▶ 0:06:29Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. Today, the subcommittee will convene for open hearing to receive testimony from the honorable pete hegseth, secretary of war general dan kaine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Mr. jay hurst, performing the duties of undersecretary of war comptroller, Mr. secretary general kaine and Mr. hurst. A warm welcome to you.
▶ 0:06:58Thank you for your service to our great nation, and I thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today. I want to first acknowledge the extraordinary demands we place on all our volunteer force and the military families who bear the weight of service alongside their loved ones. Quality of life and care for our service members and their families are central to our mission to continue to ensure the finest fighting force in human history.
▶ 0:07:26We owe everything to their sacrifice and send our thanks that they have answered the call to serve. This hearing addresses issues that are deeply interconnected and collectively defined the national security challenge of our time. Let me begin with the budget. We want to be good partners with the department to ensure that our men and women in uniform have every resource they need.
▶ 0:07:48But I have serious concerns about how this bifurcated budget splits discretionary and mandatory funding and some of the on some of our highest priority programs. We have significant gaps in needs for our war fighters that we had to address in the fy 26 appropriations process because of the way mandatory was requested and enacted.
▶ 0:08:10The subcommittee needs to understand how the resources requested in this budget translates into real, measurable improvements in war fighting capability. We also need to understand the consequences of this funding approach. We owe that level of accountability to the american taxpayers. Next on readiness. The picture demands our honest attention across the multiple domains, including munitions, shipbuilding, innovation, and aviation.
▶ 0:08:38Questions persist about whether we are building the depth and reliance required for a high end conflict. We have made progress in some areas. I want to acknowledge the department's efforts to address these questions. However, progress is not the same as capability in delivering and capability delivery is. What we need at this moment. Demands. Finally, that brings me to the threat environment we currently face.
▶ 0:09:04The world has grown more dangerous, more complex, and more interconnected in its risks. China is modernizing its military at a pace and scale that is alarming. Russia continues to wage a brutal war of aggression. And while iran and their proxies have been dealt a severe blow, they remain a threat. Threats to taiwan, ukraine, nato, israel, our partners in the gulf and our allies across the globe are not abstract concerns.
▶ 0:09:32They are tests of america's credibility and resolve. This subcommittee believes deeply in the power of deterrence. But deterrence must be credible and credibility must be funded. Finally, Mr. secretary, both you and your deputy must be commended for your commitment to reforming, modernizing, and prioritizing innovation at the department. I've been here a long time. I've watched administrations come and go.
▶ 0:10:00And I promise you that there are bureaucrats who are trying to wait you out. You must demand accountability at every level of your organization to ensure that the change you have demanded is taking place. Your call to move more quickly, inject competition. Allow new entrants into. To participate requires rigorous and persistent oversight.
▶ 0:10:22Otherwise, the forces in the pentagon will simply snap back to the status quo, which does not serve our warfighters or the united states taxpayer. Again, thank you for being here. The members of this subcommittee take our oversight responsibilities seriously, and we believe the american people deserve straight answers on these consequential questions. I look forward to an honest conversation on how we are matching resources to priorities and honoring our commitments to meet the moment.
▶ 0:10:52Now I recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mrs. mccollum, for her opening remarks. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you for your courtesy of extending this. And thank you for your statement. We have a lot to discuss. Historical high budget request. The cost of the war on iran. Mr. secretary, I appreciate this year that you opened up a dialog with chairman calvert, myself and with our authorizing senate colleagues. When we last met, we asked for information to help us determine what the department needs to ensure our national security.
▶ 0:11:21We are still waiting for the information. We've asked several times for a complete update on munition levels, and it has not been provided. This lacking of delivery. Timely information for the committee is appearing to become a pattern. We've requested briefings on the status of the funds appropriated for ukraine. That took six months for us to be adequately briefed.
▶ 0:11:43The reconciliation bill, which was enacted on july 4th of last year, we still need the details of how the funds were allocated and that were not provided to us until a ten month wait, ten months. We waited for that. Details have been provided on golden dome, but only $185 billion of the program, and that's the initial research and development.
▶ 0:12:08We still have no idea what the costs are following on for procurement or maintenance of the program. The department must do a better job of sharing the information with us with respect to the war in iran. Mr. secretary, I saw your comments in the armed services committee. It was disappointing that you referred to members of both parties as defeatists. I know you won't bring personalities into this, this at this hearing, and I will not question as your patriotism, nor will you question mine.
▶ 0:12:35But the cost of this war continues to rise as forces remain in the region. The appropriations committee has a fiduciary responsibility to the american people. So we will ask serious questions that need to be answered. And that's our constitutional duty. Chairman calvert and I have asked for a breakout of funding needs for operation epic fury. We need to know the impact of what it's having on the services, executing missions beyond the war.
▶ 0:13:01The department notified us that the standard fuel price for the services has increased from $154 to $195 a barrel. That's more we have to pay for fuel than there's less money available for training and exercise that the services need to perform, and the department does not have enough general transfer authority to cover these activities without a supplemental. We must understand the department what it will do if a supplemental is not sent to the hill or enacted.
▶ 0:13:33Now for the 25 excuse me, the 2027 request, the baseline budget of the department of defense requests over $200 million over last year's enacted level. When combined with the mandatory funding for defense request through reconciliation, that's an increase of $400 billion. And that includes military construction. Together, that's nearly 44% increase in defense spending over last year.
▶ 0:13:58And the president proposes a domestic investment cut of $75 billion, or 10%. These cuts will will have an impact on our national security in many ways, particularly cuts to education. The primary concern of the defense budget is that the administration split between discretionary funding and the appropriations control, mandatory funding that we do not control. Mr.
▶ 0:14:23Secretary, the administration is taking an enormous risk by asking for $350 billion in priorities to reconciliation. As we told you in our last meeting, reconciliation is not the best way to fund the department. Last year, reconciliation created broken glass funding holes for vital programs that the appropriators had to fix. And that's why we need the information in a timely fashion.
▶ 0:14:47Most of your mandatory funding requests are for what you call presidential priorities golden dome drone dominance munitions, the defense industrial base. What the administration submitted to us for these programs was a 28 page document. And that's not enough to properly explain $350 billion in funding.
▶ 0:15:08These programs will not be completed in one fiscal year, and they will have tails that will put our department and our committee in a very difficult situation next congress. Finally, as the chair did, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of our service members, active duty, national guard and reserve components. They serve with honor and distinction, and I want to especially acknowledge those who have served in harm's way, including those who have fallen and who have been injured in operation epic fury.
▶ 0:15:35Their families need to know that we will never forget them, and that they have our enduring gratitude and support. Gentlemen, I look forward to your testimony. Mr. chair, I yield back. >> thank you, miss mccollum. Before we hear from our witness, I'd like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the full committee, my good friend, chairman tom cole, for any opening comments. >> thank you, chairman calvert, ranking member mccollum. My good friend, ranking member rosa delauro and all the members here. And welcome, Mr.
▶ 0:16:04Secretary and general kean to the committee. And we appreciate all of you and certainly you as well. Under secretary hearst, I didn't mean to mean to leave you out there. Um, I joined chairman calvert and members of the subcommittee by saying at the outset of this hearing, the men and women of our armed forces are the finest in the world. They deserve our full support and our commitment to giving them the resources they need. That will keep them ready for the fights of today and tomorrow.
▶ 0:16:29Without hesitation, I recognize the strong, agile, and effectively funded defense is not a mere priority. It is a necessity. The current threat environment facing the united states is a serious and as layered as anything I have witnessed during my time in congress.
▶ 0:16:45The convergence of challenges from china, russia, north korea and iran demands that we all work together with a level of seriousness and urgency that, frankly, is not always characterized our defense debates in recent years on the budget. I firmly believe that adequate and stable defense funding is a national imperative. And yet, funding alone is not enough.
▶ 0:17:08Every dollar must reflect clear priorities, operational effectiveness, and strategic urgency. This subcommittee has a responsibility to ask hard questions about priorities, program performances, and whether the department's acquisition process processes are keeping pace with the speed at which our adversaries are moving. To that end, I certainly associate myself with chairman calvert's concerns about a bifurcated funding of the department of defense.
▶ 0:17:37Uh, we have questions on the assumption of mandatory funding in the department's request. Uh, we need you to be a partner with us on this front. Transparency and communication are critical to ensuring that we are aligned as closely as we can be with your needs. Uh, and frankly, I do worry in the future, and I hope you address this in your remarks. This is the second reconciliation package for defense.
▶ 0:18:01Uh, and that creates cliffs for this committee in the future, at some point that funding disappears and we would have a massive increase in discretionary funding to sustain it. So how we do that going forward when we do that is a major concern for this committee, certainly for me personally. I also want to speak directly about the issue of our allies and partners. American power is most effective when it's exercised in concert with like minded nations who share our interests and our values.
▶ 0:18:30As we look back on 250 years of our exceptional history, uh, the truth of that statement is apparent over and over from those who stood by us in our fight for independence to the shared mission against evil during world war two. Uh, tyranny falls when free nations stand together. America first has never meant america alone. American strength is not diminished when allies shoulder their share. It's multiplied.
▶ 0:19:00And we must continue to sharpen our strategic advantages. And I commend you for working to make sure that our partners are beginning to step forward. Nato remains a critical pillar of collective defense. While our alliances across the indo-pacific are indispensable to building a credible deterrent against rising aggression in that region.
▶ 0:19:21I'm interested today in hearing how this budget strengthens those partnerships, and how the department is working to ensure that our allies are investing at levels commensurate with the threats that they, as well as we face together. The bottom line is simple we always hope for peace while maintaining the strength to defend it. We're committed to ensuring our military remains unmatched, our adversaries deterred, and the american people protected.
▶ 0:19:49Secretary hagel and general cline, we look forward to your candid dialog. The american people are counting on us to get this right, and I look forward to being a partner with you in that effort. Again, I thank you for being here today, and I thank you all for your distinguished service to our country. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I would like to turn now to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. laurel lee, for any opening comments. >> thank you very much. Chairman and ranking member mccollum.
▶ 0:20:17And good to be with you. Chairman cole and secretary hegseth and general kane and undersecretary hearst. Welcome to the committee. Um, the president is requesting $1.5 trillion in defense funding for the coming fiscal year. $1.5 trillion is an extraordinary sum of money. Congress and the american people have concerns about what you plan to do with this money.
▶ 0:20:44In fact, we have concerns about what you are doing with the more than $1 trillion you already have from last year's appropriations and reconciliation bills. How much will the president's, quote, skirmish in centcom cost? I know at a recent hearing, $25 billion was cited, but we don't know what that includes or for what time period. This was only supposed to last six weeks.
▶ 0:21:08We have thus far been unable to get any reliable information as to the true cost of this war. The current cease fire is tenuous at best, with attacks on gulf nations happening just over the weekend, the president tweeted he will not support the latest communication from iran, which we might agree with if we knew what was in it.
