Proposed FY 2027 Department of Defense Budget Estimates and Justification

welcome everyone this is up to me to come to order uh secretary hexes general Caine welcome look forward to discussing the president's budget and we appreciate the opportunity to do that today obviously we had very good attendance today the need for significant defense investments is as urgent and obvious as it is overdo overdue quantity has a quality of its own and the sheer scale of our defense commitments sends a powerful signal but what goes under the top line also matters the way this budget request is structured matters this is not a one point five trillion dollar defense appropriation request it's a request for one point one trillion in base appropriations and regretfully another three hundred and fifty billion in reconciliation the good news is the base request reflects real growth unlike the net cut in fiscal year twenty six request and very much unlike the biden level cr in twenty five but some of the most pressing items on the fiscal twenty seven to do list are regularly downstream of missed opportunities in fiscal twenty six for example i took failure to fully fund twenty eight billion in multiyear contracts for critical munitions the subcommittee did what we could to increase munition purchases above the fiscal twenty six request levels but we couldn't do it all without a sufficient top-line this year the fiscal twenty seven request sets a higher top-line high enough one would think to build the department's highest priorities into the base budget requests instead of shunning them off into a one-time reconciliation request which brings me to the bad news the twenty seven requests failed to make room in the base budget for some of the military's top priorities a distinction between base and reconciliation really matters. Base funding is what creates budget stability for the services and sends consistent demand signals to industry. And base funding is what gets extended by short-term continuing resolutions when work on a full year appropriations is unfinished. As I said last year, reconciliation should be a supplement to, not a substitute for. political realities will not always allow a party-line budget reconciliation. and if the department's top priorities aren't built into annual appropriations we're actually taking a big risk the department is right to make golden dome munitions and the f-thirty-five program and drone dominance top priorities but these key lines of effort only work if we put them on solid fiscal footing so why is the department requesting funding for multi-year munitions contracts which by definition require steady year-on-year funding via a one-time reconciliation and why risk some of the present top priorities like golden dome by not firmly building them into the department's baseline. National Missile Defense will require sustained funding over many years, not a one-year expenditure. Other key platforms like the second destroyer and the E seven battle management aircraft aren't requested in base or reconciliation. So, Mr. Secretary, you've been i have spoken about the pace of america's armed forces as the most quote powerful most lethal and most prepared military on the planet i'm as committed as you are to sustaining that role but that's precisely why i'm confused by the administration's failure to prioritize key systems in the year-on-year base budget spending so i hope you'll explain the department's current approach to allies and partners the stunning success of operation midnight hammer and operation epic purée illustrates the importance of the access basing and overflight granted by our allies in europe and in the gulf i'm as frustrated as anybody about spain but they are the exception to the rule when it comes to european allies carrying more of the burden. Likewise, it's impossible to conceive a US power projection in the Indo-Pac without the breach that comes from decades old alliance relationships. So I wanna hear the department's view on the role of long-time allies in support of US interests across the globe, because it's quite clear now that our expectation for european allies is no longer the focus of our of of our own continent message that they will receive from your subordinates for most of the year our adversaries are working together to undermine america and the west strained relations with our partners who are making generational commitments to collective defense and driving investment into american made weapons and systems only serves our adversary's interest and limits our capacity and deterrent power globally so i wanna hear about the future of capacity building with committed allies and partners from the baltic states to taiwan and the philippines i expect the european capacity building investments intended specifically for ukraine reach their destination without further delay wars in ukraine and the middle east clearly show that we have things to learn from our friends if we want drone dominance it makes perfect sense to deepen cooperation with the world's most drone warfare experts i wanna underscore this is not charity when our partners are capable deterrence is stronger and the risk your own service members is lower this is true in the middle east today as it was in europe and the indo-pacific and i think it's noteworthy that our allies in the pacific have an interest in ukraine have sent representatives to nato meetings they're hoping for and expecting that nato will play a worldwide role in defending democratic countries against these adversaries they were all challenged by our allies and partners have many of the interests and if we fail to take full advantage of it we are only hurting ourselves i'll end with one observation on the prospect of supplemental appropriations the deficiencies of our munitions critical munition stocks and industrial capacity actually existed long before the conflict with iran and russia's escalation in ukraine if the administration sends congress to supplement our appropriation request it'll be an important step towards fixing a long-standing problem and investing in future deterrence it shouldn't be a referendum on the war in iran i supported a national security supplemental in twenty O four even though i thought president biden's approach to russia and iran was too weak i did it not because supporting ukraine is in our strategic interest but because these funds helped replenish american stockpiles and restore our own defense industrial base and in fact jobs are created in thirty eight different states in this country in our country american jobs by a significant percentage of what that went for today the need to expand munitions production replace battlefield losses is actually even more urgent so with that um i'll ask each of our witnesses after we hear from Senator Coons to make an opening statement and hopefully limit remarks to five minutes. Chris.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um thank you Secretary Hegseth, uh General Cain, Chairman Cain, uh for appearing before us and for your testimony today. Uh let me just begin by expressing my gratitude to the service and sacrifice of the two point eight million uh members of the joint force and the civilians, uh who support them. Uh and uh in this uh urgent moment to focus on a few simple and clear questions. It bears repeating that the regime in Iran is a terrible regime, that has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands over decades, and that they pose a sustained and real threat to the United States and the region. And it bears repeating that our allies are increasingly distanced from us as our adversaries are increasingly aligned. I agree with much of what the Chairman said. including that we are in a moment of real contest and danger in no small part because Russia, China, DPRK, and Iran are partnering. Russia and China are helping resupply Iran and the drones that they're using to contest and close the Strait of Hormuz to target and kill Americans and to grade our facilities. And so if our adversaries are increasingly aligned, I think a core question is, are we? We have so many questions, Mister Secretary, about this budget proposal, this one point five trillion dollar budget request. And at the core is going to be what's the cost of the war we're in in Iran? How long will it go? What damage has been done to our security and our strategic position? When will we get a supplemental request and of what scale? When will we be requested to authorize this war? And when will the American people get a clear answer about our strategic goals and how we will achieve them? I share the Chairman's concern that we have created real distance with our allies, most principally our NATO allies, who have stepped up and contributed tens of billions of dollars more to purchase the munitions for the defense of Ukraine and to dramatically increase their long-overdue investments in our joint defense in Europe. But unfortunately, the way that the move towards war was launched seventy-four days ago, without consent, without consultation, has caused a real rift with our vital European allies. And, again, as the Chairman said, and I agree, there is also a critical and urgent need for us to recognize and embrace that in the most important test field, the battlefield in Ukraine, where the Ukrainians are fighting bravely and successfully against Russian aggression, They have innovated. They have delivered the most lethal and capable drone and counter drone technologies in the world. What is bedeviling us in Iran right now? Their ability to use thousands of cheap, effective Shahad drones to hit our allies, their military facilities, and their oil and gas production facilities, and to target and hit civilian shipping. Who's the world's best at intercepting Shahad drones? Ukraine. Last year, the administration requested zero for Ukraine and zero for our key NATO allies in the Baltic States. And on a bipartisan basis, this committee put in four hundred million dollars. When we met just about a month ago for the first time over at the Pentagon, and thank you for that conversation, we all emphasized the importance of coming to us with a spend plan for these four hundred million dollars. This is a one point five trillion dollar request in Why am I taking your time on four hundred million? Because I think it shows a key piece, a missing piece, in strategic vision. We should not be standing aside from the war in Ukraine and saying, eventually we wanna be a part of some peace between Russia and Ukraine. We should be learning the lessons of Ukraine. Our allies in the Persian Gulf are, they're buying their interceptor systems at scale. Some of our current and former leaders in our military were working very hard to learn the lessons of Ukraine. I must say in a recent uh briefing for this subcommittee, I was very encouraged by two very senior members of the United States Army who are in Ukraine and have been helping our armed forces learn. But my heart fell when I left and was told that those two senior officers were being forced out. I am concerned that we have a distracted administration and a distracted department. From your written testimony, Mister Secretary, it seems at times you're more passionate about fighting culture wars than winning the real war that we're in. At banning books, at cleaning alleged DEI off of websites, at taking on an anti-vaccine position rather than continuing the long-standing public health policies, at interfering with promotions. I'm stunned that you fired the forty-four year Chief of Staff of the Army in the middle of a hot war, and dismissed the secretary of the navy in the middle of a naval blockade. As dozens of senior flag-ranked officers have been dismissed, I am worried about what that does to focus and morale. We have a president who seems more focused on a billion dollar ballroom and a victory arch, rather than achieving actual victory. And a piece, a small piece of the one point five trillion dollar request in front of us, is for a new trump class of battleships, a so-called golden fleet. which I think goes in the wrong direction. Let me come back to the basic point I was trying to make. The world of warfare is changing. Every major service can and should embrace smaller, lighter, faster, more distributed, lethal capabilities that will mostly be autonomous. This move towards a golden fleet, towards a new battleship strikes me as moving in exactly the wrong direction, giving our adversaries a bigger target rather than a more capable platform. How do I explain to my constituents the cost, the cost of this war, and the cost that we are looking together to invest in our national defense? I share the Chairman's concerns about reconciliation. Last year, a hundred and fifty billion dollars was provided to the department. But the mismatch between base year and one year, between long-term and short-term, caused tens of billions of dollars in errors, errors in how shipbuilding was handled. errors in how mu- new munitions are being acquired. And working together on a bipartisan basis, we fixed many of those problems. This year's budget proposal triples that request to three hundred and fifty billion dollars. I agree with you about the urgency of our national defense. In your written testimony, you lay out four key goals, defend the homeland, deter China, increase burden sharing with our allies and partners, and supercharge the defense industrial base. As you've seen in the last Congress, I've worked with you and with Deputy Secretary Feinberg on multi-year munitions. I cheer the goal of finally passing an audit in twenty twenty eight. I think we have critical investments to make in our defense industrial base. I think we are absolutely in the fight of our lives as a republic to win AI and quantum space and surveillance and the capacity to fight drones and launch drones. But I'm concerned that you, sir, and this department is distracted by issues that are not focused on the core thing we need to achieve. I could not agree more with what you said in your written testimony. For a generation, the United States was largely distracted by open-ended wars of regime change and nation building. And as you summarize this administration's approach, we will not send America's best to advance foolhardy or reckless adventures halfway around the world. Mister Secretary, I agree that the Iranian regime is a terrible regime. I am grateful for the service and the sacrifice of the Americans who've been wounded or who've lost their lives in this current conflict. But I do not understand the strategy. And as the average American is seeing the costs at the pump and at the grocery store, and as this committee is being asked, to approve the largest single year increase in defense spending in decades i need to better understand the answers to the urgent questions i have put before you thank you mister chairman

yeah uh yes sir um chairman mcconnell uh

well uh i would like to Yes, I have plenty of questions. Go ahead, John.

