Pentagon Budget Hearing Day Two

Rodger Wicker (32:28):

All right. The hearing is in order. We completed a productive classified session down in the SCIF, and now we will begin the public portion of this hearing. I welcome back Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, and our acting controller, Mr. Jay Hurst. I thank all of them, including their families, for their service.

(32:48)
For the dozens of Americans that regularly watch our hearings, my next remarks will be no surprise, but for new viewers, I want to reiterate some context for my remarks. I've said this at almost every hearing. We live in the most dangerous security environment since World War II. Every uniformed officer who has come before this committee has agreed with that statement.

(33:13)
First and foremost, we're locked in a competition with Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The competition is high stakes and it is about whether this will be an American-led century or a century defined by authoritarian autocratic regimes that care little for the needs of their citizens or those in neighboring countries. The Chinese Communist Party has accelerated its historic military buildup and its predatory economic practices against Americans and countries the world over. Xi Jinping leads not only China, but also an axis of aggressors. This growing alliance cannot be denied. It includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. They're united around this goal, to oppose America's interests and the interest of other like-minded democratic countries across the globe.

(34:10)
Vladimir Putin's war of choice in Ukraine has now entered its fifth year. In Putin's objectives, we hear echoes of the imperialistic ambitions of World War II's aggressors, including Adolf Hitler. Vladimir Putin has suffered 1.2 million casualties and failed miserably in his military objectives. Along the way, he has transformed Russia's economy into one fueled by war, raising the prospect of an even more aggressive Moscow for the foreseeable future.

(34:46)
Most of Iran's leaders are now deceased, but they and those who survived them have consistently sought violence against America, Israel, our Gulf allies, and the Iranian

Rodger Wicker (35:00):

... the people. We saw this during the October 7th massacre. During their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and in their desire to engage in nuclear blackmail, Iran's Ayatollahs have consistently represented a threat to American interest. Kim Jung Un has joined Mr. Putin's war of aggression. He continues a military and nuclear buildup that threatens South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Ties have never been closer among these four dictatorships. They support each other's aggressive endeavors. They prop each other up financially, and they scheme to undermine America's objectives. We should expect them to continue this behavior. This context plays out across every dimension of national power, the economy, technology, diplomacy, and more. But today we're here to talk about the military dimension of this competition. These regimes have regularly tried to take by force what they cannot secure through the political process.

(36:11)
For that reason, we must be ready to deter conflicts and if necessary, to win them. President Trump has used the U.S. military appropriately and effectively for American interests. He has viewed our adversaries as a united block and has taken action in light of that reality. In Operation Absolute Resolve, an associated statecraft, the president removed an aspiring dictator off the board and set up Venezuela for a future aligned with democratic interests. In Operation Midnight Hammer, he sought to eliminate the Ayatollah's nuclear program. When the Ayatollah chose to double down, the president launched Operation Epic Fury. In that mission, he has worked to remove the regime's conventional military capabilities and force it back to the table for a permanent solution. While we all mourn the tragic loss of the 14 service members who've lost their lives in this conflict, we do so knowing the world is safer without a nuclear Iran.

(37:21)
All of these actions are part of a peace through strength strategy. In this approach, we seek first to avoid war, but we take military action when necessary to achieve U.S. interest. And so, Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased that you are here testifying today in support of President Trump's historic $1.5 trillion defense budget request. That sum will go a long way toward rebuilding our military capabilities for a generation. I should say upfront that this may be a long hearing, there's much to discuss. This $1.5 trillion request is chock-full of important programs and initiatives that are absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the 21st century. I think this funding underpins and accentuates three comparative advantages the United States possesses over the axis of aggressors. The first comparative advantage America enjoys over our adversaries is that we have the best innovation and industry in the world. So I hope our witnesses today will cover the progress we've made in just the past year, rebuilding the American arsenal.

(38:34)
Last year, our reconciliation bill combined with bipartisan appropriation bills achieved about $1 trillion defense budget. This year's request would represent a near 50% increase. Every penny of it should be money well spent, making down payments on crucial transformational capabilities such as drone warfare, low cost munitions, and missile defense. Also, last year, Congress and the executive branch achieved historic acquisition reforms. Consequently, we are well positioned to make huge gains on efficiency this year and in the years to come, making it much more flexible and a more timely process. I look forward to discussing how we might accelerate implementation of these actions. In particular, I'd like to see the Pentagon do more this year to drive competition in the defense industrial base. Competition absolutely drives better outcomes for our service members and taxpayers. Of course, our people are the final comparative advantage we have over our adversaries.

(39:52)
We've enjoyed significant improvements in recruitment and retention, but we need to solidify a merit-based environment that fully cares for our personnel. I commend you, Mr. Secretary, for your efforts over the past year to do just that. That task will never be finished, of course, but we embrace it gladly and we salute the progress. We will always be striving to care for and equip American service members as much as possible. I look forward to more work between this committee and the department this coming year. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Jack Reed.

Jack Reed (40:29):

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, Mr. Hurst, welcome. And please convey my appreciation, all of our appreciation to our military service members and defense civilians. We owe them our deepest sense of gratitude. Mr. Secretary, this is your first public appearance before this committee in nearly a year. Since your last public testimony, you and President Trump have unwisely taken the United States to war with Iran. You ordered attack on Venezuela, news like Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland to please American citizens. And you have personally intervened to end the careers of dozens of military leaders without explanation. These actions will have significant and long-term consequences.

(41:21)
Now you appear before us to ask for a $1.5 trillion budget, a 45% increase above last year. I must say I'm skeptical and such a request demands intense scrutiny. 61 days ago, President Trump unilaterally began the war in Iran. He had no coherent strategy. He refused to make a case to the American people or consult Congress. He failed to present any evidence of an immediate threat, and he ignored the advice of military and intelligence experts who warned him of the consequences. Today, our nation is in a worst strategic position. The Strait of Hormuz was open, now it is closed. 13 service members have tragically lost their lives, and more than 400 have been wounded. We have lost dozens of aircraft, sustained significant damage to our bases in the area, and expended an alarming amount of our missile inventory. Morale and readiness across the force, especially among over-deployed units and vessels like the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier have suffered. Gasoline and fertilizer prices throughout the world have surged.

(42:41)
American families are bearing the cost of a war they wanted nothing to do with and have gained nothing from. And yet, Secretary Hegseth, you declared victory a month ago. On April 8th, you said, in your words, "Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory. By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered its combat forces ineffective for years to come." Let me be clear. Tactically, the United States military performance against Iran has been remarkable. And I salute the service members who have executed this mission with skill and bravery. The problem with your statements, Mr. Secretary, is they are dangerously exaggerated. Iran's hardline regime remains in place. It still retains stockpiles of enriched uranium, and its nuclear program remains viable. Iran's military retains enough combat effectiveness to keep the conflict at an impasse.

(43:43)
Its missiles and drones remain a far greater threat than you have acknowledged, and the regime has demonstrated it can effectively control the Strait of Hormuz when it chooses. Mr. Secretary, I'm concerned that you have been telling the president what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear. Bold assurances of success are a disservice to both the commander-in-chief and the troops who risk their lives based on them. Our military has performed heroically, but military force without a sound strategy is a path to long-term defeat. I'd like to know what options you're considering now, given the cost from this war and the stalemate President Trump has put us in. More broadly, Mr. Secretary, too often you have made dangerous statements that are counterproductive to the mission. You boasted about quote, "no stupid rules of engagement," just days after hundreds of Iranian school girls were tragically killed in a missile strike.

(44:44)
You have made troubling statements about showing no mercy and no quarter to the Iranians, orders that would constitute war crimes. As importantly, while our men and women are fighting and dying overseas, you have focused unduly on your own personal agenda. In the past two months alone, you have taken upon yourself to overhaul the Chaplain Corps, cancel flu vaccine requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, and bar service members from attending certain universities. Just this week, you brought performer Kid Rock to an army base to go for a joyride in an Apache helicopter after dismissing an earlier investigation into the pilots who recklessly chose to hover above his home. That runs directly counter to the chain of command and maintaining good order and discipline. Most disturbingly, during your tenure, you have fired dozens of our most senior military leaders and personally intervened to block the promotions of many others.