▶ 0:21:36But there has been a consistent lack of transparency since this war began. Media reports suggest there is intelligence that indicates iran can survive for months at the current standoff, which means the cost of deployment of 50,000 service personnel with their equipment will only increase as every additional day this war goes on brings with it additional costs.
▶ 0:22:05This administration has not presented congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy week to week, day to day, hour to hour. The rationale shifts. The objectives change. The end game is ill defined when it is defined at all.
▶ 0:22:22If the administration intends to ask congress for supplemental funding for the iran war, then you need to come back to congress and testify on that request specifically so that we and the american people can fully understand what this administration has gotten us into and how it plans to get us out of it. The question must be answered at the end of this crisis. What have we accomplished and at what cost?
▶ 0:22:53And before you come to the congress for additional emergency funding. We need information. Has the department or any of the services utilized mandatory funding for operational activities in centcom? If so, how much and from what accounts? If you can provide us with that breakout, it would be enormously helpful. And again, what is the department's estimate of the full cost of the operation against iran to date? Um, uh, the.
▶ 0:23:21$1 trillion allocated for fiscal year 2026, $1.5 trillion requested, uh, for fiscal year 2027 and possibly $25 billion for an upcoming supplemental. All as the total debt in the united states has reached 100% of gross domestic product.
▶ 0:23:43In other words, the national debt is now larger than the us economy and about twice the historic average, according to the committee for a responsible federal budget. The defense budget includes requested funding for the expanded golden dome for america at $185 billion, though those budget numbers are tenuous.
▶ 0:24:07A new golden fleet, in which three ships are estimated to cost $43 billion and billions for private equity ventures, which do not have well-defined processes or sufficient transparency. With gas prices and inflation numbers increasing. The american people just want to afford the basic necessities for everyday life. But this administration is not doing anything to help them with the cost of living crisis.
▶ 0:24:40In fact, the administration is making the problem worse by proposing dramatic cuts across the board to domestic programs that support american families. We have the most powerful military in the history of humankind. I am extraordinarily grateful, as my other colleagues have pointed out, to the men and women of our armed services who sacrifice everything to keep us safe.
▶ 0:25:07Their devotion to duty is exemplary, and it must be matched by the seriousness and the sobriety of those at the very top of the chain of command. And right now, I worry if that standard is being met. I look forward to your testimonies today and hearing the answers to this committee's questions shortly. Thank you, Mr. chairman, and I yield back. >> thank the ranking member. We'll now begin. Witness testimony. Gentlemen, without objection, your full written testimony will be placed in the record.
▶ 0:25:37Secretary, we begin with you for a brief summary of your remarks. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in full support of president trump's historic $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for the department of war.
▶ 0:25:56The president's budget requests reflects the urgency of the moment, as was mentioned by many addressing both the deferment of long standing problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future fight. I'm honored to appear alongside general dan kane, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and jay hurst, our chief financial officer.
▶ 0:26:19And I'd like to start by thanking this committee and congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed for a stronger and more secure america, a nation's ability to build, to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its warfighters at speed and at scale, is the foundation upon which its survival rests.
▶ 0:26:39However, upon taking office on january 20th of 2025, president trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of america last policies, resulting in a diminished capability and capacity to project strength offshoring, outsourcing, cost overruns, degraded capabilities.
▶ 0:27:04Under the leadership of president trump, our builder in chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do at this department. We are rebuilding a military that the american people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than the unrelenting fear in our adversaries and confidence in our allies. We fight to win in every scenario.
▶ 0:27:31The $1.5 trillion budget request put forward by the president will build upon the historic $1 trillion fy 26 top line, and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the biden administration. The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure the united states continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military. As we grapple with a complex threat environment across multiple theaters.
▶ 0:27:59Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic troop pay increase. Building on the pay increases this committee has given, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget.
▶ 0:28:15By supercharging our industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring american commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations, transforming the defense industrial base from the broken, slow moving systems of the past.
▶ 0:28:34We have flipped the pentagon acquisition process from a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from an acquisition environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes driven organization focused on delivering the most for taxpayer dollars. Mr. chairman, you're right. It's a war of attrition against the pentagon bureaucracy every single day, and we intend to win it.
▶ 0:28:55Over the past year, through historic multiyear procurement agreements, smart business deals, we have sent ambiguous demand signals to our industry partners to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great american factories, and massive reinvestment in the skilled american workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors.
▶ 0:29:20Let me briefly provide you with some concrete, high level metrics of what we've accomplished over the last few months. These are announced new facilities and investments to support american warfighters. The department has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals in 39 states, in 180 cities, in 150 different companies, worth more than $50 billion.
▶ 0:29:42This has resulted in 280 new and expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet of american manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new american jobs. These $50 billion in defense investments in new plants, assembly lines and factories are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, american companies are investing in america with their own capital.
▶ 0:30:15A historic demonstration of american manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their money, not uncle sam's. This has never been done before and is long overdue. From a bureaucratic model to a business model, these investments equal great things for america, american families, and american workers and help us ensure our warfighters can defend this great country together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations passed by congress, president trump's war department has begun to turn
▶ 0:30:46The lights back on in manufacturing towns across this country to forge a lethal arsenal of freedom where our critical supply chains are threatened. The department of war has acted decisively to inject capital, stimulate production and prevent adversarial exploitation.
▶ 0:31:01We are firing up the american economic engine at every level of the defense industrial base, every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request, serves to ensure that this department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability of our fighting force. From the front lines to the factory floors. This is admittedly a historic budget. It is a fiscally responsible budget, and it is a war fighting budget.
▶ 0:31:30Under president trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of american manufacturing that we will need for generations. We are providing for our warfighters, and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty god continue to watch over all of our troops, and may we honor the legacy of those brave americans that we've lost. That is our sacred mission that we will continue to execute on. Thank you again to this committee for your partnership, and we look forward to answering your questions.
▶ 0:31:59Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. secretary. General kane, you're now recognized for your remarks. >> chairman ken calvert ranking member mccollum. Chairman, ranking member. Delauro. Thank you for having me. And all the members of the committee. Thank you for having me. I'm honored here today to testify alongside the honorable pete hegseth and the honorable jay hurst on the president's fiscal year 2027 budget, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak about the foundations of america's strength.
▶ 0:32:28The 2.8 million members of our joint force. I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, coast guard, guardsmen and civilians standing. The watch for our nation supported each and every day by their families. They could have chosen anything in their path of service, but they chose to serve our great country and meet our nation's challenge challenges with courage, tenacity, and grit that's keeping our nation strong and safe.
▶ 0:32:56I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 40 members of the joint force who we've lost in operations, combat and training during my time as chairman, including 14 who passed during operation epic fury and our most recent loss, first lieutenant key, who valiantly gave his life trying to save a teammate while deployed on a temporary duty assignment in africa and we continue to hold hope for his teammate.
▶ 0:33:24The secretary and I are deeply grateful for each of them and their families, and their names will never be forgotten. As chairman, my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of options military options alongside the associated risks to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the president, the secretary and the congress the truth at every turn, and my blueprint for this approach has always been general george c marshall.
▶ 0:33:52His firm commitment to civilian control and a nonpartisan military remains my constant standard, and I strive to follow his example by working with each of you to. And providing clear and candid, nonpartisan military advice, and to present this committee with the clearest possible assessment of operational risk and readiness, and execute ability within the unclassified environment that we find ourselves in today.
▶ 0:34:21As the chairman said, we're operating in a delicate and dangerous time. Global risk is scaling and the complexities of the modern battlefield demand. America's constant adaptation and innovation. America's joint forces operational at its core purpose built for the realities of a complex world where organized, trained and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision.
▶ 0:34:50And over the last year, our warfighters have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable, adaptable, and professional military on earth. We are able to accomplish this highly complicated work because we draw from a deep, enduring reservoir of training, professionalism and commitment.
▶ 0:35:15Our ops tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, rebuilding our strength continuously. We rebuild readiness every day. We train, every day we learn and sharpen our edge every day. And driving this pace of change and maintaining our superiority requires timely, predictable and sustained investment. And a partnership with this committee and the broader congress. And I appreciate that.
▶ 0:35:42And the resources that we'll discuss today are critical to modernizing the joint force and ensuring that if whatever threats emerge or when called upon, our nation can win. The president's budget supports the department's goals of recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base while enhancing our military readiness.
▶ 0:36:05We will continue to ensure our warfighters are properly armed, globally integrated and ready, while always taking care of our most precious thing. And that is our people. And while advancing the hardware and technology essential to fight, it's the character and competence of our people, particularly the 1.8 million members of our enlisted force who make us proud every day.
▶ 0:36:29And they're represented today by the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, united states navy seal dave isom, sitting behind me while we face dynamic and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in our people who every day execute the most challenging missions with quiet professionalism and coupled with the american spirit to outthink, outcompete and relentlessly innovate. We will maintain our decisive edge.
▶ 0:36:57But doing so requires your continued partnership. It is also graduation season where we welcome a whole bunch of new members to the joint force to include members like second lieutenant archie dennis, united states army, who, along with his citadel classmates in south carolina, joined the joint force this weekend. And I welcome he and all the other new graduates to the joint force.
▶ 0:37:23As I close, I humbly ask that we remember right now our deployed teammates out there doing our nation's work, going out into the darkness to do the things that we ask them to do. And I ask, as always, that we remember not just the 40 fallen that I mentioned earlier, but all of our nation's fallen and their families who soldier on. Thank you. And I also look forward to your questions. >> thank you. I want to ensure each member has a chance to ask questions, so everyone will have five minutes for their remarks.
▶ 0:37:53I'll begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Secretary. For decades, congress and the department have sought acquisition reform and innovative technologies. It's only since fy 24 that the level of investment started to catch up with the rhetoric.
▶ 0:38:08The fy 2011 budget request includes over 950 million for the defense innovation unit, 54.6 billion for the defense autonomous warfare group, 580 million for the joint interagency task force 401 and for the for the counter small uas. And I believe these investments will deliver overdue capability. And this subcommittee will continue to work with you to ensure success.
▶ 0:38:37I also note there's only 100 million for the. Accelerate the procurement and fielding of technology. That's surprisingly low. Given its success. The subcommittee will continue to support that effort, as we have in the past. I invite you to join me at the app that day on the hill, july 21st to see firsthand how outfit is delivering capabilities to the warfighter, consistent with the desire for injecting innovation at scale.
▶ 0:39:04For decades, there has been increasing demand for increasing our resilience in the industrial base and more specifically, the supply chain. The fy 2011 budget request includes over 20.2 billion for the office of strategic capital and 30.4 billion for the defense production act.
