Hegseth, Caine testify in Senate budget hearing as Trump says Iran ceasefire is weak

[0:01] Welcome, everyone. The subcommittee will come to order. Secretary Hexas, General Cain, welcome. [0:11] Look forward to discussing the president's budget, and we appreciate the opportunity to do that [0:18] today. Obviously, we have very good attendance. Today, the need for significant defense investments [0:27] is as urgent and obvious as it is overdue. Quantity has a quality of its own, and the [0:39] sheer scale of our defense commitments sends a powerful signal. But what goes under the top line [0:47] also matters. The way this budget request is structured matters. This is not a $1.5 trillion [0:57] defense appropriation request. It's a request for $1.1 trillion in base appropriations, and regretfully, [1:07] another $350 billion in reconciliation. The good news is the base request reflects real [1:17] growth, unlike the net cut in fiscal year 26 requests, and very much unlike the Biden level [1:28] CR in 25. But some of the most pressing items on the fiscal 27 to-do list are regularly downstream [1:39] of missed opportunities in fiscal 26. For example, like the failure to fully fund $28 billion in [1:49] multi-year contracts for critical munitions. The subcommittee did what we could to increase [1:56] munition purchases above the fiscal 26 request levels, but we couldn't do it all without a [2:04] sufficient top line. This year, the fiscal 27 request sets a higher top line, high enough, [2:15] one would think, to build the department's highest priorities into the base budget request, instead [2:23] of shunning them off into a one-time reconciliation request. Which brings me to the bad news. The 27 requests [2:32] fails to make room in the base budget for some of the military's top priorities. The distinction [2:41] between base and reconciliation really matters. Base funding is what creates budget stability for the [2:49] services and sends consistent demand signals to industry. And base funding is what gets extended [2:57] by short-term continuing resolutions when work on full-year appropriations is unfinished. [3:05] As I said last year, reconciliation should be a supplement to, not a substitute for. Political [3:17] realities will not always allow for party-line budget reconciliation. And if the department's top [3:27] priorities aren't built into annual appropriations, we're actually taking a big risk. The department is [3:35] right to make Golden Dome munitions and the F-35 program and drone dominance top priorities. [3:44] But these key lines of effort only work if we put them on solid fiscal footing. So why is the [3:53] department requesting funding for multi-year munitions contracts, which by definition require steady [4:01] year-on-year funding via a one-time reconciliation? And why risk some of the president's top priorities, [4:10] like Golden Dome, by not firmly building them into the department's baseline? National missile defense will [4:18] require sustained funding over many years, not a one-year expenditure. Other key platforms, like the [4:27] second destroyer and the E-7 metal management aircraft, aren't requested in base or reconciliation. So, [4:37] Mr. Secretary, you've been outspoken about the pace of America's armed forces as the most, quote, [4:44] powerful, most lethal, and most prepared military on the planet. I'm as committed as you are to sustaining [4:52] that role. But that's precisely why I'm confused by the administration's failure to prioritize key [5:00] systems in the year-on-year base budget spending. So I hope you'll explain the department's current [5:09] approach to allies and partners. The stunning success of Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury [5:18] illustrates the importance of the access, basing, and overflight granted by our allies in Europe [5:28] and in the Gulf. I'm as frustrated as anybody about Spain, but they are the exception to the rule when it [5:35] comes to European allies carrying more of the burden. Likewise, it's impossible to conceive a U.S. power [5:44] projection in Indopac without the breach that comes from decades-old alliance relationships. So I want [5:55] to hear the department's view on the role of longtime allies in support of U.S. interests across the globe, [6:02] because it's quite clear now that our expectation for European allies is no longer the focus [6:11] of our own continent message that they received from your subordinates for most of the year. [6:19] Our adversaries are working together to undermine America in the West. Strained relations with our [6:27] partners who are making generational commitments to collective defense and driving investment [6:33] into American-made weapons and systems only serves our adversaries' interests and limits our capacity [6:42] and deterrent power globally. So I want to hear about the future of capacity building with committed [6:50] allies and partners from the Baltic states to Taiwan and the Philippines. I expect the European [6:59] capacity building investments intended specifically for Ukraine reach their destination without further [7:07] delay. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East close to show that we trap things to learn from our friends. [7:14] If we want drone dominance, it makes perfect sense to deepen cooperation with the world's most [7:22] drone warfare experts. I want to underscore this is not charity. When our partners are capable, deterrence is [7:33] stronger and the risk of our own service members is lower. This is true in the Middle East today as it was in [7:42] Europe and the Indo-Pacific. And I think it's noteworthy that our allies in the Pacific have an interest in [7:53] Ukraine, have sent representatives to NATO meetings. They're hoping for and expecting that NATO will play a [8:04] worldwide role in defending democratic countries against these adversaries that we're all challenged by. Our allies and [8:16] partners have many of the interests and if we fail to take full advantage of it, we're only hurting ourselves. I'll end with one [8:25] observation on the prospect of supplemental appropriations. The deficiencies of our [8:30] munitions, critical munitions stocks and industrial capacity actually existed long before the conflict with Iran and Russia's [8:42] escalation in Ukraine. If the administration sends Congress a supplemental appropriation request, there'll be an [8:50] important step towards fixing a longstanding problem and investing in future deterrence. It shouldn't be a referendum on the war in [8:59] Iran. I supported a national security supplemental in 2004, even though I thought President Biden's approach to Russia and Iran was too [9:10] weak. I did it not because supporting Ukraine is in our strategic interest, but because these funds helped replenish American [9:20] stockpiles and restore our own defense industrial base. And in fact, jobs are created in 38 different states in this country, in our [9:32] country, American jobs, by a significant percentage of what that went for. Today, the need to expand munitions production and replace [9:43] battlefield losses is actually even more urgent. So with that, I'll ask each of our witnesses, after we hear from [9:55] Senator Kunz, to make an open statement and hopefully limited remarks to five minutes. Chris? [10:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Hegseth, General Cain, Chairman Cain, for appearing before us and for your [10:10] testimony today. Let me just begin by expressing my gratitude to the service and [10:15] sacrifice of the 2.8 million members of the joint force and the civilians who support them. And in this urgent [10:23] moment, to focus on a few simple and clear questions. It bears repeating that the regime in Iran is a terrible [10:30] regime that has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands over decades, and that they pose a [10:36] sustained and real threat to the United States and the region. And it bears repeating that our allies are [10:42] increasingly distanced from us as our adversaries are increasingly aligned. I agree with much of what the [10:50] chairman said, including that we are in a moment of real contest and danger in no small part because Russia, [10:56] China, DPRK, and Iran are partnering. Russia and China are helping resupply Iran and the drones that [11:04] they're using to contest and close the Strait of Hormuz, to target and kill Americans and degrade our [11:12] facilities. And so if our adversaries are increasingly aligned, I think a core question is, are we? We have so [11:21] many questions, Mr. Secretary, about this budget proposal, this $1.5 trillion budget request. And at the core is going to be, what's the cost of the war we're in in Iran? How long will it go? [11:35] How long will it go? What damage has been done to our security and our strategic position? When will we get a supplemental request and [11:43] of what scale? When will we be requested to authorize this war? And when will the American people get a clear answer about our strategic goals and how we will achieve them? [11:55] I share the chairman's concern that we have created real distance with our allies, most principally our NATO allies, who have stepped up and contributed tens of billions of dollars to [12:05] billions of dollars more to purchase the munitions for the defense of Ukraine, and to dramatically increase their long overdue investments in our joint defense in Europe. [12:15] But unfortunately, the way that the move towards war was launched 74 days ago, without consent, without consultation, has caused a real rift with our vital European allies. And again, as the chairman said, and I agree, there is also a critical and urgent need for us to recognize and [12:34] embrace that in the most important test field, the battlefield in Ukraine, where the Ukrainians are fighting bravely and successfully against Russian aggression. [12:45] They have innovated. They have delivered the most lethal and capable drone and counter drone technologies in the world. What is bedeviling us in Iran right now? Their ability to use thousands of cheap, effective Shahed drones to hit our allies, their military facilities and their oil and gas production facilities, and to target and hit civilian shipping. Who's the world's best at intercepting Shahed drones? Ukraine. [13:14] Last year, the administration requested zero for Ukraine and zero for our key NATO allies in the Baltic States. And on a bipartisan basis, this committee put in $400 million. When we met just about a month ago for the first time over at the Pentagon, and thank you for that conversation, we all emphasized the importance of coming to us with a spend plan for these $400 million. This is a $1.5 trillion request in [13:46] front of us. Why am I taking your time on $400 million? Because I think it shows a key piece, a missing piece in strategic vision. We should not be standing aside from the war in Ukraine and saying, eventually, we want to be a part of some peace between Russia and Ukraine. We should be learning the lessons of Ukraine. Our allies in the Persian Gulf are, they're buying their interceptor systems at scale. Some of our current and former leaders in our military were working on the [14:16] working very hard to learn the lessons of Ukraine. I must say in a recent briefing for this subcommittee, I was very encouraged by two very senior members of the United States Army who are in Ukraine and have been helping our armed forces learn. But my heart fell when I left and was told that those two senior officers were being forced out. I am concerned that we have a distracted administration and a distracted department. [14:48] you're more passionate about fighting culture wars than winning the real war that we're in. At banning books, at cleaning alleged DEI off of websites, at taking on an anti-vaccine position rather than continuing the long-standing public health policies, at interfering with promotions, I'm stunned that you fired the 44-year Chief of Staff of the Army in the middle of a hot war and dismissed the Secretary of the Navy in the middle of a naval blockade. [15:19] I am worried about what that does to focus and morale. We have a president who seems more focused on a billion-dollar ballroom and a victory arch rather than achieving actual victory and a piece, a small piece of the $1.5 trillion request in front of us is for a new Trump class of battleships, a so-called golden fleet, which I think goes in the wrong direction. Let me come back to the basic point I was trying to make. [15:51] Every major service can and should embrace smaller, lighter, faster, more distributed, lethal capabilities that will mostly be autonomous. [16:00] This move towards a golden fleet, towards a new battleship strikes me as moving in exactly the wrong direction, giving our adversaries a bigger target rather than a more capable platform. [16:10] How do I explain to my constituents the cost, the cost of this war and the cost that we are looking together to invest in our national defense? [16:19] I share the Chairman's concerns about reconciliation. Last year, $150 billion was provided to the Department. But the mismatch between base year and one year, between long-term and short-term, caused tens of billions of dollars in errors. [16:37] Errors in how shipbuilding was handled. Errors in how new munitions are being acquired. And working together on a bipartisan basis, we fixed many of those problems. [16:47] This year's budget proposal triples that request to $350 billion. I agree with you about the urgency of our national defense. [16:58] In your written testimony, you lay out four key goals. Defend the homeland, deter China, increase burden-sharing with our allies and partners, and supercharge the defense industrial base. [17:08] As you've seen in the last Congress, I've worked with you and with Deputy Secretary Feinberg on multi-year munitions. I cheer the goal of finally passing an audit in 2028. [17:20] I think we have critical investments to make in our defense industrial base. I think we are absolutely in the fight of our lives as a republic to win AI and quantum, space and surveillance, and the capacity to fight drones and launch drones. [17:39] But I'm concerned that you, sir, and this department is distracted by issues that are not focused on the core thing we need to achieve. [17:48] I could not agree more with what you said in your written testimony. For a generation, the United States was largely distracted by open-ended wars of regime change and nation-building. [18:01] And as you summarize this administration's approach, we will not send America's best to advance foolhardy or reckless adventures halfway around the world. [18:11] Mr. Secretary, I agree that the Iranian regime is a terrible regime. I am grateful for the service and the sacrifice of the Americans