(45:48)
That is a betrayal of the merit-based system that forms the foundation of our military. You are hollowing out the military's bench of experience and highest performing senior officers while making young officers wonder if they should continue to serve. My colleagues and I have heard from countless service members throughout the ranks, many of whom will be watching right now, who are confused and disturbed by your actions. Hopefully you can explain them today. Additionally, this committee expects a fulsome update on Operations Southern Sphere. This ongoing campaign against suspected drug trafficking votes has resulted in nearly 200 fatalities. The administration has failed to explain the long-term objectives of this mission or provide any evidence of reduced drug flows into the United States. I would ask for a credible answer to this most fundamental question. What is the operation actually meant to accomplish? Mr. Secretary, you are here to promote the president's $1.5 trillion defense budget.

(46:57)
While this budget provides funding for necessary programs, including ship building and drone manufacturing, many other critical programs like barracks repair and aircraft procurement would rely on the passage of a party-line reconciliation bill. Further, this budget slashes research and development, provides no funding for Ukraine, and includes no funding for losses incurred from the Iran war. Yesterday, Mr. Hurst testified that Operation Epic Fury has cost $25 billion. If nothing else, that helped clarifies that we certainly do not need a supplemental anywhere near $100 billion, much less $200 billion. And in this record-breaking budget, there is no pay adjustments for the civilian workforce and with inflation, that is a pay cut. After a year of doge layoffs and a hiring freeze across the department, this is an insult to the 800,000 men and women who support our war fighters every day. I cannot imagine a faster way to erode readiness and distract from our abilities to deter our adversaries.

(48:09)
Ultimately, Mr. Secretary, I believe you are causing lasting harm to the military. Like many members of this committee, I had the opportunity and the privilege to serve in the military. And every officer knows they are duty bound to give their best professional advice, even it is not what their superiors want to hear, because when leaders fear to speak honestly, people die, missions fail, wars are lost. The Americans People's Trust in our military took 250 years to build. You are dismantling it in a fraction of that time and trust once long can take generations to rebuild. Mr. Secretary, today, I hope you'll take a step forward toward rebuilding the trust that has been lost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rodger Wicker (49:00):

Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized for your opening statement, sir.

Pete Hegseth (49:08):

Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's historic, as you said, Mr. Chairman, $1.5 trillion fiscal year 2027 budget for the Department of War. The President's budget request reflects the urgency of the moment, addressing both the deferment of longstanding problems as well as positioning our forces for the current and future fights. I'm honored to appear alongside General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Jay Hurst, our chief financial officer and comptroller. I'd like to start by thanking this committee and Congress for your partnership in securing the investment needed for a stronger, prouder, and more secure military. Your focus on acquisitions, your focus on efficiency are the reflection in our department as well and in this budget. A nation's ability to build, to innovate, and to support the critical needs of its war fighters at speed and at scale is the foundation upon which its deterrence and survival rests.

(50:12)
However, upon taking office on January 20th, 2025, President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of America last policies, resulting in a diminished capacity to project strength. Under the previous administration, we were offshoring, outsourcing, beset by cost overruns and degraded capabilities. But under the leadership of President Trump, our Builder-in-Chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a wartime footing. Urgency informs everything we do. We're rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of, one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries and inspires historic morale and recruiting in its ranks. We fight to win in every scenario. The $1.5 trillion budget put forward by the president will build upon a previous $1 trillion FY26 top line and will continue to reverse the four years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the Biden administration.

(51:19)
The $1.5 trillion budget will ensure that the United States continues to maintain the world's most powerful and capable military as we grapple with a complex threat environment across multiple theaters. Not to mention, the budget also includes a historic troop pay increase, 7% for junior enlisted, 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 defense 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 the Pentagon acquisition process from a bureaucratic model to a business model, decisively moving from a acquisitions environment paralyzed by bureaucratic red tape into an outcomes-driven organization, focused on delivering the most for taxpayer dollars.

(52:25)
Over the past year, through historic multi-year procurement agreements that this committee supported, we've cut smart business deals that have sent unambiguous demand signals to industry 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.

Protestor (52:53):

Hegseth, you're a war criminal. You should be arrested. What you're doing is despicable. The American people do not want to go to this war. We don't want to fight the war for [inaudible 00:53:04]

Rodger Wicker (53:07):

Further interruptions of our hearing will be treated in like manner. We appreciate the First Amendment rights of Americans to express themselves, but disruption of this hearing will not be tolerated. So Mr. Secretary, you may continue.

Pete Hegseth (53:28):

I'll briefly provide some concrete high level metrics of what we've accomplished over just the past few months. These are announced new facilities and investments to support American war fighters. The department has helped stimulate more than 250 private investment deals in 39 states, 180 cities, in 150 companies worth more than $50 billion. It's resulted in 280 new or expanded facilities, more than 18 million new square feet of American manufacturing, and more than 70,000 new jobs. These 50 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 are investing in America with their own dollars, a historic demonstration of American manufacturing and defense revitalization, all with their money, not Uncle Sam's. This has never been done before and is long overdue, from a bureaucratic model to a business model. These investments equal great things for America, for American families and American workers to ensure that our war fighters have everything they need, all American made.

(54:46)
Together with the help of the policy updates and appropriations passed by Congress, President Trump's war department has begun to turn the lights back on in our manufacturing towns across this country, forging a lethal arsenal of freedom. Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure that this department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability from the front lines to the factory floor. This is a historic budget, as you said, Mr. Chairman. This is a fiscally responsible budget, and this is a war fighting budget. Speaking of war fighting, the topic of Iran I'm sure will come up often today, which I welcome. I look forward to sharing the incredible success of our military effort achieved in a matter of weeks. President Trump has the courage, has had, unlike other presidents, to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds.

(55:47)
We have the best negotiator in the world driving a great deal. Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Defeatists from the cheap seats who two months in seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a 47-year threat with the courage no other president has had to great success and great opportunity for preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Despite this, under President Trump, we are restoring the unbreakable might of American manufacturing. 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 wherever they are and may we honor the legacy of those brave Americans that we have lost. This is our sacred mission and this is what we will continue to execute on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rodger Wicker (56:54):

Thank you for that statement, Mr. Secretary General Caine, you're recognized.

Dan Caine (56:58):

Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, members of the committee and your staff who we never get to say thanks to. Thanks for having me today. I'm honored to be here alongside the honorable Pete Hegseth and the honorable Jay Hurst to testify on the president's fiscal 2027 budget. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm thankful for your continued partnership and support of our war fighters, defending the homeland and our interests around the world. It's a privilege to speak with you today about the foundation of America's Strength, the 2.8 million members of our joint force, and I am continually inspired by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, coast guardsmen, and civilians standing the watch for the nation supported always by their families. They could have chosen a much easier path, any other path, but they volunteered for a life of purpose and passion and service.

(57:58)
And every single day they rise to meet the nation's challenges from combat operations to critical support roles with the courage, tenacity and grit that keeps our nation strong and secure. I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 39 members of the joint force who've passed in operations, combat, and training during my time as the chairman, and specifically highlight the 14 who've passed in Operation Epic Fury. The secretary and I are deeply grateful for each of them and their families and their names will never be forgotten. As the chairman, my duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks required to make the nation's hardest and most complex decisions. I owe the president, the secretary, and the Congress the truth at every turn. And my blueprint for this role has always been that of General George C. Marshall.

(59:06)
His firm commitment to civilian control and nonpartisan and a nonpartisan military remains my constant standard, and I strive to emulate his candor, delivering the facts leaders need to hear, not always what they want to hear. And once a decision is made, executing it with the absolute dedication while keeping the joint force precisely where it should be. That's the demand of our profession. As I sit before you today representing our incredible joint force, I want to emphasize my commitment to this committee and to the Congress. I will always follow General Marshall's steadfast example by providing clear and candid nonpartisan military advice, working together to ensure the military remains squarely focused on one thing, being prepared to deter and if called upon fight and win our nation's war, and that is our mission. America's joint force is operational at its core purpose built for the realities in a complex world.

