The Department of Defense has implemented a transformative budget strategy that stimulates private sector investment in defense manufacturing, resulting in over $50 billion in private investments across 39 states, 180 cities, and 150 companies, creating 280 new facilities, 18 million square feet of manufacturing capacity, and 70,000 new jobs, fundamentally shifting from a bureaucratic procurement model to a business model where companies invest their own capital in exchange for guaranteed munitions contracts.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
LIVE | Hegseth, Gen. Caine testify before House Defense Budget HearingAdded:
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.
Let me briefly provide you with some concrete highle metrics of what we've accomplished over the last few months.
These are announced new facilities and investments to support American war fighters. 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. This 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. A 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 war fighters 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 the 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. We 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 warfighting budget. Under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing that we will need for generations. We are providing for our war fighters 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. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Kaine, you're now recognized for your remarks.
>> Chairman uh Calbert, Ranking Member McCullum, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member Deloro, thank you for having me and to all the members of the committee. Thank you for having me. I'm honored here today uh to testify alongside the honorable Pete Hegsth 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, the 2.8 million members of our joint force.
I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, coast guardman, 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. I 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 uh while deployed on a temporary duty assignment in Africa and we continue to hold hope for his teammate. The 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 risk 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. His 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 uh 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 executability within the unclassified environment that we find ourselves in today. As 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 force is operational at its core, purpose-built for the realities of a complex world. We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. And over the last year, our war fighters 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. Our 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 and 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. And 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. We will continue to ensure our war fighters 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 8 million members of our enlisted force who make us proud every day and they're represented today by the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman United States Navy Seal Dave Ism 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, out compete, and relentlessly innovate. We will maintain our decisive edge, but 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. As 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. I'll begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Uh Secretary Hexiff, for decades, Congress and the department have sought acquisition reform and innovative technologies. It's only since FY24 that the level of investment started to catch up with the rhetoric. The FY27 budget request includes over 950 million for the Defense Innovation Unit, 54.6 6 billion for the defense autonomous warfare group, 580 million for the joint inter agency 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. I also note there's only 100 million for the accelerate the procurement and fielding of innovative technology. That's surprisingly low given APFIT's success.
The subcommittee will continue to support APFIT as we have in the past. I invite you to join me at the APFIT day on the hill July 21st to see firsthand how APFIT is delivering capabilities to the war fighter. Consistent with the desire for injecting innovation at scale for decades there's been increasing demand for increasing uh resilience in the industrial base and more specifically the supply chain. The FY27 budget request includes over 20.2 billion for the Office of Strategic Capital and 30.4 billion for the Defense Production Act. As you're aware, we're working closely with the industrial-based policy team on the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network to ensure the department can qualify and certify second and al alternate sources to maximize American manufacturing. With exception of DIU and the joint inter agency task force 401, most the investments listed are in mandatory funding. What was the strategy to heavily rely on the mandatory funding sector in this uh budget?
>> Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, and 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 uh a lot of templates on the table that were there for us to fall in and run fast with. And so speed, scale, cutting red tape, uh reducing requirements where we can, looking at things like DIU, uh replicator, now the dog, um 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. And in a perfect world, everything would get done in regular order uh and with a $ 1.5 trillion topline, 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 with full transparency with you and maximizing options for the department and I think uh the reconciliation last year was a was a new vehicle so 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 a part of it that we do it in concert with you to ensure the most important things, whether they're in that or or in regular order, are included in the budget.
Understand the desire for flexibility.
I, you know, I uh understand why we're breaking this up in order to into chunks, I guess, more digestible to some degree politically, but um I would hope we can get a supplemental bill here soon.
uh obviously that we know that of the munitions issue and we know of the cost of this conflict and we know the cost of other conflicts and so we need to repay those on and m accounts that are going to be used I suspect in order to pay for this ongoing operation so any idea when we're going to get this supplemental >> uh we're well aware of all those dynamics I think first of all uh 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. And the reason we're um accelerating a lot of this is because the department's been static in 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 a hundred more of something, but the companies are investing. So there's new plants. So you're getting 2x, 3x, 4x 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. So, we're we're in we're in good shape on that front. Whatever we think we need uh we will submit. But I 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 so we have maximum optionality across the globe, which we do. Again though, it would be helpful to get the supplemental sooner rather than later for we can get to work on uh and now recognize Miss McCullum for her question.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Secretary, the House Armed Services Oversight hearing, Mr. Hurst uh stated that the costs for the war for EP EP operation epic fury are at 25 billion. Am I correct with with that number that used at the hearing, Mr. Hurst?