who've been wounded or who've lost their lives in this current conflict. [18:23] But I do not understand the strategy. And as the average American is seeing the costs at the pump and at the grocery store, and as this committee is being asked to approve the largest single year increase in defense spending in decades, I need to better understand the answers to the urgent questions I've put before you. [18:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [18:43] Yes, sir. Chairman McConnell. [18:54] I have plenty of questions. [19:01] Okay, sir. I'll try to keep it short. [19:04] Ranked member Coons, other members of this committee, thank you for being here. [19:08] I'm honored to be here alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to talk about this year's president's budget. [19:16] I'm grateful for the opportunity today to speak with you about the foundation of America's strength, our 2.8 million members of our joint force. [19:25] And I'm continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, guardians, and civilians standing to watch. [19:33] They all could choose to do something different, but they choose to come serve our nation and do something more important in themselves. [19:40] I would also like to highlight the 40 members of the joint force who've passed on from operations, combat, and training during my time as chairman to include the 14 members who passed and were killed in action in Operation Epic Fury. [19:57] And also highlight our most recent loss, First Lieutenant Key from Africa, who was out there, TDY. [20:05] As chairman, my duties to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks required to make our nation's most difficult and complex decisions. [20:19] I owe the president, the secretary, and you, the Congress, the truth at every turn, and my blueprint for this role has always been General George C. Marshall. [20:29] His firm commitment to civilian control to a nonpartisan military remains my constant standard. [20:36] I strive to follow his example by working with you and providing clear and candid, strictly nonpartisan military advice, and to present this committee and my civilian leadership the clearest possible assessment of risk, readiness, and executability, and mindful today of the unclassified environment that we're in here. [20:57] We are, as you said, chairman and ranking member, operating in a delicate and dangerous times. [21:03] Global risk is scaling, and the complexity of the modern battlefield demands constant adaptation and innovation. [21:10] Your joint force is operational at its core, purpose-built for the realities of a complex world. [21:17] We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision, [21:25] as demonstrated by the actions and activities over this past year. [21:29] We are the most professional military on Earth, and we're able to do these things because of the deep, enduring reservoir of training, professionalism, and commitment. [21:40] Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it and rebuild quickly, but we need to rebuild faster. [21:48] We build readiness every day, we train professionals every day, and we learn to sharpen our edge every day. [21:54] And we build continually on emerging technologies, as the ranking member said, like AI, quantum, and others. [22:02] And advance every day, led by great people in our joint force, like Commander Gary Wald, or Wald comma G, as we call him, who's out there working every day on our joint staff. [22:13] Driving this pace of change requires timely, predictable capital, and sustained investment, and I look forward to discussing it today. [22:22] The president's budget supports the department's goal of recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base, [22:30] the small mom and pop manufacturing companies that are out there in your districts that help us generate combat capability and combat capacity [22:39] to ensure that we're globally integrated, properly armed, and ready when and if our nation calls on us, [22:46] while always taking care of our most important treasure, and that's our people. [22:51] I'm deeply humbled today to be joined by the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom, [22:59] who represents the 1.8 million members of our enlisted joint force. [23:04] They are the special sauce of America's military. [23:08] We face dynamic and dangerous times, but I have incredible trust and confidence in the joint force today. [23:15] I'm deeply grateful for those deployed members of the joint force that are out there right now doing our nation's work, [23:22] and I remain humbled by the gift of the ultimate sacrifice that those fallen have given us, [23:28] not just for the 40 during my time in this job, but across the history of our great nation and their families who continue to soldier on. [23:37] Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. [23:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. [23:48] Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic $1.5 trillion 2027 budget for the Department of War. [23:56] The president's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferred maintenance of long-standing problems, [24:04] as well as positioning our forces for current and future fights. [24:08] I'm honored to be joined alongside the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Jay Hurst. [24:12] If I may interject, I ask that we have an order in the hearing room so we can proceed. [24:37] I ask the witnesses to suspend until the room is cleared. [24:42] It appears it's cleared. [24:44] Go ahead, Mr. Secretary. [24:45] Thank you. [24:47] I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed [24:52] to maintain the most powerful military in the world. [24:55] Our nation's ability to build, to innovate, and support the critical needs of warfighters at speed and at scale [25:01] is the foundation upon which our survival rests. [25:04] When President Trump took office, he inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America-last policies, [25:11] resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength, offshoring, outsourcing, cost overruns, and degraded capabilities. [25:19] Under the leadership of President Trump, a builder-in-chief, we are reversing the systemic decay [25:26] and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. [25:30] Urgency informs everything that we do. [25:33] We're rebuilding the military that the American people can be proud of, [25:36] one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries and confidence in our allies. [25:42] We fight to win in every scenario to include ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. [25:49] The $1.5 trillion FY27 budget put forward by the President will build upon the historic $1 trillion FY26 top line [25:59] and will continue to reverse four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden administration. [26:05] The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the United States continues to maintain the most capable military [26:13] in the most complex of environments. [26:15] Not to mention, however, that this budget also includes a historic troop pay increase, 7% [26:21] that builds on the pay increases that Congress has given in previous years, [26:25] and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. [26:28] Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. [26:32] By supercharging our industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, [26:38] we are restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, [26:44] transforming the defense industrial base from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. [26:49] We have flipped Pentagon acquisition processes from a bureaucratic model to a business model, [26:55] decisively moving from an acquisitions environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape [27:00] to an outcome-driven organization focused on delivering the most for taxpayers. [27:07] Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements, [27:11] smart business deals, we have sent an unambiguous demand signal to our industry partners, [27:18] large and small, to build more and build faster. [27:22] The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories, [27:27] and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors. [27:33] I'll provide a brief overview of what's been accomplished on that front in just a few months. [27:40] These are announced new facilities and investments in support of American warfighters. [27:44] The department has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals in 39 states, [27:50] and 180 cities in 150 companies, not just the big primes, worth more than $50 billion. [27:58] This has resulted in 280 new or expanded facilities, [28:02] and more than 18 million new square feet of American manufacturing, 70,000 new jobs. [28:10] These $50 billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. [28:19] By completely transforming our department's business model, [28:22] American companies, private companies, are investing in their own factories with their own money, [28:29] a historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization, [28:34] all with their capital, not Uncle Sam's. [28:38] This has not been done before and is long overdue. [28:41] It's from a bureaucratic model to a business model. [28:44] These investments equal great things for American families and American workers [28:48] and help ensure that we can defend the American dream, all American made. [28:53] Together with the help of this Congress, we're turning the lights back on on the arsenal of freedom. [28:59] We're firing up the American economic engine at every level of our defense industrial base. [29:04] Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request, [29:08] serves to ensure that this department remains laser-focused on increasing the lethality and survivability of our fighting forces from the front lines to the factory floor. [29:18] We truly believe this is a historic budget. [29:23] And at every level, we have made it a fiscally responsible budget. [29:28] This is also a warfighting budget. [29:30] Under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing, which has to underwrite everything. [29:37] We're providing for our warfighters, and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. [29:42] May Almighty God continue to watch over our troops, and may he honor, may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we've lost. [29:51] That is our sacred mission, and that's what we'll continue to execute on. [29:55] Thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to your questions. [29:58] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know we all understand you're going with the President to China. [30:10] We all agree they're the greatest long-term military and economic challenge to U.S. and our Western allies as well. [30:21] Of course, Taiwan, Japan, and Philippines look to us. [30:32] So can you reassure the countries out there in the Pacific that their security will not be on the table during the talks in Beijing? [30:42] Is our strategy to preserve American primacy or simply to accommodate China's rise? [30:51] And can you speak to our commitment to preserving freedom of navigation in places like the South China Sea? [31:01] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. [31:03] I would never purport to speak on behalf of the President or what he will say or how he'll approach these talks, but having an opportunity to watch him work. [31:12] Every aspect of what he pursues inside this relationship is to ensure that American interests are advanced. [31:18] And our department, underneath that, we worked very hard in that region, in the Indo-Pacific, with Japan, with the Philippines, and others, [31:27] to make that a priority to ensure that America's security is amplified by burden-sharing of partners [31:34] who recognize the shared threats that we face and are willing to invest alongside us. [31:39] And some of those things are known to the public. [31:41] Some of those things are not known to the public. [31:43] But since the beginning of my time in this job, we've focused in that area of operations [31:48] to ensure that Admiral Paparo has every option available to include with partners [31:53] to create all the dilemmas necessary to give America every advantage possible, [31:57] whether it's freedom of navigation, access, basic, and overflight, [32:01] and ultimately put the President in a position where he's going into Beijing in a position of strength, which he will be. [32:12] So would you be a little more specific about navigation, particularly in the South China Sea? [32:20] I think what you've seen from this administration is a commitment to freedom of navigation. [32:24] Take, for example, the BAM and the Houthis, which under the Biden administration, [32:29] they allowed American ships to get shot at without consequence. [32:34] And President Trump undertook that mission, Operation Rough Rider, for 50 days, [32:41] and the Houthis stopped shooting at our ships. [32:42] It wasn't a nation-building exercise. [32:44] It was an advancing of freedom of navigation and our interests. [32:47] The same would pertain to any waterway in the South China Sea. [32:51] American ships should sail freely. [32:54] So should others in the international maritime sphere. [32:58] Army Secretary Driscoll has described Ukraine as the Silicon Valley of warfare, as I suggested earlier. [33:10] I think we'll agree on that. [33:13] And the outcome of the war really matters to American interests. [33:17] Is there a policy preventing senior department officials from traveling to Ukraine? [33:24] Do you support or oppose senior officials traveling there? [33:29] We've had, Senator, we've had many senior officials travel there, and we learn a great deal. [33:36] In fact, I've personally approved additional personnel there to learn from that drone battlefield, [33:43] both on offense and defense, to ensure that we're learning every possible lesson from that conflict [33:48] and incorporating it in real time into how we defend and we go on offense in an era where drone dominance is required. [33:55] And that's why this budget spends so much on drone dominance. [33:58] Take the lessons learned from Ukraine and other battlefields [34:01] and ensure we're applying them throughout the fighting force as quickly as possible. [34:05] Well, you know, I think what's not in dispute is that NATO is the most important military alliance in world history. [34:14] Nobody's ever pulled something together like this and held it together to prevent the worst for a longer period of time. [34:27] Basically, it seems to me that a lot of the European countries think that we're reducing our influence there, [34:37] that they're sort of on their own, and somehow American leadership