Okay, sir. I'll I'll try to keep it keep it short. Uh, Rank Member Coons, uh, other members of this committee, thank you for being here. I'm honored to be here alongside the Honorable Pete Hegseth and the Honorable Jay Hurst to talk about this year's uh President's budget. I'm grateful for the opportunity today to speak with you about the foundation of America's strength our two point eight million members of our joint force and I'm continually inspired by the soldiers sailors airmen marines coast guardsmen guardians and civilians standing to watch they all could choose to do something different but they choose to come serve our nation and do something more important than themselves i would also like to highlight the forty members of the joint force who have passed on uh from operations combat and training during my time as chairman to include the fourteen members who passed and were killed in action in operation epic fury and also highlight our most recent uh loss first lieutenant key from uh africa who was out there uh tdy as chairman my duty is to insure civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks required to make our nation's most difficult and complex decisions i owe the president the secretary and you the congress the truth at every turn and my blueprint for this role has always been General George C. Marshall. His firm commitment to civilian control to a nonpartisan military remains my constant standard. I strive to follow his example uh by working with you and providing clear and candid strictly nonpartisan military advice, and to present this committee and my civilian leadership the clearest possible assessment of risk readiness and executability, and mindful today of the environment that we're in here. We are, as you said, Chairman and Ranking Member, operating in a delicate and dangerous times. Global risk is scaling and the complexity of the modern battlefield demands constant adaptation and innovation. Your 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, as demonstrated by the actions and activities over this past year. We are the most professional military on earth, and we're able to do these things, uh, because of the deep enduring reservoir of training, professionalism, and commitment. Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it and rebuild quickly, um, but we need to rebuild faster. We build readiness every day. We train professionals every day. and we learn to sharpen our edge every day and we build continually on emerging technologies as the ranking members said uh like ai quantum and others and advance every day led by great people in our joint force like commander gary wald or wald comma g as we call him who's out there working everyday on our joint staff driving this pace of change requires timely predictable capital and sustained investment And I look forward to discussing it today. The president's budget supports the department's goal of recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base, those small mom-and-pop manufacturing companies that are out there in your districts, that help us generate combat capability and combat capacity to ensure that we're globally integrated, uh, properly armed and ready when and if our nation calls on us while always taking care of our most important treasure, and that's our people. I'm deeply humbled today to be joined by the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman, Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom, who represents the one point eight million members of our enlisted joint force. They are the special sauce of America's military. We face dynamic and dangerous times, but I have incredible trust and confidence in the joint force today. I'm deeply grateful for those deployed members of the joint force that are out there right now doing our nation's work. And I remain humbled by the gift of the ultimate sacrifice that those fallen have given us not just for the forty during my time in this job but across the history of our great nation and their families who continue to soldier on. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, Ranking Member, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic one point five trillion dollar twenty twenty seven budget for the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferred maintenance of long-standing problems as well as positioning our forces for current and future fights. I'm honored to be joined alongside the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Jay Hurst.

I'm honored to be joined.

the iranian american communists against the illegal war and if you accept if you approve this project you will

sure

you will contest it in the war crime of his administration

if i may interject i actually have order in the hearing room so we can proceed i asked the witnesses to suspend until the room is cleared and Peerageance cleared. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you. I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investments needed to maintain the most powerful military in the world. Our nation's ability to build, to innovate, and support the critical needs of warfighters at speed and at scale, is the foundation upon which our survival rests. When President Trump took office, he inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength, offshoring, outsourcing, cost overruns, and degraded capabilities. Under the leadership of President Trump, a builder in chief, we are reversing the systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything that we do. We're rebuilding the military that the American people can be proud of. one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries and confidence in our allies. We fight to win in every scenario, to include ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. The one point five trillion dollar FY twenty-seven budget put forward by the President will build upon the historic one trillion dollar FY twenty-six top line, and will continue to reverse four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden administration. The one point five trillion dollar budget will ensure that the United States main continues to maintain the most capable military in the most complex of environments. Not to mention, however, that this budget also includes a historic troop pay increase, seven percent, that builds on the pay increases that Congress has given in previous years, and the budget eliminates all poor or failing barracks. Quality of life for our troops is front and center in this budget. By supercharging our industrial capacity and transforming how the department does business, we are restoring American commercial dominance at a pace unseen in generations. Transforming the defense industrial base from the broken, slow-moving systems of the past. We have flipped Pentagon acquisition processes from a bureaucratic model to a business model. Decisively moving from an acquisitions environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape to an outcome-driven organization focused on delivering the most for taxpayers. Over the past year through historic multi-year procurement agreements, smart business deals, we have sent an unambiguous demand signal to our industry partners large and small to build more and build faster. The result has been a surge, a revitalization of our great American factories and a massive reinvestment in the skilled American workers who serve as the industrial muscle behind our warriors. I'll provide a pre- a brief overview of what's been accomplished on that front in just a few months. These are announced new facilities and investments in support of American war fighters. The department has helped stimulate more than two hundred and fifty private investment deals in thirty-nine states and a hundred and eighty cities, and a hundred and fifty companies, not just the big primes, worth more than fifty billion dollars. This has resulted in two hundred and eighty new or expanded facilities and more than eighteen million new square feet of American manufacturing, seventy thousand new jobs. These fifty billion in investments in new plants, new assembly lines, and new factories are private investments, not taxpayer dollars. By completely transforming our department's business model, American companies, private companies, are investing in their own factories with their own money. A historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their capital, not Uncle Sam's. This has not been done before and is long overdue. It's from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things for American families and American workers and help ensure that we can defend the American dream, all American made. Together with the help of this Congress, we're turning the lights back on on the arsenal of freedom. We're firing up the American economic engine at every level of our defense industrial base. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure that this department remains laser-focused on increasing the lethality and survivability of our fighting forces from the front lines to the factory floor. We truly believe this is a historic budget. And at every level, we have made it a fiscally responsible budget. This is also a war-fighting budget. Under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing, which has to underwrite everything. We're providing for our war fighters, and we are putting the people and interests of this country first. May almighty God continue to watch over our troops, and may he honor, may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we've lost. That is our sacred mission, and that's what we'll continue to execute on. Thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know, uh, we all understand you're going with the President, uh, to China. And we all agree they're the greatest long-term military and economic challenge, uh, to US. and our western allies as well of course taiwan japan and philippines um look to us so can you reassure the countries out there in the pacific that their security will not be on the table during the talks in beijing is our strategy to preserve american primacy or simply to accommodate China's rise. And can you speak to our commitment to preserving freedom of navigation in places like the South China Sea?

Well, thank you for the question. Uh, Senator, I w- I would never purport to speak on behalf of the President, uh, or what he will say or how he'll approach these talks, but having an opportunity to watch him work, uh, every aspect of what he pursues inside this relationship is to ensure that American interests are advanced. Uh, and our our department al- underneath that, we've worked very hard in that region, uh, in the Indo-Pacific, with, uh, with Japan, with the Philippines and others to make that a priority to ensure that America's security is, uh, amplified by burden sharing of partners who recognize the shared threats that we face and are willing to invest alongside us. And some of those things are known to the public, uh, some of those things are not known to the public. But uh, since the beginning of my time in this job, we've focused in that area of operations to ensure that Admiral Paparo has every option available to include with partners to create all the dilemmas necessary to give America every advantage possible whether it's freedom of navigation, uh access, basic and overflight, uh and ultimately put the president in a position where he's going into uh Beijing in a position of strength which he will be.

So, you need a little more. specific about navigation, particularly in the South China Sea.

I think what you've seen from this administration is a commitment to freedom of navigation. Take for example, the BAM and the Houthis, which under the Biden administration, uh, they allowed American ships to get shot at without consequence. And President Trump Trump undertook that mission, operation, uh, Rough Rider. for fifty days and the Houthis stopped shooting at our ships. It wasn't a nation-building exercise, it was an advancing of freedom of navigation and our interests. Uh, the same would would uh would pertain to any waterway in the South China Sea. America's ships should uh should sail freely, so so should others, uh in the uh international maritime sphere.

Army Secretary Driscoll has described Ukraine as the silicon valley of warfare as i suggested earlier i think we all agree on that and the outcome of the war really matters to american interest is there a policy preventing senior department officials from travelling to ukraine do you support or oppose senior officials travelling there

uh we've had uh senator we've had many senior officials travel there and we learn a great deal in fact i've personally approved additional personnel. there to learn from. that drone battlefield both on offense and defense to insure that we're learning every possible lesson from that conflict. and incorporating it in real time into how we defend and we go on offense. in an era where drone dominance is required and that's why this budget spends so much on drone dominance. take the lessons learned from ukraine and other battlefields. and insure we're applying them throughout the fighting force. as quickly as possible.

well you know i think what's not in dispute is that nato is the most important military alliance in world history nobody's ever pulled something together like this and held it together to prevent the worst for a longer period of time basically it seems to me that a lot of the european countries think that we're reducing our influence there if they're sort of on their own and somehow american leadership is not essential to nato going forward i would argue that it certainly essential for us to continue to be the leader and it's important to note the other countries that are looking to nato our allies in the pacific helping ukraine interested in coming to nato meetings anxious for america to continue to to defend the free world not just to nato but worldwide it's a big job and they're looking to us there's nobody else who can do that so what is the department's concise vision for the role of our allies and partners in defending america's global interests

Senator, our vision is to have real, capable allies and partners. I think, uh, I think that's what we saw, we've seen in Epic Fury. Um, Israel's air force and their ability, will and their capability is a demonstration to the world. Uh, there are other allies like that, and we, we need more of them. So, flags are not the goal. The number of flags involved in an operation are not the goal. The goal is the number of capable formations. Who can actually fight alongside the American fighting man and woman? So it's not

but i also think

yeah

putin's invasion of ukraine helped get their attention that they need to step up as well. And the president's been very clear about that. So, well, they are headed in the right direction. What I'm worried about is which direction we head it in.