(01:00:10)
We're organized, trained, and equipped to execute the most demanding missions across the globe with unrivaled precision. And over the past year, our war fighters have consistently demonstrated exactly what it means to be the most capable and most professional force on earth. Our shared goal is to ensure the joint force sustains the strategic initiative and advantage and ability to project power to respond to the global challenges on our nation's terms. During Operation Rough Rider, Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, the joint force executed globally integrated missions alongside our interagency and international partners. And once our leaders made a decision, our forces demonstrated the unmatched ability to seamlessly synchronize actions and activities from the seabed to cislunar space. We're able to accomplish these complex things that we are asked to do because we draw from a deep reservoir of training, professionalism, and commitment.

(01:01:25)
Our operational tempo is high, but we're designed to sustain it, rebuilding readiness every day, training professionals every day and sharpening our edge every day. And I am incredibly proud of this joint force team and the leaders at every echelon who command it. As the chairman said, "We are living in a complex environment." Today, I look forward to discussing how we can sustain America's military advantage, and I know this committee recognizes the challenges and the urgency in the environment that we face. We're operating in delicate and dangerous times where risk is scaling and the complexity of the modern battlefield demands America's constant adaptation, innovation, and partnership with Congress. As a joint force, we're up to the challenge. We're built for this environment. However, our continued success is not guaranteed by our past achievements. We must continue to be forward-looking and innovate together with the Congress. To drive the pace of change and maintain our superiority requires timely, predictable, and sustained investment. And the resources we're going to discuss today are critical to modernizing the joint force and ensuring whatever threats might emerge, we are prepared to defeat them to protect our interests and defend the nation and win. This president's budget for 2027 supports the secretary and the department's goal of reinvigorating, recharging the defense industrial base and the national industrial base, enhancing our readiness and securing our military advantage to ensure that our war fighters are properly armed, globally integrated, and ready while always taking care of our people. And that is what truly sets America's joint force apart from each other, especially the 1.8 million members, enlisted members of our joint force. It is them, the character, the competence of that force that transforms our capabilities into a decisive advantage. And our enlisted force is represented today by the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, United States Navy Fleet Master Chief Dave Isom sitting behind me, a teammate who I greatly appreciate many of you on this committee know from his time in the Indo-Pacific.

(01:03:56)
While we face dynamic and dangerous times, I have absolute trust and confidence in the extraordinary men and women within our joint force who every day execute the missions we ask them to quietly and with precision. And coupled with the American spirit to outthink, out compete, and relentlessly innovate, we will maintain our decisive edge, but doing so requires your continued partnership. We stand ready today to answer the nation's call. I humbly ask that as we're here today in this hearing, we remember those deployed service members who are out there right now doing our nation's work and may we always remember our fallen and never forget them or their families who continue to show us what courage looks like. Thank you for your enduring support and I look forward to your questions.

Rodger Wicker (01:04:50):

Thank you very much, General. We appreciate your service. Let's jump right in. Secretary Hegseth, let's talk about the money from reconciliation 1. 0 last year. There've been some complaints about the speed, but not everything we hear is actually accurate. How much of the $154 billion from reconciliation has the Pentagon put on contract?

Pete Hegseth (01:05:18):

My understanding, Mr. Chairman... First I'd like to say what an important vehicle reconciliation was for us and how it gave us a chance coming out of FY25 to advance the president's priorities, whether it was drone dominance, Golden Dome for America, ship building, the defense industrial base. It was a critical vehicle for us. The number you're looking for is about, what I'm looking at, about 26 billion right now, but we've got the floodgates about to open and apply to those priorities.

Rodger Wicker (01:05:44):

Okay. So unfortunately, you're starting a bit late through no fault of your own because the money was not sent timely by the Office of Management and Budget to the department until last month. That's over and done with, but it should be mentioned. Mr. Secretary, where are we on the obligation rates as far as a normal appropriation bill? Are we a little behind, a little ahead, or what?

Pete Hegseth (01:06:13):

I would say probably a little bit behind as it pertains to reconciliation, but part of that is, as you know, this is a new funding vehicle for the department and twofold. One, you got to make sure you do it right and do it in a fiscally responsible way in conjunction with the Congress to ensure that we meet congressional intent. But also that we've been using it to energize our ability to exercise new pathways, to get at problems in different and more dynamic ways that don't get stovepipe or stuck in the bureaucracy. So yes, there's been some delays, but ultimately I think it's all goodness on the other side, given the new nature of this funding vehicle.

Rodger Wicker (01:06:50):

Right. Yes. Well, and things have been done differently and we appreciate that. But Mr. Secretary, will you commit to us that you'll keep the committee informed frequently of your efforts to get all this money out the door so our industrial base can start building as you have described in this new flexibility that we provided them?

Pete Hegseth (01:07:12):

Absolutely.

Rodger Wicker (01:07:13):

And you mentioned a few things in reconciliation that you think have been game changers. I don't think we've talked enough about some of the game changers. For years, we failed to take action on rebuilding America's drone industrial base and critical mineral supply chains. After last reconciliation bill and the National Defense Authorization Act, we're in a very different position on drones and critical mineral supply chains. Are we not?

Pete Hegseth (01:07:52):

Very much so. Mineral supply chains, drones. We went from JIATF 401 to an autonomous warfare group. We're looking at the concept of a sub- unified command, and you're looking at $54 billion in the FY27 budget dedicated to drone dominance. UAS, counter UAS, ensuring we can scale not just exquisite drones, but also the attributable ones that are proliferating on the battlefield today. We need to be ahead.

Rodger Wicker (01:08:17):

Are there any other initiatives from last year's bill that you want to point out? And you only have a minute and a half.

Pete Hegseth (01:08:24):

No, the investment in Golden Dome for America, the ability to get running on that, and we are on schedule to deliver capabilities inside this administration. Minerals and shoring up supply chains on minerals. The Office of Strategic Capital, which its ability to loan gives 10X to new entrants into the department, the opportunity to fund things that wouldn't normally meet the threshold for the department, but give them the running room to invest in those capabilities. And we've already seen fruit from that as well.

Rodger Wicker (01:08:51):

And briefly, General Caine, there's no question that Vladimir Putin's Russia is taking serious action to undermine our efforts for success in Iran. Is there any question about that?

Dan Caine (01:09:07):

Senator, I think there's actions and activities that are mindful of the hearing room we're in, but there's definitely some action there.

Rodger Wicker (01:09:15):

Thank you very much, senator. Senator Reed, you're recognized.

Jack Reed (01:09:22):

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you recently fired the Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, who's one of the most distinguished and decorated officers of this generation. General George's nomination came before us. We reviewed it thoroughly and we concurred. Why did you fire General George?

Pete Hegseth (01:09:46):

Well, as I did then, and I'll say now, we thank General George for his service. And out of respect to him and other officers, we never talk about the nature of why certain officers are asked to step down,

Pete Hegseth (01:10:00):

... but we all serve at the pleasure of the president. And ultimately, my view in coming into this department, as I stated in my confirmation hearing, was to change the culture of the department. And it's ultimately challenging to change the culture of a department with the same people who are a part of or in that department. So I have made many changes with general officers. We will continue to make changes as necessary with general officers, and they will be in keeping with the trajectory of where we would like to take the department, but it doesn't take away from the service of those. And I think you will note that every officer that's been asked to leave has been treated with respect.

Jack Reed (01:10:39):

Interesting. Of the two dozen officers that you have fired for reasons unrelated to performance, since you have not indicated any cause, 60% are Black or females. Now, did the president direct you to single out female and Black officers to be dismissed?

Pete Hegseth (01:11:02):

Senator, of course not. And as we've emphasized at this department from the beginning, the only metric is merit. Members on this committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on social engineering, race and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy for the department, focusing on those things, making decisions based on those things. In President Trump's war department, we make decisions based on only one thing, merit. And that's how we've made decisions going forward. That's how we've made them and that's how we'll make them going forward.

Jack Reed (01:11:33):

Well, let me go back to General George. What did he fail in terms of his lack of merit to continue serving?

Pete Hegseth (01:11:43):

As I've said, I don't talk about the nature of dismissal out of respect for these officers. But ultimately, we want to take the department in a particular direction, certain services in a particular direction, and we want leadership that's running as fast in that direction as possible. And in some cases, we make changes accordingly, but do so out of respect to those officers.

Jack Reed (01:12:02):

Well, I think that direction from your behavior is an intense interest in Christianity, in nationalism, and in not recognizing the talent of women and non-white gentlemen. And that's the wrong direction.