▶ 0:39:21As you're aware, we're working closely with the industrial base policy team on the civil reserve manufacturing network to ensure that the department can qualify and certify second and alternate sources to maximize american manufacturing, with exception of d, I, u, and the joint interagency task force 401. Most of the investments listed are in mandatory funding. What was the strategy to heavily rely on the mandatory funding sector in this budget?
▶ 0:39:53>> well, thank you for the question, Mr. chairman. And I would um first, I would thank you and this committee for your efforts on acquisition reform, many of which were had not been embraced by the department before. And a lot of templates on the table that were there for us to fall in and run fast with.
▶ 0:40:10And so speed, scale cut and red tape, uh, reducing requirements where we can, looking at things like diu, uh, replicator now the dog, um, and the defense autonomous working, uh, warfare group, uh, all of those are, were born of collaboration with the committee and efforts of now reformers. We have in the department who are ready to run with it. Um, as it pertains to the, to the budget. I think there's a reality in this town of how what can get done and how it gets done.
▶ 0:40:39And in a perfect world, everything would get done in regular order. Uh, and with a $1.5 trillion top line. But there are a lot of challenges and dynamics, um, some of which I don't control. And ultimately, we look forward to working with the committee to ensuring however it shakes out, um, that it's full transparency with you and maximizing options for the department. And I think, uh, the reconciliation last year was, was a new vehicle.
▶ 0:41:04So it took some time, especially because we're doing new things, office of strategic capital, different avenues. So figuring out how to deploy that, uh, took longer than we'd like, but we're committed to ensuring this year, uh, with that as a vehicle part of it, that we do it in concert with you to ensure the most important things, whether they're in that or in regular order, are included in the budget.
▶ 0:41:34>> understand the desire for flexibility. I, you know, I understand why you're breaking this up in order to into chunks to, I guess, more digestible to some degree politically. But, um, I would hope we can get a supplemental bill here soon. Uh, obviously we know that of the munitions issue and we know of the cost of this conflict, and we know the cost of other conflicts.
▶ 0:42:03And so we need to repay those o&m accounts that are going to be used, I suspect, in order to pay for this ongoing operation. So, uh, any idea when we're going to get this supplemental. >> uh, we're well aware of all those dynamics. I think first of all, the munitions issue issue has been foolishly, uh, and unhelpfully overstated. We're we, we know exactly what we have. We have plenty of what we need.
▶ 0:42:27And the reason we're, um, accelerating a lot of this is because the department's been static and how it does this kind of business, not to mention the amount that was given to ukraine for years and years. So we are getting, after changing that dynamic so that we're not getting 100 more of something, but the companies are investing. So there's new plants. So you're getting 2x3x4x of those munition in future years because that's what we need. That's what the our allies and partners through fms require. And we just haven't been delivering it.
▶ 0:42:55So we're, we're, we're in good shape on that front. Whatever we think we need, we will submit. But I'll say, even in the conduct of the conflict, working with the chairman and admiral cooper, uh, ensuring that any munitions we're using, we know what we're trading off of to preserve capabilities. We have maximum optionality across the globe, which we do. >> again, it would be helpful to get the supplemental sooner rather than later if we can get to work on, uh, and I recognize miss mccollum for her question. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:43:24Um, Mr. secretary, the house armed services oversight hearing, Mr. hearst, uh, stated that the cost for the war, for operation epic fury are at 25 billion. Am I correct with what that number that used at the hearing, Mr. hearst? >> yes, ma'am. That was the cost at that time.
▶ 0:43:43>> at that time, um, I would request that you provide the committee, uh, in writing the specifics of what the department will be requesting the supplemental and the breakouts for the following costs. We talked munitions and Mr. secretary, I think we'd have a more robust discussion on that if we were in a classified setting. But I respect what, what, what you shared with us.
▶ 0:44:04But this is what I'd like, uh, a breakout for military personnel, operational activities, additional maintenance for deployed ships, munitions used, equipment lost and updated fuel costs. Now we need to know the funding required to cover the damage to the us facilities.
▶ 0:44:29And if there are any agreements from our regional allies, we hear things in the press that would be helpful for any new facilities or improvements in centcom. Now, Mr. hearst, here's here's here's the rub. We need that by june 11th, we mark up our bill. And some of these are not new asks, but I thought I'd I'd drill down and be just a little more specific for you. Um, so I know you're going to do your best.
▶ 0:44:55I will take the homework assignment in pieces. Anything you can provide would be great. Under the war powers resolution, the administration has 60 days to conclude activities unless congress has declared war provided authorization. Congress has not done that. And I know there's different opinions, and it changes from day to day whether or not the war powers clock is paused. But this law states beyond may 2nd, the administration needs congressional authorization to continue military operations.
▶ 0:45:26And the president just recently said yesterday that epic fury is not over. Military operations have continued. We have a naval blockade and both sides are exchanging fire. And they did so over the weekend. Speaker johnson, in my opinion, should put an authorization on the floor this week. But, Mr.
▶ 0:45:45Secretary, if congress does not authorize if we don't authorize this to continue military operations against iran, you're going to have to have a plan put in place to draw down our troops, to reset the region, to protect our assets. Um, and I'm wondering, and that might be in a classified situation, but could you provide this committee with plan b? Because if we go there, we're going to have to re reset our budget after june 11th.
▶ 0:46:12If the war powers act, in my opinion, should be invoked and it comes to congress, but we don't know what the outcome would be. Do you have a plan b? >> uh, ranking member, I would say we have a plan for all of that. We have a plan to escalate if necessary. We have a plan to, uh, retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets.
▶ 0:46:37Certainly in this setting, we wouldn't reveal what the next step may be, considering the gravity of of the mission that the president undertaking to ensure that iran never has a nuclear bomb. >> well, Mr. secretary, as you know, we can be in receipt of that in a different situation. And we would also like that by june 11th. With that, I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. Uh, Mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Uh, Mr.
▶ 0:47:02Secretary, as I said in my opening remarks, I have concerns about the use of reconciliation. I don't have any concerns about the amounts and the effort to restore the industrial base. You're to be commended for that. And frankly, I think we've underinvested for a long time. So I'm happy to see a robust number. I am worried about the ability to sustain that number through the reconciliation process. At some point, that money disappears.
▶ 0:47:29Uh, and we'll be, you know, so give me some sense of how much of this reconciliation money is one time expense that you expect to either use for procurement that may not, you may not need to do again for a long time or inject in the industrial base. How much is for day to day operations that we would need, frankly, to think of as a long term recurring expense? >> it's a good question, Mr.
▶ 0:47:54Chairman, and I'll defer to jay on on details, but I would say a big take, for example, the deals that are being cut that will be funded here, that ultimately look at companies that make exquisite weapons systems for us. And they say in exchange for a 5 to 7 year contract, which committees like this have authorized for us the authorizing committees? Uh, not the appropriate authorizing committees. And now, because they have that clear demand signal, they're able to invest in a new plant and they're paying for it. And that's what I talked about in my opening remarks.
▶ 0:48:24So they're building 2 or 3 new facilities, but we're committed to paying for those munitions for 5 to 7 years from this budget. And ultimately, but the nice part is we're saving money because there's no inflation. It's at the cost of it today, even when we buy it seven years from now. And that's why you're seeing a $331 billion in munitions as part of this budget. There is a there's a rocket fuel component to this. Given the underinvestment that exists inside this budget, there will be some tail, obviously.
▶ 0:48:49And as I acknowledged up front, a higher top line from this department's perspective is always a welcome thing. Uh, but the intention is not to get anyone stuck in a certain place, but to address the needs of the moment, cut different deals, create new dynamics where companies actually invest. So we have, you know, this committee knows the exquisite munitions that we're going to be using 5 to 7 years from now, no matter what. It's about time we look into the future, the way we are with this budget. But you have to fund that.
▶ 0:49:17And so I think that's that's a big chunk of, of an increase that you see if you're investing in the shipbuilding industrial base, the defense industrial base, um, housing and barracks, all of that increase troop pay. We're looking at increasing the top line of the entire force by 50,000 troops. That's a, that's an investment into the future. So I would acknowledge that a lot of this does have follow on costs, but some of it is something we're going to pay for now and benefit from in the future. But j. I would defer to you. >> Mr.
▶ 0:49:46Chairman, in this there's $113 billion for investments in the defense industrial base. I would characterize that as a one time plus up for catch up, uh, $35 billion for f srm to fix all of our poor and failing barracks and other facilities of the department and also some catch up investments in ai and autonomy. And so if you look at what we're doing with mandatory, probably about 200 billion of that is a one time expense. We come down to 1.23 for requested top line for fy 28.
▶ 0:50:10And so we think we can sustain these investments over the fydp with discretionary dollars after this. >> well that's reassuring. And again, I don't have any disagreement with the what you're trying to accomplish at all. I would remind you that, uh, frankly, the use of reconciliation depends on political support in congress that can be very transitory. Uh, so it's a high risk strategy as opposed to building things into the baseline.
▶ 0:50:38Uh, but again, I'm supportive of what you're trying to do in terms of recharging the industrial base. I think it's long overdue. Let me ask you a specific question. Um, and you may want to get back to me on this. I don't know, but, uh, we've had some discussion over, you know, we lost one e three, uh, on the ground. Thank goodness. Uh, it looks like no crew lost. Uh, this committee has been interested in investing in the e seven.
▶ 0:51:08Uh, pentagon signed a contract for five additional planes. Not in the air force budget. Is there going to be a fix to that, or are we? Where are we at on thinking about the e seven. >> I well aware of that dynamic. I know our department had taken the position that it was, uh, airborne or other satellite isr that was probably going to be capable of a lot of that in the future.
▶ 0:51:34But I think that mindset was indicative of, of, uh, of a mindset that we've shed, which is to divest to invest mindset, which was an austerity mindset that we're going to get in continuing resolution after continuing resolution. So we got to get rid of these platforms in order to invest in these platforms. And there are gaps that need to still be filled. And there are systems that still need to be funded, that are used on the battlefield right now, say mq nine, s a ten s, you name it. Um, I think this and the e seven is one of those.
▶ 0:52:03So I, we've actually sent a budget amendment to omb to add that I think it has a future. It has a has a place on the battlefield. And, uh, we'll get more information for you on that as well. >> well, I appreciate that. And I particularly appreciate the mindset. I think you're 100% right. I've seen this over and over again about eliminating platforms on the idea. We would immediately use that money for new things. And quite often it just simply didn't happen. We lost the capability, but we did not move forward with the investment that we needed.
▶ 0:52:32So, uh, again, thank you for rethinking that. I've got a lot more questions, but so does the entire committee, Mr. chairman. So with that, I'll yield back. >> I just want to make one quick comment. When you're talking about the fixing barracks and facilities, I hope we also fix the property management systems throughout the department, uh, which is woefully needs attention. With that, I recognize the ranking member. Mr. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Mr.