I think it's very encouraging that European countries have stepped up to ensure that, uh, Ukraine can defend itself. I think that's a very good development.

Senator Goons.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so, Mister Secretary, uh, in January, uh, President Trump signed the fiscal year twenty-six defense appropriations bill. It provided four hundred million dollars specifically to aid Ukraine in their fight against Russia. Um, this is at a time when our European allies and partners have stepped up to take on the overwhelming majority of the cost of any munitions or support for Ukraine. So far, your department has not spent a dime of that four hundred million dollars despite requi- repeated follow-up request from the chairman and myself. In a call just last week, your staff indicated we will see a spend plan for those funds this week. Will you commit to spending those four hundred million dollars for weapons for Ukraine, and when will we receive your department's spend plan?

I appreciate that question. Um, the four hundred million for European capacity building has been released from the Secretary of War's office and we'll work with Ucom. to make sure they spend it accordingly and properly, which we have all faith that they will.

Mister Secretary, when will this subcommittee get the associated spend plan for the four hundred million dollars?

Yeah, I mean, we will work with your committee to make sure that the spend plan as allocated. I wanna make sure Ucom is fully informed in how they wanna spend this. They're the closest to the problem set. And so working with them to ensure that you have the spend plan, uh, will work with you.

Mister Secretary, thank you. But it's May, and this has been the law, january and you or your representatives have been asked this repeatedly on a bipartisan basis by members of this committee and uh i think dragging our feet on this small investment in ukraine's defense sends exactly the wrong signal to putin at a time when the contest for freedom has its front lines in ukraine as you said europe has stepped up donating billions to buy us weapons to send to ukraine uh, to help them as they continue to take ground on the battlefield. But it seems not all the money donated by our European allies is going to buy new weapons for Ukraine, as they had understood. The memo you released just last week, prior to your testimony at Senate Armed Services, indicated DOD has and will continue to divert some of these funds back into DOD accounts for our own use. Will you commit, Mister Secretary, to spend every dollar donated by our European allies for Ukraine, on new weapons and capabilities for ukraine

the the pearl initiative which you're referring to which is instituted underneath this administration so that uh european countries are paying for american equipment to provide as they see fit nato allocates where it would like to allocate that it can choose ukraine if it like uh that money when it's paid for that's where it goes it goes to those efforts

well look as the chairman raised and as i will repeat um i view nato as the most successful mutual defense uh relationship we've ever had uh and your comment about we need not flags but real and capable allies um and the foot dragging on both pearl and the investments in our baltic allies and ukraine uh causes me real concern uh as you know um a bipartisan group of us from the senate and the house went to denmark um to lay a wreath at the memorial to the fifty two danes who served fought and died alongside our troops in afghanistan Those were not just flags. Those were real war fighters who fought and died at our request in a war that began by NATO's initiation, a service and sacrifice in Afghanistan. I just think we're sending the wrong signal by the President's announcement of the intention to withdraw five thousand troops from Germany. Could you help me understand what is the strategic reason for a drawdown of US troops from Western Europe?

i'd i would just like to clarify senator it's never about the heroism of foreign troops i fought alongside great british and european uh and uh australian allies in afghanistan it's the political caveats and the limitations that they come with it's not the troops it's the capitals of those of those uh of those militaries that limit what they're able to do where they're able to go who they're able to fight that create limits on our own and anybody that's been in these formations knows that so it's easy to talk about here is another thing to apply and we need allies that are burden sharing not becoming a burden with political limitations.

Do you have any So

I'm not talking about the troops.

Thank you. Um, our president said in Europe that we never asked for and never received anything from our NATO allies. Was that your experience in Afghanistan, serving and fighting alongside our NATO allies?

I have written extensively about that, and the vast majority of my experience was frustration with the limits of what those troops were able to do because of the political caveats rules of engagement and limits that came from their capitals.

But you don't doubt our question that about a third of all the combat casualties in our war in Afghanistan were our NATO partners and allies.

I would have to go back and check that number, but I take your word for it.

Let me just assert that hundreds and hundreds of service members from, as you put it, Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as many other of our allies, served, fought and died alongside us. So, I'm just gonna simply say, in terms of our reliance on our partnerships, I'll agree with the Chairman that at a moment when russia and china north korea and iran are coming closer together and delivering uh a bedeviling lethality in this ongoing war in iran for which we don't have a clear strategy or clear answers our better strategy would be to partner more closely with ukraine dig in deeper with our real values-based allies our treaty allies in the western pacific and in europe and together find a path out of this rather than berating them and bullying them for not coming along in a war they were not consulted about or briefed on before it began. I look forward to the second round. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

General Kahl.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. General Caine, when the Department of War was planning its operations in Iran, did you anticipate the closure of the state of hamoos and the resulting impact on oil supplies for many countries including here in the united states where we've seen gas diesel and home heating oil prices go up i ask this question because there's historic precedent obviously during the iraq iran war tankers were fired upon in the Strait.

Senator, thanks uh for the question. Um, as always, we have an incredible staff over at the Pentagon and down at USN com. And we always look at the range of military uh branches and sequels. I won't comment on any particular one because that gets to whatever advice I may or may not have given to the president. and i do that in private but you should rest assured as should the american people that we cover and consider the full range of things all the time in our careful consideration of military actions and the advice and or options that we present to our civilian leaders

it seems to me that there's been a different plan almost daily uh with dealing with this problem which is why i ask Mister Secretary, let me start by thanking you for visiting Bath Iron Works in the state of Maine. Uh, the workers were very pleased to greet you and hear your encouragement and praise. The Aegis destroyers play such a critical role in our national security, from intercepting Iranian missiles to supporting combat operations around the globe. While visiting Bath Ironworks, you correctly described the DDG destroyers as the workhorse of the fleet, and emphasized maxing out on DDG's, sends a message to the world. I was also delighted that you noted that Bath Built is best built, a slogan for which of which we're very proud. i fully agree with all those sentiments that's why i was alarmed to see that this year's budget request only includes funding for just one d d g fifty one that's down from two in fy twenty six and three in fy twenty five uh that reduction to a single d d g fifty one creates uncertainty for us surface combat industrial base at a time when biw is demonstrating huge progress in workforce retention production stability and faster throughput so there needs to be a steady demand signal for d d g s in order to keep the yard operating at all phases from cutting the initial steel to completing the ship so i'm puzzled by why only one ddg is requested and concerned about what that will mean as far as maintaining that workflow i'm particularly puzzled by the decision in reconciliation to request one point eight billion for foreign born surface combatants at the same time that there's the proposed cut for american built destroyers when providing a demand signal for us built d d g's from the department help the industry further increase the speed at which these ships are being produced. And I'm sure when you were at Beth, they probably showed you the chart of the enormous progress that they are making.

I appreciate the question, uh, Senator, and it was a great visit and it's incredible what they do. Um, both to both your questions, the answer is ship building capacity. And that's why we invest, you know, sixty-five billion in ship building in our shipyards. is because the reason for our request of that number is the ability to build them and how quickly. And so as soon as that capacity is increased, which we anticipate this investment will do, then we look forward to ordering uh DDG's into the future, cuz they are the backbone uh of our of our naval fleet.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Senator Durbin.

Thanks uh, Mister Chairman. Uh, I associate myself with the remarks of Senator kunz earlier about the four hundred million for ukraine and i hope that it is uh allocated quickly i'd like to ask a similar question about the two hundred million in that that same appropriation bill uh that was uh designated for the baltic security initiative has that money been released

um if it has not been it should be i don't know has it been released

senator uh

hmm

so i believe there was a mistake with the other appropriations bill was written We're trying to rectify that through a reprogramming action to make sure we have sufficient funds on the DSCA account to execute BSI.

It's five months after that bill was uh signed into law. How long will this take?

I think it's contingent on the reprogramming action be improved by the committees of jurisdiction of the Department of War.

So you're suggesting it has to go back through Congress for the current appropriation?

I need to move money between DSCA accounts to execute BSI.

Well, I I can tell you, I

That's right.

i would like to work with you to dispatch that money, it is needed for the baltics and poland and needed on a timely basis.

absolutely

i'd like to take a moment to reflect on the the war in iran uh which you mister hearst testified before congress has cost us twenty five billion dollars fourteen us military personnel tragically killed and a tenuous cease- cease-fire in place As I look at the achievements, Iran is to date led now by an even more extreme supreme leader. The global economy is held hostage to the standoff in the Straits of Hormuz. Our munitions stockpiles are dangerously depleted. And Iran is no further from a nuclear weapon than before our invasion. General Caine, the President has claimed on several occasions over the past couple of months that the war is over. that the conflict has been concluded. What were the goals of the US conflict in Iran and have we achieved them?

Well, sir, I'm gonna, um, be mindful of my need to maintain trust with a variety of stakeholders in the job that I'm in, which includes you, the American people, the joint force, and the president. And to that point, only our political and civilian leaders set the national military objectives. Our military objectives have been, have been clear the whole time around targeting Iran's ballistic missile systems, preventing them from threatening US forces in their region, uh, destroying the Iranian navy, degrading its capacity and capability, and ensuring that they can't rebuild by focusing on their defense industrial base. I'll defer to the, the secretary and the president on, and other, uh, strategic objectives, but that's what we've been focused on, sir.

Do you feel that the situation in the Straits of Hormuz indicate a victory on our side?

uh sure only political leaders decide victory or defeat and that i'll leave it to them to opine on that they are the ones who invoke or stop the use of military force

well let me put it in strictly military terms can you explain to the american people who are facing these gasoline and diesel oil prices what is going on in the states of hormuz where iran which was attacked by us seemingly as the straights of our moves at a standstill with fifteen hundred tankers waiting for either permission or peaceful circumstances to navigate

so i think it's a militarily it's a case where iran is choosing to hold the world's economy hostage uh through their use of military power across their southern flank and so i would encourage uh iran to reconsider that um and i would encourage those uh, allies and partners who have an opportunity to come assist with that tactical problem to do so.