Pete Hegseth (01:12:24):

I don't know what you're insinuating, Senator, but I'm not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ.

Jack Reed (01:12:28):

Well, you shouldn't be ashamed.

Pete Hegseth (01:12:31):

And if you want to shame me for it, go ahead.

Jack Reed (01:12:32):

I'm not shaming you, but are you critical of other faiths?

Pete Hegseth (01:12:39):

I am a believer. I'm quite open in that and our department allows for a multitude of faith. So I don't know what you're suggesting. I've heard the likes of things that people like you suggest, to try to smear my character and I won't give into it. No.

Jack Reed (01:12:54):

I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, but broadcasting before the national religious broadcasters, stressing the need for more Christianity in the military forces doesn't seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and accept all religions. Let me move on. The strategic aspects of this operation in Iran, the president declared that we're going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. And after more than 13,000 strikes, unclassified assessments conclude that Iran retains more than 40% of its drone [inaudible 01:13:36] and 60% of its ballistic missile launches compared with pre-war levels. That's one of his objectives.

(01:13:44)
The second objective was regime change. To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that they are of your freedom is at hand, and we will finish take over your government. Well, when we finish, we'll take over government. That has not succeeded. And then one of his other things is the onset of the war the president said, "We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. Military operations at Iran have not achieved that goal yet." And it also seems to indicate that his pronouncements about Operation Midnight Hammer obliterating the nuclear policy and structure of the Iranians was false. So you have not achieved any of the objectives yet that the president mentioned.

Pete Hegseth (01:14:34):

Well, in this setting, I won't talk about the nature of metrics, which are classified as you know, Senator, but I can say that looking at the objectives we set out to achieve from the beginning, some of which you laid out, our military objectives have been stunningly effective. Look, take, for example, their defense industrial base. They're completely incapable at scale at any level of reconstituting the capabilities you referred to, which is a devastating result for any country, especially one whose ambitions are as wide as Iran's. So we've put the president in a very strong position to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That's the takeaway that's been underneath every single aspect of this. For 47 years, Iran's trying to blackmail its way to a nuclear weapon. They were closer than ever before because of bad deals under previous administration. President Trump was willing to do something about it and not allow their conventional missile shield.

(01:15:28)
That's the North Korea strategy. That's to be clear what Iran was pursuing. Hiding their nuclear ambitions, revealing them over time, and then building a conventional shield of missile so powerful that no country would challenge them for fear of what would happen if they unleashed that arsenal. Weekend after the 12-day war in Midnight Hammer, which did obliterate their sites, President Trump saw an opportunity because their ambitions continued to ensure that umbrella of nuclear blackmail did not allow them to get to a nuclear weapon, and the world is safer because of his bold and historic choice.

Jack Reed (01:16:05):

Mr. Secretary, I think that's rhetorical, but not factual. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):

Thank you, Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hurst, General Caine, welcome. Over the last several months, I've worked closely with some of the new direct reporting program managers, and I've been encouraged by how they're approaching the department's most complex acquisition systems. General Whites pulled forward the next milestone for the Sentinel program by at least six months. General Guetlein has completed the initial blueprint for the Golden Dome architecture and is beginning to build it out. For years, this committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of threats, and we finally have a partner with the full backing of the department to lead the charge. Mr. Secretary, what's the advantage of this new type of program management structure?

Pete Hegseth (01:17:11):

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. It's acquisition authority, technical authority, contracting authority, it's consolidating decision making in one place. Under a highly screened, highly capable general, General White and General Guetlein who know that terrain extremely well and understand what mistakes have been made in the past in programs of that magnitude, and then are given the authority to cut through the red tape. That's the key. Successor failure lands with them and they know it. And as a result, they're incentivized to ensure that program... And then given every dollar and authority needed to move it as quickly as possible. So whether it's Sentinel, whether it's F-47, whether it's Golden Dome for America, these critical strategic assets, the direct report construct, along with Deputy Secretary Feinberg, who is a national treasurer and is changing the way we do business that this department is giving us a chance to ensure these critical systems are delivered.

Speaker 1 (01:18:07):

Thank you. And General Caine, can you give us your thoughts on why the Golden Dome received the... Why they must receive that requested $17 billion in funding for the fiscal year '27?

Dan Caine (01:18:23):

Well, Senator, as you know, it's an essential part of our Homeland Security layered defense. And as General Guetlein begins to do the work that you're asking about and frankly helping to advance the insurance around that down payment, charging the defense industrial base with those capital allocations will allow them to get after it much, much quicker. We appreciate the help.

Speaker 1 (01:18:49):

And if there's a delay in that funding?

Dan Caine (01:18:52):

Well, hopefully there won't be, Senator, because we've got a leader on that account 24/7, 365. But if we do, we'll always, of course, come back and talk to the Congress, but also figure out what has to be true to help that constraint get removed in that production system. And that's really what we're asking these leaders to do, is to be able to get past the theory of constraints.

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):

Okay. Thank you. Secretary Hegseth, I agree with your statement on nuclear deterrence. When you said nothing else matters if we don't get this right, so we will. We need a modernized nuclear triad and NC3 architecture that can credibly deter multiple adversaries instead of an insufficient nuclear force structure based on fundamentally flawed assumptions made 16 years ago. Our presidents must also have a more diverse set of options so that they can effectively manage more complex nuclear escalation dynamics. So Mr. Secretary, how does this budget request achieve those objectives?

Pete Hegseth (01:20:07):

Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue for a very long time. First and foremost, invest in it. $71 billion in our nuclear triad and NC3, understanding that if you get that wrong, you get everything else wrong. Frankly, it's why the Iran effort is so important. Imagine what the situation in the region would look like if Iran also wielded a nuclear weapon and the limits it would put on our capabilities in those situations. Our adversaries have to deal with that dilemma because of the strength of our nuclear triad. So that $71 billion investment, the [inaudible 01:20:42] that have been put over top of it to move those systems left, as you acknowledged, it's just been a priority since we came into the building and we're funding it accordingly.

Speaker 1 (01:20:53):

And Chairman Caine, Secretary Hegseth, whoever would like to answer this, should our nuclear command control and communication systems like the USAOC be given the same level of priority as Congress considers the department's budget request as our triad?

Pete Hegseth (01:21:18):

I think so, but I'd defer to the chairman.

Dan Caine (01:21:24):

Yes, ma'am. We got to be able to see to anything. So yes, ma'am.

Speaker 1 (01:21:25):

Thank you. Senator Shaheen, you are recognized.

Senator Shaheen (01:21:30):

Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Hegseth, Congress enacted $400 million to provide security assistance to Ukraine in January. Now, the committee received a notification just yesterday confirming only that the funding would go toward Ukraine. It contained no details about the type of equipment, no delivery timelines, nothing that is typically included in these notifications. And when asked about the delay in funding, the committee was told that Elbridge Colby was developing a spend plan, but we've received nothing. So when can we expect the full spend plan for this appropriation? And Madam Chair, if this is not already part of the record for the committee, can I enter it into the record?

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):

Without objection.

Pete Hegseth (01:22:21):

We acknowledge and are executing on the European capacity building amount of 400 million that you referred to. Under Secretary Colby's done a great job looking at options and worked very closely with our European commander, General Grynkewich. So his requests of what makes the most sense will inform what ultimately is invested in.

Senator Shaheen (01:22:42):

Well, this notification says that EUCOM coordinated on the spend plan in March, but General Grynkewich told this committee on April 16th that he had not yet been asked to review any spend plan for this appropriation. So General Caine, have you received the spend plan for funds in Ukraine and have you asked the EUCOM commander for his concurrence?

Dan Caine (01:23:11):

I do not believe so, but I will find out, Senator, and get back to you by the end of the day.

Senator Shaheen (01:23:15):

Thank you. And yesterday, Mr. Hurst, you told the House that you needed to seek legal review to appropriate the funds as Congress intended. So can you share with us what the nature of that legal review is? And seems to me the law was pretty clear. I saw it. It was part of the defense appropriations bill that we passed in January. And as you know, violating congressional intent on appropriating funds is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. So what's the nature of the legal review that you have to get?

Mr. Hurst (01:23:50):

Thanks for the question, Senator. What we're looking at is if we could use the funds in the same manner as USAI, and we had our council look at that. And so they provide us a legal opinion on how the funds could be used to support European capacity building.