▶ 0:52:59Secretary, the national security strategy says american national power depends on strong industrial sector capable of meeting both peacetime and wartime production demands. And the national defense strategy directs dod to, quote, supercharge the defense industrial base. Uh. Dod is a 2027 budget overview. Appears to use that same framing yet.
▶ 0:53:23Uh, your department's budget request cuts over $5 billion from the industrial base in the aviation sector alone, effectively shutting down all current army aviation platforms. Uh, these are current production platforms the force relies on for lift for sustainability, disaster response, homeland missions, etc.
▶ 0:53:46Uh, how did the department arrive at the conclusion that reducing procurement for these army aviation platforms strengthens rather than weakens the aviation industrial base? >> well, I very much appreciate that question. And I actually think it's something we're taking another look at. Uh, I think it's not that every aspect of, uh, there are some very good things in the army transformation initiative. And there are some things that we've needed to get another look at. And so I think you'll see a review of, of, of some of those things.
▶ 0:54:15And we'll get back to you on. >> that of the, of the aviation sector. Yes, ma'am. And with that, but was there an analysis, uh, about the impact of, of the requested procurement reduction? Did you all do an analysis of production line suppliers, workforce restart risk prior to the decision to cut the funds? >> we'll get that from the army and get that to you. I don't have it in front of me, but I would imagine.
▶ 0:54:43>> okay, very, very much would love to see that before the subcommittee marks up the appropriations bill. Um, coming up, let me just quickly, um, can you provide the committee in writing the department's assessment of the minimum sustaining production rate for the black hawk and chinook industrial base, the supplier base risks associated with this budget request and the funded mitigation plan, if production falls below those levels, can
▶ 0:55:15You provide us with that information? I think that's critically. >> I think I think we should get that to you. And I think those platforms are critical to the force right now. We need to make sure we're able to sustain that. >> I think you made the point. You all have that industrial base. Readiness is a strategic issue. It's what the national security strategy, you know, recognizes. And I look forward to hearing, you know, more about how cutting the billion dollars in in the base investment aligns with that shared goal. Um, let me just a question to you, general kane.
▶ 0:55:43Despite the precipitous drop in procurement for army aviation platforms, your budget request invests heavily in modernization. I'm a believer in modernization. I think that's necessary. I support investing in future capability. But congress also has to understand the transition risk.
▶ 0:56:02The department is asking us to accept reduced procurement of aircraft the force uses today, while relying on future systems that are not yet fielded and general from a joint force readiness perspective. Um, what is the department's plan to avoid a mobility lift sustainment gap if current aviation capacity declines faster than replacement capability arrives?
▶ 0:56:32What are the decision points where the department would revisit the reductions if future vertical lifts schedule slip, if costs rise or operational demand remains higher than expected? >> well, ranking member, I appreciate the question.
▶ 0:56:46And any time we're looking at military options to our political leaders, we do bake in and can carefully consider that transitional risk because it links back to risk, to force our military forces and risk to missions.
▶ 0:57:03And as we look forward over the life cycle of this budget and beyond into the fydp, you know, we're always looking at the evolution of those operational plans, and then the decision points along the way to make sure that we can match the combat capability and capacity required to achieve the desired effects that are baked within those operational plans across the cocoms.
▶ 0:57:30And I commend the army, uh, who's looking closely at the two platforms that you're most interested through your line of questioning and the work that undersecretary biddle has been doing to look at rotary wing, rotary wing lift requirements as we move to the future. But in the end, we have to have mobility on the battlefield. Um, it has to be survivable, uh, in the, in the conflicts and engagements that we'll have. And so we, we remain very closely focused on those requirements.
▶ 0:58:00>> well, I appreciate that. And my only concern is that it's not whether modernization is important, but I understand with some of those efforts that were not we are looking, uh, for a future date is next year, the year after, uh, so forth. Because it's, it's not been, it's not been fielded. Uh, but what we need to take a look at, and I think you understand this is whether the department is managing this transition in a responsible way.
▶ 0:58:26In my view, what we cannot afford to do is to create a near-term aviation gap. We weaken the supplier base and then ask the congress to come back and rebuild that capability and that capacity at a greater cost, because when you destroy the infrastructure, it's very, very difficult to bring that back and the skilled workforce that it takes, uh, to deal with that.
▶ 0:58:52So, uh, very clearly this information, and if you can supply this to our committee would be very, very helpful in our moving forward. I yield back, Mr. chair. >> thank you, chair, Mr. womack. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:59:04You know, you thread a very difficult needle in that, and there's been a lot of comments made, and I associate myself with a lot of these comments on the fact that here we are trying to figure out a base budget at the same time of a supplemental and at the same time talking about reconciliation in order to be able to meet the needs of the joint force going forward.
▶ 0:59:29Uh, and my friend, the ranking member of the full committee talks about capability gaps when you have to do it this way because of the lack of certainty and the political dynamics around this dais. And of course, throughout congress, there are going to be gaps in capabilities that. Correct? Mr. secretary. >> I mean, we do everything we can to try to minimize that by planning what could play off against something else.
▶ 0:59:59But inevitably, there are places where we have to make adjustments. You're right. >> sir, I want to get, uh, somewhat parochial here for just a minute on the subject of our reserve component. And this question would be for general kane last month, 22 adjutant general, all of those who command fighter units in their state signed a letter to congress calling for multiyear procurement authority to buy between 72 and 100 new fighters annually. 13 of 24 fighter units lack recapitalization plans.
▶ 1:00:28On the army side, all of our states suffer from a lack of reimbursement for responding to the call of their communities. Between fiscal 20 and fiscal 24, over 71 million was paid by states to the guard, but the guard never saw that reimbursement. Reimbursement. As you may know, any nonfederal entity reimbursing a federal entity causes the funding to go to the treasury, and nhb never sees that reimbursement.
▶ 1:00:50Our guard is paying to respond to a disaster out of o&m funds, then having to pay more to maintain it as the primary combat reserve for our active force. The guard continues to play an outsized role in our nation's defense. In fact, general nordhaus recently said that our national guardsmen are fully integrated as part of the joint force in operation epic fury. So here's my point.
▶ 1:01:14The guard and reserve are being asked to do more epic fury, midnight hammer, border security missions, domestic deployments, and the many all hazard responses across the 54. They are as much in the fight as the regular component. So what is the department's plan to ensure that the guard and reserve are recapitalized, maintained and reimbursed at a pace consistent with their operational role in the national defense strategy?
▶ 1:01:48>> sir, I'm assuming that question is coming to me. Since you're looking at me, um. >> you would be correct. >> yes, sir. Thank you sir. Um, you know, as a as a member of the guard, a proud member of the guard, I'm I'm mindful that every day when you mobilize the guard, you mobilize the united states people. Um, and they are now much more than a tactical reserve. They're a strategic reserve.
▶ 1:02:09Uh, the decisions on recapping the fighter community live, obviously within our civilian leadership, but the requirements that they're out there getting after every day, as you alluded to, sir, are our substantive and long lasting beyond just the title 32 force. What I'm always inspired by is the professionalism of the guard and the reserves, who get more out of, uh, an airplane than one might think.
▶ 1:02:37I mean, I go out there to andrews often and still get to fly, and my crew chiefs are master sergeants and senior master sergeants who've been on a particular airplane for a long, long time. So they'll continue to force extend that capability, uh, due to the professionalism that they have. It doesn't mean we don't have to take a hard look at recap and make sure that the fourth generation airplanes are on a pathway to fifth and sixth gen. As a department continues to look at what we're solving for.
▶ 1:03:12>> uh, Mr. chairman, if we have another round of questions, I'll I'll come back with another because my next question is probably not going to yield me enough time, and I'll yield back the balance. >> Mr. chair. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member, Mr. secretary, all of y'all, thank you for and all the men and women, thank you for your service. I want to ask you about the western hemisphere. I want to talk to you about mexico and then the border. Uh, first of all, thank you for the work that you all are doing in the western hemisphere.
▶ 1:03:40I've always said that we're looking at other parts of the world. We have to look at our own backyard, and we got to make sure that the western hemisphere is, is, um, working with us. So thank you for that. Uh, anything y'all want to add to the work that you're all doing there? I would ask you to talk to us a little bit about it. Mexico is the other one, uh, very important, very important part of us. Uh, michael, congressman michael mccaul and myself were down there.
▶ 1:04:06We pushed for the special operation forces seal to do training exercises. And for the first time, we actually have military forces in mexico, which is very unique. And and again, congratulations on that. Uh, if you can tell us what they're doing and we need to see more of that. We also have talking about the, the guard also, we have the, I believe the california guard is now for the first time, a partnership with mexico.
▶ 1:04:33We've been pushing, uh, I've been pushing texas, but california got there before we did. But, uh, that's good. And, uh, talk a little bit about that also on the border. I want to thank you and the men and women of joint task force southern border for the work that they're doing on the homeland there in my area, laredo, and other places. Uh, but I want to draw your attention to one particular threat. That is the accelerating demands.
▶ 1:04:59The cartels are not only watching what's happening in ukraine, but they're learning from it. And they're we're hearing from credible reports about cartels looking at fiber optic drone systems. Uh, and we all know what that is. And, uh, my question is, what is the department doing to get ahead of this threat? How are you investing in the counter uas capabilities to defeat fiber optics, drone systems?
▶ 1:05:28And what lessons are we learning, uh, from what's happening, you know, the recruitment of bureaucrats, with all due respect, uh, it takes a long time to get our systems over to the cartels. They got the money. They don't have to go through a procurement system. They'll just buy the drones. And, uh, they're out manning us on the mexican side along the border. So thank you. And if you can address that or the chairman also. >> well, thank you, congressman.
▶ 1:05:57I very much appreciate your efforts in this realm for a very long time. And I think you see in the national security strategy, the national defense strategy, western hem and homeland is priority number one. We may pace to to the ability on the first island chain, but priority number one is here. And you've seen it through america's counter cartel coalition and getting after the designated terrorist organizations that are trafficking drugs and humans into the united states, something you've been talking a lot about. And that's the beginning of our defense in depth.
▶ 1:06:23It starts down there where they produce and where they move then into mexico, where we have had an impressive, unprecedented amount of partnership. And we appreciate that we would encourage defense and marina to continue, uh, where they can, uh, to partner and do more. That's the expectation of the united states government, of the mexican government is step up so that we don't have to. And then sealing that southwest border, uh, is the defense of the american people. It's the defense of the homeland. And when you talk to the troops that are down there doing that, they're proud of it.
▶ 1:06:53It we also have multiple national defense areas there, uh, which are controlled by dow where we can do rapid testing on, on, uh, counter counter uas, a 401 capability. So we're using those places to streamline the process by which we see what the cartels are trying to do and get after it with new capabilities that we can then field elsewhere. Also learning from ukraine in the process. I would defer to the chairman, sir. >> I'll just add a few things on to this.