Could you explain to the American people why with the fast investment we've made in national defense and military, how Iran, after they've been attacked by us, is still capable of stopping the traffic in the Straits of Hormuz?

Well, sure it's a, it's a complex situation out there with a lot of different small boats that are out there and other um uh you know i uh some of this is on the commercial traffickers um some of this is on again back to the main problem and that's iran holding the global economy hostage to the straits um i would encourage them to think wisely about their next moves and to take the opportunity to open the straits they have that choice to make

they certainly do uh i guess the question in my mind is as we talk about trillion dollar plus budgets for our military, it appears that a very small budget is holding us hostage in the streets of our moves. Yield, Mister Chairman.

Uh, thank you. I just want to start off with saying that, uh, these military operations against Iran have been spectacular. In a matter of months, we have degraded, uh, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, beyond what i thought was possible probably more to come um mr. secretary nine hundred pounds of sixty percent enriched uranium do we all agree that's what iran has buried somewhere

in this format some of that's should be classified so i wouldn't comment on the exact amount of anything

ok well that's just pretty well known they brag about it is it possible they could have sixty percent highly enriched uranium without them cheating in the past

uh we know in every context of what iran has undertaken they've lied and cheated

the answer is no everything that obama and biden did was designed to keep it to a civilian nuclear program there is no way in hell they can have sixty percent highly enriched uranium unless they cheat so everything y'all did failed and you wanna criticize you failed you allowed iran to be a threshold nuclear nation everything you did failed uh missiles the diego garcia did they shoot missiles at diego garcia general Caine the iranians

uh yes sir they shot a few

under the protocols we had in place where they're supposed to be able to do that

uh without reviewing the fine print i believe the answer is no

no they weren't you failed there. You failed to stop Iran from being a nuclear threshold nation. You failed to stop Iran from having missiles that could go thousands of miles. Why should we listen to you? Uh, bottom line here. China. Does China buy ninety percent of Iranian oil, Miss Secretary?

China buys a very large percentage of Iranian oil.

OK, ninety percent is pretty large. uh so does china buy are they largest purchaser of russian oil and gas

i would imagine they're up there sounded like

they are they're the largest so president trump when you go to china realize that the person you're talking to is propping up russia and iran i appreciate what you've done in iran i appreciate what you're trying to do to end the russian ukraine conflict do you agree with me mr. secretary that of all the countries on the planet, China could have the most influence of ending this war if they chose to.

I think the the most influence is in President Trump's hands and what he decides to do, and he'll set the terms of how there's

Well, what if what if China stopped buying

But ultimately, China has a lot of leverage. You're right.

Yeah, they did. What if they stopped buying ninety percent of oil from Iran? That's not President Trump. That's up to China. Do you support putting tariffs on China if they continue to buy Russian oil and gas?

Uh tariffs is not my lane but anything you can do to put pressure on people i usually support

i got you right well uh do you believe when we put pressure on india by a twenty five percent tariff for buying russian oil they kinda backed off

i would say i have had a front row seat to the efficacy of tariff policy yes

yeah i think it works guys and we're on the breakout here in a minute of having a bill that would give the president ability to tariff the largest purchasers of russian oil and gas and i hope he will use it so i just wanna pakistan uh are you aware of reports that pakistan are are allowing their bases to be used to park iranian aircraft uh general k

sir i've i've uh i've seen one report on that

was it accurate

um sir i think uh based on the variety of classification matters that are seen

what let me just say do you agree if it is accurate that is sort of inconsistent with it being a peace mediator

sir i wouldn't wanna comment on that based on the ongoing negotiations in pakistan's role

thank you uh secretary secretary if if the mediator is allowing reconnaissance aircraft to run to be part in pakistani airbases do you think that's consistent with being a fair mediator

um i again i wouldn't wanna get in the middle of these negotiations i want maximum efficacy for our people

yeah well i do i wanna get in the middle of these negotiations i don't trust pakistan as far as i can throw them If they actually do have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets that tells me we should be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere. So, you know, I appreciate all you've done, I'm very supportive of it, but when it comes to Pakistan and China, enough already. Thank you.

thank you very much mr. chairman thank you gentlemen for being here today um mr. secretary uh we have been trying to track down the expenditures in the operation epic fury and uh operation freedom now and we've sent letters and we've got very few responses we've been sending letters since march tenth uh we did understand that it was released that in the first six days eleven point three billion dollars was spent uh and then recently we were told twenty five billion dollars was spent today i think the number is twenty nine billion dollars um can you provide some details as to what consists of that twenty nine billion have we counted everything

yeah senator reed so i testified this morning to uh between the joint staff and the copter staff our operational cost estimate is now twenty nine billion dollars. A lot of that increase comes from having a refined estimate on repair or replacement cost for equipment. Uh our munitions costs are are fairly fixed, we think they're very accurate, and there's some O and M costs there as well. We're not making an estimate for MilKon at this time. We don't know what our future posture is going to be. We don't know how those bases would be reconstructed, and we don't know what percentage of the our allies and partners will pay for that reconstruction.

so you you do not consider installations that have been damaged in the conflict correct

we just don't have a good estimate at this time

you so it's not in the twenty nine billion dollars

that's correct

uh expended weapons are they totally included within the estimate

yes to the best of my knowledge we have a full count of the expended weapons

and weapons uh transferred to other countries in the region are they counted in

i would wanna double check to make sure we have that accurately

please i mean you're coming up and asking for another significant supplemental etcetera and before we can i think reasonably appropriate additional money we we have to find out how the existing appropriated dollars have been spent so that's critically important and um i know also that the budget asks for another three hundred and fifty billion dollars in reconciliation um how essential is that to the your budget

i would say it's extremely essential to achieve the generational investment that the president is trying to make

but that would be on top of the one hundred and fifty billion dollars we received in the big beautiful bill which would be five hundred billion dollars half trillion dollars in two years and again we're not we're not getting i think the detailed spend plan the detail obligation plans for this And without it, it's very difficult to say, just take the money and run. But, you know, we have a job to do too. Any comments, Mister Secretary?

We recognize that, and our our, you know, in a in a perfect world, um, everything's everything's part of your your regular order. Uh, this is a dynamic place with a lot of dynamic factors. And so, in order to get where we need to with the historic investment for this department, we think this is the best allocation in order to get there, Senator.

well i i i think detailed analysis detailed data that we receive will help us make more sensible judgments and you know we're just sort of vague generalities are not helping this committee make critical judgments and the tradeoffs are significant uh deficit is increasing dramatically um we have to be conscious of that we also have to be conscious to uh helping uh american families get by and uh and inflation just hit three point eight percent today which is the i think the biggest numbers is twenty twenty three or something so we're fighting all these forces that they're not directly connected to your mission miss secretary but they are connected to our mission uh general Caine your observations on the future course of action in uh persian gulf we're in this tenuous ceasefire uh what's your sense of the direction forward

well sir i won't uh opine on a hypothetical what i will assure you is that we uh retain and continue to hold a range of options for our civilian leaders um it would be inappropriate for me to opine on how it may go um uh but rest assured we we are we still hold many many options

have you been surprised by the uh resistance of the iranians

sir i as a warfighter i always assume an enemy is gonna resist um and the job of the joint force is to to win at the time and place of our nation's choosing so i i always assume an enemy is gonna fight and i find that's the best pathway

i think so too and you communicated that to the president uh as you advised him before the decision was made

sir as i've as i've said respectfully before i won't comment on my private conversations with the president in order to make sure that i maintain trust with him and with you and the american people and the joint force

that's a principled response thank you very much

thank you sir

peter moran

chairman thank you um secretary heg hegseth welcome uh i just returned uh friday from a visit to china uh and one of the things that uh seemingly clear to me is that uh taiwan remains at the forefront of the chinese um, efforts, uh, next steps in what they want to accomplish. Um, and, uh, we have commitments, I guess, to, to defend Taiwan. You can explain that to me, uh, as you choose. What I would like to highlight is while Taiwan is, uh, is still at the forefront, at least in the minds of the Chinese, the United States, uh, is seeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in which we're yet to some degree still involved. Uh, we're d- having deterrence in the Indo-Pacific in regard to China. We're conducting operations in the Middle East. Um, all of that has drawn strategic capabilities from, uh, the joint force. One of the things I think we can do to augment our joint force is strong allied relationships, partnerships with others. Uh, given the current threat environment that we are in, um, and the scale of the global demands upon the, the United States. Can you speak to how the department views the role of allies and partners in sustaining our global posture? And does the defense budget recognize, reflect the needs to strengthen allied integration and maintain credible unified deterrence?

Senator, I appreciate the question, and I think foundational to it is a recognition that countries closest to the problem set, uh, should be most invested in ensuring that they can deter that adversary, which is why we want European capabilities to increase, to deter Russian aggression. Uh, when you look at the Indo-Pacific, uh, it's been a focus of our department since the day I showed up. Whether it's ASEAN or Shangri-La or traveling to the region, going to South Korea, going to Japan, going to the Philippines, uh, having them to our building to build out our those relationships in a in a very real operational way. It's not about what we can sign. It's about what contingencies and dilemmas can we create for adversaries who may seek to expand their their sphere of influence whether it's militarily or economically or through pressure and so I think while we've been involved in a lot of efforts around the world the through the president's leadership we've reestablished deterrence the world knows that America's word means something. Um from Maduro to the Houthis to Midnight Hammer to Epic Fury when the President says, you can't have a nuclear weapon, he means it. When the President says, you're an indicted individual, he means it. Everybody sees that, including in the Indo-Pacific, and when you do that, plus build out your alliances, not based on talk, but based on capabilities, access, spacing and overflight, training, interoperability in, in discrete ways, I think, uh, all the right people pay attention to that and see it, and that's been the focus in the Indo-Pacific for us.

And the, and the budget request reflects those, uh, That that uh circumstance that you just described,

Very much so.

what we're achieving.

I would say Admiral Poparo, uh, his request, his line items, his input was front and center in the build of FY twenty-seven to ensure allies and partners are considered. Yes, sir.