Senator Shaheen (01:24:02):

And can you share with this committee what that legal opinion is?

Mr. Hurst (01:24:07):

Ma'am, I don't have a copy of that, but we can ask the OGC office if they can supply it to you.

Senator Shaheen (01:24:12):

Madam Chair, can we ask that that legal opinion is shared with the committee officially? Thank you. Also, I don't know who can answer this, but it says that consistent with the president's priority to shift the financial burden of Ukraine support to European partners, the United States will seek commensurate financial contributions via the prioritized Ukraine requirements list or PURL from the European partners for this program. So what's the justification for using PURL when there's $400 million in appropriated funds? Can somebody answer?

Pete Hegseth (01:24:58):

PURL is a reflection of the president's priority and the belief that-

Senator Shaheen (01:25:00):

No, I understand that.

Pete Hegseth (01:25:01):

... any weapons that are supplied are paid for by European partners and used as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or somewhere else.

Senator Shaheen (01:25:07):

But that was not the intent of Congress in providing that 400 million. As I understand the PURL program, the Europeans purchase those weapons from the United States and they pay for them, but this appropriation was $400 million that Congress expected to be provided to Ukraine, not paid for by the Europeans, but provided from the United States to support Ukraine. So again, I don't understand what the justification is for using PURL when that's not the intent that Congress provided.

Pete Hegseth (01:25:44):

We're following the intent of European capacity building, but at the same time recognizing that wherever PURL can be utilized so that the Europeans contribute to that fight, per the burden sharing approach-

Senator Shaheen (01:25:57):

But that was not-

Pete Hegseth (01:25:57):

... this president takes is important.

Senator Shaheen (01:25:58):

... congressional intent, and that's what I'm asking you why you're using PURL to do something that Congress intended to go directly to Ukraine.

Pete Hegseth (01:26:08):

Well, we look forward to working with you on that.

Senator Shaheen (01:26:09):

Can you answer that? What was the legal opinion on this? Did you ask the attorneys if the 400 million could be used for the PURL Program?

Mr. Hurst (01:26:20):

Let's get back to you. We'll take it for the record, ma'am.

Senator Shaheen (01:26:22):

Thank you. And what portion of the funding that's committed from the Europeans under PURL is being used to assist Ukraine rather than restocking our own shelves? Can you answer that?

Pete Hegseth (01:26:36):

That's up to Europe. Ultimately, Europe pays for any weapons that we provide and they can utilize them as they see fit, whether it's Ukraine or otherwise.

Rodger Wicker (01:26:45):

Thank you, Senator Shaheen. There have been a number of times when our witnesses have stated both in the closed hearing and up here that they will get back to us. And we certainly hope that will happen very expeditiously. So thank you very much and thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cotton.

Senator Cotton (01:27:05):

Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance today. Mr. Secretary, you provided us with a chart here entitled The Arsenal of Freedom, which includes a lot of sites that you've visited. My favorite one is down here in South Arkansas, Camden, where you and I had a chance to visit just a couple of months ago, highlighting the great work that the people there are doing to help rebuild our arsenal of freedom. Thank you, first off, for being there and for your kind words for the workforce of the people of South Arkansas. Isn't it fair to say that the war in Iran, just like the Ukraine war before it, and still today, hasn't caused any challenges with our munitions, the way some of our Democratics colleagues would say, but it's exposed a decades old problem of brittleness and fragility in our defense industrial base before you and General Caine took over and that we're trying to address right now.

Pete Hegseth (01:28:05):

In many ways, that's precisely what we're trying to address. We also have a situation where President Trump rebuilds our military in the first term, and a lot of those munitions and a lot of those capabilities were sent to Ukraine under the previous administration, to the point where when we ask our commanders or when we look at O plans, the answer often is that was sent to Ukraine. So the recognition of those two things, as the president gave us a charge from day one to rebuild the arsenal of freedom, to fast-forward, not to provide a little bit more of each thing, but 2X, 3X, 4X, the number of exquisite munitions that we need. The expenditures that we've seen under this administration, we can account for them and we ensure that other OPlans and elsewhere are well taken care of. So on the munitions front, we're in really good shape, but we need to accelerate and that's exactly what we're doing.

Senator Cotton (01:28:52):

And I think that's an important point you make is that we're not just trying to fill a hole that was created by Epic Fury or by support for Ukraine. We're going to fill that and then go much beyond that for our needs in the future. So we're never caught where we were over the last several years with these worries about munitions running short. Is that right, Mr. Secretary?

Pete Hegseth (01:29:13):

That's exactly right. The president has charged up with not just replacing anything, but filling it up, as he might say, to the tippy top and make sure that the remainder of this term and future presidents have all the munitions they need for any level of contingencies, especially considering the dangerous world we live in.

Senator Cotton (01:29:30):

I want to turn now to Operation Epic Fury. It's been a smashing military success. Unfortunately, we have suffered casualties to include soldiers killed in the line of action. Obviously, our military takes the greatest steps possible to protect our troops, whether they're in action or whether they are on bases in the region. No war though is antiseptic. Mr. Secretary, could you explain some of the steps we've taken to try to minimize to the greatest extent we can the number of casualties we've taken in the Middle East?

Pete Hegseth (01:30:01):

First of all, every day we live to ensure that we follow through on the legacy of those who gave everything. So that's front and center for us. But I can also say, and the chairman may want to weigh in, from the beginning of looking at the possibility of this contingency, setting the defense and ensuring that Admiral Cooper and everyone throughout CENTCOM had every possible measure they could to ensure that our troops are protection and force protection was maximized was the top priority. Moving assets to the region, we integrated our air defenses with local Gulf countries to ensure our shot doctrine was maximalized, whether it's ballistic missiles or on drones, flowing in the most recent capabilities to ensure we can intercept drones, moving troops off the X.

(01:30:45)
I think what people mostly don't know is that a massive effort was undertaken before this conflict to move as many humans off of targets to other places and maintain operational security about where they might be to minimize the space with which Iran could hit. We always knew something getting through was a tragic possibility, but I can assure you from our perspective, that was priority number one as it was Admiral Cooper's to ensure that fortification and missile defenses were right there when we went on offense if we had to.

Senator Cotton (01:31:17):

General Caine, do you have anything to add?

Dan Caine (01:31:19):

Well, in addition to just again, mourning our fallen from the 103rd, what I'll add to the secretary's comments is after every tragic loss, commanders at every echelon within our joint force are going to go back and look at what was our plan and what lessons we can learn from this so that we protect and defend our soldiers, sailors, and other members of the joint force the next time.

Senator Cotton (01:31:43):

Thank you. And I know you do, and I just wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to what you've done to try to prevent casualties and minimize them. Obviously, again, no war is antiseptic. One final question. I understand you've been accused of lying to the president. Mr. Hegseth, have you lied to the president at all about what's happening in Iran or Epic Fury?

Pete Hegseth (01:32:00):

No, only tell the truth to the president.

Senator Cotton (01:32:02):

General Caine, have you lied to the president about what's happening in Iran or Operation Epic Theory?

Dan Caine (01:32:06):

Never.

Senator Cotton (01:32:07):

I suspected that would be your answer, but since you were accused of it and deep staters are leaking to the media about it as well, I just wanted to give you a chance to answer on the record that of course you've always given the president a completely accurate picture of what's happening. Thank you, gentlemen.

Rodger Wicker (01:32:22):

Thank you very much, Senator Cotton. Senator Gillibrand and then Senator Rounds.

Senator Gillibrand (01:32:22):

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before this committee, and thank you for the closed session prior to this. I don't know if you fully appreciate how much the American people do not support this war. It is an unauthorized war. Normally when you come to Congress, it's a way for the American people to be part of that discussion. The American people, particularly in my state of New York, are upset for a lot of reasons. First of all, this war is costing so much money. Over $25 billion already estimates a billion dollars a day, and they're feeling it every single day at the gas pump with higher prices for both fuel, for diesel, for gasoline for their cars. They're also feeling it with higher grocery costs, and they're exhausted. They are truly exhausted.