>> Yes, ma'am. That was the cost at that time. At that time, um I would request that you provide the committee uh in writing the specifics of what the department will be requesting in 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. But 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 and if there are any agreements from our regional allies.
We hear things in the press that would be helping for any new facilities or improvements in sentcom.
Now, Mr. Hurst, 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' I'd drill down and be just a little more specific for you.
Um, so I know you're going to do your best.
We'll take the homework assignment in pieces. Anything you can provide would be great. Now, 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. And 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. They did so over the weekend. Speaker Johnson, in my opinion, should put an authorization on the floor this week. But Mr. Secretary, 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 um, 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. if the War Powers Act in my opinion should be invoked and um 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. Certainly in this setting, we wouldn't reveal what the next step may be considering the gravity of of the mission that the president is 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 you, gentle lady. Uh Mr. Chairman, >> uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Secretary, as I said in my opening remarks, I have concerns about the use of reconciliation. I don't have any concerns about the amount and uh 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 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 uh 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 indust use 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. chairman and I'll 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 weapon systems for us and they say in exchange for a five to sevenyear contract which committees like this have authorized for us the authorizing committees uh not the appropriating comm 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 open remarks so they're building two or three new facilities, but we're committed to paying for those munitions for five to seven 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 and and as I acknowledged up front a higher topline 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 five to seven 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. And so I think that's that's a big chunk of of an increase that you see. I mean, if you're investing in the ship building industrial base, the defense industrial base, um, housing and barracks, all of that increase troop pay. We're looking at increasing the topline 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 cost. Uh, but some of it is something we're going to pay for now and benefit from in the future.
But Jay, I would defer to you.
>> Yeah, Mr. chairman in this. There's $13 billion uh for investments in the defense industrial base. I would characterize that as a one-time plus up for catchup uh $ 35 billion for FSRM 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 as a one-time expense, we come down to 1.23 for a requested topline for FY28. And so we think we can sustain these investments over the FIDAP 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 uh strategy as opposed to building things into the baseline. Uh 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 uh 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 E3, uh on the ground, thank goodness. Looks like no crew loss.
U this committee's been interested in investing in the E7. uh Pentagon signed the contract for five additional planes not in the Air Force budget. Is there going to be a fix to that or we where are we at on thinking about the E7?
>> I well aware of that dynamic. I know our department had taken the position that it was um airborne or other satellite ISR that was probably going to be a capable of a lot of that in the future.
I think that mindset was indicative of of a of a mindset that we've shed which is the devest to invest mindset which was an austerity mindset that we're going to get in continuing resolution after continue resolution. So we got to get rid of these platforms in order to invest to 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 MQ9's, A10s, you name it.
Um I think this and the E7 is one of those. So, I I we've actually sent it a budget amendment to OM 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 though 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. So, uh, again, thank you for, uh, 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 wfully needs attention. With that, I recognize the ranking member.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, uh, Mr. Secretary, the National Security Strategy says American national power depends on a strong industrial sector capable of meeting both peace time and wartime production demands. And the National Defense Strategy directs DoD to quote supercharge the defense industrial base. Uh DoD's uh 2027 budget overview appears to use that same framing. Yet, uh, 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. uh how did the department arrive at the conclusion that reducing procurement for these army a aviation platform 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 there are some very good things in the army transformation in 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 and we'll get back to you on that >> of of the of the aviation sector. Yes ma'am.
>> Okay. And with that but was there an analysis of 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 uh to cut the funds?
>> Well, we'll get that from the army and get that to you. I I don't have it in front of me, but I I would imagine >> I very very much would love to see that before the subcommittee marks up the appropriations bill um uh 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 Blackhawk and Chinook industrial base, the supplier-based risks associated with this budget request and the funded mitigation plan if production falls below those levels. Can you provide us with that information? I think that's critically important. I think I think we should get that to you and I think those platforms are critical to the force right now and we need to make sure we're able to sustain that.
