that correct, [53:25] Mr. Secretary? I mean, we do everything we can to try to minimize that by planning what could play [53:31] off against something else, but inevitably there are places where we have to make adjustments. You're [53:34] right, sir. I want to get, uh, somewhat parochial here for just a minute on the subject of our reserve [53:41] component, and this question would be for General Kane. Last month, 22 adjuncts general, [53:47] all of those who command fighter units in their state signed a letter to Congress calling for [53:51] multi-year procurement authority to buy between 72 and 100 new fighters annually. 13 of 24 fighter [53:57] units lack recapitalization plans. On the Army side, all of our states suffer from a lack of [54:03] reimbursement for responding to the call of their communities. Between fiscal 20 and fiscal 24, [54:09] over 71 million was paid by states to the Guard, but the Guard never saw that reimbursement. As you may [54:16] know, any non-federal entity reimbursing a federal entity causes the funding to go to the Treasury, [54:22] and NGB never sees that reimbursement. Our Guard is paying to respond to a disaster out of O&M funds, [54:29] then having to pay more to maintain it. As the primary combat reserve for our active force, [54:34] the Guard continues to play an outsized role in the nation's defense. In fact, General Nordhaus recently [54:40] said that our National Guardsmen are fully integrated as part of the joint force in Operation Epic Fury. [54:46] So here's my point. The Guard and Reserve are being asked to do more. Epic Fury, Midnight Hammer, [54:53] border security missions, domestic deployments, and the many all-hazard responses across the 54. [55:00] They are as much in the fight as the regular component. So, what is the Department's plan to [55:08] ensure that the Guard and Reserve are recapitalized, maintained, and reimbursed at a pace consistent [55:14] with their operational role in the national defense strategy? Sir, I'm assuming that question's coming [55:22] to me since you're looking at me. You would be correct. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. You know, as a member [55:29] of the Guard, a proud member of the Guard, I'm mindful that every day when you mobilize the [55:34] Guard, you mobilize the United States people. And they are now much more than a tactical reserve. [55:40] They're a strategic reserve. The decisions on recapping the fighter community live obviously [55:47] within our civilian leadership, but the requirements that they're out there getting after every day, [55:52] as you alluded to, sir, are substantive and long-lasting beyond just the Title 32 force. [56:00] What I'm always inspired by is the professionalism of the Guard and the reserves who get more out of [56:09] an airplane than one might think. I mean, I go out there to Andrews often and still get to fly, [56:15] and my crew chiefs are master sergeants and senior master sergeants who've been on a particular airplane [56:20] for a long, long time. So, they'll continue to force extend that capability due to the professionalism [56:27] that they have. It doesn't mean we don't have to take a hard look at recap and make sure that the [56:32] fourth generation airplanes are on a pathway to fifth and sixth gen as the department continues to look [56:38] at what we're solving for. Mr. Chairman, if we have another round of questions, I'll come back with [56:48] another because my next question is probably not going to yield me enough time, and I'll yield back the [56:51] balance. Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking member, Mr. Secretary, all of you all, thank you for, [56:59] and all the men and women. Thank you for your service. I want to ask you about the western [57:04] hemisphere. I want to talk to you about Mexico and then the border. First of all, thank you for [57:10] the work that y'all are doing in the western hemisphere. I've always said that we're looking [57:14] at other parts of the world. We have to look at our own backyard, and we got to make sure that the [57:19] western hemisphere is working with us. So, thank you for that. Anything y'all want to add to the work [57:27] that y'all are doing there, I would ask you to talk to us a little bit about it. Mexico is the other [57:32] one, a very important, very important part of us. Congressman Michael McCall and myself were down [57:38] there. We pushed for the Special Operation Forces SEAL to do training exercises, and for the first time, [57:46] we actually have military forces in Mexico, which is very unique, and again, congratulations on that. [57:53] If you can tell us what they're doing, and we need to see more of that. We also have, talking about the [57:59] Guard also, we have the, I believe the California Guard is now, for the first time, a partnership with [58:06] Mexico. We've been pushing, I've been pushing Texas, but California got there before we did, but that's [58:12] good, and talk a little bit about that. Also on the border, I want to thank you and the men and women of [58:19] Joint Task Force Southern Border for the work that they're doing on the homeland. They're in my area, [58:25] Laredo, and other places. But I want to draw your attention to one particular threat, that is the [58:31] accelerating demands. The cartels are not only watching what's happening in Ukraine, but they're [58:37] learning from it. And we're hearing from credible reports about cartels looking at fiber optic drone [58:45] systems. And we all know what that is. And my question is, what is the department doing to get [58:52] ahead of this threat? How are you investing in the counter-UAS capabilities to defeat fiber optics [59:00] drone systems? And what lessons are we learning from what's happening? You know, the procurement, [59:07] the bureaucrats, without due respect, it takes a long time to get our systems. Over the cartels, [59:13] they got the money. They'll have to go through a procurement system. They'll just buy the drones, [59:18] and they're out manning us on the Mexican side along the border. So thank you. And if you can address [59:25] that or the chairman also. Well, thank you, Congressman. I very much appreciate your efforts [59:31] in this realm for a very long time. And I think you see in the national security strategy, the national [59:35] defense strategy, Western Ham and homeland is priority number one. We may pace to the ability on the [59:41] first island chain, but priority number one is here. And you've seen it through America's counter-cartel [59:46] coalition and getting after the designated terrorist organizations that are trafficking drugs and [59:50] humans in the United States, something you've been talking a lot about. And that's the beginning of our [59:54] defense in depth. It starts down there where they produce and where they move. And then into Mexico, [59:59] where we have had an unprecedented amount of partnership, and we appreciate that. We would encourage [1:00:04] Defensa and Marina to continue where they can to partner and do more. That's the expectation of the [1:00:12] United States government, of the Mexican government, is to step up so that we don't have to. And then [1:00:17] sealing that southwest border is the defense of the American people. It's the defense of the homeland. [1:00:22] And when you talk to the troops that are down there doing that, they're proud of it. We also have [1:00:25] multiple national defense areas there, which are controlled by DOW, where we can do rapid testing on [1:00:32] counter-UAS, Jaieta 401 capabilities. So we're using those places to streamline the process by which [1:00:39] we see what the cartels are trying to do and get after it with new capabilities that we can then field [1:00:44] elsewhere, also learning from Ukraine in the process. I would defer to the chairman. Sir, I'll just add a few [1:00:50] things onto this. It's the Russia-Ukraine lessons learned and the application of those lessons by [1:00:57] other actors like cartels is one we're focused a lot on. It's going to require a whole of government [1:01:04] effort. As the Secretary mentioned, we do have Joint Interagency Task Force 401 led by an incredible [1:01:11] Army One Star, Brigadier General Matt Ross, who's focused solely in a chairman's controlled activity. So [1:01:18] 401 reports up to me and in turn then to the Secretary to make sure that we're entrepreneurially [1:01:25] looking at how to sense, see, detect, and defeat the range of small UAS threats. And, you know, [1:01:34] General Ross is out, was just out in CENTCOM looking at some of the challenges that they're having over [1:01:39] there. It'll continue to be an area of significant focus for the Joint Force, sir. [1:01:44] Well, my time is up, but I want to ask you to continue working with Mexico. You, you do have [1:01:51] unprecedented partnerships, but the more we can push them. They're allies. There's a historical [1:01:58] sensitivity. We know why. But the more you can push them to get them to work with us, that would be [1:02:05] great. Thank you so much for all of y'all. Thanks, gentlemen. Chairman Rogers. Thank you, [1:02:12] Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hegseth, General Kane, Mr. Hearst, thank you for being here. And thank you, [1:02:20] more importantly, for your service to the country. The 2026 National Defense Strategy [1:02:29] makes clear that China is the pacing challenge. And this budget request puts real resources behind [1:02:39] that nomenclature, including $11.7 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. My concern is that [1:02:51] we're not just competing against China's military capability. We're competing against the speed [1:03:02] at which China can build, replace, and influence. Where are some capability gaps when it comes to a [1:03:15] potential conflict with the PRC? And General Kane, how will your priorities posture the joint force to close [1:03:27] those gaps? Chairman, thanks for the question. And, you know, the speed at their production capability [1:03:34] is one of the reasons why I'm grateful for the full team's partnership on speeding up the U.S. defense [1:03:44] industrial-based efforts, as well as the national industrial-based efforts. And I'd really like to [1:03:50] thank those mom-and-pop machine shops and second, third, fourth-tier suppliers that live in all of [1:03:57] your districts who are also increasing speed and capability without losing quality across the entirety [1:04:06] of our manufacturing system. And it's going to require all of that. When we look at the range of [1:04:11] capabilities that we must have to be properly armed and globally integrated, that extends to things like, [1:04:19] you know, long-range fires and really an ability to arm our joint force to win from the seabed to [1:04:27] cislunar space in every single domain in there. And I'll defer to the Comptroller and to the Secretary [1:04:34] to talk about the particular elements, but the goal is the range and mix of capabilities that creates [1:04:42] outsized dilemmas for Xi Jinping and others that are out there to ensure that we maintain its [1:04:49] sustained deterrence. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Second, the war between the U.S. and Iran reinforces an [1:05:00] old lesson, which is that modern conflict comes down to attrition. China has been able to produce [1:05:12] naval ships at a pace our industrial base can't match. The ships are not as large as ours, but [1:05:22] quantity has a quality of its own. How are we postured for an economy of force in the Pacific, [1:05:33] particularly if Taiwan is invaded? Well, Sir, channeling my inner Klausowitz, [1:05:43] which is always something I try to remember the big moving parts of war fighting, you know, we're not [1:05:50] really doing economy of force work in the Pacific. As you alluded to, Sir, and others have, it's our [1:05:56] primary focus. And so on a daily, you know, on a daily basis, we come to the Secretary with a range of [1:06:06] military options across the world so that he and the President can carefully consider those military [1:06:13] actions and associated risks. It all comes back to the budgetary tools that you'll hopefully give us [1:06:21] and the authorities to achieve those capabilities. And as we look, for example, at shipbuilding, [1:06:26] which you talked about, I'm grateful for the work that the Navy is doing to scale that effort [1:06:34] to ensure that we offer and continue to offer those range of options to our civilian leaders here in the [1:06:41] United States. Quickly to epic fury. Our fight with Iran has confirmed what defense planners [1:06:54] had long warned about. Iran doesn't need a peer military to cause serious problems. His playbook [1:07:04] to cheap drones built from commercial parts, sea mines and contested straits, fast attack craft and [1:07:15] anti-ship missiles. The war also confirmed a harder lesson. Even with overwhelming firepower, the side [1:07:25] that runs out of munitions or air defenses first loses. Are we, Mr. Secretary, are we secure in that point? [1:07:41] Absolutely. And we, we are winning, have won every component of what we fought in this conflict. Iran knows [1:07:49] that based on the cape, the incredible degradation of their capabilities. Uh, and which is why we saw [1:07:55] them wanting to come to the table. How this gets resolved will be on our terms, on President Trump's [1:08:00] terms. And we have all the munitions and capabilities necessary to, uh, enable that. [1:08:04] Thank you. You'll be. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Aguilar. [1:08:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. Um, Mr. Hurst, on, on April 29th, [1:08:16] as you indicated to the ranking member, you said that the Iran war had cost $25 billion in total. [1:08:22] You reaffirmed that today. Do you have any, do you have any other updated costs or projections, um, [1:08:30] since that, uh, testimony that you've given? Outside reporting estimates have indicated [1:08:35] that the war costs could be a billion dollars a day. Do you have any, anything to share? [1:08:39] Yeah, thanks for the question, sir. Uh, so at the time of testimony in front of the ask, [1:08:45] it was $25 billion. But the joint staff team and the cop trailer team are constantly looking at that [1:08:50] estimate. And so now we think it's closer to 29. Uh, that's because of updated repair and replacement [1:08:56] of equipment costs and also, uh, just general operational costs to keep people in theater. [1:09:02] Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, when can you share more formal accounting on the cost of [1:09:07] the war with, with Congress and with this committee? Um, we'll share what we can. I think we've updated, [1:09:15] uh, on that number this morning, but, uh, when it's, when it's relevant and required, we will share it. [1:09:20] I think this would be the format, um, that it's, uh, that it would be required. Uh, Mr. Secretary, [1:09:28] on that same day, uh, April 29th, you testified that the current ceasefire meant that the 60-day calendar [1:09:35] with the War Powers Resolution was paused. Um, who are the parties to the ceasefire? [1:09:44] Right now we are in that same ceasefire, as of right now. That wasn't the question. Who are the [1:09:49] parties to the ceasefire? It would be the United States and the regime in Iran. Who, how many pages [1:09:58] is the ceasefire? What deal points? I'm not asking you to share the contents. I guess what I'm, what I'm [1:10:03] trying to ask is how do we know that the ceasefire is, is active or not active without any documentation? [1:10:15] We know it's evident and the ceasefire is in effect. But is it, is it pages? Is it, is it 15 points? [1:10:24] There's been different points that have moved around. Um, you know, is there any other, how do we know [1:10:31] you just trust that the president knows that the ceasefire is active or not active? As you know, [1:10:37] for the most part, a ceasefire means the fire is ceasing and we know that has occurred while [1:10:41] negotiations occur and there are lots of different, uh, discussions with our negotiating team that are [1:10:46] happening. I'm there when those discussions are occurring, uh, different drafts, different [1:10:51] perspectives. Uh, so it's a very dynamic situation where a negotiated settlement, uh, could be the [1:10:56] outcome here where Iran does not have nuclear capabilities. And from the department of war [1:11:00] perspective, we, uh, we're here to support, uh, those options. On May 5th, you announced the launch of [1:11:06] Project Freedom, which is a new exercise where CENTCOM will help coordinate ship traffic and guide [1:11:12] commercial ships through the strait. President Trump then announced the operation concluded [1:11:16] that evening. Now it seems that, uh, uh, we may be revisiting that. Can you give us the latest on [1:11:23] Project Freedom? Well, as it pertains to battlefield options, we're not, we don't disclose, uh, those types [1:11:30] of things, but ultimately at the, as the president stated publicly in his truth, at the request of [1:11:35] the Pakistanis and given the options in the negotiation, it was paused and it's an option we could always [1:11:40] recommence, uh, should the commander in chief want us to. Is the, is the theory to create more ceasefires [1:11:47] or more projects just to evade the War Powers Act? Um, the theory of the entire case is to prevent [1:11:55] Iran from having a nuclear weapon. And if that has to be done kinetically and militarily, the [1:12:00] Department of War is locked and loaded and ready to do that. If it happens through, uh, Project Freedom [1:12:05] where you move commerce through, if it has to, if it happens through a negotiated deal, the president was [1:12:09] very clear even yesterday. Uh, this is actually quite simple. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, [1:12:14] uh, one way or another. And we're here to support as one tool of the whole of government, uh, to make [1:12:19] that happen. General Kane, uh, the depleted munitions have been a subject of some of the discussions that [1:12:28] you've even heard here today. Um, with respect to stockpiles, uh, that we have around the world, key regions [1:12:35] like the Indo-Pacific, uh, and the Middle East, um, you know, can you give us an update, uh, what other, what are you [1:12:42] hearing from the combatant commands, um, about, uh, their munitions status, uh, around the world? [1:12:49] Uh, well, sir, we, we, uh, we have sufficient munitions for what we're tasked to do right now. Um, [1:12:58] that's what I hear from the COCOMs. What I will say is I, I will always want more. So I appreciate [1:13:04] the effort of this committee and the Congress. We're always going to want more munitions. [1:13:08] Secretary Haigstead, what are you doing to support the involved services to, to recap their losses? [1:13:15] Secretary Haigstead, we're submitting a $1.5 trillion budget that will remake the department [1:13:21] and ensure that every warfighter in the future has exactly what they need and we're never in a [1:13:25] fair fight. And I, I take issue with the, the characterization that munitions are depleted in a [1:13:30] public forum. That's not true. And ultimately we have all the munitions needed to execute what we need [1:13:34] to execute and we're going to ensure that we supercharge that going into the future. I think you've [1:13:38] heard differences from both sides of the aisle on that point. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, [1:13:41] gentlemen. Judge Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to each of you. We're glad you're here. [1:13:53] Start off with something I'm concerned about. Mr. Secretary, my MILCON VA subcommittee is aware of [1:14:05] living conditions of the 68 W combat medic students at the Joint Base San Antonio. Frankly, they're very [1:14:15] unacceptable and quite unlivable. As chairman of the MILCON committee, I'm deeply concerned there appears to be no [1:14:25] imminent path forward to fix these issues. What actions is the department taking to improve [1:14:33] these living conditions, ensure our soldiers receive safe and dignified housing now and not [1:14:43] in the years to come? Our budget cannot fix that. It's not, we don't have enough money. You've got all [1:14:51] the money. What do you think about that? First of all, let's fix that. Whatever, whatever unit that is, [1:14:58] we want to know about it and we're going to get a team out there right away to address it and we've [1:15:01] used discrete examples like that to find the gaps in why we're not getting at it in a more holistic [1:15:06] fashion because we came in on a huge deficit of maintenance on barracks and housing. This budget funds [1:15:14] that. We're also going to pursue MILCON reform because in too many places we're trying to build [1:15:20] things around MILCON as opposed to using MILCON because MILCON is so bureaucratic and slow in its [1:15:26] process. So we look forward to working with you to fix that, not just this discrete barracks issue, [1:15:31] but where we found them, we fixed it and then we've energized the system through a barracks task force [1:15:37] to flow money exactly where it needs to go. I'm a champion of speeding up MILCON [1:15:43] everywhere we can. I've been out to Guam and some of those places and we got a lot of needs out that [1:15:54] way. We're way beyond what our budget will sustain. I have another question for you. I represent Fort [1:16:04] Hood, the home of the 1st Air Cavalry Division Brigade, operating Apaches, Blackhawks and Chinook [1:16:16] helicopters. I'm concerned that the FY27 budget request does not support these programs, essentially [1:16:25] zeroing out funding across the three platforms, despite the armors stating that we're going to use [1:16:32] these aircraft and they will operate for decades to come. With that, the Chinook has no replacement [1:16:42] for heavy lift mission now. Will the department manage aviation modernization and how will they do [1:16:50] that without creating readiness problems and capability gaps in the future? Of course, the planned [1:16:59] future lift is not like the Chinook. Sir, I think it's a very fair point. I think it goes to the previous [1:17:09] mindset of divest to invest that was an austerity point of view that we inherited at our department. [1:17:15] We've made some changes at the Army. We might have a slightly different view of the Army [1:17:19] transformation initiative. Some of it is very good. There's a lot of goodness in there, but I think [1:17:23] there are some things that assumed future platforms that may not be there yet. Take the Apache, for [1:17:29] example, which our warfighters rely on and love. Take the Chinook, which is used all the time. We need to [1:17:35] make sure we've got something there for it before you divest or we're not investing in that capability. [1:17:40] So we look forward to reviewing that with you and ensuring that we don't have a gap. [1:17:45] Yeah, because the budget doesn't have anything. It zeroes out all three of those as far as we read it. [1:17:52] Well, then I'd like to take, I'll take another look at that with our team. [1:17:56] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. [1:18:04] Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Hurst, [1:18:07] what is the total replacement cost of the material that we have expended in Iran to date? [1:18:17] By the way, by material, I refer to munitions. I refer to, you know, planes, to drones, to stuff [1:18:24] that we keep in our stockpile. Yeah, I'll exclude military construction from this because we don't [1:18:30] know what that's going to look like in the future, but I would say it's around 24 billion dollars. [1:18:35] Okay. For replacement and repair. And that's through what date? That's our current estimate. Okay. [1:18:42] I'm looking at a report in the public sphere from CSIS dated April 21st, which calculates [1:18:51] estimated cost, unit cost, aggregate unit cost of seven precision systems. So I'm talking, you know, [1:19:00] Tomahawk, JASM, PRISM, SM3, SM6, THAAD, Patriot, those seven at about 25 billion dollars. [1:19:09] Um, is that, does that sound about right? I mean, you're, you're projecting everything [1:19:13] at about 23. Yeah, I'm most confident in our projections on munitions cost. That's the easiest [1:19:20] thing to calculate. So that number sounds a little high to me for that stage of the war. Okay. Um, we've [1:19:26] lost about 39 aircraft, uh, according to a report in the war zone, and that's an old one that's almost [1:19:32] one month old. Um, do you have a replacement cost on all of those aircraft? Now, understanding that [1:19:37] some of that aircraft is not replaceable, but presumably you would have to replace it with [1:19:41] some kind of capacity. Uh, there