(01:33:10)
On top of that, on top of that, they have so many grave concerns about how this war is being prosecuted. They read in the paper that 22 schools have been hit. They read in the paper about a girl's school, hundreds getting killed. We have a debate going on in this country about AI, a serious debate about AI. And I haven't heard yet from you that you will not allow AI to make final targeting determinations even when nuclear weapons are being used. That's a huge issue that we need to discuss. So I want to start from the top, Secretary Hegseth. Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren't behind?

Pete Hegseth (01:34:00):

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity for that closed session where we had a unsurprisingly very different discussion than we have here with the cameras on. We support this-

Senator Gillibrand (01:34:09):

Because my job is to represent New Yorkers, and I can tell you when I talk to them all across my state, they are furious and they expect me to explain to them why they are furious.

Pete Hegseth (01:34:22):

And Senator, when I talk to Americans, and especially when I talk to the troops, they are grateful for a president who has the courage to take on this threat after 47 years of what Iran has done targeting and killing Americans and what it would mean to the world if Iran's nuclear ambitions were actually achieved. So the question I would ask to you and to others is, what is the cost of a nuclear armed Iran? What is the cost to the American people?

Senator Gillibrand (01:34:44):

[inaudible 01:34:45] rhetorical question that you are asking everyone.

Pete Hegseth (01:34:45):

The world's most dangerous regime has a nuclear weapon.

Senator Gillibrand (01:34:48):

But the truth is they don't want war coming to this shore. And when you do a decapitation operation, the likelihood is going to be exchanged in the United States. There's no evidence that we are safer because of this war. We did not have any evidence that Iran intended to imminently attack this country in any way, shape, or form. So I disagree with your assessment that we were under threat.

Pete Hegseth (01:35:09):

Do you not believe them when they say death to America?

Senator Gillibrand (01:35:13):

Listen, our adversaries use rhetoric all the time. What I'm concerned about is we are not safer, and I would just like to know why you have not sought the support of the American people, and three out of five Americans are against this war today.

Pete Hegseth (01:35:30):

I believe we do have the support of the American people, and we have briefed regularly what this mission looks like and why it's critically important that we undertake it. And I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort, and many congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And there were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. This is a defined mission set that we have had great success in pursuing against the-

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:00):

So you don't care-

Pete Hegseth (01:36:01):

... determined enemy who seeks nuclear weapons.

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:02):

You don't care.

Pete Hegseth (01:36:03):

And I'm proud of the opportunity-

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:04):

So Mr. Hegseth-

Pete Hegseth (01:36:05):

... to remind the American people because they believe in it as well.

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:09):

... you don't care whether the American people support this war.

Pete Hegseth (01:36:12):

The American people are quite smart. They understand and see through spin. They know that a regime that says death to America that seeks nuclear weapons and the ability-

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:20):

And at what cost?

Pete Hegseth (01:36:21):

... to deliver... Did they lie about the range of their missiles?

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:23):

How much more-

Pete Hegseth (01:36:24):

Because I saw a 4,000 kilometer missile-

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:26):

How much more will you ask American people to pay for this war?

Pete Hegseth (01:36:29):

... get shot at Diego Garcia.

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:30):

Right now, do you want it a billion dollars a day? Do you want a $2 billion a day? You're asking for $200 billion more to fund this war and to make sure we have-

Pete Hegseth (01:36:37):

We didn't ask for $200 billion. I don't know where you got that number from, Senator. I think you got it from the news, which you should be careful what you read in the news.

Senator Gillibrand (01:36:44):

Okay, Mr. Hegseth. Secretary Hegseth, here's a few more. Let's talk about how you're prosecuting the war. What is your response to targeting that has resulted in the destruction of schools, hospitals, civilian places? Why did you cut by 90% the division that's supposed to help you not target civilians? And do you know the impact of a strategic failure at a war when you have so many civilian casualties? You may have tactically completed a mission well, but strategically is not meeting your goals because of the harms to civilians. What is the cost of that?

Rodger Wicker (01:37:20):

Let's leave time for an answer.

Pete Hegseth (01:37:22):

No military, no country works harder at every echelon to ensure they protect civilian lives than the United States military. And that is a ironclad commitment that we make no matter how, no matter what systems means-

Senator Gillibrand (01:37:35):

And why did you cut the department by 90%?

Rodger Wicker (01:37:37):

Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. There'll be other rounds of questions. Senator Rounds, you are now recognized.

Senator Rounds (01:37:44):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. Let me just... I'll allow you to finish the answer a little bit with regard to the Senator from New York. Does the United States military ever target a civilian center?

Pete Hegseth (01:38:03):

Well, thank you, Senator. Unlike our adversaries, unlike radical Islamists, unlike those that target civilians or use civilians as shields, the United States military never targets civilians and puts constructs in place to ensure that the maximum extent possible. We do not harm or hit civilians. Is war a difficult place with a lot of complexities? Absolutely right. But no country does more and no department does more than our department.

Senator Rounds (01:38:33):

Do you still have all of the resources necessary to assure that every opportunity to eliminate that as a threat in terms of that happening, do we still have the resources available in the department to make sure that we do the best we can never to hit a civilian target?

Pete Hegseth (01:38:49):

Every resource necessary at every echelon is available legal, intel and otherwise, to ensure that we minimize at every extent possible civilian casualties. And the suggestion was made that somehow AI might be used without a human in the loop, which is a classic anthropic talking point, which is half of what we talked about previously. There is a human in the loop on decisions that are made, and the suggestion otherwise is to suggest that somehow AI is running targeting.

Senator Rounds (01:39:18):

Thank you. Right now, part of what we're also talking about is not just are we engaged right now in terms of trying to eliminate the threat from Iran in terms of being a nuclear armed country, but we've also got staring with us as well, the fact that we have an ongoing principle threat with regard to a pacing threat with China. The dual capable B-21 Raider will be a critical part of both our conventional and our nuclear deterrence against China and Russia. As you know, the Air Force's program of record includes plans to procure 100 B-21s, but many national security experts and leaders, including STRATCOM Commander, Admiral Correll and INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Paparo are calling for a greater number of B21s.

(01:40:07)
Admiral Paparo testified here last week that he would favor buying 200 B21s. Secretary Hegseth and Chairman Caine, could you speak to the progress and the importance of the B21 program? And if you agree with the growing sentiment that the US needs to revisit the B21 program of record and assess the requirement for at least 200 B21s to match the global threat, would you speak just to exactly what that would mean and what the probability of that is?

Pete Hegseth (01:40:37):

Thank you for the question. And I appreciate the fact that you're listening to and hearing from combatant commanders because that's who we listen to as well, who are looking at the operational plans and what would be required to ensure we deter and if necessary, defeat. Assets like the B-21 or the F-47 are critical to that. That's why we're funding them and increasing the funding and where necessary would increase the allocation. And I think you see a budget that reflects the reality that we have to invest in more capabilities to include the B-21, which is ahead of schedule. And we will be funding to the tune of 6 billion and we believe will require a lot more over a hundred in the future, but I'll defer to the chairman.

Dan Caine (01:41:18):

Sir, thank you for the question. Working through the JROC and the vice chiefs, I'll absolutely stack hands around assessing the requirement. And we're glad to see B21 on the flight path, no pun intended, that it's on through operational testing. On the specific numbers, the one big picture strategic thing I want to say is we want to make sure as we think through what does air power of the future look like based on the evolving threat, that we're staying well in front of it. And so that's the only thing we'll look at in the assessment, but I'm on board with assessing the numbers. I want to make sure we're buying ahead of the technology development curve so that we give all those young war fighters out there the capabilities that we need well into the future.

Senator Rounds (01:42:07):

Is there any question at all that we're going to need more than 100 B21s?

Dan Caine (01:42:13):

I want to go back. Here's how I'll look at it, Senator. I want to go back and look at the O plans right now that we have to make sure that we allocate those numbers. So I don't believe so, but I do want to take the due diligence time if you'll allow me to look at that, Senator.

Senator Rounds (01:42:28):

Good. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and to clarify-

Dan Caine (01:42:32):

Yes, sir. Absolutely.

Senator Rounds (01:42:33):

... what that number should look like in the near future.