>> Yeah, I think you made the point you all have that industrial base readiness is is a strategic issue. It's what the national uh uh security strategy uh you know recognizes and I look forward to hearing you know more about how cutting the billion dollars in the in the base investment aligns with that shared goal.
Um let me just a question to you General Kane. Despite the precipitous drop in procurement for army aviation platforms, your budget uh request invests heavily in modernization. I'm a believer in modernization. I think it's necessary. I support investing in future capability.
But Congress also has to understand the transition risk. The 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 and 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? What are the decision points where the department would revisit the reductions if future vertical lifts schedules slip, if costs rise or operational demand remains higher than expected?
Well, ranking member, I appreciate the question and anytime we're looking at military options to our political leaders, we we do bake in and can carefully consider that transitional risk uh because it links back to risk to force our military forces and and risk to missions. And as we look forward over the life cycle of this budget and beyond into the FIDP, 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. And I commend the army uh who's looking closely at the two platforms that you're most uh interested through your line of questioning and the work that under secretary Obadal has been doing to look at rotary ling rotary wing lift requirements as we move to the future.
But uh in the end we have to have mobility on the battlefield. um it has to be survivable uh in the in the conflicts and uh engagements it will have and so we we remain very closely focused on those requirements. Well, I I I I I appreciate that and my only concern is it is not whether modernization is important, but I understand with some of those efforts that we're not we are looking uh for a future date is next year, the year after so forth because it's it 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 uh in a responsible way. In my view, what we cannot afford to do is to create a nearterm 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. So 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 gentle lady. Mr. Wack.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. you 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. uh 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 dis and of course throughout Congress there are going to be gaps in capability. Is 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, but 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 Kaine. Last month, 22 agent general, all of those who command fighter units in their state, signed a letter to Congress calling for multi-year procurement authority to buy between 72 and 100 new fighters annually. 13 of 24 fighter units lack recapitalization plans. On 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 reimbur reimbursement. As you may know, any non-federal entity reimbursing a federal entity causes the funding to go to the Treasury, and NGB never sees that reimbursement. Our Guard is paying to respond to a disaster out of O andM 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 the nation's defense. In fact, General Nortouse recently said that our National Guardsmen are fully integrated as part of the joint force in Operation Epic Fury. So, here's my point. The Guard and Reserve are being asked to do more. Epic Fury, Midnight Hammer, border security missions, domestic deployments, and the many allhazard 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 Reserve are recapitalized, maintained, and reimbured at a pace consistent with their operational role in the national defense strategy?
Sir, I'm assuming that question's coming to me since you're looking at me. Um, >> you would be correct.
>> Yeah. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Um, you know, as a as a member uh 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. Uh 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 are substantive and longlasting 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. I mean, I go out there to Andrews often and still uh 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 the department continues to look at what we're solving for.
Mr. Chairman, I 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. Square.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U 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. First of all, thank you for um the work uh that y'all are doing in the Western Hemisphere. I'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 partner of us.
Uh Michael, Congressman Michael McCall and myself were down there and we pushed for the uh special operation forces sealed 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 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. We'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 uh thank you and the uh men and women of Joint Task Force Southern Border for the work that they're doing on the homeland. They're in my area, Laredo, and other places. Uh, but I want to draw your attention to one particular threat, that is the accelerating demands. Uh, the 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 uh looking at fiber optic drone systems. Um, and and we all know what that is. And 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? And uh what lessons are we learning uh from what's happening you know the procurement the bureaucrats with all due respect um it takes a long time to get our systems over there. The cartels they got the money they don't have to go through a procurement system. they'll just buy the drones and they're out manning us uh on the Mexican side along the border. So, thank you and if you can address that or or the chairman also.
>> Well, thank you, Congressman. I 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 and depth. It starts down there where they produce and where they move. Then into Mexico where there we have had an impress unprecedented amount of partnership and we appreciate that. We would encourage Defensa 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. it. We also have multiple national defense areas there uh which are controlled by DO where we can do rapid testing on on uh counter counter UAS JITA 401 capabilities. 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 uh add a few things onto this. It's a 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 inter agency task force 401 led by an incredible armyar brigadier general Matt Ross who's focused solely in a chairman's controlled activity. So 401 reports up to me and in turn then to the secretary to make sure that we're entrepreneurally looking at how to sense, see, detect, and defeat the range of small UAS threats. Uh and you know, uh General Ross is out was just out in SNCOM 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. Well, my time is up, but I u want to ask you to continue working with Mexico. You you do have unprecedented uh partnerships, but the more we can push them, they're allies. There's a historical sensitivity. We know why. But the more you can push him uh to get him to work with us, that would be great.