Uh, Secretary Ha- Haig-Seth, let me change the change the topic. Um, I worked closely with Senator Cruz to introduce and secure the the unanimous Senate passage of the Rotor Act. Uh, that was an airplane uh that uh originated from Kansas that uh s saw the death of thirty sixty seven people uh near uh reagan airport. The department in december december the seventeenth released a statement in support of the ROTER act and yet when the house considered the ROTER act the department released an additional statement and claimed that enactment would create significant unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks affecting national defense activities. Can you explain what happened between the first statement and the second statement that caused there to be a different reaction? And I ask this because it's still very important to me that the Roeder Act or something very similar to the Roeder Act is enacted into law. And apparently for it to be passed, it needs to be something that the Department of Defense is supportive of. So what is it that changed between the initial statement, the second statement, so that we can uh bring this uh legislative endeavor to fruition.

why i appreciate your uh uh attention to what occurred there we've taken it seriously from the beginning we recognize the need uh for the requisite oversight uh it was an earnest change uh we don't the department didn't think that the changes that we had asked for were incorporated properly into the bill and as a result uh we came out and uh and opposed it but we look forward to in iteration of that bill to get passed because we think it's important that it that it happened.

So, if I can paraphrase in my words so I understand what you're telling me, it isn't that something changed, it was that what you asked for didn't get enacted in the Roeder Act before it passed the Senate?

Correct. We think some changes that need to be made were not made to the bill, and as a result we changed our position, but we look forward to uh supporting something in the future. Yes.

Um, in my fifteen seconds left of General Caine, could I ask you to visit with me momentarily after the hearing so that I can topic with you and have you point me in the direction of where I can find an answer.

Of course, sir.

Thank you.

Yeah, why?

Thank you very much, Mister Sec- uh, Mister Chairman. Mister Secretary, the war in Iran has not only cost thirteen American service member lives, it is also costing American taxpayers dearly. Tens of billions of dollars and counting, and that's money that could be helping people perhaps get health care. But instead we're paying for bombs dropped in a war that American people overwhelmingly oppose. Now, earlier this morning, I know that your team testified Trump's war with Iran cost twenty nine billion so far. That is twenty nine billion dollars blown on a war of choice, and that's what it would have cost actually to save the ACA tax credits. But as my colleagues have already stated, what is concerning as well is it seems quite clear that that is, that cost estimate is suspiciously low. Now, your action comptroller suggested that damage to US facilities was not factored into that figure. It is clear that there has been extensive damage to American military access. New reporting from the Washington Post and others indicates that Iran has hit at least two hundred and twenty-eight structures or pieces of equipment at US military sites. Can you tell us what the cost of damage done to US facilities is because of this war?

Well, I think Jay covered pretty clearly what we can or cannot share, but I wou- I would simply respond that, um, and I - and I think it's important point, considering what the president is undertaking, is what is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? And the fact that this president's been willing to make a historic and courageous choice to confront that, it comes with cost and we recognize that and we - and we honor that.

I understand what your judgment is.

But

We have a judgment as well. And I'm asking if you can tell us, and at what point, you can tell us what the cost of damage done to US facilities is. uh because of this war

yeah ma'am thanks for the question uh so for uh future posture in the middle east we don't know what that's gonna look like we don't know how we're gonna design these bases and keep

but the damage to date you do not have any cost estimate on it at all

for the military construction i don't have a cost estimate to provide you at this time

well when will we get that

again it depends on what the future posture is how we decide to construct those bases

to date to date you know what has happened to date we can't get that number and that is a real concern to us our job is to appropriate dollars and we're it's coming, it's coming, and we don't get it, so it's very hard to do our budgets. And right now, Mister Secretary, people are paying four, five, even six, seven dollars uh for gas, and American taxpayers are now on the hook as well for paying for this disastrous war. You're spending families' hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose. And you're forcing people to pay more at the pump, and yet you're not even providing a real breakdown for the cost of this war so far. We have no real details, you have indicated that. And yet, now you want Congress to send you one and a half trillion dollars more. To me that is unacceptable, and I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in not only abj- rejecting that absurd request, but in insisting that the American people get the actual answers on how much money, their money, we're, we are spending on this. Now, let me turn and say, Secretary Hex is the The president has called Medicaid, Medicare, and child care little scams and said quote, " We're fighting wars we cannot take uh care of daycare." Uh, I'm just trying to understand that, is it your position, since you're asking taxpayers for another half a trillion dollars for the war, that American families should be forced to give up child care and health coverage, so that you can have one and a half trillion dollars for this budget?

Senator, that's that's not my department. I certainly support this, and I also support the President's efforts to find and remove fraud wherever possible, in a general sense.

Well, I'm not talking about fraud.

And we do that in our department as well, at every step.

I'm not I'm not tr- talking about fraud. I actually asked whether an American family should lose their health care or their child care to pay for this budget. That is literally what the President suggested.

The President has proposed a historic one point five trillion dollar budget that

Well, we're

Yes.

Your opinion, the question, the question in front of this committee, the question in front of the American people, is what are they being asked to give up for this one and a half trillion dollars? That's where I was talking about. And, uh, lastly, Mister Secretary, your budget request cuts through Trump's ramblings and really, to me, makes the truth clear that you and the President don't value families. as much as you value defense contractors you wanna increase the war budget let me finish

i mean every family at dover ok don't tell me we don't care about families we sure do and we take care of them in every way we possibly can

let me mister mister secretary yeah uh i'm asking you about taxpayer dollars that everybody has so when we've been to war before we've asked people to do victory gardens we've asked them to pay more you are not doing that you are taking one asking for one and a half trillion dollars which means something else has to be given up that is what this committee is looking at You wanna increase the war budget for the next year by half a trillion dollars. That is taxpayer money that could be used to feed families, or build new affordable homes, or wipe out some diseases completely, or increase child investments twenty times over. But you are asking us to blow it all on war, and that's not even counting the money that you have spent bombing Iran, or that you may still request in a separate supplemental. And to me, this budget wasn't even strategically crafted. One and a half trillion dollars? It's it's like the president decided that was the number and you all filled in the blanks. So what I'm here today to say is you asked for a massive laundry list of unnecessary spending. It's a huge payday for con defense contractors, and you still don't even ask to give DOD's civilian workers a pay raise. And to me this is absurd. I know you do not care what I have to say. So let me quote you someone you might actually listen to. President Eisenhower. He said, " Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." That is what this budget proposal is asking. It's gonna leave Americans cold and hungry, to fund trump's war and make defense contractors a fortune so that is why i hope this committee throws that in the trash and comes together with a budget that works for all american families thank you thank you mr. chairman

senator Hoeven

uh first i wanna thank you gentlemen and all of our men and women in uniform uh for the incredible defense of our nation what we're seeing really around the globe and certainly in the gulf right now professionalism, the capability of our men and women in uniform is frankly beyond belief. It's just amazing. And we need to say thank you to those men and women and their families every single day. Uh, it's really something. Um, my first question is, uh, Mister Secretary in General, is there a way to secure the Strait of Hormuz before we fully resolve with the conflict with iran

well thank you for your statement upfront about the the troops and we certainly feel the same way they're the best of american deserve the best from all of us uh as it pertains to i actually didn't get a chance to reply to senator durbin who said that iran was attacked by us i would take issue with that for forty seven years we've been attacked by iran and they've been lying to pursue a nuclear weapon and president trump had the courage to do something about it

right on absolutely

um i i i don't think enough has been stated about the blockade and power the blockade and the dilemma that our blockade creates for them uh they can't move anything out of iranian ports and over i think it's sixty five ships at this point have been turned around or disabled the economic pressure that creates on them greatly outstrips the the pressure on us and we don't use the state of hormones anywhere near as much as the rest of the world does or certainly they do and i think it creates a lot of dynamics for future energy dominance for the united states of america considering the increased capability uh that our country has not to mention opportunities in venezuela so we have a range of options uh as the chairman and i have discussed extensively mostly privately but some in public to insure that uh transit were to continue uh should the president or others uh want us to go in that direction but ultimately we control the strain uh because nothing's going in that that we don't allow to go in and uh trust me when we look at what iran's thinking about that uh they know they can't break it and it's it's very concerning for them

iran iran only responds to strength and force and that's specifically why i ask the question in that this their evil regime uh you know can make their people suffer and hang in there but if we can keep the pressure on with the naval blockade and navigate the straight away we can keep the stranglehold on this evil regime and force the type of solution that we need and the kind of we need to enforce it. And that's again why I asked this question, and maybe both you gentlemen could respond to that. I get, I'm not saying that is what the outcome will be or, you know, ultimately it's up to President Trump, but what I'm saying, is it possible to keep that stranglehold on with the blockade, even though, you know, the tyrants, uh, the IRGC won't give up right away, and secure the Strait of Hormuz while we continue to put that pressure on them. for a result that can work for this country and the world, and that's enforceable. And I'd like you to give me some more color on that, both you gentlemen.

Sure, I'll I'll uh I'll uh take a uh take a moment here and and talk about uh pressure. And what you're really alluding to is is what the entirety of the inter-agency is working on. With a hat tip towards Secretary Besant, Secretary Rubio, and the rest of the inter-agency, totality of total pressure which the military element is just one component on uh is what uh the the regime in iran is feeling right now and i i think there's no shortage of ability to hold that pressure the decision on for how long to hold that pressure is of course a political one and within our civilian leadership but but i i would uh um highlight that they are absolutely feeling that not just from the blockade as the secretary talked about, but the continuation of sanctions that treasury and others have put on there, uh, and we retain a, a range of military options.