Dan Caine (01:42:35):

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Rodger Wicker (01:42:36):

Thank you very much, Senator Rounds. Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Blumenthal (01:42:39):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. I want to talk about the costs of war. The cost of war include caring for our veterans. We've had an estimate from Mr. Hurst yesterday that the cost to date in dollars for this war has been $25 billion, which I believe is well below the actual cost based on everything that I've heard, everything available to us in various kinds of settings. And I'm going to ask for a more accurate assessment, but we also know that about 400 service members have been wounded as a result of this war. When they retire, when they come home, their retirement pay will be docked dollar for dollar for every disability benefit dollar they receive. Secretary Hegseth, I'd like your commitment that you will support the Major Richard Star Act that will eliminate this wounded warrior tax. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Tens of thousands of servicemen and women now are reduced in their retirement pay literally for every dollar of disability benefits they receive.

Pete Hegseth (01:44:07):

Well, I appreciate your focus on this issue. And I will tell you, you mentioned roughly 400 that have been injured, thankfully, over 90% are return to duty, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a residual challenge. And we're tracking that at point of injury to ensure that that is noted, even though they're returned to duty.

Senator Blumenthal (01:44:24):

But what I'd like is your commitment that you will support the Major Richard Star.

Pete Hegseth (01:44:28):

As I have said in the past to other organizations, we support the Richard Star Act.

Senator Blumenthal (01:44:33):

Thank you. On the issue of cost. Mr. Hurst, does that $25 billion estimate include all of the costs in terms of damage to our bases, the need to replace planes and munitions, and the costs of injuries

Senator Blumenthal (01:45:00):

... Injuries to our servicemen and women.

Mr. Hurst (01:45:03):

Senator, so for the MILCON facilities replacement cost, that's probably the hardest thing to estimate right now because we don't know what our future posture is going to be or the future construction of those bases.

Senator Blumenthal (01:45:12):

Well, you owe it to us, you're here to ask for appropriations.

Mr. Hurst (01:45:18):

Of course.

Senator Blumenthal (01:45:18):

And I would like a more accurate estimate of what has been done that will require replacement and renovation, as well as the other costs. And I think 25 billion is probably less than half, maybe less than a quarter of the total cost of war, which is the reason why the supplemental request is much higher. So, I think you owe it to the American people to give us the straight talk about what the costs have been.

(01:45:51)
Mr. Secretary, I know you have characterized this war as, "A astonishing military success," to use your words yesterday, but the American people aren't buying it. And I know you feel the American people are seeing through the abstruse stuff that is thrown at them, but one point is irrefutable, which is, America never succeeds in war unless the American people are behind it. And if what you're seeing as success now is winning, I would hate to see what losing looks like because, none of the shifting and contradictory objectives of the war so far have been achieved. Likewise, let me ask you, yesterday, the President said that Ukraine has been, "Militarily defeated." I assume you don't agree with that assessment.

Pete Hegseth (01:46:59):

The negative nature in which you characterize the incredible and historic effort in Iran is part of the reason, Senator, why the American people view it the way they do. It's why I looked out at our press corps at the Pentagon and called them the Pharisees in the press. It's because they look for every problem.

Senator Blumenthal (01:47:14):

Well, I'm asking you about Ukraine.

Pete Hegseth (01:47:15):

You look for every problem that exists and you miss-

Senator Blumenthal (01:47:20):

Do you believe Ukraine has been militarily defeated?

Pete Hegseth (01:47:20):

You missed the plank.

Senator Blumenthal (01:47:20):

I would submit based on my nine trips to Ukraine, that is a false narrative that the President's buying from Vladimir Putin. [inaudible 01:47:29].

Pete Hegseth (01:47:28):

We are two months into a historic military success in Iran and you want to call it a defeat.

Senator Blumenthal (01:47:33):

You will dispute it?

Pete Hegseth (01:47:33):

And it's defeatist Democrats like you that cloud the mind of the American people.

Senator Blumenthal (01:47:36):

It is the people of Ukraine who are fighting for their survival.

Pete Hegseth (01:47:37):

And would otherwise fully support preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Senator Blumenthal (01:47:41):

[inaudible 01:47:42] administration and they are bravely fighting our fight, and that is the reason that I'm pursuing the Russian Sanctions Bill, which is bipartisan along with Senator Graham, and why I hope we will recognize our obligation to release that $400 million which we've appropriate.

Rodger Wicker (01:47:58):

Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Ernst.

Senator Joni Ernst (01:48:02):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, really do appreciate your time to be with us.

(01:48:10)
Before I begin some of my questions, I do want to start with something personal. And both to you, Secretary Hegseth, and to the Chairman. I want to thank you both for the time that you take to recognize our fallen and those that have given, of course, during this administration, given their all. You have traveled to Dover and have been there to greet those families and to welcome home the fallen, I've been there with you. And Iowa has been hit in particular very hard. We lost two of our Iowa National Guardsmen from the Second Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division. Secretary Hegseth, you know full well the 34th, but we also lost six members from the 103rd Sustainment Command Expeditionary based out of Des Moines, Iowa during this current conflict. And again, your presence there meant a lot to the families. It also meant a lot to me. So, thank you very much for taking the time to do that.

(01:49:13)
Secretary Hegseth, you and I have had many discussions over the course of many months now, regarding general officer positions. And I believe that we were operating in good faith as we talked through a couple of those in particular, two Iowans, General Mingus and General Randy George. I was disappointed to see that their retirements were hastened over what I believed had been set out by you and the administration.

(01:49:46)
So, I just want to take the time to list out some of General Randy George's accomplishments as Army Chief of Staff. He pulled the Army out of its worst recruiting crisis since the Vietnam era, exceeding fiscal year 2024 recruiting goals, and welcoming more than 61,000 new soldiers. Recruitment numbers that both you and the President talk a lot about, and rightfully so. He cut 5% of general officer positions, 12 positions that were deemed as non-essential in the Army. And he reduced the Army headquarters by 1,000 personnel. He co-authored the Army Transformation Initiative, which is a comprehensive response aligned with your directives, and he testified here in front of Congress and took a lot of heat defending that army transformation.

(01:50:40)
He was suddenly let go at the beginning of April 2026. General Georgia's merits, which I firmly believe in, he enlisted at the age of 17. He is a West Point graduate. He had four combat deployments. He served in Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He had 38 years of honorable service. He achieved the greatest army recruitment and modernization effort in a generation. So, I want to thank him for his service. And I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, the speeches that I did, honoring General Randy A. George on his retirement and General James J. Mingus on his retirement as well.

Rodger Wicker (01:51:28):

Without objection, they'll be admitted.

Senator Joni Ernst (01:51:30):

Thank you very much.

(01:51:32)
I'd like to talk a little bit about the audit, Mr. Secretary. I saw the video that you posted this week calling on the department to pass a clean audit. And thank you for doing that, it's something that we talked about during your confirmation hearing. Fiscal responsibility at the department has been a priority of mine for a very long time, and I think it's time that we build on that momentum. It's extremely important, and that's why I'm pushing for my RECEIPTS Act in this year's NDAA. It's focused on improving financial traceability and accountability across the department. And if you could talk a little bit more about the efforts in making sure that we are being much more accountable to our taxpayers. What is that effort going to entail, and when will we see a clean audit?

Pete Hegseth (01:52:24):

As I said, Senator, thank you for your work on the audit. That has been a priority of our department from day one. And we put in place goals and benchmarks to get to FY28, get to '28 for a clean audit. The joint task force audit, which we announced, was a reflection of even more capabilities we want to push forward and centralize authority to make sure it happens. J's been involved from the beginning. We also have a new IG who, the new IG's focus, one of his focus points is precisely this, and he's prepared to work with us to ensure we reach it. So, I think at every level and through this budget, it's a focus.

Senator Joni Ernst (01:52:58):

Okay, thank you. We look forward to seeing a clean audit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rodger Wicker (01:53:02):

Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Hirono.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:53:05):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I'd like to take a moment to highlight the true costs of this war, both for the military and everyday Americans, and the true cost of the President's illegal war with Iran. And since the start of the war, 13, 14 brave US service members have been killed and more than 400 have been wounded. We've burned through over $25 billion in taxpayer money with no end in sight. And the fiscal year '27 budget request is a massive 42% increase from last year. Hundreds of critical munitions have been expended and deployments have been extended, directly impacting service members' quality of life, military readiness, and our ability to deter our adversaries.