Thank you so much for all of y'all.
>> Thanks, gentlemen. Chairman Rogers.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hath, General Kaine, 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.
My concern is that we we are not just competing against China's military capability.
We're competing against the speed at which China can build, replace, and influence.
There are some uh capability gaps when it comes to a potential conflict with the PRC and General Kaine, how how will your priorities posture the joint force to close those gaps?
>> Chairman, thank thanks for the question.
Um and you know the speed at their production capability is one of the reasons why I'm grateful for uh the full team's partnership on speeding up the US defense industrialbased efforts as well as the national industrialbased efforts.
And 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. When 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 uh to win from the seabed to cis lunar space in every single domain in there. And I'll defer to the comproller and to the secretary to talk about the particular elements, but the goal is the range and mix of capabilities that create outsized dilemmas for Xi Jinping and others that are out there uh to ensure that we maintain and sustain deterrence. Thank you.
>> Amen. Thank you.
Second, uh the war between the US and Iran reinforces an old lesson which is that modern conflict comes down to attrition.
China has been able to produce naval ships at a pace our industrial base can't match.
Ships are not as large as ours, but quantity has a quality of its own.
How are we postured for an economy of force in the Pacific, particularly if Taiwan is invaded?
Well, sir, channeling my uh my inner Clausowitz, um which is always uh something I try to remember the the big moving parts of war fighting. You 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 uh focus. And so on a 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. It 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 ship building which you talked about I'm grateful for uh 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 epic fury.
Our fight with Iran has confirmed what defense planners had long warned about.
Iran doesn't need a peer military to cause serious problems. his playbook to cheap drones built from commercial parts, sea mines and contested straits, fast attack craft, and anti-ship missiles.
The 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. Um, and we we are winning have won every component of what we fought in this conflict. Iran knows that based on the cap 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 uh enable that.
>> Thank you. You back.
>> Thank you gentlemen. Mr. Aguilar.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. Um 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 uh testimony that you've given? Outside reporting estimates have indicated that the war costs could be a billion dollars a day.
Do you have any anything to share?
>> Yeah, thanks for the question, sir. Uh so at the time of testimony in front of the hask it was $25 billion but the joint staff team and the comproller 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 cost and also uh 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?
Um, we'll share what we can. I think we've updated uh 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, uh April 29th, you testified that the current ceasefire meant that the 60-day calendar with the War Powers Resolution was paused. Um, who are the parties to the ceasefire?
>> Well, right now we are in that same ceasefire as of right now.
>> Wasn't that wasn't the question. Who are the parties to >> be the United States and and the regime in Iran?
Who many pages is the ceasefire? 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?
>> We know it's evident in the ceasefire is in effect.
>> But you 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 ceasefire is active or not active?
>> As you know, for the most part, a ceasefire means the fire is ceasing and we know that has occurred while negotiations occur and 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 uh could be the outcome here where Iran does not have nuclear capabilities and from the department of war perspective we uh we're here to support uh those options.
>> On May 5th you announced the launch of project freedom which is a new exercise where Sentcom will help coordinate ship traffic and guide commercial ships through the straight. President Trump then announced the operation concluded that evening. Now it seems that uh the uh we may be revisiting that. Can you give us the latest on Project Freedom?
>> Well, as it pertains to battlefield options, we're not we don't disclose uh those types of things, but ultimately at the as 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 uh should the commander-in-chief want us to.
>> Is the is the theory to create more ceasefires 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. And 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 if it happens through a negotiated deal, the president was very clear even yesterday uh this is actually quite simple. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon uh one way or another. And we're here to support as one tool of the whole of government uh to make that happen.
General Kaine, uh the depleted munitions have been a a subject of some of the discussions that you've even heard here today. Um with respect to stockpiles uh that we have around the world, key regions like the Indo-Pacific uh 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 munition status around the world?
>> 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 Hits, what are you doing to support the involved services to to recap their losses?