Well, I a hundred percent agree with you, but their their ability, the the regime's ability to endure pain is significant, cuz they just put it on their people. My point is keeping that pressure on them, but at the same time securing passage in a way where commercial traffic will start moving. That relieves pressure on us and our allies. and that's why i'm asking for more color on how you effectuate that

senator there are options for that should we go in that direction there's a multitude of different uh directions if should the president seek to go that way that we're prepared to operate on uh evidence by the destroyers that went in and came back out

exactly

uh to the great detriment of the limited ability of iran to defend i mean remember the entirety of iran's conventional navy is at the bottom of the east

as with everything you do you start out at a really high level and then you just get better And I'm seeing that with this blockade right now, with the way you uh disabled those last two tankers. I mean, you're getting better at blockading. And again, that's why I'm looking for continued options to secure traffic in the Strait, while we continue to put pressure on Iran. OK. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman, Secretary, uh, General. Uh, thank you for being here. Um, Secretary, I want you to provide some reassurance for uh my constituents. Um In twenty nineteen the DIA published that Iran quote "had swarms of small boats, large inventory of naval mines and arsenal of anti-ship missiles that can severely disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz." In twenty twenty five after operation Midnight Hammer, Brookings' expert said quote, "It is wrong to conclude Iran is now a defeated nation, and will act accordingly. Iran's demonstrated destructive missile capabilities have penetrated nearly every part of Israel. Iran's arsenal could endanger American forces in the Gulf. And, Senator Collins asked General Caine about the extent to which you were briefed and the President was briefed, about the very likely outcome of this kinetic engagement. And, there are some data points that seem to indicate that we did not see all of this coming, or that we didn't account for it. We may have been briefed on it but we didn't account for it. Parts of the THAAD and Patriot systems in South Korea were moved to the Middle East. This is after the war. After the war, munitions were removed from around the world to defend US sites in the region. There was a rush, there was a rush to evacuate United States personnel and Iran struck more than two hundred structures and equipment at sixteen US sites. So secretary, can you just reassure us that this was all foreseen and part of the plan, or can you tell us whether there were any surprises here?

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. I can reassure you that it was all accounted for. Every aspect of this was poured over by the joint staff by civilian leadership and represented, uh, in pursuit of a very clear goal. And the chairman laid out, uh, correctly what the metrics militarily were from the beginning, whether it's ballistic missiles, Iran's navy, you know, you can't contest a blockade if you don't have a conventional navy. destroying the defense industrial base but it was all in service of ensuring iran never has a nuclear weapon and

but so as a for just as a for example

if you have i mean that was so you know it was all seen through the lens of preventing iran from having either threaten the region or us

i yeah i understand that's the underlying objective and i and i do not dispute the military success i don't think there's any doubt that when the most powerful most most well-funded most technologically advanced most disciplined most trained military in human history sets out to do something they almost always accomplish it. And so that's not what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering why we're moving THAAD assets from South Korea after the war started. I'm just wondering why there was a scramble to evacuate personnel. And I'm wondering why the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, said that he was shocked that Iran would retaliate by striking other countries in the region. This was not just foreseeable, it was foreseen. It was, you know, this is, you don't need to get into a skiff to understand that their likely play was to asymmetrically retaliate and then to close the strait. And then it happened, and then the president said, gosh, who could have seen this coming? I'm just trying to figure out for those of us on the left and the right who are wary of regime change wars, who are wary of happy talk, who have learned through terrible experience the cost of this kind of adventurism. Why is this any different and why didn't we see this coming?

I I appreciate your lauding of the force up front and earnestly, that it's the greatest fighting force on planet Earth. But that was the same fighting force that surrendered to Iranian fastboats under the Biden administration. We all remember the pictures. Remember the Americans with their hands above their head at gunpoint of the Iranians? It's because they didn't have leadership like President Trump, who empowered them to do what was necessary. The Biden administration allowed them to pursue nuclear ambitions, didn't do anything about it. President Trump stepped in, we factored all the risk and ranges of of options, put in maximum defensive capability for our troops as as w- as we uh could in real time, uh, fe- empowering the CENTCOM commander with everything he needed to ensure this mission could be as successful as possible knowing there are branches and sequels of every operation that have to be accounted for.

I'm I'm gonna let I've got

Factor the Navy. You might, you might, you might wonder

I just have thirty five seconds. secretary

why would you sink the navy if you're trying to prevent a nuclear iran there's reasons

hold on i got i got

for that because you're planning for contingencies in other ways that this could go as well

yeah i'm just i don't uh secretary i'm trying to stay on time here i i hear what you're saying i just don't hear an answer to the question of why we had to take certain actions that could have been taken before the kinetic engagement and would have kept our assets and our personnel more safe and would have looked and actually been more planful, more thoughtful, more well-executed. Why are we doing all of this stuff as if it's a scramble, if all of this stuff was foreseen?

I I think we'd I'm quite confident, along with the CENTCOM commanders, that we took every action possible to ensure that we were prepared for this conflict.

Thank you.

Jim McCaskill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, gentlemen, thank you. Um, I wanted to start off my questions, um, with a focus on the the reconciliation package. I know that it has not yet been introduced. Um, uh, but we're told three hundred and fifty billion dollars. Um, uh, here's my concern, and I'm just gonna be really direct. We've we've got a second reconciliation that we're gonna be dealing with in these next few weeks regarding, um, uh, immigration enforcement. Um, and uh we are halfway through a calendar year a third reconciliation may or may not happen I'm just being direct and upfront I I think certainly the focus will be to try to move us to that but here's my concern if we have a three hundred and fifty billion dollars um sitting in the reconciliation package you you look at what is contained in that fifty-three of your eighty-five requested F thirty-fives So, I look at that and say, wow. If the reconciliation bill fails or doesn't advance, you drop below your own FY twenty-six fighter procurement baseline. Uh, over fifty-three billion dollars for drone dominance. I think this is all something we support. Uh, over a hundred and thirteen billion for munitions production and industrial base investment. There's other areas. So, here's, here's my, my, my question. Um, i worry about us banking on a third reconciliation package um i know we don't want to engage in this speculative here particularly if it's a negative but i'm i'm worried about the committee accepting a defense budget where effectively a a quarter of it including some of the the bread and butter procurement requirements depends on a third reconciliation package that that may be an uphill climb. And so I I I don't know, Mr. Secretary, if you can kind of walk me through why I shouldn't be worried about this, why uh what is included in the base um budget bill will will be the good coverage that we need and it is not necessarily uh dependent on an additive of the reconciliation.

Senator, I I appreciate that, that perspective and share your concern. That's why one of the main efforts setting aside operations and what everything we do in real time for the troops, is ensuring that both the base discretionary budget and reconciliation are passive that President Trump's historic budget is realized. Because of the underinvestment of the past, whether it's continued resolutions or Biden budgets, we need to supercharge our defense industrial base, our our munitions into the future. Uh, and so we we are our entirety of our team and our department is running in the same direction to ensure that reconciliation as swiftly uh and as clearly and cooperatively as possible is passed alongside the base discretionary budget.

Well, I understand that, but I just need you to understand our concern here, that you've got your base budget and then you have you have the uh the reconciliation. I I wanna ask about the Iran authorization. Um, no great secret around here i have been i have been talking about um an authorization of use of military force uh i understand that the administration uh has made clear that you believe that the actions um taken thus far fall under the president's article two authority um i think reasonable people have disagreed about the boundaries of presidential war powers for a long time um But the War Powers Resolution is pretty clear here. It requires the president to terminate hostilities within sixty days, absent congressional authorization. I think it's important that we in Congress actually, actually, uh, assert our own, uh, role and responsibility to this. That sixty day clock expired April twenty eighth. Um, and then on the first, the administration sent letters to congressional leaders asserting that the hostilities had has ended. Um, but I think where there is confusion is when the president says hostilities have ended, we still have fifteen thousand troops that are forward deployed, more than twenty warships in an active naval blockade. Um, CENTCOM has redirected sixty-one commercial vessels, disabled tankers. In other words, it doesn't appear that that hostilities ha- have ended. And so the question to you is, is whether or not the administration um, has has considered, uh, or had intended to seek an authorization of use of military force from the Congress.

Senator, our view is that should the President, uh, make the decision to recommence, that we would have all the authorities necessary to do so.

Do you think that it would be helpful to the President if it was made clear that, in fact, the Congress did did allow did provide an a um f

i think the president our view is that he has all the authorities he needs under article two to execute

thank you mr. chairman

ok here's where we are um the vote is about over secretary has to get with the president on the china trip i'm gonna ask senator Murkowski to wrap up and uh thank you all for being here

baldwin Shaheen and kennedy excuse baldwin sheehan and kennedy still have questions wrap up after

how many people are getting called here

uh on this level we actually have like a second round

yeah obviously there's not a whole lot of time for second round so we'll get through everybody and uh senator mckes yeah i appreciate your taking over

thank you um secretary Hegseth uh chairman Caine thank you for being here today um today is the first time either of you are appearing before this subcommittee since the abrupt choice was made to cancel the acquisition of the constellation class frigate which was being built in wisconsin um these ships were meant provide vital capability to the navy in the event of a future war against china um and they were certainly part of our calculus of deterrence through strength cancelling this program placed thousands of jobs in wisconsin at risk and left our fleet less prepared you know president trump has talked a lot about making ships in america again but i have to tell you uh dramatic and misguided decisions like this pull the rug out from under our shipyards. The US shipbuilding industry needs stability if we are ever going to compete with Chinese shipyards. Wisconsin workers who have decades of experience building world-class vessels that defend our nation that serve commerce and provide transportation, they need stability as well. So I'd like to start with a question to you, Chairman Caine, on the medium landing ships, the Navy's new amphibious ships, which will now be built at the same Wisconsin shipyards working on the, that were working on the constellation class less than a year ago. How important are medium landing ships to future US operations in the event of a war with China?

Well, Senator, thanks for the uh the question, and uh I I do wanna highlight no matter what, policy decisions are the great workers up there and in your state and as the joint force considers uh the options that the medium landing ship would bring to the table in terms of assuring a mobility gap and filling that gap and allowing us to project power at the secretary and the president's uh choice in choosing uh i you know while not stepping into the navy's boundaries uh and mindful that the cno and secnav and acting

mmm

nav in this case will have views uh i hope we'll carefully consider this capability and then if appropriate bring it forward to the joint force

yeah well unfortunately the department included the request for funding the construction of six medium landing ships in that partisan part of the budget request the reconciliation which is in danger of potentially not even passing this year um to be frank it does not give me confidence that we are taking this program seriously. What would the impact be if Congress did not appropriate funding for the medium landing ships in fiscal year twenty seven? And are you comfortable with the pace that the Navy is planning on building them? Chairman Caine.