are costs there, sir, but I want to get back to you in writing and [1:19:47] what they specifically are, because as you can imagine, repair of aircraft is something that's [1:19:51] very hard to calculate. Uh, we want to do a full diagnosis of the aircraft before we estimate that cost. [1:19:56] Okay. But that's not in your estimate of somewhere around 29, uh, cost of war that you, that you gave [1:20:01] us? That's included. That's what we have right now. Oh, I see. That is part of it. Yeah, but it's an [1:20:05] estimate, especially for repair costs. And so that could change over time. Okay. And, um, you did talk [1:20:11] about MilCon, which was a question that I had. Do you have any, because I mean, we've obviously suffered [1:20:15] major damage to our infrastructure, uh, in the Middle East. Um, do you have, you don't have a MilCon estimate yet? [1:20:22] We have a lot of unknowns there. We don't know what our future posture is going to be. We don't know how we [1:20:25] construct those bases and we don't know what part our allies or partners could pay into the MilCon cost. [1:20:30] And so we don't have a good estimate for that at the time. Okay. What about fuel? Is that a major, [1:20:35] uh, calculation in your cost of war, uh, fuel used, uh, depletion of fuel reserves, um, [1:20:41] replenishing that reserve? We wrap that into our operations and maintenance costs. Okay. That's [1:20:48] an OMN. Okay. Um, going to your FY26 budget request, you've got, um, procurement. Let's just focus [1:20:57] on procurement because that's what we're talking about largely. You've got $413 billion, which in [1:21:03] and of itself is an 84% increase over FY20. Uh, I'm sorry. I'm in 27, uh, 20, 27 versus 26. Um, [1:21:12] um, and you have, uh, 38% of that, um, total procurement request in reconciliation. Does that [1:21:22] reconciliation request include anything from the war in Iran? Obviously we're buying things [1:21:31] in the reconciliation requests that are being used in the Iran conflict, including munitions. There's [1:21:36] over $40 billion in a munitions request and reconciliation. And so that would be, uh, part of [1:21:41] the replacement. Okay. So what I'm trying to get at is, is your reconciliation request in FY27 [1:21:47] related to Iran or is it not related to Iran or what, what, um, is it all? You know how long our [1:21:54] budget generation process is and the appropriation cycle. And so we completed this before the Iran [1:21:59] conflicts. Exactly. Okay. So what you're coming back to us with is not the record. I mean, the [1:22:05] reconciliation is not about Iran. The reconciliation is about assumptions that were made before Iran. [1:22:11] It's about making a generational investment of the joint force and building military readiness. [1:22:15] That's what a request is. Okay. Um, I'm going to get back to some of the questions that were asked [1:22:23] earlier, which is, what is the assumption that you are making in terms of, of, of, um, [1:22:30] future reconciliation bills in future fiscal years? How much of this is loaded into this particular [1:22:36] fiscal year? You had a big reconciliation last year, which was, which was, uh, portrayed in the same [1:22:40] light. And now you're coming back for a huge one this year. Is another one on the horizon next year [1:22:46] then? For our budget request for 28, we, we expect a request that is discretionary only. Uh, and I [1:22:53] believe the top line for that is 1.23, which will be our, our request that year. Okay. I yield back. [1:23:01] Thanks gentlemen. Mr. Diaz-Bowler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you gentlemen. And more [1:23:09] importantly, the folks that you lead, uh, federal government does a lot of important things, [1:23:12] with nothing more important than what, uh, you all deal with. Uh, let me, let me get back to this [1:23:17] hemisphere. Uh, I'm very, very grateful that the administration is finally really focused on [1:23:22] Western hemisphere and it's actually, uh, going to show, we're going to be able to show that it's [1:23:26] saving American lives. But, but let me just, uh, to you, Mr. Secretary, let me throw a couple of points [1:23:32] and see if you disagree with any of these. And, and let me talk about the, the one state sponsor of [1:23:37] terrorism in the Western hemisphere, which is a Cuban regime. Uh, are you aware that they harbor [1:23:43] terrorists and U.S. fugitives from U.S. law? And we can just go through these really quick. Uh, [1:23:49] yes. Yes. Um, is it true that, uh, the Cuban regime actually shot down, uh, two American airplanes [1:23:55] in international airspace, uh, murdering Americans? I don't, I can't recall the precise year, but I [1:24:01] believe that is the case. Uh, is it true that, uh, that Russian spy ships and warships, including the [1:24:07] nuclear sub Kazan, Kazan, have, uh, repeatedly used Cuban ports? Uh, that is true, Congressman. Um, [1:24:14] is it true that the site of the Russian, uh, signet, uh, complex in Lourdes was, has once again become [1:24:21] a hub for Russian intelligence within Cuba? Well, we, we've long been concerned that, uh, [1:24:26] a foreign adversary using that kind of location that close to our shores is, uh, highly problematic. [1:24:31] Yes. And is it also true that now the Chinese also are there? I wouldn't want to reveal anything [1:24:37] that should be classified, but we, we don't want, uh, foreign adversaries attempting to use that. [1:24:41] Well, well stated. Um, are you aware that, uh, well, you're obviously aware that, that Cubans, uh, [1:24:48] intel people and, and military folks have been, have been sent around the world because your folks, [1:24:54] uh, confronted them, uh, in Venezuela. Um, but are you also aware that according to, uh, Ukrainian [1:25:00] intelligence, there are thousands of Cubans fighting for Russia in Ukraine? Uh, I was not aware [1:25:07] of that particular fact, but I am well aware that Cubans have been around the globe to include [1:25:11] attempting to defend Maduro in Venezuela. So that is something they've done for a long time. Yes. [1:25:16] Um, you're also aware, Mr. Secretary, that, uh, well, even stated by U.S. intelligence, [1:25:22] even during the Biden administration, the Trump administration, the previous administration, [1:25:26] the Obama administration, that Cuba has been designated as one of the foremost advanced [1:25:31] espionage operations against the United States and that they share intel with other adversaries of [1:25:36] the United States. That all very much sounds right, sir. [1:25:40] And again, we're not in a classified setting. So I'm just considering all those issues and others [1:25:46] that we could talk about in a classified, uh, setting. Do you believe that the Cuban regime [1:25:51] possesses a national security threat to the United States? Uh, I do. [1:25:58] Let, let me now focus, uh, on Iran as I have a little bit of time left over. You, you, Mr. Secretary, [1:26:03] you've been very clear what the goal is, but the goal that you're saying is not the goal that just [1:26:10] this administration has had vis-a-vis Iran. It's been the goal of multiple presidents of the United [1:26:15] States, right? Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. But I'd like to also ask you about Iran's offensive [1:26:22] ballistic missiles, uh, and their offensive drones and their use of terrorism. Are those also issues [1:26:29] that, um, would be, uh, factors in a negotiated settlement with Iran? Um, because I, I don't have to [1:26:38] tell you that there've been negotiations, uh, ad nauseam with Iran. The Iranians continue to cut [1:26:44] deals and yet they violate those deals. But it's interesting in, in the, in the nuclear deal, uh, [1:26:50] that was, uh, cut with Iran during the Obama administration, uh, missiles weren't even in part [1:26:56] of that deal as, as, as horrible as the deal was dealing with a nuclear issue, uh, nor was terrorism. [1:27:02] And I'm just hoping that those two issues, not only the nuclear deal, which is paramount, [1:27:07] but, but offensive ballistic weapons, missiles, and we saw, we saw one that now has the capability [1:27:13] of, of traveling rather, rather far, and also their spread of terrorism. I hope that those also [1:27:20] would be factors in any resolution to this, uh, to this issue in Iran, with Iran. Well, sir, we're not, [1:27:27] we're not the negotiating team, but I can tell you we have world-class negotiators. The core of it is, [1:27:31] is the nuclear weapons issue. Um, those other factors are always a factor. [1:27:36] Understanding that Iran has effectively tried to use the North Korea strategy with such [1:27:41] overwhelming capabilities, uh, conventionally, that no one would dare prevent them from pursuing [1:27:47] a nuclear weapon. And it took President Trump to have the courage to make that historic decision. [1:27:51] Uh, and hopefully we can get that across the finish line with, with negotiations, which are ongoing [1:27:56] right now. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back. Thank you, sir. [1:28:00] Thank you, gentlemen. Ms. Lee. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Secretary, Under Secretary, [1:28:06] and General, thank you for being here. Uh, Secretary Hegseth, about 11 years ago, U.S. Air Force [1:28:13] Veteran Sergeant David Crete served at, who served at the Nevada Test and Training Range, realized for the [1:28:20] first time that the health problems he'd been experiencing were not an isolated incident, [1:28:26] but matched the health problems of many other veterans who had served alongside him at Knitter. [1:28:33] He was sitting in his backyard reconnecting with eight of them and asked them, [1:28:38] does anyone here have tumors? And six of eight of them rose their hands and then proclaimed that [1:28:44] even some of them had children with tumors. Dave, as it happens, had recently had a grape-sized tumor [1:28:51] removed, uh, from his neck. Three years ago, he came to Washington when the VA had refused to provide him [1:29:00] the kind of benefits and coverage he had earned and which he needs from the VA because of his [1:29:06] Department of Defense would not provide the agency with his records of his Knitter service. I helped [1:29:14] introduce a bill two years ago, uh, that and have been fighting on his behalf ever since. What is most [1:29:23] frustrating about this fight is not that the federal government doesn't recognize these health impacts [1:29:29] of their service. In fact, Congress 26 years ago provided a law providing medical coverage [1:29:36] and compensation for the Department of Energy employees who served in the very same location [1:29:43] that Dave Crete and his colleagues had served in. Instead, their fight is against the Department of Defense [1:29:50] red tape, uh, which you have been committed to fighting. Thank you. You see, one of the only things [1:29:56] standing between the toxic exposed, exposed veterans at Knitter and comprehensive health coverage [1:30:04] and benefits from the VA is documentation that the Department of Defense has that will prove that [1:30:12] they served where they actually did. This documentation exists and we're just waiting for the department to act. [1:30:21] Every day that you delay in providing this information, another veteran and their family suffers unnecessarily. [1:30:29] Last week, I had the opportunity to meet many of these veterans. Two hours before I met them, one of them [1:30:37] received a call from his oncologist informing him that he had multiple myeloma, an uncurable blood cancer. [1:30:46] Over the weekend, Dave was notified that two more of his cohort, uh, had recent deaths. The Invisible Enemy, [1:30:55] which is an organization Dave founded, maintains a memorial list of those who worked at Knitter and have [1:31:01] passed away. When Dave testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, uh, round table 13 months ago, [1:31:10] 462 veterans were on this list. Today, that list includes 565 names. Just one year of inaction has led to 103, [1:31:23] 103 veterans passing without the care that they received, that they earned and their family without the benefits. [1:31:32] This list grows by an average of one every two days. Mr. Secretary, you have the authority [1:31:40] to provide the VA with the documents they need today, uh, to get these veterans the help they need. [1:31:48] These veterans have been waiting far too long. Can you please commit to me that you will be able to provide [1:31:55] that list or that information as soon as possible so that these veterans can get the care and the benefits [1:32:03] that they have rightfully earned? Well, thank you for what you're doing for those folks, and I can certainly [1:32:10] commit to you today that, you know, my chief's right here. We'll make, we will get a review for me as soon as early as next week, [1:32:17] and I'll get back to you on what our department's position should be on that. Okay, well, I, first of all, [1:32:23] we have the information. The Department of Energy has provided these benefits to the same cohort of people [1:32:33] worked alongside them. I can't, we cannot wait for another review. I'm asking for your commitment. [1:32:39] I'm not talking about a full review. I'm just talking about a familiarization so I understand [1:32:43] exactly what you're talking about, wrap my arms around it, and then get you a response. It's not a, [1:32:47] it's not a situation I have all the facts on. I just want to get all the facts and understand it [1:32:51] before I commit to something like that. All right, I just, like I said, one person every two days, [1:32:58] one veteran who has served this country is dying and their families are going without the benefits [1:33:04] they've earned. I can't express how urgent this need is. I thank you for your immediate attention to this [1:33:13] issue. Thanks, gentlelady. Mr. Elsie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, General Kane, Jay, thank [1:33:21] you all for being here. To all the staff sitting uncomfortably in very tight seats behind him, [1:33:26] thanks for your dedication to our country. Master Chief Isom, you joined the Navy in 1987. Ronald Reagan [1:33:33] was still president. You've been in uniform for 39 years. I'd like to thank you and your family for all the [1:33:39] sacrifices that you've made. You're clearly the essential man, and I always want to point that out, [1:33:44] that you've been serving in the Navy since I was a junior in high school, and so I'm very, very grateful. [1:33:52] As we address $1.5 trillion request, I want to say I appreciate participating in the tabletop exercise [1:33:58] at the Pentagon, and I encourage all my colleagues to attend and do that. It gives a very clear message [1:34:04] on why we're asking, or you are asking, for $1.5 trillion and how it's justified. [1:34:12] As we move forward with contested logistics, and as eventually this war in Iran will end, [1:34:18] and the Indo-PACOM becomes the focus again, I'd like to see Congress fully fund the request [1:34:24] for the Marine Corps McClung-class LSM and the KC-130J for both the Navy and the Marine Corps. But the [1:34:29] budget request breaks them up, and I'm not sure how you skin that cat. Moving to force protection [1:34:35] and counter-UAS as we've seen in Iran at nations that are somewhat far away from Iran. We've had a [1:34:42] force protection and counter-UAS issue as we've lost an E3 AWACS, which is worth $500 million when we [1:34:51] bought it, but it's irreplaceable, and there are fewer of those than B-21s. I think we're seeing the [1:34:56] the reach of UAS's affect us in a way that we probably didn't anticipate, and we need to continue [1:35:05] to use new companies that are developing new technologies to go after UAS's. General, you [1:35:14] addressed Carl von Clausewitz, so I'll use Sun Tzu as a counter. Even the finest sword plunged into salt [1:35:20] water will eventually rust. And we deployed the USS Ford in June 24th of 2025. It's going on 11 months [1:35:29] at sea, and as one of only two people in the room who have been on extended deployments on ships, [1:35:34] myself and Master Chief Isom, I just want to point out thanks to the families who are sacrificing, [1:35:39] this is going to harm a lot of families. And as we realize that every conflict we've been in in the [1:35:46] last year has included the Ford, and it's been essential to our operations. It also points out [1:35:52] the need for carriers, and I don't think 11 is enough, but also recognize that downrange, [1:35:57] that's