>> We're submitting a $ 1.5 trillion budget that'll remake the department and ensure that every war fighter in the future has exactly what they need and we're never in a fair fight. And I I take issue with the 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. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thanks, gentlemen. Judge Carter.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to each of you. We're glad you're here.
Um, start off with something I'm concerned about. Uh, Mr. Secretary my milan VA subcommittee is aware of living conditions of the 68 W combat medic students at the joint base San Antonio.
Frankly, they're very unacceptable and quite unlivable.
Uh, as chairman of the milcon committee, I'm deeply concerned there appears to be no imminent path forward to fix these issues. What actions is the department taking to improve these living conditions, ensure our soldiers receive safe and dignified housing, not 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. And we've used discreet 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 we've 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. So we look forward to working with you to to fix that. Not just these this discrete barracks issue, but where we found them, we've fixed it. And then we've uh 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 we know I've been out to the to uh Guam and some of those places and we got a lot of needs out that way. Mainly 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.
I'm concerned that the FY27 budget quest does not support these programs.
Essentially zeroing out funding across the three platforms despite the armory 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 will the department manage aviation modernization and how will they do that without creating readiness problems and capability gaps in the future was the planned future lift is not like the shouldook >> sir I think it's a very fair point I think it goes to the previous mindset of devest to invest that 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 war fighters 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.
So, 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 zeros 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 you, gentlemen. Uh, Mr. Case, >> thank you, Chair. Mr. Hurst, what is the total replacement cost of the material that we have expended in Iran to date?
>> By the way, 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. replacement and repair >> and that's um through what date?
>> That's our current estimate.
>> Okay. I'm looking at a um 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. So, I'm talking, you know, Tomahawk, Jasm, Prism, SM3, SM6, THAAD, 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. Um 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. Uh we want to do a full diagnostic of the 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 um you did talk about milon which was a question that I had. Do you have any because obvious we've obviously suffered major damage to our infrastructure uh in the Middle East. Um do you have you don't have a milcon estimate yet?
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 or partners could pay into the milcon. And so we don't have a good estimate for that at the time.
>> Okay. What about fuel? Is that a major uh calculation in your cost of war? Uh fuel used uh depletion of fuel reserves.
Um replenishing that reserve.
>> We wrap that into our operations and maintenance costs.
>> Okay. That's 29.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. Um going to your FY26 budget request. You've got um 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 FY20 uh I'm sorry I'm in 27 uh 20 27 versus 26. Um and you have uh 38% of that um total procurement request in reconciliation. Does that reconciliation request include anything from the war in Iran?
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 amunitions requests and reconciliation and so that would be part of the replacement.
>> Okay. So what I'm trying to get at is is your reconciliation request in FY27 related to Iran or is it not related to Iran or what what um is it >> 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 recon I mean the reconciliation is not about Iran.
The reconciliation is about assumptions that were made before Iran.
>> It's about making a generational investment of the joint force and building military readiness. That's what your 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 um future reconciliation bills in future fiscal years? How much of this is loaded into this particular fiscal? You 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 to request that as discretionary only. Uh and I believe the top line for that is 1.23, which will be our our request that year.
>> Okay, I yield back.
>> Thanks, gentlemen. Mr. Diaz Ballard.
>> Thank you, 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 uh 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 the 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 to you Mr. Secretary, let me throw a couple of points and see if you disagree with any of these and and let me talk about the the one state sponsor of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, which is the Cuban regime. 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, I am.
>> 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.
>> Uh is it true that uh that Russian spy ships and warships, including the nuclear sub Kaison Kasan, have repeatedly used Cuban ports?
>> Uh that is true, Congressman.
>> Um is it true that the site of the Russian uh signant complex in Lord was has once again become a hub for Russian intelligence within Cuba? Well, we we've long been concerned that uh a foreign adversary using that kind of location that close to our shores is uh highly problematic. Yes.
>> 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.
>> 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 in have been sent around the world because your folks uh confronted them uh in Venezuela. Um, but are you also aware that according to uh 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. secretary that uh well even in stated by US intelligence even during the Biden administration, the Trump administration, the previous administration, 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 again, we're not in a classified setting. So I'm just considering all those issues and others that we could talk about in a classified u setting. Do you believe that the Cuban regime possesses a national security threat to the United States?