Well, they ju- I I'll acknowledge that I think it was yesterday or the day before that they released their shipbuilding plan and given all the things that I'm juggling in this job that I'm so lucky to have I've not gone and done a deep dive. So I'd like to come back to you,

Please do.

um, if you're OK with it on on that matter so that I don't uh, uh, don't wing it.

Yeah. Thank you. I I wanna now turn to the war with Iran. Yesterday I had a chance to meet with service members, um, who were injured in the opening days of the war. They struggled to receive adequate and timely care for their injuries in the Middle East. fighting kept them from being quickly evacuated to land school um after being injured these service members have since been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury um but initially struggled to get properly evaluated or treated in part because uh some of our military hospitals overseas and in the us did not have the capacity for them they needed uh they had to wait for more than three weeks to retreat receive the treatment they need and it seems clear to me that our military medical system was not prepared to treat those injured in this war. Secretary Hegseth, did DOD review our military health system's readiness to treat those injured in uh war with Iran and did that impact your recommendation to begin Operation Epic Fury?

Well, the view of the department was always to, uh, as expeditionally as possible move, uh, anyone injured that needed further care, uh, to Europe for that care, uh, with the recognition that thankfully, you know, ninety percent of those, uh, that have been injured in epic fury have returned to duty. So most of those injuries have been minor enough that they return, but we always catalogue if there could be future complications to ensure that they get care in the future.

It it seemed to me from what I heard, uh, that we weren't prepared in theater, we weren't prepared in Germany, and we weren't prepared immediately upon these, uh, soldiers' return to the US. Um, I'd Can you commit to ensuring that every service member, including my constituents, will receive necessary medical care after being injured in this war, and that the military health system is now prepared for any future casualties in this war?

Uh, we have been and we will continue to be.

Uh, Senator Shaheen.

Thank you Madam Chair, um and thank you both for being here, all three of you for being here. Um, since your testimony two weeks ago, Secretary Hegseth, um before the Armed Services Committee, the department has sent over your legal review, which I appreciate, thank you. for use of security assistance funding for Ukraine. However, as was determined earlier in the testimony, funding still has not gone out the door. And I didn't hear you give a date when this committee or the Armed Services Committee can expect to hear or receive a spend plan for those dollars. Um, General Caine, the day of the testimony, um, got back to us as he said he would and explain that he had coordinated on the spin plan on april thirteenth so that's been almost a month and we still haven't gotten anything so when are we gonna see the spin plan for ukraine

the spin plan for the european capacity building is in conjunction with uconn

no no no no i'm asking for the spin plan that we are providing are you suggesting the pearl funding is part of that spin plan did i understand

see

the specific line item was european capacity building in the budget

do i misunderstand you i understand but the intent of

and as a result we're working with ukraine to allocate it

congress was was to spend that four hundred million i think you heard from chairman mcconnell you heard from um senator kunz um there was discussion at the time with the congress that that those dollars were intended to be used for ukraine and the reason it was designated as it was was because what we heard from Speaker Johnson was that the President was gonna veto the bill if Ukraine was mentioned in it anywhere in the bill. And so that's why the determination was to use the term European, but the clear intent was for that money to be spent for Ukraine. So again, when is the money gonna go out the door? When is this committee gonna get the spend plan?

ma'am uh we're expecting to see a final spend plan for that this week and once we have it we can provide it to congress

um and who still has to review the spend plan so general Caine's review isn't enough

well ultimately um and he passed me a note on this earlier european command is gonna take the lead on ensuring this gets employed uh the most effectively so that's where

oh i know but general brinkovich as i pointed out two weeks ago had already reviewed the spend plan

it's more or less

so we're not waiting for him to do that as i understand

No, ma'am, I believe we are. I think Ucom is trying to make a few tweaks to the spend plan.

OK, so when do we think we will get it?

Uh. I believe we'll have it to you this week.

OK. And when do we expect money to go out the door, once that spend plan is available?

I don't know what they're putting in the spend plan, so I can't tell you what the schedule will be for contracting. That will matter. What they choose to buy with that money will will determine how fast it goes out the door.

Um. OK, this, if this committee doesn't come back to you, I can guarantee you the armed services committee is gonna come back to you, and get an answer to that question. Um, Secretary Hegsath, a number of members of Congress have expressed our concern that Iran is receiving intelligent support from Russia to target our service members, even as we loosen sanctions on the Kremlin. Russia is making four billion dollars from oil sanctions relief. because we've loosened those sanctions. Um, as has been testified to, an Iranian shahad drone costs about thirty-five thousand. That's enough money for hundreds of thousands of drones supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, and billions for Iran to reconstitute its industrial base. So, if one of the goals that's been outlined by the president as part of this war is to destroy Iran's defense industrial base, Don't you think we ought to be putting more pressure on Russia and putting those sanctions back on those Russian oil ships so that they are not um continuing to fund Iran in this war?

Senator, we we know Russia uh is a nefarious actor on a lot of levels and account for that, but I would say the destruction of Iran's

Well, but all

defense industrial base has been highly effective in this effort.

all evidence to the contrary, we're not accounting for that if we're giving Russia the opportunity to earn four billion dollars a month twenty billion dollars by the end of the year if we leave those sanctions lifted for that time in during which they can continue to fund iran

saying the well the destruction of defense of iran's defense industrial base has been clear and overwhelming

they can continue to provide oil to china

the the destruction of iran's defense industrial base has been clear and overwhelming

well it's certainly not clear to me as a member of the committee because what we see is iran still producing drones they're still engaged in this conflict We have not won this war despite the rhetoric.

There's a difference between pulling a drone out of a cave that's been uh collapsed and producing more drones. That's a different thing.

Well, maybe so. But if Iran still has almost fifty percent of their missile capacity, and the ability to pull drones out of caves and still injure our allies and US service members, then we have not won the war.

We are told that Senator Kennedy should be here in a mere minutes. And so, uh, Senator Coons, if you want to ask a couple questions until he arrives.

Thank you, Sena- Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I'm, Mister Secretary, I'm just gonna follow up on the questions I asked in my first round and the questions that had been asked by uh members of both parties. Um, in my assessment, there was no imminent threat to the United States that justified the President using his Article Two powers. And there was insufficient preparation to make sure that we had the right troops, the right capability, um, deployed. There used to be a consensus in national security that America should only go to war when there's an imminent threat to our national security when all other options have been exhausted and when we have clear objectives and a plan for how it ends. As uh General Caine uh testified, the military was given three clear goals, sink the navy, um attack and destroy the ballistic missile launchers, uh and degrade their defense industrial base, and you've accomplished those. But President Trump celebrated regime change after saying that regime change was the real goal. And our NATO allies have delivered. They have allowed overflight. They have allowed projection of force despite not being consulted. You said just a few moments ago, Mister Secretary, we control the strait. But it's clear that reopening the Strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic eludes us in no small part because Iran retains a robust stockpile of cheap lethal shahad drones, and they are getting help from our adversaries in rebuilding them. What is your plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Mister Secretary?

I would just note that the majority of your question was highly disingenuous and loaded with suggestions that I very much don't agree with. Uh, from the beginning

Please, please feel free, sir, to pick any one of those things.

From the beginning we've been very clear about the military objectives and the

Yes.

strategic objective which is preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon

yes

take for example the fact that iranians na- conventional navy they had aircraft carriers with shahid drones on them before they started they had full-on destroyers and battleship capabilities none of which they they have anymore and

did the iranian navy have aircraft carriers

their inability to iranian navy had three drone aircraft carriers the iranian navy had eleven submarines

ok they had launch platforms for drones sure

had eleven submarines they had a terror navy

and you sunk all of their regular navy great good

they they retain fast boat capabilities which they've always had, we understand that,

Yes.

which we can control for and will. We've degraded almost completely their defense industrial base capabilities. The idea that they control anything,

Right.

you can terrorize something, you can hold it at issue with piracy as I've

Yes.

talked about at the Pentagon podium time and time again.

Correct.

That doesn't mean you control it. We control what goes in and out, and we control whether or not we have to restart conflict. The President does as well.

Mister Secretary.

So we're the ones that will manage where this goes, future, and they have very limited ability to to set the tempo or respond to it. And that gives the president a lot of options to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.

Um, the connection

Um, the connection between their ability to close the Strait of Hormu- Hormuz using fast boats and Shahad drones and our strategic goal, shared broadly, to prevent them from ever having a usable nuclear weapon is utterly unclear to me. And my question was, what's the plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, given skyrocketing prices.

Share share broadly but never execute it. Share broadly but never execute it because previous administration didn't have the willingness to actually do what it would take.

I I

And when Iran was at its weakest moments following the Twelve Day War, but still wanted the pursuit of a nuclear capability, President Trump made the courageous decision to go at their conventional umbrella and shield which they were using to protect their nuclear program, which we knew came with threats and and branches and sequels,

My concern, Mister Secretary,

uh which we've accounted for.

is that you've achieved a series of tactical successes, but are on the verge of a strategic loss, because we are now negotiating a demand.

Just think it's so foolish. Here we are in a committee in the United States Senate, seventy four days in and you're talking about strategic loss. We have the ability to defeat a forty seven year threat of a pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Seventy four days in.

We have more leverage than we've ever had. We've had incredible battlefield successes, and you're talking about a strategic loss? Uh,

Mister Secretary.

cloaked in disingenuous questions,

Mister Secretary.

this is this is how you undercut

Mister Secretary.

efforts that could otherwise and are otherwise being very effective.

I am not your enemy, sir. I am not your adversary. I share your goal of preventing Iran from ever having a usable nuclear weapon. To finish my sentence, control of the Strait of Hormuz, the ability to degrade our partners' and allies' gas and oil production capabilities through cheap drones, the ability to harass and harry commercial shipping, remains in Iran's hands. And their demands are that we recognize sovereignty for them over the Strait of Hormuz, which I believe our president's rejected, you've rejected, I reject. But my question remains, how do we reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping? If we control it, how do we reopen it? And your average American is seeing this at the gas pump every single day as the cost of gas continues to rise.

Senator Coons, I know that your re- your question has not yet been responded to.

And it deserves an answer.

It does deserve an answer.