is not essential to NATO going forward. [34:46] I would argue that it's certainly essential for us to continue to be the leader. [34:52] And it's important to note the other countries that are looking to NATO, our allies in the Pacific, helping Ukraine, [35:02] interested in coming to NATO meetings, anxious for America to continue to defend the free world, not just in NATO, but worldwide. [35:15] It's a big job. [35:17] It's a big job. [35:18] And they're looking to us. [35:19] There's nobody else who can do that. [35:20] So what is the department's concise vision for the role of our allies and partners in defending America's global interests? [35:31] Senator, our vision is to have real capable allies and partners. [35:38] I think that's what we saw, we've seen in Epic Fury. [35:42] Israel's Air Force and their ability, will, and their capability is a demonstration to the world. [35:47] There are other allies like that, and we need more of them. [35:50] So flags are not the goal. [35:52] The number of flags involved in an operation are not the goal. [35:55] The goal is the number of capable formations. [35:57] Who can actually fight alongside the American fighting man and woman? [36:01] So it's not just us all the time. [36:03] I saw that in Iraq. [36:04] I saw that in Afghanistan. [36:06] Our generation has experienced that. [36:08] This no administration has done more to ensure that our allies and partners realize they need to step up so that we can amplify our capabilities. [36:16] That's what burden sharing is all about. [36:18] It's not just we carry the burden for other countries. [36:21] It's other countries are capable of coming alongside us as well. [36:25] But I also think Putin's invasion of Ukraine helped get their attention that they need to step up as well. [36:34] The President's been very clear about that. [36:36] So they are headed in the right direction. [36:39] What I'm worried about is which direction we headed in. [36:42] I think it's very encouraging that European countries have stepped up to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself. [36:49] I think that's a very good development. [36:51] Senator Coons. [36:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [36:58] So, Mr. Secretary, in January, President Trump signed the fiscal year 26 defense appropriations bill. [37:06] It provided $400 million specifically to aid Ukraine in their fight against Russia. [37:12] This is at a time when our European allies and partners have stepped up to take on the overwhelming majority of the cost of any munitions or support for Ukraine. [37:22] So far, your department has not spent a dime of that $400 million, despite repeated follow-up requests from the chairman and myself. [37:31] In a call just last week, your staff indicated we will see a spend plan for those funds this week. [37:38] Will you commit to spending those $400 million for weapons for Ukraine? [37:43] And when will we receive your department's spend plan? [37:46] I appreciate that question. [37:49] The $400 million for European capacity building has been released from the Secretary of War's office. [37:55] And we'll work with UCOM to make sure they spend it accordingly and properly, which we have all faith that they will. [38:01] Mr. Secretary, when will this subcommittee get the associated spend plan for the $400 million? [38:07] Yeah, I mean, we will work with your committee to make sure that the spend plan as allocated. [38:14] I want to make sure UCOM is fully informed in how they want to spend this. [38:17] They're the closest to the problem set. [38:19] And so working with them to ensure that you have the spend plan will work with you. [38:23] Mr. Secretary, thank you. [38:24] But it's May, and this has been the law since January. [38:27] And you or your representatives have been asked this repeatedly on a bipartisan basis by members of this committee. [38:34] And I think dragging our feet on this small investment in Ukraine's defense sends exactly the wrong signal to Putin. [38:42] At a time when the contest for freedom has its front lines in Ukraine. [38:48] As you said, Europe has stepped up donating billions to buy U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine to help them as they continue to take ground on the battlefield. [38:58] But it seems not all the money donated by European allies is going to buy new weapons for Ukraine, as they had understood. [39:05] The memo you released just last week prior to your testimony at Senate Armed Services indicated DOD has and will continue to divert some of these funds back into DOD accounts for our own use. [39:17] Will you commit, Mr. Secretary, to spend every dollar donated by our European allies for Ukraine on new weapons and capabilities for Ukraine? [39:27] The Pearl Initiative, which you're referring to, which is instituted underneath this administration so that European countries are paying for American equipment to provide as they see fit. [39:38] NATO allocates where it would like to allocate that. [39:41] It can choose Ukraine if it like that money when it's paid for. [39:44] That's where it goes. [39:45] It goes to those efforts. [39:47] Well, look, as the chairman raised and as I will repeat, I view NATO as the most successful mutual defense relationship we've ever had. [39:56] And your comment about we need not flags but real and capable allies and the foot dragging on both Pearl and the investments in our Baltic allies and Ukraine causes me real concern. [40:09] As you know, a bipartisan group of us from the Senate and the House went to Denmark to lay a wreath at the memorial to the 52 Danes who served, fought and died alongside our troops in Afghanistan. [40:23] Those were not just flags. [40:24] Those were real warfighters who fought and died at our request in a war that began by NATO's initiation of service and sacrifice in Afghanistan. [40:35] I just think we're sending the wrong signal by the president's announcement of the intention to withdraw 5000 troops from Germany. [40:43] Could you help me understand what is the strategic reason for a drawdown of US troops from Western Europe? [40:49] I would just like to clarify, Senator, it's never about the heroism of foreign troops. [40:55] I fought alongside great British and European and Australian allies in Afghanistan. [41:00] It's the political caveats and the limitations that they come with. [41:04] It's not the troops. It's the capitals of those of those of those militaries that limit what they're able to do, where they're able to go, who they're able to fight, that create limits on our own. [41:14] And anybody that's been in these formations knows that. [41:16] So it's easy to talk about here. It's another thing to apply. [41:18] And we need allies that are burden sharing, not becoming a burden with political limitations. [41:23] I'm not talking about the troops. [41:25] Thank you. Our president said in Europe that we never asked for and never received anything from our NATO allies. [41:32] Was that your experience in Afghanistan serving and fighting alongside our NATO allies? [41:36] I've written extensively about that. [41:40] And the vast majority of my experience was frustration with the limits of what those troops were able to do because of the political caveats, [41:47] rules of engagement and limits that came from their. [41:49] But you don't doubt our question that about a third of all the combat casualties in our war in Afghanistan were our NATO partners and allies. [41:56] I would have to go back and check that number, but I take your word for it. [41:59] Let me just assert that hundreds and hundreds of service members from, as you put it, Australia, the United Kingdom, [42:05] as well as many other of our allies served, fought and died alongside us. [42:09] So I'm just going to simply say in terms of our reliance on our partnerships, I'll agree with the chairman that at a moment when Russia and China, [42:19] North Korea and Iran are coming closer together and delivering a bedeviling lethality in this ongoing war in Iran, [42:27] for which we don't have a clear strategy or clear answers. [42:31] Our better strategy would be to partner more closely with Ukraine. [42:35] Dig in deeper with our real values based allies, our treaty allies in the Western Pacific and in Europe, [42:42] and together find a path out of this rather than berating them and bullying them for not coming along in a war they were not consulted about or briefed on before it began. [42:52] I look forward to a second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [42:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [43:00] General Cain, when the Department of War was planning its operations in Iran, [43:09] did you anticipate the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting impact on oil supplies for many countries, [43:22] including here in the United States, where we've seen gas, diesel and home heating oil prices go up? [43:31] I ask this question because there's historic precedent. [43:36] Obviously, during the Iraq-Iran war, tankers were fired upon in the Strait. [43:43] Senator, thanks for the question. [43:47] As always, we have an incredible staff over at the Pentagon and down at USNCOM. [43:53] And we always look at the range of military branches and sequels. [43:59] I won't comment on any particular one because that gets to whatever advice I may or may not have given to the president. [44:06] And I do that in private. [44:08] But you should rest assured, as should the American people, that we cover and consider the full range of things all the time in our careful consideration of military actions and the advice and or options that we present to our civilian leaders. [44:26] It seems to me that there's been a different plan almost daily with dealing with this problem, which is why I ask. [44:36] Mr. Secretary, let me start by thanking you for visiting Beth Iron Works in the state of Maine. [44:46] The workers were very pleased to greet you and hear your encouragement and praise. [44:54] The Aegis destroyers play such a critical role in our national security from intercepting Iranian missiles to supporting combat operations around the globe. [45:09] While visiting Beth Iron Works, you correctly described the DDG destroyers as the workhorse of the fleet and emphasized maxing out on DDGs sends a message to the world. [45:25] I was also delighted that you noted that Beth built his best built, a slogan of which we're very proud. [45:33] I fully agree with all those sentiments. [45:37] That's why I was alarmed to see that this year's budget request only includes funding for just one DDG 51. [45:48] That's down from two in FY 26 and three in FY 25. [45:56] That reduction to a single DDG 51 creates uncertainty for US service combatant industrial base at a time when BIW is demonstrating huge progress in workforce retention, production stability, and faster throughput. [46:21] So there needs to be a steady demand signal for DDGs in order to keep the yard operating at all phases from cutting the initial steel to completing the ship. [46:39] So I'm puzzled by why only one DDG is requested and concerned about what that will mean as far as maintaining that workflow. [46:54] I'm particularly puzzled by the decision in reconciliation to request 1.8 billion for foreign born service combatants at the same time that there's the proposed cut for American built destroyers. [47:15] Wouldn't providing a demand signal for US built DDGs from the department help the industry further increase the speed at which these ships are being produced? [47:31] And I'm sure when you were at Beth, they probably showed you the chart of the enormous progress that they are making. [47:39] I appreciate the question, Senator, and it was a great visit and it's incredible what they do. [47:46] Both to both your questions, the answer is shipbuilding capacity. [47:50] And that's why we invest, you know, 65 billion in shipbuilding in our shipyards is because the reason for our request of that number is the ability to build them and how quickly. [47:59] And so as soon as that capacity is increased, which we anticipate this investment will do, then we look forward to ordering DDGs into the future because they are the backbone of our naval fleet. [48:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [48:14] Senator Irwin. [48:17] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [48:19] I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Coons earlier about the $400 million for Ukraine, and I hope that it is allocated quickly. [48:28] I'd like to ask a similar question about the $200 million in that same appropriation bill that was designated for the Baltic Security Initiative. [48:38] Has that money been released? [48:40] If it has not been, it should be. [48:44] I don't know. [48:45] Has it been released? [48:47] Senator, so I believe there was a mistake with how the appropriations bill was written. [48:50] We're trying to rectify that through a reprogramming action to make sure we have sufficient funds in the DSCA account to execute BSI. [48:56] It's five months after that bill was signed into law. [49:02] How long will this take? [49:03] I think it's contingent on the reprogramming action be improved by the committees of jurisdiction of the Department of War. [49:09] So you're suggesting it has to go back through Congress for the current appropriation? [49:14] I need to move money between DSCA accounts to execute BSI. [49:18] That's right. [49:19] As I tell you, I would like to work with you to dispatch that money. [49:23] It is needed for the Baltics and Poland and needed on a timely basis. [49:27] Absolutely. [49:28] I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the war in Iran, which Mr. Hurst testified before Congress has cost us $25 billion, 14 U.S. military personnel tragically killed, and a tenuous ceasefire in place. [49:47] As I look at the achievements, Iran, to date, led now by an even more extreme supreme leader. [49:56] The global economy is held hostage to the standoff in the Straits of Hormuz. [50:00] Our munitions stockpiles are dangerously depleted. [50:04] And Iran is no further from a nuclear weapon than before our invasion. [50:08] General Cain, the President has claimed on several occasions over the past couple of months that the war is over, that the conflict has been concluded. [50:17] What were the goals of the U.S. conflict in Iran, and have we achieved them? [50:21] Well, sir, I'm going to be mindful of my need to maintain trust with a variety of stakeholders in the job that I'm in, which includes you, the American people, the joint force, and the President. [50:34] And to that point, only our political and civilian leaders set the national military objectives. [50:39] Our military objectives have been clear the whole time around targeting Iran's ballistic missile