>> Uh I do.
>> Let let me now focus uh on Iran as I have a little bit of time left over. You 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 visav Iran. It's been the goal of multiple presidents of 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 u factors in a negotiated settlement with Iran? Um because I I don't have to tell you that there have been negotiations at Nauseium with Iran. The Iranians continue to cut deals and yet they violate those deals. But it's interesting in in the in the nuclear deal uh that was cut with Iran during the Obama administration.
Missiles weren't even in 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, and 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 uh 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 worldclass negotiators. the core of it is is the nuclear weapons issue. Um those other factors are always a factor.
Understanding that Iran has 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. Uh and hopefully we can get that across the finish line with with negotiations which are ongoing right now.
>> Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, gentlemen. Miss Lee.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Secretary, Under Secretary General.
Thank you for being here. Uh, Secretary Hegsth, about 11 years ago, US uh, Air Force veteran Sergeant David Cree served at 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 instant incident, but matched the health problems of many other veterans who had served alongside him at Nitter. He was sitting in his backyard reconnecting with eight of them and asked them, "Does anyone here have tumors?" And six of eight of them rose their hands and then proclaimed that even some of them had children with tumors. Dave, as it happens, had recently had a grapesized tumor removed uh from his neck. Three 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 nitter service. I helped introduce a bill two years ago uh that and have been fighting on his behalf ever since. What 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 Cree and his colleagues had served in. Instead, 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 exposed o exposed veterans at NITR 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. This 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. Two hours before I met them, one of them received a call from his oncologist informing him that he had multiple myyoma, an unccurable blood cancer. Over the weekend, Dave was notified that two more of his cohort uh had recent deaths. The Invisible Enemy, which is an organization Dave founded, maintains a memorial list of those who worked at NITR and have passed away.
When Dave testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee uh roundt 13 months ago, 462 veterans were on this list. Today, that list includes 565 names. Just one year of inaction has led tound 103 veterans passing without the care that they receive that they earned and their families without the benefits.
This 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.
Can 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 chief's right here. We'll make we will get a review for me as soon as early as next week and I'll get back to you on on what our department's position should be on that.
>> Okay. Well, I I first of all, we have the information.
The Department of Energy has provided these benefits to the same cohort of people 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, wrap 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.
>> Thank you, gentle lady. Mr. Else, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, General Kaine, Jay, thank you all for being here. To all the staff sitting uncomfortably in very tight seats behind him. Thanks for your dedication to our country. Master Chief Ism, 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. You're clearly the essential man. And I uh I always want to point that out that uh you've been serving uh 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 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. It 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 endopay becomes the focus again, I'd like to see Congress fully fund the request for the Marine Corps Mlung class LSM and the KC130J for both the Navy and the Marine Corps. But the budget request breaks them up and I'm not sure how you skin that cat. 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 and counter UAS issue as we've lost a uh a an E3 Awax, which is worth 500 when we 500 million when we bought it, but it's irreplaceable and there are fewer of those than B-21s. I think we're seeing uh the uh the reach of uh of UAS's affect us in a way that we probably didn't anticipate and we need to continue to use n uh uh new uh companies that are developing new technologies to go after UAS's uh general you addressed uh Carl von Clauswood so I'll use Sunsu as a counter even the finest sword plunged into saltwater will eventually rust and we deployed the USS Ford in June June uh 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 Isum, 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. It also points out the need for carriers and I don't think 11 is enough but also recognize that downrange 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 down select the FAXX later this summer. General Kane can you address why having both of those is so important?
Well, first uh sir, I want to echo your gratitude for the Ford uh yesterday uh the airwing flew off. So, we know that Oceanana was a very happy place uh as uh those aviators fought through 800 ft broken to come up initial as they should after a record setting deployment. So, we welcome the Ford back. You 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 of the future. So, as our civilian leadership carefully considers that, I know that'll be in the mix if uh if selected. And I know uh your colleagues in Virginia and in San Diego are all focused on the same. Sure, they're going to have similar capabilities, but I think as we switch to the Indopaccom 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 uh airfield in the Indoaccom u 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. It's just extremely important that we recognize that uh that a moving aircraft carrier with unique capabilities which obviously can't be addressed 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 y'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. It'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 you, gentlemen. Mr. Morelli.