▶ 1:07:18It's, uh, the russia ukraine lessons learned and the application of those lessons by, uh, other actors like cartels is one we're focused a lot on. It's going to require a whole of government effort. As the secretary mentioned, we do have joint interagency task force 401, led by an incredible army one star, brigadier general matt ross, who's focused solely in a chairman's controlled activity.
▶ 1:07:46So 401 reports up to me and in turn then to the secretary to make sure that we're entrepreneurially looking at how to sense, see, detect and defeat the range of small uas threats. Uh, and, you know, uh, general ross is, uh, out was just out in centcom looking at some of the challenges that they're having over there. Uh, it'll continue to be an area of significant focus for the joint force, sir.
▶ 1:08:13>> well, my time is up, but I want to ask you to continue working with mexico. You you do have unprecedented, uh, partnerships, but the more we can push them, their allies, there's a historical sensitivity. We know why, but the more you can push him to get him to work with us, that would be great. Thank you so much for all of y'all. >> thank you. Gentlemen, chairman rogers. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Secretary hegseth. >> general kane.
▶ 1:08:43>> Mr. hurst, thank you for being here. And thank you more importantly for your service to the country. The 2026 national defense strategy, uh, makes clear that china is the pacing challenge. And this budget request puts real resources behind that nomenclature, including 11.7 billion for the pacific deterrence initiative.
▶ 1:09:17My concern is that we are we are not just competing against china's military capability. We're competing against the speed at which china can build, replace and influence. Where are some capability gaps when it comes to a potential conflict with the prc?
▶ 1:09:44And general caine, how how will your priorities posture the joint force to close those gaps? >> chairman, thanks for the question.
▶ 1:09:58Um, and, you know, the speed at their production capability is one of the reasons why I'm grateful for the full teams partnership on speeding up the us defense industrial base efforts, as well as the national industrial base efforts.
▶ 1:10:16And I'd really like to thank those mom and pop machine shops and second, third, fourth tier suppliers that live in all of your districts who are also increasing speed and capability without losing quality across the entirety of our manufacturing system. And it's going to require all of that.
▶ 1:10:37When we look at the range of capabilities that we must have to be properly armed and globally integrated, that extends to things like, you know, long range fires and really an ability to arm our joint force to win from the seabed to cislunar space in every single domain in there. And I'll defer to the comptroller and to the secretary to talk about the particular elements.
▶ 1:11:03But the goal is the range and mix of capabilities that create outsized dilemmas for xi jinping and others that are out there to ensure that we maintain and sustain deterrence. Thank you. >> amen. Thank you. Second, uh, the war between the us and iran, uh, reinforces an old lesson, which is that modern conflict comes down to attrition.
▶ 1:11:33China has been able to produce naval ships at a pace our industrial base can't match. The ships are not as large as ours, but quantity has a quality of its own.
▶ 1:11:52How are we postured for an economy of force in the pacific, particularly if taiwan is invaded? >> well, sir channel and my, uh, my inner clausewitz, um, which is always something I try to remember the, the big moving parts of warfighting.
▶ 1:12:15You know, we're not really doing economy of force work in the pacific, as you alluded to, sir, and others have. It's our primary focus and so on a daily, you know, on a daily basis, we come to the secretary with a range of military options across the world, uh, so that he and the president can carefully consider those military actions and associated risks.
▶ 1:12:42It all comes back to the budgetary tools that you'll hopefully give us and the authorities to achieve those capabilities. And as we look, for example, at shipbuilding, which you talked about, I'm grateful for the work that the navy is doing to scale that effort, uh, to ensure that we offer and continue to offer those range of options to our civilian leaders here in the united states. >> quickly to, uh, epic fury.
▶ 1:13:16Um, our fight with iran has confirmed what defense planners had long warned about. Iran doesn't need a peer military to cause serious problems. It's playbook to cheap drones built from commercial ports, sea mines in contested straits, fast attack craft and anti-ship missiles.
▶ 1:13:44The war also confirmed a harder lesson even with overwhelming firepower, the side that runs out of munitions or air defenses first loses. Are we, Mr. secretary? Are we secure in that point? >> absolutely.
▶ 1:14:09Um, and we we are winning have won every component of what we fought in this conflict. Iran knows that based on the incredible degradation of their capabilities, uh, and which is why we saw them wanting to come to the table. How this gets resolved will be on our terms, on president trump's terms. And we have all the munitions and capabilities necessary to enable that. >> thank you. Yield back. >> thank you. Gentlemen. Mr. aguilar. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you all for being here.
▶ 1:14:40Um, Mr. hurst on on april 29th, as you indicated to the ranking member, you said that the iran war had cost $25 billion in total. You reaffirmed that today. Do you have any do you have any other updated costs or projections? Um, since that testimony that you've given outside reporting estimates have indicated that the war costs could be $1 billion a day. Do you have any anything to share? >> yeah. Thanks for the question, sir.
▶ 1:15:10Uh, so at the time of testimony from the hasc, it was $25 billion. But the joint staff team and the comptroller team are constantly looking at that estimate. And so now we think it's closer to 29. Uh, that's because of updated repair and replacement of equipment costs and also just general operational costs. Keep people in theater. >> thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. secretary. When can you share more formal accounting on the cost of the war with with congress and with this committee?
▶ 1:15:40>> um, we'll share what we can. I think we've updated on that number this morning, but, uh, when it's when it's relevant and required, we will share it. >> I. >> I think this would be the format, um, that it's, that it would be required. Uh, Mr. secretary, on that same day, april 29th, you testified that the current cease fire meant that the 60 day calendar with the war powers resolution was paused. Um, who are the parties to the cease fire?
▶ 1:16:11>> well, right now we are in that same cease fire as of right now. >> wasn't the question, who are the parties. >> to the united states and and the regime in iran who. >> how many pages is the cease fire? What deal points? I'm not asking you to share the contents. I guess what I'm what I'm trying to ask is how do we know that the cease fire is is active or not active without any documentation?
▶ 1:16:42>> we know it's evident in the cease fire is in effect. But is. >> it is it pages? Is it is it 15 points? There's been different points that have moved around. Um, you know, is there any other how do we know you just trust that the president knows that the cease fire is active or not active. >> as you know, for the most part, a cease fire means the fire is ceasing. And we know that has occurred while negotiations occur.
▶ 1:17:10And there are lots of different, uh, discussions with our negotiating team that are happening. I'm there when those discussions are occurring, uh, different drafts, different perspectives. So it's a very dynamic situation where a negotiated settlement could be the outcome here, where iran does not have nuclear capabilities. And from a department of war perspective, we, uh, we're here to support those options.
▶ 1:17:32>> on may 5th, you announced the launch of project freedom, which is a new exercise where centcom will help coordinate ship traffic and guide commercial ships through the strait. President trump then announced the operation concluded that evening. Now, it seems that the. We may be revisiting that. Can you give us the latest on project freedom. >> as it pertains to battlefield options? We're not. We don't disclose those types of things, but ultimately, at the.
▶ 1:18:00As the president stated publicly in his truth, at the request of the pakistanis and given the options in the negotiation, it was paused. And it's an option we could always recommence should the commander in chief want us to. >> is the. Is the theory to create more cease fires or more projects just to evade the war powers act? >> um, the theory of the entire case is to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon.
▶ 1:18:24And if that has to be done kinetically and militarily, the department of war is locked and loaded and ready to do that if it happens through, uh, project freedom where you move commerce through, if it has to, if it happens through a negotiated deal. The president was very clear even yesterday. This is actually quite simple. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon one way or another. And we're here to support as one tool of the whole of government to make that happen.
▶ 1:18:49>> general keane, uh, the depleted munitions have been a subject of some of the discussions that you've even heard here today. Um, with respect to stockpiles that we have around the world, key regions like the indo-pacific and the middle east. Um, you know, can you give us an update? What other, what are you hearing from the combatant commands, um, about, uh, their munitions status around the world?
▶ 1:19:20>> uh, well, sir, we, we, uh, we have sufficient munitions for what we're tasked to do right now. Um, that's what I hear from the cocoms. What I will say is I, I will always want more. So I appreciate the effort of this committee and the congress. We're always going to want more munitions. >> secretary hegseth, what are you doing to support the involved services to to recap their losses?
▶ 1:19:45>> we're submitting a $1.5 trillion budget that will remake the department and ensure that every warfighter in the future has exactly what they need. And we're never in a fair fight. And I, I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum. That's not true. And ultimately, we have all the munitions needed to execute what we need to execute, and we're going to ensure that we supercharge that going into the future. >> I think you've heard differences from both sides of the aisle on that point. I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentlemen, judge carter. >> thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:20:14Chairman, and welcome to each of you. I'm glad you're here. Uh. Start off with something I'm concerned about. Uh, Mr. secretary, my milcon va subcommittee is aware of living conditions of the 68 w combat medic students at joint base san antonio.
▶ 1:20:39Frankly, they're very unacceptable, quite unlivable. Uh, as chairman of milcon committee, I'm deeply concerned that there appears to be no imminent path forward to fix these issues. What actions is the department taking to improve these living conditions and share our soldiers, receive safe and dignified housing?
▶ 1:21:06Not now and not in the years to come. Our budget cannot fix that. It's not. We don't have enough money. You got all the money. What do you think about that? >> first of all, let's fix that. Whatever, whatever unit that is, we want to know about it, and we're going to get a team out there right away to address it.
▶ 1:21:30And we've used discrete examples like that to find the gaps in why we're not getting at it on a more at a more holistic fashion, because we came in on a huge deficit of maintenance on barracks and housing. This this. >> budget. >> this budget funds that it also we're also going to pursue milcon reform because in too many places, we're trying to build things around milcon as opposed to using milcon because milcon is so bureaucratic and slow in its process.
▶ 1:21:53So we look forward to working with you to, to fix that, not just these, this discrete barracks issue, but where we found them, we fixed it, and then we've energized the system through a barracks task force to, to flow money exactly where it needs to go. >> and I'm, I'm a champion of speeding up milk on everywhere we can. And we are. I've been out to the, to, uh, guam and some of those places. And we got a lot of needs out that way.
▶ 1:22:22And we're way beyond what our budget will sustain. But I have another question for you. Uh, I represent fort hood, the home of the, uh, first air cavalry division brigade, operating apaches, blackhawks, and chinook helicopters.
▶ 1:22:43I'm concerned that the fy 2011 budget request does not support these programs, essentially zeroing out funding across the three platforms, despite the armitage stating that we're going to use these aircraft and they will operate for decades to come. With that, the chinook has no replacement for heavy lift mission. Now.
▶ 1:23:10Will the department manage aviation modernization, and how will they do that without creating readiness problems and capability gaps in the future? What's the plan? Future lift is not like the chinook. >> sir. I think it's a very fair point. I think it goes to the previous mindset of divest to invest.