systems, preventing them from threatening U.S. forces in the region, [50:50] destroying the Iranian Navy, degrading its capacity and capability, and ensuring that they can't rebuild by focusing on their defense industrial base. [51:00] I'll defer to the Secretary and the President on other strategic objectives, but that's what we've been focused on, sir. [51:07] Do you feel that the situation in the Straits of Hormuz indicate a victory on our side? [51:13] Sir, only political leaders decide victory or defeat, and I'll leave it to them to opine on that. [51:22] They are the ones who invoke or stop the use of military force. [51:27] Well, let me put it in strictly military terms. [51:30] Can you explain to the American people who are facing these gasoline and diesel oil prices what is going on in the Straits of Hormuz, [51:38] where Iran, which was attacked by us seemingly as the Straits of Hormuz at a standstill, [51:45] with 1,500 tankers waiting for either permission or peaceful circumstances to navigate? [51:51] Sure, I think militarily it's a case where Iran is choosing to hold the world's economy hostage through their use of military power across their southern flank. [52:04] And so I would encourage Iran to reconsider that, and I would encourage those allies and partners who have an opportunity to come assist with that tactical problem to do so. [52:17] Could you explain to the American people why, with the vast investment we've made in national defense and military, [52:24] how Iran, after they've been attacked by us, is still capable of stopping the traffic in the Straits of Hormuz? [52:32] Well, sir, it's a complex situation out there with a lot of different small boats that are out there and other capabilities. [52:40] You know, some of this is on the commercial traffickers. [52:47] Some of this is on, again, back to the main problem, and that's Iran holding the global economy hostage through the Straits. [52:55] I would encourage them to think wisely about their next moves and to take the opportunity to open the Straits. [53:02] They have that choice to make. [53:04] They certainly do. [53:05] I guess the question in my mind is, as we talk about trillion-dollar-plus budgets for our military, [53:11] it appears that a very small budget is holding us hostage in the Straits of Hormuz. [53:15] Yield, Mr. Chair. [53:18] Thank you. [53:24] I just want to start off with saying that these military operations against Iran have been spectacular. [53:30] In a matter of months, we have degraded the largest state-sponsored terrorism beyond what I thought was possible. [53:39] Probably more to come. [53:41] Mr. Secretary, 900 pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium, do we all agree that's what Iran has buried somewhere? [53:52] In this format, some of that should be classified, so I wouldn't comment on the exact amount of anything. [54:00] Okay. [54:01] Well, that's just pretty well known. [54:02] They brag about it. [54:03] Is it possible they could have 60 percent highly enriched uranium without them cheating in the past? [54:10] We know in every context of what Iran has undertaken, they've lied and cheated. [54:16] The answer is no. [54:17] Everything that Obama and Biden did was designed to keep it to a civilian nuclear program. [54:23] There is no way in hell they can have 60 percent highly enriched uranium unless they cheat. [54:29] So everything y'all did failed. [54:31] And you want to criticize? [54:32] You failed. [54:33] You allowed Iran to be a threshold nuclear nation. [54:37] Everything you did failed. [54:39] Missiles, Diego Garcia. [54:43] Did they shoot missiles at Diego Garcia, General Cain, the Iranians? [54:47] Yes, sir. [54:49] They shot a few. [54:50] Under the protocols we had in place, were they supposed to be able to do that? [54:57] Without reviewing the fine print, I believe the answer is no. [55:00] No. [55:01] No, they weren't. [55:02] You failed there. [55:03] You failed to stop Iran from being a nuclear threshold nation. [55:08] You failed to stop Iran from having missiles that could go thousands of miles. [55:13] Why should we listen to you? [55:16] Bottom line here, China. [55:20] Does China buy 90 percent of Iranian oil, Mr. Secretary? [55:27] China buys a very large percentage of Iranian oil. [55:30] 90 percent is pretty large. [55:33] So does China buy, are they the largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas? [55:38] I would imagine they're up there, Senator. [55:41] They are. [55:42] They're the largest. [55:43] So, President Trump, when you go to China, realize that the person you're talking to is propping up Russia and Iran. [55:52] I appreciate what you've done in Iran. [55:54] I appreciate what you're trying to do to end the Russian-Ukraine conflict. [55:58] Do you agree with me, Mr. Secretary, that of all the countries on the planet, China could have the most influence of ending this war if they chose to? [56:06] I think the most influence is in President Trump's hands and what he decides to do, and he'll set the terms about this. [56:13] Well, what if China stopped buying- [56:14] But ultimately, China has a lot of leverage. [56:16] You're right. [56:17] What if they stopped buying 90 percent of oil from Iran? [56:20] That's not President Trump. [56:22] That's up to China. [56:24] Do you support putting tariffs on China if they continue to buy Russian oil and gas? [56:30] Tariffs is not my lane, but anything you can do to put pressure on people, I usually support. [56:34] Well, do you believe that when we put pressure on India by a 25 percent tariff for buying Russian oil, they kind of backed off? [56:40] I would say I've had a front row seat to the efficacy of tariff policy, yes. [56:45] Yeah, I think it works, guys, and we're on the breakout here in a minute of having a bill that would give the President ability to tariff the largest purchasers of Russian oil and gas, and I hope he will use it. [56:57] So I just want to- [56:58] Pakistan. [56:59] Are you aware of reports that Pakistan are allowing their bases to be used to park Iranian aircraft, General King? [57:12] Sir, I've seen one report on that. [57:15] Well, is it accurate? [57:17] Sir, I think based on the variety of classification matters that I've seen- [57:23] Let me just say, do you agree if it is accurate, that is sort of inconsistent with it being a peace mediator? [57:28] Sir, I wouldn't want to comment on that based on the ongoing negotiations in Pakistan's role. [57:34] If the mediator is allowing reconnaissance aircraft in Iran to be parked in Pakistani air bases, do you think that's consistent with being a fair mediator? [57:47] Again, I wouldn't want to get in the middle of these negotiations. [57:51] I want- [57:52] Well, I do. [57:53] I want to get in the middle of these negotiations. [57:55] I don't trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. [57:59] If they actually do have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me we should be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate. [58:12] No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere. [58:14] So, you know, I appreciate all you've done. [58:18] I'm very supportive of it. [58:20] But when it comes to Pakistan and China, enough already. [58:23] Thank you. [58:24] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [58:32] Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. [58:34] Mr. Secretary, we have been trying to track down the expenditures in the Operation Epic Fury and Operation Freedom now. [58:46] And we've sent letters and we've got very few responses. [58:50] We've been sending letters since March 10th. [58:53] We did understand that it was released that in the first six days, $11.3 billion was spent. [59:02] And then recently, we were told $25 billion was spent. [59:07] Today, I think the number is $29 billion. [59:10] Can you provide some details as to what consists of that $29 billion? [59:17] Have we counted everything? [59:18] Yes, Senator Reid. [59:22] So I testified this morning to Hack D that between the Joint Staff and the Comptroller Staff, our operational cost estimate is now $29 billion. [59:30] A lot of that increase comes from having a refined estimate on repair or replacement costs for equipment. [59:35] Our munitions costs are fairly fixed. [59:38] We think they're very accurate. [59:39] And there's some O&M costs there as well. [59:41] We're not making an estimate for MILCON at this time. [59:44] We don't know what our future posture is going to be. [59:46] We don't know how those bases would be reconstructed. [59:48] And we don't know what percentage our allies and partners will pay for that reconstruction. [59:52] So you do not consider installations that have been damaged in the conflict, correct? [59:59] We just don't have a good estimate at this time. [1:00:02] So it's not in the $29 billion? [1:00:04] That's correct. [1:00:05] Expended weapons, are they totally included within the estimate? [1:00:09] Yes. [1:00:11] To the best of my knowledge, we have a full count of the expended weapons. [1:00:14] And weapons transferred to other countries in the region, are they counted in? [1:00:18] I would want to double check to make sure we have that accurately. [1:00:21] Please. [1:00:22] I mean, you're coming up and asking for another significant supplemental, et cetera. [1:00:28] And before we can, I think, reasonably appropriate additional money, [1:00:32] we have to find out how the existing appropriated dollars have been spent. [1:00:37] So that's critically important. [1:00:39] And I know also that the budget asks for another $350 billion in reconciliation. [1:00:49] How essential is that to your budget? [1:00:56] I would say it's extremely essential to achieve the generational investment that the president is trying to make. [1:01:01] But that would be on top of the $150 billion we received in the big, beautiful bill, [1:01:07] which would be $500 billion, half a trillion dollars in two years. [1:01:12] And again, we're not getting, I think, the detailed spend plan, the detailed obligation plan for this. [1:01:20] And without it, it's very difficult to say, just take the money and run. [1:01:23] You know, we have a job to do, too. [1:01:26] Any comments, Mr. Secretary? [1:01:30] We recognize that. [1:01:31] And our, you know, in a perfect world, everything's part of your regular order. [1:01:37] This is a dynamic place with a lot of dynamic factors. [1:01:41] And so in order to get where we need to with the historic investment for this department, [1:01:45] we think this is the best allocation in order to get there, Senator. [1:01:48] Well, I think detailed analysis, detailed data that we receive will help us make more sensible judgments. [1:01:56] And, you know, we're just sort of vague generalities are not helping this committee make critical judgments. [1:02:03] And the trade oaths are significant. [1:02:06] The deficit is increasing dramatically. [1:02:09] We have to be conscious of that. [1:02:11] We also have to be conscious of helping American families just get by. [1:02:17] And inflation just hit 3.8% today, which is, I think, the biggest numbers is 2023 or something. [1:02:25] So we're fighting all these forces that are not directly connected to your mission, Mr. Secretary, but they are connected to our mission. [1:02:33] General Kane, your observations on the future course of action in Persian Gulf. [1:02:39] We're in this tenuous ceasefire. [1:02:42] What's your sense of the direction forward? [1:02:47] Well, sir, I won't opine on a hypothetical. [1:02:50] What I will assure you is that we retain and continue to hold a range of options for our civilian leaders. [1:02:59] It would be inappropriate for me to opine on how it may go. [1:03:03] But rest assured, we still hold many, many options. [1:03:08] Have you been surprised by the resistance of the Iranians? [1:03:16] Sir, as a war fighter, I always assume an enemy is going to resist. [1:03:21] And the job of the joint force is to win at the time and place of our nation's choosing. [1:03:27] So I always assume an enemy is going to fight. [1:03:30] And I find that's the best pathway. [1:03:32] I think so, too. [1:03:33] And you communicated that to the president as you advised him before the decision was made? [1:03:39] Sir, as I've said respectfully before, I won't comment on my private conversations with the president [1:03:45] in order to make sure that I maintain trust with him and with you and the American people and the joint force. [1:03:52] That's a principled response. [1:03:54] Thank you very much. [1:03:55] Thank you, sir. [1:03:57] Chairman Moran. [1:03:58] Chairman, thank you. [1:03:59] Secretary Hegseth, welcome. [1:04:01] I just returned Friday from a visit to China. [1:04:05] And one of the things that is seemingly clear to me is that Taiwan remains at the forefront of the Chinese efforts, [1:04:15] next steps in what they want to accomplish. [1:04:19] And we have commitments, I guess, to defend Taiwan. [1:04:24] You can explain that to me as you choose. [1:04:27] What I would like to highlight is while Taiwan is still at the forefront, at least in the minds of the Chinese, [1:04:36] the United States is seeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in which we're yet to some degree still involved. [1:04:44] We're having deterrence in the Indo-Pacific in regard to China. [1:04:48] We're conducting operations in the Middle East. [1:04:51] All of that has drawn strategic capabilities from the joint force. [1:04:56] One of the things I think we can do to augment our joint force is strong allied relationships, [1:05:02] partnerships with others. [1:05:04] Given the current threat environment that we are in and the scale of the global demands upon the United States, [1:05:12] can you speak to how the department views the role of allies and partners in sustaining our global posture? [1:05:19] And does the defense budget recognize, reflect the needs to strengthen allied integration [1:05:25] and maintain credible unified deterrence? [1:05:30] Senator, I appreciate the question. [1:05:32] And I think foundational to it is a recognition that countries closest to the problem set [1:05:37] should be most invested in ensuring that they can deter that adversary, [1:05:41] which is why we want European capabilities to increase to deter Russian aggression. [1:05:46] When you look at the Indo-Pacific, it's been a focus of our department since the day I showed up, [1:05:50] whether it's ASEAN or Shangri-La or traveling to the region, going to South Korea, going to Japan, [1:05:55] going to the Philippines, having them to our building to build out those relationships in a very real operational way. [1:06:03] It's not about what we can sign. [1:06:05] It's about what contingencies and dilemmas can we create for adversaries who may seek to expand their sphere of