>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate, uh, this hearing and thank you all for, for being here, 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 defeist. I just want to say for the record, I don't think that's the truth. I think it's the opposite. And I appreciate General Kaine, you've mentioned civilian leadership and civil civilian control a number of times in your testimony this morning. We're the Congress. Uh civilian control that you have talked about begins and ends here.
And that's the way 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. So, I feel like that needs to be said and I I I appreciate um the comments that you made, General Kane, 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 in is given the responsibility by the Congress and by the American people to make sure that we have an appreciation for all the dollars, taxpayer dollars that go into defending this nation. And 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 on how our money is being spent. So, I I just again want to stress how important it is. Uh I appreciate my friend Mr. Ellie's comments about the $ 1.5 trillion request. If 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, uh supplemental, let's let's put it all on the table and let's make the case to the American people.
Um, you know, we've now waited since February 28th is by my account 11 weeks, 74 days since hostilities began in Iran.
And trying to get a uh a a a 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. And 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 did want to make a a quick you me 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 investment. When you say private investment, are you suggesting companies are making investments for which they will not be compensated?
Uh, yes I am, Congress.
>> 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 five to seven years on exquisite 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. They're upfronting cost.
>> The crimes 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 uh 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 just to be clear. This is howing my time reclaim. I just want to be wait I appreciate what you're saying but let's not I mean let's let's be honest they're going to get compensated and 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 uh there's been much reported about the president's trip to uh to China and I appreciate again my colleagues who have raised Indo uh Paycom and its defense. Uh there are weapon sales which have been on hold that the president has not authorized uh to Taiwan and I wonder if you could give me an update either Mr. Secretary or General Kaine on what the status of those weapon sales are at this point.
I I just want to say the primes will be paying for those factories out of their own pocket, not the department's money or the taxpayers's money, which is a sea change, which is why I think this budget >> they're going to get a return on their investment, which by the way, this American well >> welcome a return on investment. These are >> Yes, I understand. But they're not paying for it out of their pocket, 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 dollars 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.
>> That's what happens when business control of the department.
>> It's a different way of getting to the same place. You'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, too, 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.
>> Could you answer my question about Taiwan arms?
>> 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 think the gentleman's time is expired.
>> Make a quick point. There is a there is a change. the 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 uh want to acquire it. Uh and that is a significant change in what we've done in the past. Mr. Fleshman, >> thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Secretary. I commend those changes in 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 uh approach. I'm deeply involved in the recapapitalization 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. Um, I've got a couple of questions to ask, but I'm going to ask General uh Kaine and Secretary Hegsith. What is your assessment of our non-strategic nuclear capability gaps in the Indoacific and elsewhere? What additional tactical nuclear capabilities beyond Slickham and should we consider that would be most useful for reassuring allies, deterring our adversaries, and providing combatant commands and usual options in the worst case event of a conflict.
We we're as you know we're making a a $2 billion investment and you mentioned slick amen uh and in FY26 so we're investing in that but I I would say that uh a lot of that discussion would be classified given O plans in the Indoacific but Admiral Paparo uh I I would say there's no COCOM commander we have regular feedback with on what dilemmas we might need to create for an adversary than Admiral Paparo and Indop uh to include everything that would deter uh any level of of aggression. So I I think there's a lot of sensitivity on this topic that doesn't lend itself to this environment. Uh but very much so we're looking at all options.
>> Thank you. And I would also commend the admiral Pamaro. I mean they're doing incredible work. Yes sir. General >> sir I was just uh 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 and we're grateful for the 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 followup 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 in that bill, I'm probably the nation's strongest proponent supporter of nuclear power in Congress. Nuclear propulsion has 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 Janice program and the air force just announced uh the first two air bases to receive micro reactors.
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 do you see these technologies providing particularly in the Indoacific? And what can we be doing to accelerate and expand these efforts?
>> Both incredibly important capabilities, micro reactors 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 and and we can operate even if it's a contested environment. And then there's just no doubt uh that 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 a friend in ensuring we maximize that.
>> Thank you Mr. Secretary. General >> sir, I'll just say that the the joint staff has collaborated and continues to do so with all the combatant commands and services, the secretary's team and 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, 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. So, 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. Thanks, gentlemen. Mr. Joyce, >> thank you uh chairman. Thank you all for being here and uh defense or yes, defense secretary, war secretary, excuse me, Hexath, Godspeed on that project of changing our procurement process.