going to affect the availability and the readiness of our force going forward. [1:36:04] So along with that, the capabilities that a sixth generation fighter on the carrier [1:36:09] are so important. As we've already seen, we've got the F-47, we're going to down select the F-AXX [1:36:14] later this summer. General Kane, can you address why having both of those is so important? [1:36:20] Well first, sir, I want to echo your gratitude for the Ford. Yesterday, the air wing flew off, [1:36:28] so we know that Oceana was a very happy place as those aviators fought through 800 feet broken to [1:36:37] come up initial as they should after a record-setting deployment. So we welcome the Ford back. [1:36:42] You know, my job, I won't comment on a particular program, but the job that I'm in now is to offer [1:36:48] a range of options to include our ability to project power off CVNs of the future. So as our civilian [1:36:54] leadership carefully considers that, I know that'll be in the mix if selected. And I know your colleagues [1:37:01] in Virginia and in San Diego are all focused on the same, sir. They're going to have similar capabilities, [1:37:11] but I think as we switch to the Indo-PACOM region that as we talk about first, second, third island [1:37:17] chains, which for most of the American people doesn't really mean that much, but the ability to [1:37:22] have a moving airfield in the Indo-PACOM when we know that the Chinese, our peer adversary, have a [1:37:32] number of hypersonic weapons that are going to be aimed at fixed points such as islands where our forces [1:37:39] are. It's just extremely important that we recognize that a moving aircraft carrier with unique [1:37:44] capabilities, which obviously can't be addressed in a place like this, that can shoot from outside the [1:37:51] range of the capabilities of our adversaries is extremely important. I appreciate everything that [1:37:57] y'all are doing. You are addressing an issue that hasn't been addressed in decades by asking for 1.5 trillion. [1:38:04] It's a hard ask. It's going to be difficult for us to sell it, but I think it's absolutely essential [1:38:09] for the defense of the United States, including a supplemental, which even people on my side of the [1:38:14] aisle are saying they won't support. This is merely to refurbish and replenish that which we have [1:38:19] expended in this conflict. It's absolutely essential for the defense of the United States and the [1:38:23] Chinese are watching. So thank you for all three of you and everybody in the room that works in this [1:38:29] department. Thank you for what you do. I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Morelli. [1:38:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing and thank you all for for being here for testifying. [1:38:41] I just wanted to make a general observation. First of all, I do get the sense that sometimes [1:38:47] people think that critical questions are unpatriotic, weak or defeatist. I just want to say for the record, [1:38:54] I don't think that's the truth. I think it's the opposite. And I appreciate General Cain, you've mentioned [1:38:58] civilian leadership and civilian civilian control a number of times in your testimony this morning. [1:39:04] We're the Congress civilian control that you have talked about begins and ends here. And that's [1:39:10] the way the founders put in Article one responsibility for funding and for declarations of war [1:39:15] are with the United States Congress. So I want to just mention that because I hear it all the time. [1:39:20] And we are not in any way when we ask critical questions demeaning or in any way reducing our [1:39:27] tremendous respect for the men and women of the military, the joint forces of the United States. So I feel [1:39:32] like that needs to be said. And I appreciate the comments that you made, General Cain, [1:39:38] about civilian control. Second, as it relates to mandatory spending versus discretionary, [1:39:42] I think this is really important. This committee, the Appropriations Committee and the Defense [1:39:46] Subcommittee is given the responsibility by the Congress and by the American people to make sure that [1:39:51] we have an appreciation for all the dollars, taxpayer dollars that go into defending this nation. [1:39:57] And questions, again, ought to be here. Transparency begins here. Oversight begins here. [1:40:05] And mandatory spending avoids the responsibility this committee has to report to the American people [1:40:10] on how our money is being spent. So I just, again, want to stress how important it is. [1:40:16] I appreciate my friend Mr. Elsie's comments about the $1.5 trillion request. If it is so obvious to [1:40:22] everyone and to the American people that that's the dollar amount we need, we ought not be going [1:40:26] through this mandatory, discretionary, supplemental, let's put it all on the table and let's make the [1:40:32] case to the American people. You know, we've now waited since February 28th is, by my count, 11 weeks, [1:40:41] 74 days since hostilities began in Iran. And trying to get a reporting of the dollars that have been [1:40:50] spent in this has been excruciating and it's been long. I think General Washington reported quicker to [1:40:55] the Continental Congress than this has been in terms of reports to the United States Congress. And I would [1:41:01] just in the strongest terms urge that we move forward and give this committee a full reporting [1:41:07] on what the cost of this endeavor has been. With that, I didn't want to make a quick, you mentioned [1:41:15] something, Mr. Secretary, in your opening comments about private companies making private investments [1:41:20] in our defense. I assume they're getting compensated for an investment. When you say private investment, [1:41:25] are you suggesting companies are making investments for which they will not be compensated? [1:41:29] Yes, I am. Why would they do that? Because we're turning it, it's the right question, [1:41:36] because we've done it one way for years and years and gotten the same results. So this is changing the [1:41:42] paradigm. Companies now know we're going to give them orders for five to seven years on exclusive [1:41:46] munitions in exchange for them paying for capitalization of their own plants. We used to pay [1:41:52] for them to build their plants and then buy the munitions from them. So now because they know they got [1:41:57] they got consistent income. They are. No, I appreciate. I appreciate what you're saying. They're up front [1:42:01] and the crimes are now paying for their own plants and equipment. That's a that is a brand new paradigm. [1:42:07] The taxpayers not paying for it. That's 50 billion dollars of value that you don't have to appropriate [1:42:13] because the companies are paying for it themselves. And the companies will not get compensated. They're [1:42:16] going to make that as a charitable contribution to the United States government. Their compensation is [1:42:21] long lead times of munitions that they will produce and we will pay for in the future. But we don't have [1:42:25] to build. All right. Just to be clear. This is how I'm claiming my time. Reclaim. I just want to be [1:42:29] clear. Build their own factories. I appreciate what you're saying. But let's not. I mean, let's [1:42:34] let's be honest. They're going to get compensated. Look, I'm for that. And I appreciate what you're [1:42:39] saying in terms of lead time and dependability and reliability of funding. But but let's be clear. [1:42:46] I want to switch topics if I can for a second. The there's been much reported about the president's [1:42:52] trip to to China. And I appreciate again my colleagues who have raised Indo Paycom and its [1:42:58] defense. There are weapons sales which have been on hold that the president has not authorized to [1:43:04] Taiwan. And I wonder if you give me an update either Mr. Secretary or General Cain on what the status of [1:43:09] those weapons sales are at this point. I just want to say the primes will be paying for those factories [1:43:16] out of their own pocket, not the department's money or the taxpayers money, which is a sea change, [1:43:20] which is why I think this budget. They're going to get a return on their investment, which by the [1:43:23] way, this is America. Well, welcome a return on investment. Yes, I understand. But they're not [1:43:28] paying for it out of their pocket, not getting compensated. But anyway, could you answer my [1:43:31] question about Taiwan? Buildings cost money. And if we're giving them two billion dollars to build [1:43:36] the factory, that's taxpayer money. If they're using it out of their own hide, that's two billion dollars [1:43:41] saved for the American people that then we can appropriate toward munitions that we pay for in the future. [1:43:46] I know it's difficult to grasp. It's not what happens. It's a different way of getting to the [1:43:52] same place you're going to pay for the United States. And look, we ought to. They're building [1:43:57] things for us. But to suggest that somehow they're making an investment that they're not going to get [1:44:00] compensated through sales is just it's honestly kind of ridiculous. We used to pay for the building, [1:44:06] too, and then pay for the sales. And now we're paying for the sales, but not the building, which I think [1:44:10] is a good. And they're not embedding that in the price of the things that they're selling to us. [1:44:14] The capitalization, the capex that they're putting into it, they're going to get back. [1:44:18] Look, I don't know why we're even arguing about it. They're paying for it. Could you answer my [1:44:22] question about Taiwan? Well, that's the president's on the cusp of a trip, and I'll be with him, [1:44:26] and he will make all the decisions related to that. Thank you, gentleman's time, Mr. Spire. [1:44:32] Make a quick point. There is a there is a change. The industrial base is putting money at risk with the [1:44:39] expectation of orders. But there is no guarantee if in fact that that particular product that they [1:44:47] may make is not met or meet the standards in which we want to acquire it. And that is a significant [1:44:54] change in what we've done in the past. Mr. Fleischman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, [1:44:59] Secretary. I commend those changes in the innovation. To everyone on this panel, thank you for a job well done. [1:45:06] Thank you for what you're doing for our country. This is truly incredible. So let me start with that. [1:45:13] As chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, I'm going to take a little bit different [1:45:17] approach. I'm deeply involved in the recapitalization and modernization of our nation's nuclear deterrent. [1:45:25] As we are recapitalizing the entire strategic nuclear arsenal, I remain concerned about the lack of options [1:45:31] lower on the escalation ladder available to the president. In theater, non-strategic nuclear weapons have [1:45:36] remained essential to the credibility of our extended deterrent commitment to NATO. I've got a couple of [1:45:43] questions to ask, but I'm going to ask General Kane and Secretary Hegseth. What is your assessment of our [1:45:50] non-strategic nuclear capability gaps in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere? What additional tactical nuclear [1:45:56] capabilities beyond SLICM-N should we consider that would be most useful for reassuring allies, [1:46:03] deterring our adversaries, and providing combatant commands and usual options in the worst-case event [1:46:10] of a conflict? As you know, we're making a $2 billion investment, and you mentioned SLICM-N [1:46:18] in FY26. So we're investing in that. But I would say that a lot of that discussion would be classified, [1:46:25] given O plans in the Indo-Pacific. But Admiral Paparo, I would say there's no COCOM commander we have [1:46:31] regular feedback with on what dilemmas we might need to create for an adversary than Admiral Paparo [1:46:37] and Indo-PACOM to include everything that would deter any level of aggression. So I think there's a [1:46:44] lot of sensitivity on this topic that doesn't lend itself to this environment. But very much so, [1:46:49] we're looking at all options. Thank you. And I would also commend the Admiral Paparo. I mean, [1:46:53] they're doing incredible work. Yes, sir. General? Sir, I was just acknowledging the Secretary's [1:47:00] comment about what forum we're in here today. You know, all three, and I appreciate the Congress's [1:47:06] leadership, all three legs of the triad are undergoing modernization and all require that. [1:47:12] And we're grateful for the assistance from the Congress. It's a bedrock to deterrence around the [1:47:18] world and one that we want to maintain our focus on. I'll probably leave it at that and can come back if [1:47:24] there's follow-up questions. Thank you. And I would assure you, [1:47:26] gentlemen, that in the energy and water bill, which funds this, we will certainly address [1:47:31] that in a very robust way, as I think the administration has. So I thank you all. [1:47:36] As most of you know, I, in that bill, I'm probably the nation's strongest proponent supporter of nuclear [1:47:42] power in Congress. A nuclear propulsion has long provided a great United States Navy with significant [1:47:49] operational advantages. There's been tremendous progress within your department accelerating the [1:47:56] adoption of nuclear energy as a means of providing resilient and long duration power generation for [1:48:02] military installations and forward operations. I'm excited about the Army's Janus program and the Air [1:48:08] Force just announced the first two air bases to receive micro reactors. My question, gentlemen, is can you [1:48:17] walk us through how the department is thinking about the role of nuclear power across the joint force, [1:48:22] including naval propulsion and the use of advanced reactors for base and expeditionary power? What [1:48:28] operational advantage did you see these technologies providing, particularly in the Indo-Pacific? And what [1:48:34] can we be doing to accelerate and expand these efforts? Both incredibly important capabilities, [1:48:42] micro reactors and propulsion, whether you're looking at survivability, sustainability of basing and [1:48:48] mobility within basing, and the expectation in the homeland or abroad that the lights are on and we can [1:48:55] operate, even if it's a contested environment. And then there's just no doubt that you can't beat nuclear [1:49:00] propulsion, especially as we've refined it over time. So, I appreciate your efforts. And I think in this [1:49:05] department, you'll find a friend in ensuring we maximize that. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General? [1:49:10] Sir, I'll just say that the joint staff has collaborated and continues to do so with all the combatant [1:49:18] commands and services, the Secretary's team and office on OSW and the Congress to make sure that we're [1:49:24] looking at the range of energy requirements that we're going to have and that we move from, frankly, in [1:49:32] some cases, a reactive posture, no reaction into your nuclear point, but to a more proactive stance around how we're [1:49:40] going to ensure energy sustainability in a range of situations that we could face. So, we appreciate the [1:49:49] chance to comment. Thank you, General. And again, once again, I begin with profound thanks. I will end [1:49:54] that way to all of y'all. I yield back. Thank you. Thanks, gentlemen. Mr. Joyce. [1:49:59] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being here in Defense, or yes, Defense Secretary, War Secretary, [1:50:08] excuse me, Hexeth. Godspeed on that project of changing our procurement process. America's at its [1:50:14] finest when capitalism and capital markets allow free competition and you get to purchase the best of all [1:50:20] those ideas out there. Speaking of which, in June 2025 Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb, if you're familiar with it, [1:50:26] destroyed and damaged dozens of Russian aircraft on the ground using low-cost covertly infiltrated drones, [1:50:33] demonstrating military installations are vulnerable to asymmetric drone attacks at a fraction of the [1:50:38] conventional strike costs. What steps is the department taking to protect our military bases from covert drone attacks, [1:50:44] and do you need additional funding to safeguard those assets? Well, I appreciate the question, and it's [1:50:51] the battlefield trend, well, one of a handful that we are most closely tracking and investing in. [1:50:57] $54 billion in defense autonomous warfare, recognition that every aspect of how we fight [1:51:03] will be affected by technology and techniques and tactics like that one, and every environment more [1:51:12] contested than it's ever been, and the ability to both go on offense and defense in that environment [1:51:16] has to be something we're not just at parity with, but ahead of adversaries to ensure that we can create the [1:51:22] kind of advantages we're used to having, and that's our job, is to ensure that we're looking around [1:51:27] the corner. And so this investment in this budget, I don't know what it was, Jay, in FY26, but it was a [1:51:34] a small fraction of $54 billion, and we're even looking at DOG and metamorphosizing it, whether it's a [1:51:41] joint task force into a subunified command, we're elevating this so we can push it through the services [1:51:46] and ensure that it's not just something we do in an exquisite way, but it's how we fight at every echelon [1:51:51] through the services, and that budget number is a reflection of that. [1:51:56] Well, you're getting attacked on a lot of fronts, Secretary Hicks. [1:51:58] Can I just follow up? [1:52:01] Sure. [1:52:02] Would that be okay? [1:52:03] One thing that I appreciate the partnership with the Congress on is as we evolve from the war fighting mix [1:52:11] that we have right now, the cost of precision and the cost of range is coming down. And so as we look at [1:52:19] this this budget, we look at the mix of capabilities that we're going to have, we talk about the agility [1:52:25] in the defense industrial base, and the national industrial base, the flexibility that we as teammates [1:52:32] are going to have to have to ensure that we're not buying behind the technology development curve, [1:52:38] but we're buying in front of it is something that we look in the joint force to partner [1:52:43] with obviously OSW, but also the Congress on this as technology moves really fast. Thank you. [1:52:49] No problem, sir. I just want to touch another angle that we're getting attacked at, [1:52:54] unfortunately, and that's the cyber threats from adversaries like China, Russia, [1:52:57] Iran, and criminal organizations, which continue to grow. The department's ability to defend critical [1:53:02] networks and support their military operations depends on a strong and ready cyber workforce across [1:53:07] all the services. At the same time, unfortunately, you're competing with the private sector, which can make [1:53:12] recruiting and retaining qualified cyber personnel challenging. Can you give us an assessment of [1:53:16] where the department's cyber workforce stands today and what investments Congress can make to help you [1:53:21] make that better? Appreciate that question. 20 billion in cyber offense and defense. I think the biggest [1:53:28] change we've made across the joint force is full integration of cyber as a war fighting domain, [1:53:32] which it was always an appendage or something you might do. And I think when you look at operations, [1:53:37] epic fury, absolute resolve with Maduro, the capabilities, so much of that was enabled by [1:53:44] unique cyber capabilities that we need to stay ahead on. And so this recognizing future adversaries [1:53:50] could have more capabilities and more sophistication, both on offense and defense. This funds it properly. [1:53:56] And I think we put a commander in charge there who's in General Rudd, who is infusing a war fighting [1:54:03] mindset into that place and ensuring we're competing not just inside the military, but also for the best [1:54:08] civilian talent to come into into cyber com as well. Quite important. And secretary, I hate to keep [1:54:14] picking on you, but the collaborative combat aircraft program is one of the department's most significant [1:54:19] investments in this next generation autonomous power. Can you discuss how the department is approaching [1:54:23] the integration of these autonomous aircraft alongside crude platforms and how the program fits in your [1:54:28] broader effort to feel affordable mass and strengthen deterrence in the Indo-Pacific? [1:54:35] I can share some of it, but not all of it, because a lot of that is is classified. But it is part of the [1:54:40] future of how we will fight and and a way in which we plan to stay far ahead of adversaries and create [1:54:46] more dilemmas for them than I think they even imagined today. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [1:54:52] Thanks the gentleman. I recognize Ms. McCollum for any closing comments. [1:54:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be submitting some questions for the record on behalf of [1:54:59] Representative Captor. Last year the president requested the first trillion dollar defense budget. Congress provided [1:55:07] over 150 billion dollars in reconciliation and 903 billion dollars in discretionary spending. [1:55:15] I continue and I think you heard from many of us up here that [1:55:18] mandatory funding for defense is not a great idea. We should avoid it at all costs. [1:55:23] The budget request for this upcoming fiscal year has grown to 1.5 trillion dollars. It's a 50 [1:55:29] percent increase, but the department doesn't seem to have enough to cover its budget holes here in [1:55:34] the department. I'm going to give you two examples. One is reprogramming. [1:55:40] Just the National Guard alone has 600 million dollars of reprogramming. None of their emissions [1:55:46] were budgeted for and now we're being asked to now you need to move money around. You're asking us to move [1:55:52] money around to cover that. That was money that was approved for other purposes so it creates a hole. [1:55:58] The army submitted a request to move nearly 1 billion dollars around to fill personnel shortfalls. [1:56:04] The navy has 907 million dollar hole and needs to cover for its personnel. So those are those are [1:56:10] problems and this is why we want things baked into the base bill. And then when it comes to the supplemental, [1:56:17] the Iran war has cost Americans at least now, if I'm if I've got it right Mr. Hurst, 29 billion dollars [1:56:23] to date without a lot of things haven't been accounted for yet. And the department's requesting more money [1:56:28] for munitions outside of the base budget. So bottom line, I want your takeaway message to be [1:56:34] I'm deeply concerned that the department can't seem to manage 1 trillion dollars that congress provided last year. [1:56:40] So gentlemen, we need information. We mark our bill up on June 11th and we need to be able to [1:56:48] justify to do our fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers any increased funding that you seek. [1:56:54] So we expect the information that we've been asking for munitions and supplemental requests as soon as [1:57:00] possible. I would say by the end of next week. So I thank you all for being here and Mr. Chairman, [1:57:07] we watch some of the other hearings. This is the way especially hearing should be conducted, [1:57:11] especially when it's dealing with international defense, when we ask people to put their lives on [1:57:15] the line. I thank everyone for a respectful hearing, but we need the information, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. [1:57:22] Thank the gentlelady. And that's something we are going to agree with. The other side is that we [1:57:27] sooner is better. It makes my job easier. And in the day, it makes your job easier, Mr. Secretary, [1:57:32] if we can get the information both on the base budget and on the supplemental. Just as a comment [1:57:41] that Ed Case was making about some of the cost on this thing, I hope the Kuwaitis are going to come [1:57:46] up with the money for those three F-15s that we lost. And that's a considerable amount of money. [1:57:52] But I want to thank the secretary and the general Cain for answering questions before the subcommittee [1:57:56] today. I look forward to continuing to work with you as we move forward with the fiscal year 27 [1:58:02] appropriations process and we can fund the men and women who serve us well in the United States [1:58:08] military. With that, we're adjourned.