influence, [1:06:13] whether it's militarily or economically or through pressure. [1:06:16] And so I think while we've been involved in a lot of efforts around the world, [1:06:21] through the president's leadership, we've reestablished deterrence. [1:06:24] The world knows that America's word means something from Maduro to the Houthis to Midnight Hammer to Epic Fury. [1:06:31] When the president says you can't have a nuclear weapon, he means it. [1:06:35] When the president says you're an indicted individual, he means it. [1:06:38] Everybody sees that, including in the Indo-Pacific. [1:06:41] And when you do that, plus build out your alliances, not based on talk, [1:06:46] but based on capabilities, access, spacing, and overflight training, interoperability in indiscreet ways, [1:06:52] I think all the right people pay attention to that and see it. [1:06:56] And that's been the focus in the Indo-Pacific for us for a while. [1:06:59] And the budget request reflects that circumstance that you just described. [1:07:04] Very much so. [1:07:05] I would say Admiral Poparo, his request, his line items, his input was front and center. [1:07:10] In the build of FY27 to ensure allies and partners are considered. [1:07:15] Yes, sir. [1:07:16] Secretary Higsteth, let me change the topic. [1:07:19] I worked closely with Senator Cruz to introduce and secure the unanimous Senate passage of the Rotaract. [1:07:28] That was an airplane that originated from Kansas that saw the death of 67 people near Reagan Airport. [1:07:39] The department in December, December the 17th, released a statement in support of the Rotaract. [1:07:44] And yet, when the House considered the Rotaract, the department released an additional statement [1:07:50] and claimed that enactment would create significant unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks affecting national defense activities. [1:07:59] Can you explain what happened between the first statement and the second statement that caused there to be a different reaction? [1:08:06] And I ask this because it's still very important to me that the Rotaract or something very similar to the Rotaract is enacted into law. [1:08:14] And apparently, for it to be passed, it needs to be something that the Department of Defense is supportive of. [1:08:21] So what is it that changed between the initial statement, the second statement, so that we can bring this legislative endeavor to fruition? [1:08:32] Well, I appreciate your attention to what occurred there. [1:08:35] We've taken it seriously from the beginning. [1:08:37] We recognize the need for the requisite oversight. [1:08:41] It was an earnest change. [1:08:43] The department didn't think that the changes that we had asked for were incorporated properly into the bill. [1:08:49] And as a result, we came out and opposed it. [1:08:52] But we look forward to an iteration of that bill to get passed because we think it's important that it happened. [1:08:58] So if I can paraphrase in my words so I understand what you're telling me. [1:09:01] It isn't that something changed. [1:09:03] It was that what you asked for didn't get enacted in the Rotaract before it passed the Senate. [1:09:08] Correct. [1:09:09] We think some changes that need to be made were not made to the bill. [1:09:12] And as a result, we changed our position. [1:09:13] But we look forward to supporting something in the future. [1:09:16] Yes. [1:09:17] In my 15 seconds left, General Cain, could I ask you to visit with me momentarily after the hearing so that I can raise a topic with you and have you point me in the direction of where I can find an answer? [1:09:30] Of course, sir. [1:09:31] Thank you. [1:09:34] General Murray. [1:09:36] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [1:09:38] Mr. Secretary, the war in Iran has not only cost 13 American service member lives, it is also costing American taxpayers dearly. [1:09:49] Tens of billions of dollars and counting. [1:09:52] And that's money that could be helping people perhaps get health care. [1:09:55] But instead, we're paying for bombs dropped in a war that American people overwhelmingly oppose. [1:10:00] Now, earlier this morning, I know that your team testified Trump's war with Iran cost $29 billion so far. [1:10:06] That is $29 billion blown on a war of choice. [1:10:10] And that's what it would have cost, actually, to save the ACA tax credits. [1:10:14] But as my colleagues have already stated, what is concerning as well is it seems quite clear that that cost estimate is suspiciously low. [1:10:24] Now, your acting comptroller suggested that damage to U.S. facilities was not factored into that figure. [1:10:30] It is clear that there has been extensive damage to American military assets. [1:10:35] New reporting from the Washington Post and others indicates that Iran has hit at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at U.S. military sites. [1:10:45] Can you tell us what the cost of damage done to U.S. facilities is because of this war? [1:10:51] Well, I think Jay covered pretty clearly what we can or cannot share. [1:10:56] But I would simply respond that, and I think it's an important point considering what the president is undertaking, [1:11:03] is what is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? [1:11:06] And the fact that this president's been willing to make a historic and courageous choice to confront that, [1:11:10] it comes with cost and we recognize that and we honor that. [1:11:12] I understand what your judgment is. We have a judgment as well. [1:11:15] And I'm asking if you can tell us and at what point you can tell us what the cost of damage done to U.S. facilities is because of this war. [1:11:22] Yeah, ma'am, thanks for the question. [1:11:23] So for future posture in the least, we don't know what that's going to look like. [1:11:27] We don't know how we're going to design these bases. [1:11:29] The damage to date, you do not have any cost estimate on it at all. [1:11:32] For the military construction, I don't have a cost estimate to provide you at this time. [1:11:35] Well, when will we get that? [1:11:37] Again, it depends on what the future posture is, how we decide to construct those bases. [1:11:41] To date. You know what has happened to date. We can't get that number. [1:11:44] And that is a real concern to us. Our job is to appropriate dollars. [1:11:47] And we're just told it's coming. It's coming. And we don't get it. [1:11:51] So it's very hard to do our budgets. [1:11:53] And right now, Mr. Secretary, people are paying four or five, even six, seven dollars for gas. [1:11:59] And American taxpayers are now on the hook as well for paying for this disastrous war. [1:12:04] You're spending families hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose. [1:12:09] And you're forcing people to pay more at the pump. [1:12:12] And yet, you're not even providing a real breakdown for the cost of this war so far. [1:12:17] We have no real details. You have indicated that. [1:12:20] And yet, now you want Congress to send you one and a half trillion dollars more. [1:12:26] To me, that is unacceptable. And I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in not only rejecting that absurd request, [1:12:34] but in insisting that the American people get the actual answers on how much money, their money, we are spending on this. [1:12:41] Now, let me turn and say, Secretary Hegg says that the President has called Medicaid, Medicare, and childcare little scams. [1:12:51] And said, quote, we're fighting wars, we cannot take care of daycare. [1:12:56] I'm just trying to understand that. Is it your position, since you're asking taxpayers for another half a trillion dollars for the war, [1:13:03] that American families should be forced to give up childcare and health coverage so that you can have one and a half trillion dollars for this budget? [1:13:11] Senator, that's not my department. I certainly support this. [1:13:16] And I also support the President's efforts to find and remove fraud wherever possible in a general sense. [1:13:21] Well, I'm not talking about fraud. And we do that in our department as well. [1:13:24] At every step. I'm not talking about fraud. [1:13:26] I actually asked whether an American family should lose their healthcare or their childcare to pay for this budget. [1:13:33] That is literally what the President suggested. [1:13:35] The President has proposed a historic $1.5 trillion budget that will defend the nation and confront threats like Iran, [1:13:44] which previous presidents allowed to happen, as Senator Graham pointed out. [1:13:48] Previous administration said they wanted to take care of this problem, and they did not, and he's doing it. [1:13:52] The question in front of this committee, the question in front of the American people, is what are they being asked to give up for this $1.5 trillion? [1:14:00] That's where I was talking about. And lastly, Mr. Secretary, your budget request cuts through Trump's ramblings, [1:14:07] and really, to me, makes the truth clear that you and the President don't value families as much as you value defense contractors. [1:14:14] You want to increase the war budget. Let me finish. [1:14:16] I mean, every family at Dover. Okay, don't tell me we don't care about families. We sure do. [1:14:20] Mr. Secretary. And we take care of them in every way we possibly can. [1:14:24] I'm asking you about taxpayer dollars that everybody has. [1:14:27] So when we've been to war before, we have asked people to do victory gardens. [1:14:30] We've asked them to pay more. You are not doing that. [1:14:33] You are taking one, asking for $1.5 trillion, which means something else has to be given up. [1:14:38] That is what this committee is looking at. [1:14:40] You want to increase the war budget for the next year by half a trillion dollars. [1:14:44] That is taxpayer money that could be used to feed families or build new affordable homes or wipe out some diseases completely or increase child investments 20 times over. [1:14:56] But you are asking us to blow it all on war. [1:14:59] And that's not even counting the money that you have spent bombing Iran or that you may still request in a separate supplemental. [1:15:05] And to me, this budget wasn't even strategically crafted one and a half trillion dollars. [1:15:11] It's like the president decided that was the number and you all filled in the blanks. [1:15:15] So what I'm here today to say is you asked for a massive laundry list of unnecessary spending. [1:15:21] It's a huge payday for defense contractors. [1:15:24] And you still don't even ask to give DOD civilian workers a pay raise. [1:15:28] And to me, this is absurd. [1:15:29] I know you do not care what I have to say. [1:15:32] So let me quote you someone you might actually listen to, President Eisenhower. [1:15:37] He said, every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. [1:15:51] This world in arms is not spending money alone. [1:15:54] It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. [1:16:01] That is what this budget proposal is asking. [1:16:03] It's going to leave Americans cold and hungry to fund Trump's war and make defense contractors a fortune. [1:16:10] So that is why I hope this committee throws that in the trash and comes together with a budget that works for all American families. [1:16:17] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [1:16:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:19] Senator Hovind. [1:16:20] First, I want to thank you gentlemen and all of our men and women in uniform for the incredible defense of our nation, what we're seeing really around the globe and certainly in the Gulf right now. [1:16:34] The professionalism, the capability of our men and women in uniform is frankly beyond belief. [1:16:40] It's just amazing. [1:16:41] It's just amazing. [1:16:43] And we need to say thank you to those men and women and their families every single day. [1:16:48] It's really something. [1:16:52] My first question is, Mr. Secretary and General, is there a way to secure the Strait of Hormuz before we fully resolve with the conflict with Iran? [1:17:01] Well, thank you for your statement up front about the troops and we certainly feel the same way. [1:17:13] They're the best of America and deserve the best from all of us. [1:17:16] I actually didn't get a chance to reply to Senator Durbin who said that Iran was attacked by us. [1:17:20] I would take issue with that. [1:17:22] For 47 years, we've been attacked by Iran and they've been lying to pursue a nuclear weapon and President Trump had the courage to do something about it. [1:17:29] I don't think enough has been stated about the blockade and the power of the blockade and the dilemma that our blockade creates for them. [1:17:37] They can't move anything out of Iranian ports and over I think it's 65 ships at this point have been turned around or disabled. [1:17:44] The economic pressure that creates on them greatly outstrips the pressure on us. [1:17:49] And we don't use the Strait of Hormuz anywhere near as much as the rest of the world does or certainly they do. [1:17:54] And I think it creates a lot of dynamics for future energy dominance for the United States of America considering the increased capability that our country has not to mention opportunities in Venezuela. [1:18:04] So we have a range of options as the chairman and I have discussed extensively mostly privately but some in public to ensure that transit were to continue should the President or others want us to go in that direction. [1:18:16] But ultimately we control the Strait because nothing's going in that we don't allow to go in. [1:18:22] And trust me when we look at what Iran's thinking about that they know they can't break it and it's very concerning for them. [1:18:29] Iran only responds to strength and force. [1:18:33] And that's specifically why I asked the question in that their evil regime can make their people suffer and hang in there. [1:18:42] But if we can keep the pressure on with the naval blockade and navigate the Strait of Hormuz we can keep the stranglehold on this evil regime and force the type of solution that we need and the kind of verification we need to enforce it. [1:19:00] And that's again why I asked this question and maybe both you gentlemen could respond to that. [1:19:05] I get I'm not saying that is what the outcome will be or you know ultimately it's up to President Trump but what I'm saying is it possible to keep that stranglehold on with the blockade. [1:19:15] Even though you know the tyrants the IRGC won't give up right away and secure the Strait of Hormuz while we continue to put that pressure on them for a result that can work for this country in the world and it's enforceable. [1:19:33] And I'd like you to give me some more color on that both you gentlemen. [1:19:36] Sir I'll I'll I'll