America's at its finest when capitalism and capital markets allow free competition and you get to purchase the best of all those ideas out there.
Speaking of which, in June 2025, Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb, if you're familiar with it, destroyed and damaged dozens of Russian aircraft on the ground using lowcost, covertly infiltrated drones, demonstrating military installations are vulnerable to asymmetric drone attacks at a fraction of conventional strike costs. What steps are the is 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, and it's it's the battlefield trend. Well, one of a handful that we are most closely tracking and investing in. 54 billion dollars 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 every environment more contested than it's ever been. and the ability to both go on offense and defense in that environment has to be something we're not just at par with but ahead of adversaries to ensure that we can create the kind of 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, Jay, in FY26, but it was a a a small fraction of 54 billion. And we're even looking at dog and metamorphosizing 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 Het.
>> Can I just uh can I just follow up? That would that be okay? Um, one one thing that I appreciate the partnership with the Congress on is as we evolve from the war fighting 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. We talk about the agility in 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 the Congress on this as technology moves really fast. Thank you.
>> No problem, sir. I just want to touch another angle that we're getting attacked at and unfortunately and that's the cyber threats from adversaries like China, Russia, Iran and criminal organizations which continue to grow.
The department's 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. Can you give us an assessment of where the department's cyber workforce stands today and what investments Congress can make to help you make that better?
>> Appreciate that question. 20 20 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 war fighting domain which it was always an appendage or something you might do. And 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. And 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 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 Hex I hate 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. Can you discuss how the department is approaching the integration of these autonomous aircraft alongside crude platforms and how the program fits in your broader effort to feel affordable mass and strengthen deterrence in the Indoacific?
>> I can share some of it and 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 and a way in which we plan to stay far ahead of adversaries and create more dilemmas for them than I think they even imagine today.
>> Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
>> Uh, thank the gentlemen. I recognize Miss McCullum for any closing comments.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be submitting some questions for the record on behalf of Representative Captor. Uh, last year, the president requested the first trillion dollar defense budget.
Congress provided uh over $150 billion in reconciliation and $93 billion in discretionary spending. I continue and I think you heard from many of us up here that uh mandatory funding for defense is not a great idea. We should avoid it at all costs. The 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 uh two examp two examples. One is reprogramming.
Um, just the National Guard alone has $600 million of reprogramming. 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. Um, that was money that was approved for other purposes. So, it creates a hole.
The Army submitted a request to move nearly $1 billion around to fill personnel shortfalls. The Navy has $97 million hole and 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 Iran war has cost Americans at least now, if I'm if I've got it right, Mr. Hurst, $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 I want your takeaway message to be I'm deeply concerned that the department can't seem to manage $1 trillion dollars that Congress provided last year. So gentlemen, we need information. We 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 on 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 watch some of the other hearings.
This 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 gentle lady and that's something we are going to agree with uh with the other side is that we sooner is better. It's makes my job easier and and the end of the day it makes your job easier Mr. Secretary uh is if we can get the information both on the base budget and on the supplemental uh just is a comment that Ed Casease was making about some of the cost on this thing. 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 uh with the fiscal year 27 appropriations process and uh we can fund the men and women who serve us well in the United States military. That we're adjourned.
Defense subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning.
Today the subcommittee will convene for open hearing to receive testimony from the honorable Pete Hexiff, Secretary of War, General Dan Kaine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Jay Hurst, performing the duties of Under Secretary of War Controller. Mr. Secretary, General Kaine and Mr. Hurst, a well warm welcome to you. Thank 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.
We 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 define 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. But I have serious concerns about how this bifocated 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 FY26 appropriations process because of the way mandatory was requested and enacted.
The 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, ship building, innovation, and aviation.
Questions 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 uh at this moment demands.
Finally, that brings me to the threat environment we currently face. The 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. They 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, and 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 entrance into to participate requires rigorous and persistent oversight. Otherwise, the forces in the Pentagon will simply snap back to the status quo, which does not serve our war fighters or the United States taxpayer. Again, thank you for being here. The members of this subcommittee take our oversight responsibilities seriously, and
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