▶ 1:23:39That was an austerity point of view that we inherited at our department. Uh, we've made some changes at the army. We might have a slightly different view of the army transformation initiative. Some of it is very good. There's a lot of goodness in there, but I think there are some things that assumed, uh, future platforms that may not be there yet. Take the apache, for example, which, uh, our, our warfighters rely on and love. Take the chinook, which is used all, all the time. We need to make sure we've got something there for it, uh, before you divest or we're not investing in that capability.
▶ 1:24:07So we look forward to reviewing that with you and ensuring that we don't have a gap. >> yeah. Because the budget doesn't have anything. It zeroes out all three of those as far as we read it. >> well, then I, I'd like to take I'll take another look at that with our team. >> okay. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. Uh, Mr. case. >> thank you. Chair. Mr.
▶ 1:24:33Hearst, what is the total replacement cost of the material that we have expended in iraq to date? By material I refer to munitions. I refer to, um, you know, planes, to drones, to stuff that we keep in our stockpile. >> yeah. I'll exclude military construction from this because we don't know what that's going to look like in the future. But I would say it's around $24 billion. Okay.
▶ 1:25:02Replacement repair. >> and that's through what date? >> that's our current estimate. >> okay. I'm looking at a report in the public sphere from csis dated april 21st, uh, which calculates, um, estimated, um, cost, unit cost, aggregate unit cost of seven precision, uh, systems.
▶ 1:25:26So I'm talking, you know, tomahawk jassm prism sm three, sm six, that patriot, those seven at about $25 billion. Um, is that, does that sound about right? I mean, you're, you're projecting everything at about 23. >> yeah. I'm most confident in our projections on munitions cost. That's the easiest thing to calculate. So that number sounds a little high to me for that stage of the war. >> okay.
▶ 1:25:53Um, we've lost about 39 aircraft, uh, according to a report in the war zone. And that's an old one that's almost one month old. Um, do you have a replacement cost on all those aircraft? Now, understanding that some of that aircraft is not replaceable, but presumably you would have to replace it with some kind of capacity. >> uh, there are costs there, sir, but I want to get back to you in writing and what they specifically are, because as you can imagine, repair of aircraft is something that's very hard to calculate.
▶ 1:26:19Uh, we want to do a full diagnostic of aircraft before we estimate that cost. >> okay. But that's not in your estimate of somewhere around 29, uh, cost of war that you, that you gave us. >> that's included. That's what we have right now. >> oh, I see that is part of it. >> yeah. But it's an estimate, especially for repair costs. And so that could change over time. >> okay. And you did talk about milcom, which was a question that I had. Do you have any because, I mean, we've obviously suffered major damage to our infrastructure, uh, in the middle east. Um, do you have you don't have a cost estimate yet.
▶ 1:26:50>> we have a lot of unknowns there. We don't know what our future posture is going to be. We don't know how we construct those bases. And we don't know what part our allies and partners could pay into the milken cost. And so we don't have a good estimate for that at the time. >> okay. What about fuel? Is that a major calculation in your cost of fuel used depletion of fuel reserves, um, replenishing that reserve. >> we wrap that into our operations and maintenance costs. >> okay. That's okay.
▶ 1:27:15Um, going to your fy 26 budget request, you've got, uh, procurement. Let's just focus on procurement because that's what we're talking about largely, you've got $413 billion, which in and of itself is an 84% increase over fy 20. I'm sorry, I'm in 27, 2027 versus 26.
▶ 1:27:37Um, and you have, uh, 38% of that total procurement request in reconciliation. Does that reconciliation request include anything from the war in iran? >> well, obviously, we're buying things in the reconciliation request that are being used in the iran conflict, including munitions. There's over $40 billion in munitions requests and reconciliation.
▶ 1:28:06So that would be, uh, part of the replacement. >> okay. So what I'm trying to get at is, is your reconciliation request in fy 27 related to iran, or is it not related to iran or what? What is it all. >> you know, how long our budget generation process is and the appropriation cycle. And so we completed this before the iran conflict. >> exactly. Okay. So what you're coming back to us with is not the record. I mean, the reconciliation is not about iran.
▶ 1:28:34The reconciliation is about assumptions that were made before iran. >> it's about making a generational investment in the joint force and building military readiness. That's a budget request is. >> okay. Um. I'm going to get back to some of the questions that were asked earlier, which is what is the assumption that you are making in terms of, of, of future reconciliation bills in future fiscal years? How much of this is loaded into this particular fiscal year?
▶ 1:29:04You had a big reconciliation last year, which was, which was portrayed in the same light. And now you're coming back for a huge one. This year is another one on the horizon next year. >> then for our budget request for 28, we we expect a request that is discretionary only. Uh, and I believe the top line for that is 1.23, which will be our request that year. >> okay, I yield back. >> thank you gentlemen. Mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you.
▶ 1:29:34>> Mr. chairman. Uh, thank you, gentlemen, and more importantly, the folks that you lead. Uh, federal government does a lot of important things, but nothing more important than what you all deal with. Uh, let me let me get back to this hemisphere. Uh, I'm very, very grateful that the administration is finally really focused on western hemisphere, and it's actually, uh, going to show we're going to be able to show that it's saving american lives. But but let me just, uh, to you, Mr. secretary, let me throw a couple of points and see if you disagree with any of these.
▶ 1:30:01And let me talk about the the one state sponsor of terrorism in the western hemisphere, which is the cuban regime. Uh, uh, are you aware that they harbor terrorists and us fugitives from us law and we can just go through these really quick? Uh, yes, yes, yes. Um, is it true that the cuban regime actually shot down two american airplanes in international airspace murdering americans? >> I don't I can't recall the precise year, but I believe that is. >> the case.
▶ 1:30:30>> uh, is it true that, uh, that russian spy ships and warships, including the nuclear sub kazan kazan, have repeatedly used cuban ports? >> uh, that is true, congressman. >> um, is it true that the site of the russian, uh, uh, complex in lourdes was has once again become a hub for russian intelligence within cuba? >> well, we've long been concerned that, uh, a foreign adversary using that kind of location that close to our shores is highly problematic. Yes.
▶ 1:30:59>> and is it also true that now the chinese also are there? >> I wouldn't want to reveal anything that should be classified, but we we don't want, uh, foreign adversaries attempting to use that island. >> well stated. Um, are you aware that, uh, well, you're obviously aware that that cubans, uh, intel people and, and military folks have been have been sent around the world because your folks, uh, confronted them, uh, in venezuela.
▶ 1:31:24Um, but are you also aware that according to ukrainian intelligence, there are thousands of cubans fighting for russia and ukraine? >> uh, I was not aware of that particular fact, but I am well aware that cubans have been around the globe to include attempting to defend maduro in venezuela. So that is something they've done for a long time. Yes. >> um, you're also aware, Mr.
▶ 1:31:46Secretary, that, uh, well, even stated by us intelligence, even during the biden administration, the trump administration, the previous administration, but the obama administration that cuba has been designated as one of the four most advanced espionage operations against the united states, and that they share intel with other adversaries of the united states. >> um, that all very much sounds right, sir. >> and and again, we're not in a classified setting.
▶ 1:32:10So I'm just considering all those issues and others that we could talk about in a classified setting. Do you believe that the cuban regime possesses a national security threat to the united states? >> uh, I do. >> let me now focus on iran, as I have a little bit of time left over. You've Mr. secretary, you've been very clear what the goal is. But the goal that you're saying is not the goal that just this administration has had vis a vis iran.
▶ 1:32:39It's been the goal of multiple presidents, the united states, right? Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. But I'd like to also ask you about iran's offensive ballistic missiles, uh, and their offensive drones and their use of terrorism. Are those also issues that, um, would be, um, factors in a negotiated settlement with iran? Um, because I, I don't have to tell you that there have been negotiations at nauseam with iran.
▶ 1:33:09The iranians continue to cut deals and yet they violate those deals. But it's interesting in the in the nuclear deal that was cut with iran during the obama administration, missiles weren't even part of that deal. As as as horrible as the deal was dealing with the nuclear issue, uh, nor was terrorism. And I'm just hoping that those two issues, not only the nuclear deal, which is paramount, but but offensive ballistic weapons, missiles.
▶ 1:33:41And we saw we saw one that now has a capability of, of traveling rather rather far and also their spread of terrorism. I hope that those also would be factors in any resolution to this to this issue in iran, with iran. >> well, sir, we're not we're not the negotiating team. But I can tell you we have world class negotiators. The core of it is, is nuclear weapons issue. Um, those other factors are always a factor.
▶ 1:34:03Understanding that iran is effectively tried to use the north korea strategy with such overwhelming capabilities, uh, conventionally, that no one would dare prevent them from pursuing a nuclear weapon. And it took president trump to have the courage to make that historic decision. And hopefully we can get that across the finish line with negotiations, which are ongoing right now. >> Mr. chairman, my time is up, I yield back. Thank you, sir. >> thank the gentleman, miss lee. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:34:32Uh, secretary under secretary in general, thank you for being here. Uh, secretary hegseth, about 11 years ago, us air force veteran sergeant david crete served, who served at the nevada test and training range, realized for the first time that the health problems he'd been experiencing were not an isolated incident, but matched the health problems of many other veterans who had served alongside him.
▶ 1:34:59At nitor, he was sitting in his backyard, reconnecting with eight of them, and asked them, does anyone here have tumors? In six of eight of them rose their hands and then proclaim that even some of them had children with tumors? Dave, as it happens, had recently had a grape sized tumor removed from his neck.
▶ 1:35:22Three years ago, he came to washington when the va had refused to provide him the kind of benefits and coverage he had earned and which he needs from the va because of his department of defense, would not provide the agency with his records of his nitor service. I helped to introduce a bill two years ago, uh, that and have been fighting on his behalf ever since.
▶ 1:35:48What is most frustrating about this fight is not that the federal government doesn't recognize these health impacts of their service. In fact, congress 26 years ago provided a law providing medical coverage and compensation for the department of energy employees who served in the very same location that dave crete and his colleagues had served in.
▶ 1:36:12Instead, their fight is against the department of defense red tape, uh, which you have been committed to fighting. Thank you. You see, one of the only things standing between the toxic exposure exposed veterans at nitor and comprehensive health coverage and benefits from the va is documentation that the department of defense has that will prove that they served where they actually did.
▶ 1:36:40This documentation exists, and we're just waiting for the department to act. Every day that you delay in providing this information, another veteran and their family suffers unnecessarily. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet many of these veterans.
▶ 1:37:01Two hours before I met them, one of them received a call from his oncologist informing him that he had multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer. Over the weekend, dave was notified that two more of his cohort had recent deaths. The invisible enemy, which is an organization dave founded, maintains a memorial list of those who worked at nitor and have passed away.
▶ 1:37:29When dave testified before the house veterans affairs committee, uh, roundtable 13 months ago, 462 veterans were on this list. Today, that list includes 565 names. Just one year of inaction has led to 130 103 veterans passing without the care that they receive, that they earned, and their family without the benefits.