take a take a moment here and talk about pressure and what you're really alluding to is is what the entirety of the interagency is working on with a hat tip towards Secretary Besant, Secretary Rubio and the rest of the interagency the totality of total pressure which the military element is just one component on. [1:20:02] Is what the regime in Iran is feeling right now and I think there's no shortage of ability to hold that pressure. [1:20:11] The decision on for how long to hold that pressure is of course a political one and within our civilian leadership but but I would highlight that they are absolutely feeling that pressure not just from the blockade as the Secretary talked about but the continuation of sanctions that Treasury and others have put on there. [1:20:31] And we retain a range of military options 100% agree with you but their their ability that the regime's ability to endure pain is significant because they just put it on their people. [1:20:42] My point is keeping that pressure on them but at the same time securing passage in a way where commercial traffic will start moving that relieves pressure on us and our allies and that's what I'm asking for more color on how you effectuate that. [1:20:56] Senator there are options for that should we go in that direction there's a multitude of different directions if should the president seek to go that way that we're prepared to operate on. [1:21:06] Evidence by the destroyers that went in and came back out. [1:21:10] Exactly. [1:21:11] To the great detriment of the limited ability of Iran to defend I mean remember the entirety of Iran's conventional navy is at the bottom of. [1:21:17] As with everything you do you start out at a really high level and then you just get better. [1:21:22] And I'm seeing that with this blockade right now with the way you disabled those last two tankers. [1:21:27] I mean you're getting better at blockade and again that's why I'm looking for continued options to secure traffic in the straight while we continue to put pressure on Iran. [1:21:38] Thank you gentlemen. [1:21:42] Thank you chairman secretary general thank you for being here. [1:21:47] Secretary I want you to provide some reassurance for my constituents. [1:21:52] In 2019 the DIA published that Iran quote had swarms of small boats large inventory of naval mines and arsenal of anti ship missiles that can severely disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. [1:22:08] In 2025 after operation midnight hammer Brookings expert said quote is wrong to conclude Iran is now a defeated nation and will act accordingly Iran's demonstrated destructive missile capabilities have penetrated nearly every part of Israel. [1:22:23] Iran's arsenal could endanger American forces in the Gulf. [1:22:27] In the Gulf and Senator Collins asked General Cain about the extent to which you were briefed and the president was briefed about the very likely outcome of this kinetic engagement. [1:22:41] And there are some data points that seem to indicate that we did not see all of this coming or that we didn't account for it. [1:22:49] We may have been briefed on it but we didn't account for it. [1:22:52] Parts of the THAAD and Patriot systems in South Korea were moved to the Middle East. [1:22:57] This is after the war. [1:22:58] After the war munitions were moved from around the world to defend US sites in the region. [1:23:03] There was a rush. [1:23:04] There was a rush to evacuate United States personnel and Iran struck more than 200 structures and equipment at 16 US sites. [1:23:15] So Secretary can you just reassure us that this was all foreseen and part of the plan or can you tell us whether there were any surprises here. [1:23:26] Well thank you for the question Senator. [1:23:29] I can reassure you that it was all accounted for. [1:23:32] Every aspect of this was poured over by the joint staff by civilian leadership and represented in pursuit of a very clear goal. [1:23:39] And the chairman laid out correctly what the metrics militarily were from the beginning. [1:23:44] Whether it's ballistic missiles, Iran's Navy. [1:23:46] You know you can't contest a blockade if you don't have a conventional Navy. [1:23:49] Destroying the defense industrial base. [1:23:51] But it was all in service of ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. [1:23:55] So I want you to know it was all seen through the lens of preventing Iran from having to threaten the region for us. [1:24:02] I understand that's the underlying objective. [1:24:03] And I do not dispute the military success. [1:24:06] I don't think there's any doubt that when the most powerful, most well-funded, most technologically advanced, most disciplined, most trained military in human history sets out to do something, they almost always accomplish it. [1:24:19] And so that's not what I'm talking about. [1:24:21] I'm just wondering why we're moving THAAD assets from South Korea after the war started. [1:24:27] I'm just wondering why there was a scramble to evacuate personnel. [1:24:30] And I'm wondering why the president of the United States, our commander in chief, said that he was shocked that Iran would retaliate by striking other countries in the region. [1:24:44] This was not just foreseeable. [1:24:46] It was foreseen. [1:24:47] It was, you know, this is, you don't need to get into a skiff to understand that their likely play was to asymmetrically retaliate and then to close the strait. [1:24:56] And then it happened. [1:24:57] And then the president said, gosh, who could have seen this coming? [1:25:00] I'm just trying to figure out for those of us on the left and the right who are wary of regime change wars, who are wary of happy talk, who have learned through terrible experience, the cost of this kind of adventurism. [1:25:16] Why is this any different? [1:25:18] And why didn't we see this coming? [1:25:20] I appreciate your lauding of the force up front and earnestly that it's the greatest fighting force on planet Earth. [1:25:28] But that was the same fighting force that surrendered to Iranian fast boats under the Biden administration. [1:25:32] We all remember the pictures. [1:25:33] Remember the Americans with their hands above their head at gunpoint of the Iranians because they didn't have leadership like President Trump who empowered them to do what was necessary. [1:25:41] The Biden administration allowed them to pursue nuclear ambitions, didn't do anything about it. [1:25:46] President Trump stepped in. [1:25:47] We factored all the risk and ranges of options, put in maximum defensive capability for our troops as we could in real time, empowering the CENTCOM commander with everything he needed to ensure this mission could be as successful as possible, knowing there are branches and sequels of every operation that have to be accounted for. [1:26:07] I'm going to factor the Navy. [1:26:08] You might wonder, why would you sink the Navy if you're trying to prevent a nuclear Iran? [1:26:13] There's reasons for that, because you're planning for contingencies in other ways that this could go as well. [1:26:18] Secretary, I'm trying to stay on time here. [1:26:21] I hear what you're saying. [1:26:23] I just don't hear an answer to the question of why we had to take certain actions that could have been taken before the kinetic engagement and would have kept our assets and our personnel more safe, [1:26:35] more safe and would have looked and actually been more planful, more thoughtful, more well executed. [1:26:43] Why are we doing all of this stuff as if it's a scramble if all of this stuff was foreseen? [1:26:48] I think we I'm quite confident, along with the CENTCOM commanders, that we took every action possible to ensure that we were prepared for this conflict. [1:26:55] Thank you. [1:26:58] Senator McCoskey. [1:27:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. [1:27:02] Gentlemen, thank you. [1:27:03] I wanted to start off my questions with a focus on the the reconciliation package. [1:27:09] I know that it has not yet been introduced, but we're told three hundred and fifty billion dollars. [1:27:18] Here's my concern, and I'm just going to be really direct. [1:27:21] We've we've got a second reconciliation that we're going to be dealing with in these next few weeks regarding immigration enforcement. [1:27:32] And we are halfway through a calendar year. [1:27:37] A third reconciliation may or may not happen. [1:27:40] I'm just being direct and upfront. [1:27:42] I think certainly the focus will be to try to move us to that. [1:27:46] But here's my concern. [1:27:48] If we have a three hundred and fifty billion dollars sitting in the reconciliation package, [1:27:53] you look at what is contained in that fifty three of your eighty five requested F thirty fives. [1:28:01] So I look at that and say, wow, if the reconciliation bill fails or doesn't advance, [1:28:07] you drop below your own FY twenty six fighter procurement baseline over fifty three billion dollars for drone dominance. [1:28:16] I think this is all something we support over one hundred thirteen billion for munitions production and industrial base investment. [1:28:23] There's other areas. [1:28:25] So here's here's my my question. [1:28:28] I worry about us banking on a third reconciliation package. [1:28:35] I know we don't want to engage in this speculative here, particularly if it's a negative. [1:28:44] But I'm worried about the committee accepting a defense budget where effectively a quarter of it, [1:28:52] including some of the bread and butter procurement requirements, depends on a third reconciliation package that that may be an uphill climb. [1:29:03] And so I I I don't know, Mr. Secretary, if you can kind of walk me through why I shouldn't be worried about this, [1:29:11] why what is included in the base budget bill will will be the good coverage that we need. [1:29:19] And it is not necessarily dependent on an additive of the reconciliation. [1:29:26] Senator, I appreciate that that perspective and share your concern. [1:29:33] That's why one of the main efforts setting aside operations and what everything we do in real time for the troops is ensuring that both the base discretionary budget and reconciliation are passive that President Trump's historic budget is realized. [1:29:46] Because of the underinvestment of the past, whether it's continuing resolutions or Biden budgets, we need to supercharge our defense industrial base or our munitions into the future. [1:29:56] And so we we're our entirety of our team and our department is running in the same direction to ensure that reconciliation as swiftly and as clearly and cooperatively as possible as passed alongside the base discretionary budget. [1:30:10] Well, I understand that, but I just need you to understand our concern here that you've got your base budget and then you have you have the the reconciliation. [1:30:20] I want to ask about the Iran authorization. [1:30:24] No great secret around here. [1:30:26] I have been I have been talking about an authorization of use of military force. [1:30:34] I understand that the administration has made clear that you believe that the actions taken thus far fall under the president's Article 2 authority. [1:30:47] I think reasonable people have disagreed about the boundaries of presidential war powers for a long time. [1:30:53] But the war powers resolution is pretty clear here. [1:30:57] It requires the president to terminate hostilities within 60 days absent congressional authorization. [1:31:03] I think it's important that we in Congress actually actually assert our own role and responsibility to this. [1:31:12] That 60 day clock expired April 28th. [1:31:18] And then on the 1st, the administration sent letters to congressional leaders asserting that the hostilities had has ended. [1:31:25] But I think where there is confusion is when the president says hostilities have ended, we still have 15,000 troops that are forward deployed more than 20 warships in an active naval blockade. [1:31:37] CENTCOM has redirected 61 commercial vessels, disabled tankers. [1:31:42] In other words, it doesn't appear that that hostilities have ended. [1:31:47] And so the question to you is is whether or not the administration has has considered or had intended to seek an authorization of use of military force from the Congress. [1:32:02] Senator, our view is that should the president make the decision to recommence that we would have all the authorities necessary to do so. [1:32:10] Do you think that it would be helpful to the president if it was made clear that, in fact, the Congress did did allow did provide an AUMF? [1:32:22] I think the president, our view is that he has all the authorities he needs under Article two to execute. [1:32:29] Thank you, Mr Chairman. [1:32:31] Okay, here's where we are. [1:32:35] The vote is about over. [1:32:37] The secretary has to get with the president on the China trip. [1:32:42] I'm going to ask Senator Murkowski to wrap up. [1:32:45] And thank you all for being here. [1:32:51] Baldwin, Shaheen and Kennedy. [1:32:54] Baldwin, Shaheen and Kennedy. [1:32:55] So wrap up after. [1:32:58] Hold here. [1:33:03] Yeah, obviously there's not a whole lot of time for a second round. [1:33:14] So we'll get through everybody. [1:33:17] And Senator Murkowski, I appreciate your taking over. [1:33:21] Thank you. [1:33:25] Secretary Hegseth, Chairman Cain, thank you for being here today. [1:33:30] Today is the first time either of you are appearing before this subcommittee since the abrupt choice was made to cancel the acquisition of the Constellation class frigate, which was being built in Wisconsin. [1:33:44] These ships were meant to provide vital capability to the Navy in the event of a future war against China. [1:33:53] And they were certainly part of our calculus of deterrence through strength. [1:33:59] Canceling this program placed thousands of jobs in Wisconsin at risk and left our fleet less prepared. [1:34:06] You know, President Trump has talked a lot about making ships in America again. [1:34:12] But I have to tell you, dramatic and misguided decisions like this pull the rug out from under our shipyards. [1:34:20] The U.S. shipbuilding industry needs stability if we are ever going to compete with Chinese shipyards. [1:34:26] Wisconsin workers who have decades of experience building world class vessels that defend our nation, that serve commerce and provide transportation, they need stability as well. [1:34:38] So I'd like to start with a question to you, Chairman Cain, on the medium landing ships. [1:34:45] The Navy's new amphibious ships, which will now be built at the same Wisconsin shipyards working on the, that were working on the Constellation class less than a year ago. [1:34:57] How important are medium landing ships to future U.S. operations in the event of a war with China? [1:35:06] Well, Senator, thanks