But I also understand I'm delaying my colleagues, but that's the question that deserves an answer,

But.

Mister Secretary.

We we do have uh Senator Kennedy followed by Senator Murphy, and I know that Secretary uh has a time departure.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mister, Madam Chair.

Uh, thank you. Thank you.

Mister Secretary, welcome. Can we agree that if you took President Xi Jinping and turned him upside down and shook him that the african country of mauritius would fall out of his pocket

i don't know if we can uh but um i'd i'd like to indulge you on that

well let me try let me let me let me try it another way um mauritius is good friends with uh china is it not

i understand there's some level of a relationship there

yeah yeah like they're they're bffs or whatever the young people call it um prime minister starmer wants to give uh diego garcia and the shago silence to mauritius which has virtually no connection with the shago silence who will promptly give a spare key to diego garcia to china is that accurate

what i would underscore is that diego garcia is a very strategic location and having the ability to operate there for the united states military is gonna be critically important in the future

but starmer wants to give it away does he not

uh as president trump has stated there's been some pretty bad deals made by the brits as it pertains to diego garcia yes

well well well well i'd i'd like to hear you i mean the president's been back and forth on this and i've talked to him a lot uh um he's he's he he is not gonna agree to that is he

No, as the President has stated, it was a bad deal that was cut uh by the by the UK and uh Prime Minister Starmer, as it pertains to Diego Garcia, as evidenced by limitations that our troops could face in how we use that island.

Okay.

Yes.

Alright. Um, I appreciate that. My understanding is that the classified information and unclassified is public. So that our intelligence discovered that not that long ago iran had developed a new the supreme leader now dead is fried chicken but they have a new for supreme leader had developed a new game plan for for their nuclear weapons program and their game plan was to jack up missile both ballistic and uh and and uh um cruise missile production and drone production and and and put together this huge stop stockpile of missiles and drones at which point they would turn to the united states and israel and the rest of the world and say we're gonna restart our nuclear weapons program uh if you bomb us again like you did in in june we will destroy the middle east and by the way our missiles can now reach berlin and london and paris is that my understanding of one of the reasons the main reason we went into iran

I think that's pretty well articulated, Senator, that they were trying to use the umbrella of their conventional, established conventional stockpiles to blackmail the rest of the world in pursuit of their own nuclear weapons.

Yeah. Now let's talk about Iran today. Can we agree that Iran, both the public and the private sector, is being held together right now with spit and duck tape?

Spit and duck tape is not a doctrinal term, uh, Senator, but I would agree with something along those lines.

It's a Louisiana term. I mean seven out of ten iranians are out of work we bomb their their their infrastructure they've got seventy percent inflation their internet's shut off um you know better than i do what we've done on the military side their launcher's gone their missiles for the most part gone their drones gone do they have some left yeah their navy gone their air force gone you you can get an airplane, you personally, and fly anywhere you want to across Iran right now and feel safe, cuz they don't have any air defenses. It will be, in my opinion, twenty years and cost trillion dollars before they're even back somewhat to normal. And I don't have the slightest idea where they're gonna get the money. If they think China's gonna give it to them or Russia, they gotta learn a hard lesson. to that extent have we achieved our objective in iran

objective as this president has stated from the beginning is to insure they don't get a nuclear weapon and president trump remains dedicated to insuring that happens and everything you described with the military degradation of their country was in service of insuring they never get a nuclear weapon

well this is what i i never understood the president to say i wanna regime change in Iran, and I want to to obtain all of their fissile material. I've I've never heard him say that. What I heard him say was our g- what I don't wanna go back through it, but our goal is to cripple them so they can't blackmail the rest of the world. Now, many of my democratic friends have now are tryi- now trying to say we have lost. He- here's a footnote. You're not gonna get democratic support. They're not, they're not gonna support you, Mister Secretary. Because they don't support President Trump. I know that's not a newsflash. Um. But they say we we we we've lost. I I don't get it. I don't understand how we've lost. Is the straight closed? Yes. But if we continue that blockade, where nothing's going in and nothing's going out, eventually they're gonna have to shut down their oil fields, so they're not half of their oil fields are under pressure. Once they put them down, they're not gonna get them back up. Am I missing something here?

No, that's why the president is right when he says we hold all the cards, and we do, and we've got the best dealmaker in the world, uh, able to make the best deal for the United States of America, and if we have to go back at it as the department of war, we're ready to do that as well.

Well, keep two things in mind. You're not gonna win over my democratic friends. It's not worth getting your blood pressure up. focus on other things. And number two, just keep this in mind. America first does not have to be mean America alone. America first does not have to mean America alone. We need all the friends we can get. They need to carry their own weight. They need to pay their bills. But the more the better. I'm sorry I went way over, but I sure do appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senator Murphy.

Uh, thank you, Madam uh, Chair. Um, thank you all for being here. Uh, let me give you a chance, Mister Secretary, to answer Senator Coons's question, which is a really simple one. Um, how are we going to get the straight open, because nothing matters more to our constituents than doing something about these, um, spiraling gas prices, which are bankrupting families and and farmers all across the country. And maybe let me ask it this way. Um, this is the first time you've come before this committee, but in other briefings, people that work for you have told us in plain terms that there is no military mechanism to reopen the strait that ultimately will be a political decision made by iran and i think you're confirming that here today by suggesting that it will be economic pressure that will create a political imperative inside teheran to open the strait so can you just confirm for the committee that there is not a military mechanism or means to reopen the Strait, that ultimately we have to essentially use diplomacy, uh, economic diplomacy in this case, uh, in order to convince Iran to make the decision to reopen the Strait.

I would say, Senator, um, there most certainly are military means by which we could open the Strait. Um, both, uh, it on targets on land and also with what we do with our naval capabilities, not to mention our naval blockade,

Why haven't you, why haven't you done?

demonstrated by

If if that's true, and that's not what has been testified to us in private briefings, why haven't you done that already?

Ultimately, a long-term, the the a preferred long-term approach would be a deal where they open it up, where they stop being pirates of an international waters and allow countries from all nations to flow you know these aren't US ships that are being blockaded there, these are ships from all around the world creating much more pressure for other countries than ours, so the bad guy here is Iran who's closing the strait through piracy effectively, cuz they don't they really only have fast boat uh capabilities,

And and and and

we're blockading them, none of their stuff's getting out, They're feeling all the pressure.

OK, so here's, so here's my,

They're feeling all the pressure.

here's, here's my follow-up question. You don't worry that through a study of history you might come to the conclusion that you are overestimating um their willingness to cave based upon economic pressure. Um, the Russians believed years ago that Ukraine would cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on Ukraine. We thought the North Vietnamese would cave because of the economic pressure we are putting on them. Um, th- your own intelligence estimates, as has been reported, suggest that in fact, uh, the Iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years. Um, this is a high-risk strategy to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause them to voluntarily reopen the strait, when there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries that are being attacked or invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of economic misery in order

Uh, well aware, we've looked at all, we understand all of those historical case studies, and it's not just economic pressure. There's military pressure, diplomatic pressure, we certainly have a lot more military pressure we can bring to bear, if the president were choose to do so. I think there are a lot of different dynamics that we can, that, cards that the president can play holding all of them to ensure even greater economic pressure or even greater military pressure, in, in Iran, and they know that, and that's why the negotiations are serious and ongoing right now about giving up their nuclear capability,

And the

because they understand that.

and and the and the problem is time is not on our side here. I I I believe you are being way too optimistic um in your assessment of their potential to cave. But if this goes on for another thirty days, there are gonna be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt. There are gonna be families that are gonna be ruined. And so time is not on our side. And I and I just don't believe that Iran is ready um, to capitulate yet. And if they capitulate in a year, there's gonna be a whole lot of families and businesses that are ruined in the United States. Um, General Cain, let me uh finally ask you a question about what seems to be um, a difference of opinion between the intelligence services that you rely on, um, and the public statements of the President of the United States with respect to our war objectives. Um, the secretary uh and others uh in the president's cabinet have said very clearly that our war objective is to destroy iran's missile and drone program. the president said just a week ago that iran maybe had eighteen to nineteen percent of their missile capacity left but there is public reporting suggesting that our intelligence agencies say that iran still has seventy percent of their missile and drone capability which would be a failure of our objectives if that were to be true Um, what can you tell us about the number of missiles and drones that they have left, and do you dispute your, that intelligence estimate?

Sure, I'm not gonna comment with deep respect for the question. I'm not gonna comment in this forum on what may or may not have been opined on by the IC, which would suggest a leak or a confirmation of any intel. So, while I appreciate the question, I hope you'll also appreciate my not answering it.

Well, then just give me what is, the President said that eighty percent of the

Yeah, I'm not gonna comment on BDA, I uh on either way, sir, uh in this form.

Well, then how do we, how do we or the American public assess the success of the mission? When you have stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their missile and drone capability,

Yes, sir.

how do we assess whether we should continue funding this if you can't state to us what

Well, I'm not gonna answer uh uh what you guys uh and the Congress considers the decision

the assessments are?

criteria around continued funding or not what i what i know is that uh i've not read the report that you're talking about uh all of our battle damage assessment matters are classified and it would be inappropriate for me to comment in this forum on that and i well i appreciate the question but i i'm not gonna answer it

let me just put it to secretary hagseth the president said that eighty percent of their missile capacity had been destroyed this public report says it's only uh thirty percent um can can you give us an answer as to what the real number is

i mean i would answer the same way as the chairman

not talking to this committee about the damages husband and wife

senator

not validating leaked information that could be wrong or not wrong uh in in why would i validate what

no just tell us what the number is

what people may leak or not leak this is a this is not a class fights meeting we don't talk about those things and you like to talk about them on tv we don't talk about them here

you're you you well you said you

senator murphy i would perhaps suggest that uh that some of these questions and responses are perhaps best in a classified setting. Um, but I also acknowledge that we are not in a classified setting. We have um uh held the secretary and uh the chairman uh longer than I think they had anticipated. Senators have one week to submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official hearing record we request for a response from our witnesses within thirty days of receiving these questions uh the subcommittee stands in recess, subject to Call of the Chair and I would ask those in the audience to remain in their seats until Secretary and General Caine depart. And uh uh safe travels to you, to China. Good luck.