▶ 1:37:58This list grows by an average of one every two days. Mr. secretary, you have the authority to provide the va with the documents they need today, uh, to get these veterans the help they need. These veterans have been waiting far too long.
▶ 1:38:16Can you please commit to me that you will be able to provide that list or that information as soon as possible, so that these veterans can get the care and the benefits that they have rightfully earned. >> well, thank you for what you're doing for those folks. And I can certainly commit to you today that, you know, my chiefs right here, we'll make we will get a review for me as soon as early as next week.
▶ 1:38:44And I'll get back to you on, on what our department's position should be on that. >> okay. Well, I first of all, we have the information. The department of energy has provided these benefits to the same cohort of people who've worked alongside them. I can't we cannot wait for another review. I'm asking for your commitment. >> I'm not talking about a full review. I'm just talking about a familiarization. So I understand exactly what you're talking about.
▶ 1:39:12Wrap my arms around it and then get you a response. It's not a it's not a situation I have all the facts on. I just want to get all the facts and understand it before I commit to something like that. >> all right. I just, uh, like I said, one person every two days, one veteran who has served this country is dying and their families are going without the benefits they've earned. I can't express how urgent this need is. I thank you for your, uh, immediate attention to this issue.
▶ 1:39:42>> thank the gentlelady, Mr. ellzey. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr. secretary general kane j. Thank you all for being here. To all the staff sitting uncomfortably and very tight seats behind him. Thanks for your dedication to our country, master chief isom, you joined the navy in 1987. Ronald reagan was still president. You've been in uniform for 39 years. I'd like to thank you and your family for all the sacrifices that you've made.
▶ 1:40:07You're clearly the essential man, and I, I always want to point that out, that, uh, you've been serving in the navy since I was a junior in high school. And so I'm very, very grateful as we address $1.5 trillion request, I want to say I appreciate participating in the tabletop exercise at the pentagon, and I encourage all my colleagues to attend and do that.
▶ 1:40:29It gives a very clear message on why we're asking, uh, or you are asking for 1.5 trillion and how it's justified. Um, as we move forward with contested logistics and as eventually this war in iran will end, uh, and the indopacom becomes the focus again, I'd like to see congress fully fund the request for the marine corps mcclellan class, lsm and the kc 130 j for both the navy and the marine corps. But the budget request breaks them up.
▶ 1:40:58And I'm not sure how you skin that cat. Uh, moving to force protection and counter uas, as we've seen in iran at nations that are somewhat far away from iran, we've had a force protection counter uas issue as we've lost a a e three awacs, which is worth 500 when we 500 million when we bought it. But it's irreplaceable. And there are fewer of those than b 21.
▶ 1:41:21I think we're seeing, uh, the, the reach of uh, of uas affect us in a way that we probably didn't anticipate. And we need to continue to use, uh, new, um, companies that are developing new technologies to go after uas. Uh, general, you addressed carl von clausewitz, so I'll use sun tzu as a counter. Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.
▶ 1:41:50And we deployed the uss ford in june 24th of 2025. It's going on 11 months at sea. And as one of only two people in the room who have been on extended deployments on ships, myself and master chief isom, I just want to point out, thanks to the families who are sacrificing, this is going to, um, harm a lot of families. And, and as we realize that every conflict we've been in, in the last year has included the ford and it's been essential to our operations.
▶ 1:42:19It also points out the need for carriers, and I don't think 11 is enough, but also recognize that down range that's going to affect the availability and the readiness of our force going forward. Uh, so along with that, the capabilities that a sixth generation fighter on the carrier are so important, as we've already seen, we've got the f 47, we're going to downselect the faxx later this summer. General kane, can you address why having both of those is so important?
▶ 1:42:48>> well, first, sir, I want to echo your gratitude for the ford. Uh, yesterday the air wing flew off. So we know that oceana was a very happy place. Uh, as, uh, those aviators fought through 800ft, broken to come up initial as they should after a record setting deployment. So we welcome the ford back.
▶ 1:43:09You know, my job, I won't comment on a particular program, but the job that I'm in now is to offer a range of options to include our ability to project power off cvns in the future. So as our civilian leadership carefully considers that, I know that'll be in the mix. If, uh, if the selected and I know your colleagues in virginia and in san diego are all focused on the same, sir. >> they're going to have similar capabilities.
▶ 1:43:38But I think as we switch to the indopacom region, that as we talk about first, second, third island chains, which for most of the american people doesn't really mean that much, but the ability to have a moving, uh, airfield in the indopacom, uh, when we know that the chinese, uh, are peer adversary, have, uh, a number of hypersonic weapons that are going to be aimed at fixed points, such as islands where our forces are.
▶ 1:44:07It's just extremely important that we recognize that that a moving aircraft carrier with unique capabilities, which obviously can't be used in a place like this, um, that can shoot from outside the range of the capabilities of our adversaries is extremely important. I appreciate everything that you all are doing. You are addressing an issue that hasn't been addressed in decades by asking for 1.5 trillion. It's a hard ask.
▶ 1:44:32It's going to be difficult for us to sell it, but I think it's absolutely essential for the defense of the united states, including a supplemental, which even people on my side of the aisle are saying they won't support. This is merely to refurbish and replenish that which we have expended in this conflict. It's absolutely essential for the defense of the united states, and the chinese are watching. So thank you for all three of you and everybody in the room that works in this department. Thank you for what you do, I yield back. >> thank the gentleman, Mr. morelli. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:45:02I appreciate, uh, this hearing. And thank you all for for being here and for testifying. I just wanted to make a general observation. First of all, I do get the sense that sometimes people think that critical questions are unpatriotic, weak, or defeatist. I just want to say, for the record, I don't think that's true. I think it's the opposite. And I appreciate general keane. You've mentioned civilian leadership and civilian civilian control a number of times in your testimony this morning.
▶ 1:45:30We're the congress, uh, civilian control that you have talked about begins and ends here. And that's why the founders put in article one responsibility for funding and for declarations of war are with the united states congress. So I want to just mention that because I hear it all the time, and we are not in any way when we ask critical questions, demeaning or in any way reducing our tremendous respect for the men and women of the military, the joint forces of the united states.
▶ 1:45:57So I feel like that needs to be said. And I appreciate, um, the comments that you made, general keane, about civilian control. Second, as it relates to mandatory spending versus discretionary, I think this is really important. This committee, the appropriations committee and the defense subcommittee is is given the responsibility by the congress, by the american people to make sure that we have an appreciation for all the dollars, taxpayer dollars that go into defending this nation.
▶ 1:46:25And questions, again, uh, ought to be here. Transparency begins here. Uh, oversight begins here, and mandatory spending avoids the responsibility this committee has to report to the american people and how our money is being spent. So I just, again, want to stress how important it is. I appreciate my friend Mr. ellis's comments about the $1.5 trillion request.
▶ 1:46:49If it is so obvious to everyone and to the american people that that's the dollar amount we need, we ought not be going through this mandatory discretionary supplemental. Let's let's put it all on the table and let's make the case to the american people.
▶ 1:47:01Um, you know, we've now waited since february 28th is, by my count, 11 weeks, 74 days since hostilities began in iran and trying to get a reporting of the dollars that have been spent in this has been excruciating. And it's been long. I think general washington, uh, reported quicker to the continental congress, uh, than this has been in terms of reports to the united states congress.
▶ 1:47:28And I would just, in the strongest terms, urge that we move forward and give this committee a full reporting on what the cost of this endeavor has been with that. Um, I didn't want to make a quick. You you mentioned Mr. Mr. secretary, in your opening comments about private companies making private investments. In our defense, I assume they're getting compensated for their investment. When you say private investment, are you suggesting companies are making investments for which they will not be compensated? >> uh, yes I am.
▶ 1:47:58>> why would they do that? >> because we're turning it. It's it's the right question because we've done it one way for years and years and gotten the same results. So this is changing the paradigm. Companies now know we're going to give them orders for 5 to 7 years, unexploded munitions in exchange for them paying for capitalization of their own plants. We used to pay for them to build their plants and then buy the munitions from them. So now, because they know they got they got consistent income. >> they are no, I appreciate I appreciate what you're saying.
▶ 1:48:29Their upfront costs. >> are now. Paying for their own plants and equipment. That's a that is a brand new paradigm. The taxpayers not paying for it. That's $50 billion of value that you don't have to appropriate because the companies are paying for it themselves. >> and the companies will not get compensated. They're going to make that as a charitable contribution to the united states government. >> their compensation is long lead times of munitions that they will produce and we will pay for in the future. But we don't have to build that. >> just to be clear, this. >> is. >> private, my time. Reclaiming.
▶ 1:48:58I just want to be clear, build their own factories. I appreciate what you're saying, but let's not I mean, let's let's be honest. They're going to get compensated. I look, I'm for that and I appreciate what you're saying in terms of lead time and dependability and reliability of funding. But but let's be clear, um, I want to switch topics if I can for a second. Um, the, um, there's been much reported about the president's trip to, uh, to china.
▶ 1:49:21And I appreciate again, my colleagues who have raised indopacom and its defense, uh, there are weapons sales which have been on hold that the president has not authorized to taiwan. And I wonder if you could give me an update, either Mr. secretary or general keane, on what the status of those weapons sales are at this point. >> I just want to say that the primes will be paying for those factories out of their own pocket, not the department's money or the taxpayers money, which is a sea change, which is why I think this budget.
▶ 1:49:51>> they're going to get a return on their investment, which, by the way, is welcome. Well, welcome. >> a return on investment. >> yes, I understand, but they're not paying for it out of their pocket and not getting compensated. But anyway, could you answer my question about taiwan. >> buildings cost money. And if we're giving them $2 billion to build the factory, that's taxpayer money. If they're using it out of their own hide, that's $2 billion saved for the american people that then we can appropriate toward munitions that we pay for in the future. I know it's difficult to grasp. It's not. It's what happens, sir. It's it's it's. >> it's a different way of getting to the same place.
▶ 1:50:22You're going to pay for it, the united states. And look, we ought to they're building things for us. But to suggest that somehow they're making an investment that they're not going to get compensated through sales is just it's honestly kind of ridiculous. >> we used to pay for the building to and then pay for the sales, and now we're paying for the sales, but not the building, which I think is a good. >> and they're not embedding that in the price of the things that they're selling to us, the price capitalization, the capex that they're putting into it, they're going to get back. I look, I don't know why we're even arguing about it. >> they're paying for it.
▶ 1:50:53>> could you answer my question about taiwan? >> that's the president's on the cusp of a trip, and I'll be with him, and he will make all the decisions related to that. >> I thank the gentleman's time has expired. Make a quick point. There is a there is a change, a the industrial base is putting money at risk with the expectation of orders. But there is no guarantee if in fact that that, uh, particular product that they may make, uh, is not met or meet the standards in which we want to acquire it.