for the question. [1:35:09] And I do want to highlight no matter what the policy decisions are, the great workers up there and in your state. [1:35:16] And as the joint force considers the options that the medium landing ship would bring to the table in terms of assuring a mobility gap [1:35:25] and filling that gap and allowing us to project power at the secretary and the president's choice and choosing. [1:35:33] I, you know, will not stepping into the Navy's boundaries and mindful that the CNO and SEC NAV and acting SEC NAV in this case will have views. [1:35:43] I hope we'll carefully consider this capability and then if appropriate, bring it forward to the joint force. [1:35:49] Well, unfortunately, the department included the request for funding the construction of six medium landing ships in that partisan part of the budget request, the reconciliation, [1:36:00] which is in danger of potentially not even passing this year. [1:36:04] To be frank, it does not give me confidence that we are taking this program seriously. [1:36:10] What would the impact be if Congress did not appropriate funding for the medium landing ships in fiscal year 27? [1:36:18] And are you comfortable with the pace that the Navy is planning on building them, Chairman Cain? [1:36:23] Chairman Cain. [1:36:24] Chairman Cain. [1:36:25] Well, I'll acknowledge that. [1:36:26] I think it was yesterday, or the day before, that they released their shipbuilding plan, [1:36:30] and given all the things that I'm juggling in this job that I'm so lucky to have I've not gone and done a deep dive. [1:36:37] So, I'd like to come back to you. [1:36:38] Please do. [1:36:39] um, if you're okay with it on on that matter so that I don't, uh, uh, don't wing it. [1:36:44] Yeah, thank you. [1:36:46] want to now turn to the war with Iran yesterday I had a chance to meet with [1:36:52] service members who were injured in the opening days of the war they struggled [1:36:58] to receive adequate and timely care for their injuries in the Middle East and [1:37:03] the fighting kept them from being quickly evacuated to launch tool after [1:37:09] being injured these service members have since been diagnosed with traumatic [1:37:14] brain injury but initially struggled to get properly evaluated or treated in [1:37:20] part because some of our military hospitals overseas and in the US did not [1:37:26] have the capacity for them they needed they had to wait for more than three [1:37:32] weeks to retreat receive the treatment they need and it seems to clear to me [1:37:36] that our military medical system was not prepared to treat those injured in this [1:37:42] war secretary Hegseth did DOD review our military health systems readiness to [1:37:51] treat those injured in war with Iran and did that impact your recommendation to [1:37:58] begin operation epic fury well the view of the department was always to as [1:38:04] expeditionally as possible move anyone injured that needed further care to [1:38:10] Europe for that care with the recognition that thankfully you know 90% of those [1:38:15] that have been injured in epic fury have returned to duty so most of those [1:38:19] injuries have been minor enough that they return but we always catalog if there [1:38:22] could be future complications to ensure that they get care in the future it [1:38:27] seemed to me from what I heard that we weren't prepared in theater we weren't [1:38:31] prepared in Germany and we weren't prepared immediately upon these soldiers [1:38:36] returned to the US I can you commit to ensuring that every service member [1:38:43] including my constituents will receive necessary medical care after being injured [1:38:48] in this war and that the military health system is now prepared for any future [1:38:54] casualties in this war we have been and we will continue to be senator Shaheen thank [1:39:08] you madam chair and thank you both for being here all three of you for being here [1:39:13] since your testimony two weeks ago secretary hegseth before the Armed [1:39:19] Services Committee the department has sent over your legal review which I [1:39:25] appreciate thank you for use of security assistance funding for Ukraine however as [1:39:30] was determined earlier in the testimony funding still has not gone out the door [1:39:36] and I didn't hear you give a date when this committee or the Armed Services [1:39:44] Committee can expect to hear receive a spin plan for those dollars General King the [1:39:52] day of the testimony got back to us as he said he would and explained that he had [1:39:58] coordinated on the spin plan on April 13th so that's been almost a month and we [1:40:04] still haven't gotten anything so when are we gonna see the spin plan for Ukraine the [1:40:10] spend plan for the European capacity building is in conjunction no no no no I'm asking for the [1:40:17] spend plan that we are providing are you suggesting the parole funding is part of that [1:40:23] spend plan did I understand the specific line item was European capacity building in the budget I [1:40:28] understand and as a result working with Congress was to spend that 400 million I think you heard [1:40:37] from chairman McConnell you heard from Senator Coons there was discussion at the time with the [1:40:45] Congress that that those dollars were intended to be used for Ukraine and the [1:40:51] reason it was designated as it was was because what we heard from speaker Johnson [1:40:56] was that the president was going to veto the bill if Ukraine was mentioned in it [1:41:03] anywhere in the bill and so that's why the determination was to use the term European [1:41:11] but the clear intent was for that money to be spent for Ukraine so again when is the money [1:41:18] going to go out the door when is this committee going to get the spin plan ma'am we're expecting [1:41:24] to see a final spin plan for that this week and once we have we can provide to Congress and who [1:41:29] still has to review the spin plan so general Cain's review isn't enough well ultimately and he passed [1:41:36] me a note on this earlier European command is going to take the lead on ensuring this I know [1:41:40] that generally effectively so Frankovich as I pointed out two weeks ago it had already reviewed the spin [1:41:46] plan so we're not waiting for him to do that as I understand no ma'am I believe we are I think you [1:41:53] promised try to make a few tweaks to the spin plan okay so when do we think we will get it I believe [1:41:58] we will have it to you this week okay and when do we expect money to go out the door once that [1:42:03] spend plan is available I don't know what they're putting in the spend plan so I can't tell you what [1:42:08] the schedule will be for contracting that will matter what they choose to buy with that money will [1:42:13] determine how fast it goes out the door okay this if this committee doesn't come back to you I can [1:42:22] guarantee you the armed services committee is going to come back to you and get an answer to that [1:42:27] question Secretary Hegseth a number of members of Congress have expressed our concern that Iran is [1:42:36] receiving intelligence support from Russia to target our service members even as we loosen sanctions on [1:42:43] the Kremlin Russia is making four billion dollars from oil sanctions relief because we've loosened those [1:42:50] sanctions as has been testified to an Iranian she had drone costs about 35,000 that's enough money [1:42:58] for hundreds of thousands of drones supporting Russia's war in Ukraine and billions for Iran to [1:43:05] reconstitute its industrial base so if one of the goals that's been outlined by the president as part of [1:43:13] this war is to destroy Iran's defense industrial base don't you think we ought to be putting more [1:43:19] pressure on Russia and putting those sanctions back on those Russian oil ships so that they are [1:43:27] not continuing to fund Iran in this war Senator we we know Russia is a nefarious actor on a lot of [1:43:37] levels and account for that but I would say the destruction of Iran's defense industrial base has [1:43:41] been highly all evidence to the contrary we're not accounting for that if we're giving Russia the [1:43:45] opportunity to earn four billion dollars a month 20 billion dollars by the end of the year if we leave [1:43:51] those sanctions lifted for that time and during which they can continue to fund Iran the destruction [1:43:58] of the defense of Iran provide oil to China been clear and overwhelming the destruction of Iran's [1:44:04] defense industrial base has been clear and overwhelming well it's certainly not clear to me as a member of the [1:44:08] committee because what we see is Iran still producing drones they're still engaged in this [1:44:13] conflict we have not won this war there's a difference between the rhetoric pulling a drone out of a cave that's been [1:44:19] collapsed and producing more drones that's a different thing well maybe so but if Iran still [1:44:26] has almost 50 percent of their missile capacity and the ability to pull drones out of caves and still [1:44:31] injure our allies and US service members then we have not won the war we are told that Senator Kennedy [1:44:40] should be here in mere minutes and so uh Senator Coons if you want to thank you a couple questions [1:44:47] until he arrives thank you Senator Murkowski I'm Mr. Secretary I'm just going to follow up on the [1:44:52] questions I asked in my first round and the questions that have been asked by members of both parties in my [1:44:58] assessment there was no imminent threat to the United States that justified the president using his article [1:45:04] two powers and there was insufficient preparation to make sure that we had the right troops the right [1:45:10] capability deployed there used to be a consensus in national security that America should only go [1:45:17] to war when there's an imminent threat to our national security when all the other options have been [1:45:22] exhausted and when we have clear objectives and a plan for how it ends as General Kane testified the [1:45:29] military was given three clear goals sink the Navy attack and destroy the ballistic missile launchers [1:45:35] and degrade their defense industrial base and you've accomplished those but President Trump celebrated [1:45:40] regime change after saying that regime change was the real goal and our NATO allies have delivered they [1:45:47] have allowed overflight they have allowed projection of force despite not being consulted you said just a [1:45:53] few moments ago Mr. Secretary we control the strait but it's clear that reopening the [1:46:00] strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic eludes us in no small part because Iran retains a robust stockpile [1:46:08] of cheap lethal Shahed drones and they are getting help from our adversaries in rebuilding them what is [1:46:16] your plan for reopening the strait of Hormuz Mr. Secretary I would just note that the majority of your question [1:46:23] was highly disingenuous and loaded with suggestions that I very much don't agree with from the beginning [1:46:29] please feel free sir to pick any one of those from the beginning we've been very clear about the [1:46:32] military objectives and the underlying strategic objective which is preventing Iran from getting a [1:46:37] nuclear weapon yes take for example the fact that Iranians Nate conventional Navy they had aircraft [1:46:42] carriers with Shaheed drones on them before this started they had full-on destroyers and battleship [1:46:47] capabilities none of which they they have anymore and did the Iranian Navy have aircraft carriers [1:46:53] Iranian Navy had three drone aircraft carriers the Iranian Navy they had launch platforms for drones [1:46:59] sure hit 11 submarines and you've sunk all of their regular Navy great good they retain fast boat [1:47:05] capabilities which they've always had we understand that which we can control for and will we've [1:47:10] degraded almost completely their defense industrial base capabilities the idea that they control anything [1:47:15] you can terrorize something you can hold it at issue with piracy as I've talked about at the [1:47:20] Pentagon podium time and time again that doesn't mean you control it we control what goes in and [1:47:25] out and we control whether or not we have to restart conflict the president does as well Mr. Secretary [1:47:29] we're the ones that will manage where this goes in the future and they have very limited ability to [1:47:34] set the tempo or respond to it and that gives the president a lot of options to ensure that Iran never [1:47:40] gets a nuclear weapon the connection between their ability to close the Strait of Hormuz using fast boats [1:47:47] and Shahed drones and our strategic goal shared broadly to prevent them from ever having usable nuclear [1:47:54] weapon is utterly unclear to me and my question was what's the plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to [1:48:01] commercial traffic share given skyrocketing never executed shared broadly but never executed because [1:48:07] previous administration didn't have the willingness to actually do what it would take and when Iran was [1:48:11] at its weakest moments following the 12-day war but still wanted the pursuit of a nuclear capability [1:48:17] President Trump made the courageous decision to go at their conventional umbrella and shield which [1:48:23] they were using to protect their nuclear program which we knew came with threats and and branches and [1:48:28] sequels my concern Mr. Secretary is that you've achieved a series of tactical successes but are on [1:48:34] the verge of a strategic loss because we are now negotiating just to get so foolish here we are in a [1:48:39] committee in the United States Senate 74 days in and you're talking about strategic loss we have the [1:48:45] ability of me for a 47 year threat of a pursuit of a nuclear weapon we have more leverage than [1:48:50] we've ever had we've had incredible battlefield successes and you're talking about a strategic loss [1:48:55] mr. second disingenuous questions mr. secretary this is how you are mr. secretary that could otherwise and [1:49:02] are otherwise I am not your enemy sir I am NOT your adversary I share your goal of preventing Iran from ever [1:49:08] having a usable nuclear weapon to finish my sentence control of the Strait of Hormuz the ability to [1:49:15] degrade our partners and allies gas and oil production capabilities through cheap drones the ability to [1:49:21] harass and hairy commercial shipping remains in Iran's hands and their demands are that we recognize [1:49:29] sovereignty for them over the Strait of Hormuz which I believe our president's rejected you've rejected I [1:49:35] reject but my question remains how do we reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping if we [1:49:41] control it how do we reopen it and your average American is seeing this at the gas pump every single [1:49:48] day as the cost of gas continues to rise senator Coons I know that your your question has not yet been [1:49:55] responded and it deserves an answer it does I also understand I'm delaying my colleagues but that's the [1:50:01] question that deserves an answer mr. secretary we we do have a senator Kennedy followed by senator Murphy [1:50:06] and I know that secretary uh has a time departure thank you for your indulgence mr. thank you madam chair [1:50:13] thank you mr. secretary welcome can we agree that if you took president Xi Jinping and turned him upside down [1:50:25] and shook him that the African country of Mauritius would fall out of his pocket I don't know if we can [1:50:36] that but uh I'd I'd like to indulge you on that let me try let me let me let me try it another way [1:50:41] um Mauritius is good friends with uh China is it not I understand there's some level of a relationship [1:50:51] there yeah yeah like they're they're BFFs or whatever the young people call um Prime Minister Starmer wants to [1:51:03] give uh Diego Garcia and the Chego silence to Mauritius which has virtually no connection with Chego silence [1:51:15] who will promptly give a spare key to Diego Garcia to China is that accurate what I would underscore is [1:51:26] that Diego Garcia is a very strategic location and having the ability to operate there for the United [1:51:31] States military is going to be critically important in the future but Starmer wants to give it away does [1:51:34] he not as President Trump has stated there's been some pretty bad deals made by the Brits as it pertains [1:51:40] to Diego Garcia yes I'd like to hear you I mean the president's been back and forth on this and [1:51:44] I've talked to him a lot uh um he's his he he is not going to agree to that is he no as the president [1:51:54] has stated it was a bad deal that was cut uh by the by the UK and uh Prime Minister Starmer as it pertains [1:52:00] to Diego Garcia as evidenced by limitations that our troops could face in how we use that island yes all [1:52:06] um I appreciate that my understanding is that the classified information and unclassified it's public [1:52:17] show that our intelligence discovered that not that long ago Iran had developed a new that supreme [1:52:25] leader now dead is fried chicken but they have a new for supreme leader had developed a new game plan [1:52:31] for for their nuclear weapons program and their game plan was to jack up missile both ballistic and [1:52:39] uh and uh and uh uh uh cruise missile production and drone production and and and put together this [1:52:48] huge stock stockpile of missiles and drones at which point they would turn to the united states and [1:52:54] israel and the rest of the world and say we're going to restart our nuclear weapons program uh if you [1:53:00] bomb us again like you did in in june we will destroy the middle east and by the way our missiles can now reach [1:53:08] berlin and london and paris is that my understanding of one of the reasons the main reason we went into [1:53:16] iran i think that's pretty well articulated senator that they were trying to use the umbrella of their [1:53:21] conventional established conventional stockpiles to blackmail the rest of the world in pursuit of their [1:53:27] own nuclear weapons now let's talk about iran today can we agree that iran both the public and the [1:53:32] private sector is being held together right now with spit and duct tape spit and duct tape is not a [1:53:40] doctrinal term uh senator but i would agree with something along it's a louisiana term i mean [1:53:48] seven out of ten iranians are out of work we bomb their their infrastructure they've got 70 percent [1:53:56] inflation their internet shut off um you know better than i do what we've done on the military side [1:54:05] their launchers gone their missiles for the most part gone their drones gone do they have some left yeah [1:54:13] their navy gone their air force gone you can get an airplane you personally and fly anywhere you [1:54:21] want to across iran right now and feel safe because they don't have any air defenses it will be in my [1:54:28] opinion 20 years and cost a trillion dollars before they're even back somewhat to normal and i don't have [1:54:37] the slightest idea where they're gonna get the money if they think china's gonna give it to them or russia [1:54:44] they've got to learn a hard lesson to that extent have we achieved our objective in iran objective [1:54:52] as this president has stated from the beginning is to ensure they don't get a nuclear weapon and [1:54:56] president trump remains dedicated to ensuring that happens and everything you described with the [1:55:01] military degradation of their country was in service of ensuring they never get this is what i never [1:55:08] understood the president to say i want a regime change in iran and i want to to obtain all of their [1:55:20] fissile material i've never heard him say that what i heard him say was our what i don't want to go back [1:55:28] through it but our goal is to cripple them so they can't blackmail the rest of the world now many of my [1:55:34] democratic friends have now are trying now trying to say we have lost here's a footnote you're not going to [1:55:42] get democratic support they're not they're not going to support you mr secretary because they [1:55:49] don't support president trump i know that's not a news flash um but they say we we've lost i don't [1:56:00] get it i don't understand how we've lost is the strait closed yes but if we continue that blockade [1:56:08] where nothing's going in and nothing's going out eventually they're going to have to shut down their [1:56:12] oil fields or they're not half of their oil fields are no pressure once they put them down they're not [1:56:17] going to get them back up am i missing something here no that's why the president is right when [1:56:22] he says we hold all the cards and we do and we've got the best deal maker in the world uh able to make [1:56:27] the best deal for the united states of america and if we have to go back at it as the department of [1:56:31] war we're ready to do that as well well keep two things in mind you're not going to win over my [1:56:38] democratic friends it's not worth getting your blood pressure up focus on other things and number two [1:56:46] just keep this in mind america first does not have to be mean america alone america first does not [1:56:59] have to mean america alone we need all the friends we can get they need to carry their own weight they [1:57:06] need to pay their bills but the more the better i'm sorry i went way over thank you senator murphy uh [1:57:13] thank you madam uh chair um thank you all for being here let me give you a chance mr secretary to answer [1:57:19] senator coons's question which is a really simple one um how are we going to get the straight open [1:57:25] because nothing matters more to our constituents than doing something about these um spiraling gas [1:57:30] prices which are bankrupting families and farmers all across the country and maybe let me ask it this [1:57:35] way um this is the first time you've come before this committee but in other briefings people that [1:57:41] work for you have told us in plain terms that there is no military mechanism to reopen the strait [1:57:48] that ultimately it will be a political decision made by iran and i think you're confirming that [1:57:54] here today by suggesting that it will be economic pressure that will create a political imperative [1:58:00] inside tehran to open the strait so can you just confirm for the committee that there is not a military [1:58:09] mechanism or means to reopen the strait that ultimately we have to essentially use diplomacy uh economic [1:58:16] diplomacy in this case uh in order to convince iran to make the decision to reopen the strait i would [1:58:23] say senator um there most certainly are military means by which we could open the strait um both [1:58:30] uh on targets on land and also with what we do with our naval capabilities not to mention our naval [1:58:34] blockade why haven't demonstrated by done if if that's true and that's not what has been testified to [1:58:40] us in private briefings why haven't you done that ultimately a long-term that a preferred long-term [1:58:46] approach would be a deal where they open it up where they stop being pirates of an international [1:58:50] waters and allow countries from all nations to flow you know these aren't u.s ships that are being [1:58:54] blockaded there these are ships from all around the world creating much more pressure for other [1:58:59] countries than ours so the bad guy here is iran who's closing the strait through piracy effectively [1:59:04] because they don't they really only have fast boat capabilities and we're blockading them none of [1:59:09] their stuff's getting out they're feeling all the pressure okay so here's so here's feeling here's my [1:59:13] follow-up question you don't worry that through a study of history you might come to the conclusion [1:59:20] that you are overestimating um their willingness to cave based upon economic pressure um the russians [1:59:28] believed years ago that ukraine would cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on [1:59:34] ukraine we thought the north vietnamese would cave because of the economic pressure we were putting [1:59:38] on them um your own intelligence estimates as has been reported suggest that in fact [1:59:44] the iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years this is a high-risk strategy [1:59:51] to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause them to voluntarily reopen the strait when [1:59:57] there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries that are being attacked or [2:00:03] invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of economic misery in order to [2:00:08] preserve national pride well aware we've looked at all we understand all of those historical case [2:00:14] studies and it's not just economic pressure there's military pressure diplomatic pressure we certainly [2:00:19] have a lot more military pressure we can bring to bear if the president were choose to do so i think [2:00:23] there are a lot of different dynamics that we can that cards that the president can play holding all of [2:00:28] them to ensure even greater economic pressure or even greater military pressure in iran and they [2:00:33] know that and that's why the negotiations are serious and ongoing right now about giving up their [2:00:38] nuclear capability because they understand and and the problem is time is not on our side here i i i [2:00:44] believe you are being way too optimistic um in your assessment of their potential to cave [2:00:50] but if this goes on for another 30 days there are going to be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt there [2:00:56] are going to be families that are going to be ruined and so time is not on our side and i just don't [2:01:01] believe that iran is ready um to capitulate yet and if they capitulate in a year there's going to be a [2:01:07] whole lot of families and businesses that are ruined in the united states um general kane let me [2:01:11] finally ask you a question about what seems to be a difference of opinion between the intelligence [2:01:17] services that you rely on um and the public statements of the president of the united states with [2:01:22] respect to our war objectives um the secretary uh and others in the president's cabinet have said [2:01:29] very clearly that our war objective is to destroy iran's missile and drone program the president said [2:01:37] just a week ago that iran maybe had 18 to 19 percent of their missile capacity left but there is public [2:01:46] reporting suggesting that our intelligence agencies say that iran still has 70 percent of their missile [2:01:54] and drone capability which would be a failure of our objectives if that were to be true um what can [2:02:03] you tell us about the number of missiles and drones that they have left and do you dispute your that [2:02:11] intelligence estimate sir i'm not going to comment with deep respect for the question i'm not going to [2:02:16] comment in this forum on what may or may not have been opined on by the ic which would suggest a leak [2:02:23] or a confirmation of any intel so while i appreciate the question i hope you'll also appreciate my not [2:02:29] answering it well then just give me what is the president said that 80 percent of yeah i'm not going [2:02:36] to comment on bda on either way sir uh well then how do we how do we or the american public assess the [2:02:42] success of the mission when you've stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their [2:02:49] missile and drone capability how do we assess whether we should continue funding this if you can't [2:02:54] state well i'm not going to answer what you guys in the congress considers the decision criteria around [2:03:01] continued funding or not what i what i know is that uh i've not read the report that you're talking about [2:03:07] all of our battle damage assessment matters are classified and it would be inappropriate for me [2:03:13] to comment in this forum on that and i appreciate the question but i'm not going to answer it let me [2:03:18] just put it to secretary hegg seth the president said that 80 percent of their missile capacity had been [2:03:24] destroyed this public report says it's only uh 30 percent um can can you give us an answer as to [2:03:31] what the real number is i mean i would answer the same way as the chairman not talking to this committee [2:03:37] about the damages not validating leaked information that could be wrong or not wrong uh in why would [2:03:43] i validate what people may or not leak yours is this is not a classified you don't talk about those [2:03:49] things you like to talk about them in tv we don't talk about them here i would perhaps suggest that uh [2:03:54] that some of these questions and responses are perhaps best in a classified setting um but i also [2:04:02] acknowledge that we are not in a classified setting we have um uh held the secretary and uh [2:04:09] the chairman uh longer than i think they had anticipated senators have one week to submit [2:04:14] additional questions for the subcommittee's official hearing record we request for a response from our [2:04:18] witnesses within 30 days of receiving these questions uh the subcommittee stands in recess subject [2:04:23] to the call of the chair and i would ask those in the audience to remain in their seats until [2:04:27] secretary and general kane depart and uh safe travels to you to china good luck