▶ 1:51:19Uh, and that is a significant change from what we've done in the past, Mr. fleischman. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary. I commend those changes and the innovation to everyone on this panel. Thank you for a job well done. Thank you for what you're doing for our country. This is truly incredible. So let me start with that. Um, as chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, I'm going to take a little bit different approach.
▶ 1:51:45I'm deeply involved in the recapitalization and modernization of our nation's nuclear deterrent, as we are recapitalizing the entire strategic nuclear arsenal. I remain concerned about the lack of options lower on the escalation ladder available to the president in theater. Non-strategic nuclear weapons have remained essential to the credibility of our extended deterrent commitment to nato.
▶ 1:52:10Um, I've got a couple of questions to ask, but I'm going to ask general, uh, keane and secretary hegseth, what is your assessment of our non-strategic nuclear capability, gaps in the indo-pacific and elsewhere? What additional tactical nuclear capabilities beyond slocum, and should we consider that would be most useful for reassuring allies, deterring our adversaries, and providing combatant commands and useful options in the worst case event of a conflict?
▶ 1:52:41>> we are, as you know, we're making a $2 billion investment. And you mentioned slocum. And in fy 26. So we're investing in that. But I, I would say that, uh, a lot of that discussion would be classified, given all plans in the indo-pacific. But admiral paparo, uh, I would say there's no cocom commander. We have regular feedback with on what dilemmas we might need to create for an adversary. Then admiral paparo and indopacom, uh, to include everything that would deter any level of aggression.
▶ 1:53:10So I think there's a lot of sensitivity on this topic that doesn't lend itself to this environment, but very much so. We're looking at all options. >> thank you. And I would also commend the admiral tomorrow. I mean they're doing incredible work. Yes, sir. >> general sir, I was just acknowledging the secretary's comment about what forum we're in here today. You know, all three and I appreciate the congress's leadership. All three legs of the triad are undergoing modernization and all require that.
▶ 1:53:38And we're grateful for that assistance from the congress. It's a bedrock to deterrence around the world, and one that we want to maintain our focus on. I'll probably leave it at that and can come back if there's follow up questions. >> thank you. And I would assure you, gentlemen, that in the energy and water bill which funds this, we will certainly address that in a very robust way, as I think the administration has. So I thank you all. Uh, as most of you know, I.
▶ 1:54:04In that bill, I'm probably the nation's strongest proponent, supporter of nuclear power in congress. A nuclear propulsion is long provided a great united states navy with significant operational advantages. Um, there's been tremendous, tremendous progress within your department accelerating the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of providing resilient and long duration power generation for military installations and forward operations. I'm excited about the army's janus program.
▶ 1:54:35And the air force just announced, uh, the first two air bases to receive microreactors. My question, uh, gentlemen, is can you walk us through how the department is thinking about the role of nuclear power across the joint force, including naval propulsion and the use of advanced reactors for base and expeditionary power? What operational advantage did you see these technologies providing, particularly in the indo-pacific, and what can we be doing to accelerate and expand these efforts?
▶ 1:55:07>> in both incredibly important capabilities, microreactors and propulsion? Uh, whether you're looking at survivability, sustainability of, of basing and mobility within basing, uh, and the expectation in the homeland or abroad that the lights are on and we can operate even if it's a contested environment. And then there's just no doubt, uh, you can't, you can't beat nuclear propulsion, uh, especially as we've refined it over time. So I appreciate your efforts. And I think in this department, you'll find a friend in ensuring we maximize that. >> thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:55:36Secretary general. >> sir, I'll just say that the joint staff has collaborated and continues to do so with all the combatant commands, the services, the secretary's team in office on osw and the congress to make sure that we're looking at the range of energy requirements that we're going to have and that we move from, frankly, in some cases, a reactive posture.
▶ 1:56:01No, no reaction into your nuclear point, but to a more proactive stance around how we're going to ensure energy, uh, sustainability in a range of situations that we could face. We appreciate the, we appreciate the chance to comment. >> thank you, general. And again, once again, I begin with profound thanks. I will end that way. To all of you. All I yield back. >> thank you. Thank the gentleman, Mr. joyce. >> thank you chairman. >> thank you all for being here.
▶ 1:56:32And defense or. Yes, defense secretary, war secretary. Excuse me. Uh, hegseth, godspeed on that project of changing our procurement process. America is at its finest when capitalism and capital markets allow free competition. And you get to purchase the best of all those ideas out there.
▶ 1:56:48Speaking of which, in june 2025, ukraine's operation spiderweb, if you're familiar with it, destroyed damaged dozens of russian aircraft on the ground using low cost, covertly infiltrated drones, demonstrated military installations are vulnerable to asymmetric drone attacks at a fraction of the conventional strike costs. What steps are the department taking to protect our military bases from covert drone attacks, and do you need additional funding to safeguard those assets? Well, I appreciate. >> the question.
▶ 1:57:17And it's it's the battlefield trend. Well, one of a handful that we are most closely tracking and investing in $54 billion in defense, autonomous warfare recognition that every aspect of how we fight will be affected by, uh, technology and techniques and tactics like, like that one. And, uh, and every environment more contested than it's ever been.
▶ 1:57:41And the ability to both go on offense and defense in that environment has to be something we're not just at parity with, but ahead of adversaries to ensure that we can create the kind of, uh, advantages we we're used to having. And that's, that's our job is to ensure that we're looking around the corner. And so this investment in this budget, I don't know what it was j in fy 26, but it was a small fraction of 54 billion.
▶ 1:58:03And we're even looking at dog and metamorphosing it, whether it's a joint task force into a subunified command, we're elevating this so we can push it through the services and ensure that it's not just something we do in an exquisite way, but it's how we fight at every echelon through the services. And that budget number is is a reflection of that. >> well, you're getting attacked on a lot of fronts, secretary. Uh. >> can I just can I just follow up that? Would that be okay?
▶ 1:58:29Um, one thing that I appreciate the partnership with the congress on is as we evolve from the warfighting mix that we have right now, the cost of precision and the cost of range is coming down. And so as we look at this, this budget, we look at the mix of capabilities that we're going to have.
▶ 1:58:50We talk about the agility and the defense industrial base and the national industrial base, the flexibility that we as teammates are going to have, to have to ensure that we're not buying behind the technology development curve, but we're buying in front of it is something that we look in the joint force to partner with, obviously, osw, but also the congress on this as technology moves really fast. Thank you.
▶ 1:59:18>> no problem sir, I just wanted to touch another angle that we're getting attacked at. And unfortunately, and that's a cyber threats from adversaries like china, russia, iran and criminal organizations which continue to grow departments ability to defend critical networks and support their military operations depends on a strong and ready cyber workforce across all the services. At the same time, unfortunately, you're competing with the private sector, which can make recruiting and retaining qualified cyber personnel challenging.
▶ 1:59:42Can you give us an assessment of where the department cyber workforce stands today and what investments congress can make to help you make that better? >> I appreciate that question. 2020 billion in cyber offense and defense. I think the biggest change we've made across the joint force is full integration of cyber as a warfighting domain, which it was always an appendage or something you might do.
▶ 2:00:02And I think when you look at operations, epic fury, um, absolute resolve with maduro, the capabilities, so much of that was enabled by unique cyber capabilities that we need to stay ahead on. And so this recognizing future adversaries could have more capabilities and more sophistication, both on offense and defense. Uh, this this funds it properly.
▶ 2:00:24And I think we put a commander in charge there who's, who's who's in general rudd, who is infusing a warfighting mindset into that place and ensuring we're competing not just inside the military, but also for the best civilian talent to come into, into cybercom as well. >> quite important and secretary to keep picking on you. But the collaborative combat aircraft program is one of the department's most significant investments in this next generation autonomous power.
▶ 2:00:49Can you discuss how the department is approaching the integration of these autonomous aircraft alongside crewed platforms, and how the program fits in your broader effort to feel affordable, mass and strengthen deterrence in the indo-pacific? >> I can share some of it, but not all of it, because a lot of that is is classified, but it is part of the future of how we will fight and a way in which we plan to stay far ahead of adversaries and create more dilemmas for them than I think they even imagined today. >> thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:01:20>> thank the gentleman. I recognize Mr. mccollum for any closing comments. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'll be submitting some questions. For the record, on behalf of representative kaptur. Uh, last year, the president requested the first trillion dollar defense budget. Congress provided, uh, over $150 billion in reconciliation and $903 billion in discretionary spending. I continue, and I think you heard from many of us up here that mandatory funding for defense is not a great idea. We should avoid it at all costs.
▶ 2:01:51The budget request for this upcoming fiscal year has grown to $1.5 trillion. It's a 50% increase, but the department doesn't seem to have enough to cover its budget holes here in the department. I'm going to give you two examples. Two examples. One is reprograming. Um, just the national guard alone has $600 million of reprograming. None of their missions were budgeted for. And now we're being asked to. Now you need to move money around. You're asking us to move money around to cover that.
▶ 2:02:20Um, that was money that was approved for other purposes. So it creates a hole. The army submitted a request to, to move nearly $1 billion around to fill personnel shortfalls. The navy has $907 million hole it needs to cover for its personnel. So those are those are problems. And this is why we want things baked into the base bill. Um, and then when it comes to the supplemental, the iraq war has cost americans, at least now if I'm if I've got it right, Mr.
▶ 2:02:49Hearst, $29 billion to date without a lot of things haven't been accounted for yet. And the department's requesting more money for munitions outside of the base budget. So, bottom line, I want your takeaway message to be. I'm deeply concerned that the department can't seem to manage $1 trillion that congress provided last year. So, gentlemen, we need information.
▶ 2:03:10We mark our bill up on june 11th, and we need to be able to justify to do our fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers any increased funding that you seek. So we expect the information that we've been asking for in munitions and supplemental requests as soon as possible. I would say, by the end of next week. So I thank you all for being here. And, Mr. chairman, we watched some of the other hearings.
▶ 2:03:36This is the way, especially a hearing should be conducted, especially when it's dealing with international defense. When we ask people to put their lives on the line. I thank everyone for a respectful hearing, but we need the information. Mr. secretary, I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. And that's something we are going to agree with. Uh, the other side is that we sooner is better. It makes my job easier. And the end of the day, it makes your job easier. Mr. secretary.
▶ 2:04:00Uh, if we can get the information both on the base budget and on the supplemental, uh, just just a comment as that ed case was making about some of the cost on this. And I hope the kuwaitis are going to come up with the money for those three f-15s that we lost. And, uh, that's a considerable amount of money. But I want to thank the secretary and the general kane for answering questions before the subcommittee today. I look forward to continuing to work with you as we move forward.
▶ 2:04:26Uh, with the fiscal year 27 appropriations process. And we can fund the men and women who serve us well in the united states military that we're adjourned.