(01:53:59)
The relationships with our allies, some of our closest allies and partners have been fractured. And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which somehow caught the President by surprise even though he had to have been warned, is directly contributing to the affordable crisis that Americans are facing. Energy costs are skyrocketing with the price of gas now at its highest level in almost four years. Instability has driven interest rates to its highest level since September of last year. The cost of fertilizer is spiking, which will have a direct impact on the cost of food. This illegal war is driving up costs, undermining readiness, and alienating our allies with neither a clear rationale for starting this war, nor an exit strategy. And when the President was asked how long he'll let this war continue, he said, "Do not rush me."

(01:55:04)
I have a question for General Caine relating to women serving in combat, and I'd like to hear your best military advice. Does the mere fact of women being in combat arms units lower standards or readiness, if they meet the physical standards?

Dan Caine (01:55:27):

Well, ma'am, the standards are set by the civilians. We have examples of women leading well across the joint force. I'll highlight some of our current commanders engaged in the fight in Epic Fury, specifically one of our bomb squadrons are led by a extraordinary-

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:55:44):

Excuse me.

Dan Caine (01:55:44):

... female leader who's doing great work.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:55:46):

[inaudible 01:55:48].

Dan Caine (01:55:47):

But those standards are set by... I'm sorry. I didn't mean to [inaudible 01:55:50].

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:55:51):

[inaudible 01:55:50]. I think your answer is that in fact, it does not lower standards of business readiness.

(01:55:55)
Second question, should every service member, regardless of gender, be permitted to serve in any role, including the combat arms, if they meet the standards established? Yes or no?

Dan Caine (01:56:07):

Is that to me, ma'am?

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:56:09):

Over the last decade, since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness?

Dan Caine (01:56:23):

Apologies. I didn't hear your first question. The people policies are all set by the civilian leaders in the government.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:56:31):

No, I'm asking you personally with this question.

Dan Caine (01:56:31):

Could you repeat the question again? I'm sorry, ma'am.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:56:34):

Over the last decade since combat arms have been open to women, have you personally seen any instance where the standard resulted in a degradation in combat effectiveness?

Dan Caine (01:56:45):

Again, I'll highlight that the standards are set by our civilian leaders.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:56:49):

Thank you.

Dan Caine (01:56:49):

Women continue to perform well across a range of MOSs and jobs and AFSCs that are out there.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:56:58):

So your answer is, in our experience, no.

(01:56:58)
I do need to get to a question for Secretary Hegseth. Prior to your nomination hearing, you said, "Women shouldn't serve in combat arm units." At your confirmation hearing, you reversed course and, excuse me, and you basically said as long as the women meet the standards they should be able to serve. But recently, you ordered a review of the effectiveness of women in combat roles. And I am concerned you are laying the groundwork to reverse the policy allowing women to serve in these units because right now, current law, if you want to change this policy, current law requires you to submit a report to Congress justifying such a change. So, did you order the review to support a potential decision to overturn the policy of having women in combat roles?

Pete Hegseth (01:57:51):

We are laser focused on standards. The highest male standard for every combat arms position should be the standard. And 10 years into this, we are reviewing it, which is what the American people would expect. Also, there's nothing illegal about a war that defends the American people and prevents Iran from having a nuclear bomb.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:58:08):

You didn't answer the question because the reason that you're asking for this review, I think has to do with your earlier position that you don't think women should serve in combat roles. So now we have this study and I'd like to ask you, will you-

Rodger Wicker (01:58:20):

Senator, we'll take-

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:58:23):

Will you reveal this study to the public, to the American people? Will you make the study public?

Rodger Wicker (01:58:29):

Will you make that study?

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:58:31):

Yes or no?

Pete Hegseth (01:58:32):

We're doing the study for that very reason-

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:58:34):

[inaudible 01:58:35].

Pete Hegseth (01:58:34):

... to ensure that real science is applied to this question. And not social engineering like the previous administration.

Rodger Wicker (01:58:40):

We appreciate your assurance that that will be made public.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:58:44):

Yeah. I think it's really important that this study being made-

Rodger Wicker (01:58:48):

Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Mazie Hirono (01:58:49):

... public, thank you.

Rodger Wicker (01:58:50):

Senator Scott.

Senator Rick Scott (01:58:51):

Well, first, thank each of you for being here. Secretary Hegseth, you can talk about, you've had the job for a little bit. What are you most proud of and what are your biggest challenges?

Pete Hegseth (01:59:01):

Well, I appreciate the question. And what I'm most proud of is the incredible men and women who serve in our nations in uniform and what they are capable of when they're given a clear mission and unleashed to do it. And I think the best reflection of the success of President Trump and this War Department is the historic recruiting success and the historic morale amongst our ranks.

(01:59:27)
I would encourage every member of this committee, Democrat or Republican, go into the formations, go into the Air Force formations, the Army formations, the Marine Corps formations, and talk to corporals, talk to sergeants, talk to lieutenants, talk to captains, talk to colonels. And what you will find are men and women more inspired to serve in the military than they have been in a generation. And you see that in the young Americans who are rushing to recruiting stations at historic numbers, 30 year highs across the force. We're hitting our recruiting numbers halfway through the year. Why is that? Because the American people look at what we're doing at the War Department by getting back to basics, and they're attracted to that. Same with our retention rates, which are now merit based. Our best sergeants, our best leaders are staying. That's exactly what we want.

(02:00:16)
So, we've made changes to change the environment. The renaming of the department to the War Department is not just a name. In fact, it's restoring it to the original name of the department set by George Washington, but it's an ethos as well. That warrior ethos lives inside the heart of each one of these men and women and we're unleashing it. I'm proud of the... I mean, you name it, the border, the missions, yes, those are all incredible demonstrations of that, but it's the people and the urgency of Americans to want to be a part of it that is the best affirmation, Senator.

Senator Rick Scott (02:00:46):

Thank you. So we've talked about the importance of not relying on Chinese drugs for our military. Can you just talk about what you're doing to make sure that we don't continue to rely on China for anything, including our drugs?

Pete Hegseth (02:01:01):

Oh, drugs.

Senator Rick Scott (02:01:02):

Yeah. I'm sorry.

Pete Hegseth (02:01:03):

Absolutely. We can't be dependent on China on anything that's critical to our supply chain, even if it's the national industrial base and not just the defense industrial base. And you've been a leader on that, this committee has been a leader on that. Onshoring meant bringing manufacturing here, bringing critical capabilities here is central to the inner agency and the NSC, but also our department. If any critical weapon system is reliant upon something China could change at a moment's notice, then we have a true challenge to our ability to produce for the American people. And so we're finding all of those, changing them, onshoring it. Reviving the defense industrial base allows us to ensure we're separated from China and anything that's critical.

Senator Rick Scott (02:01:48):

Thank you. Can you talk about the importance of foreign military sales to our allies and our partners and what you're doing to make sure that whether it's what you're doing right now in Iran or any potential conflict in Asia, our partners have the best assets to be able to be a great partner?

Pete Hegseth (02:02:08):

Absolutely. Foreign military sales has been a huge problem for a long time, because the department didn't prioritize it and organized to deliver efficiently on it. So we're working with the state department, we've changed the way we do business internally. The executive order, the America First Arms Strategy prioritizes what we sell and to whom, a catalog approach. But this committee would be astonished to know how long it took us just to get our arms around who we're selling to what and by what processes, which means there was no strategy behind ensuring we're sending the proper demand signal to industry and delivering those systems on time and under budget to those countries, which you can imagine is frustrating to partners who are relying on those to be able to step up and burden share.

(02:02:49)
So, foreign military sales is critical to our own defense industrial base, more customers. More customers for our companies that employ more American workers to ensure our allies are properly armed for the fights and they can stand alongside us. So, FMS is a big one for us, Senator.

Senator Rick Scott (02:03:04):

Thank you.

(02:03:04)
General Caine, I just want to commend you and everybody in the military for what you did in Venezuela, and then what you've done in Iran. The willingness of the American military to fight and win, do you think it's changing the calculus for Beijing and Moscow?

Dan Caine (02:03:25):

Well, Senator, I know they're watching, and I'm incredibly proud of the Joint Force and their ability to integrate and synchronize a range of activities. And I suspect that my counterpart in China is watching very closely and envious of what our Joint Force is capable of doing, if ordered to do so.

Senator Rick Scott (02:03:47):

All right. Well, thank each of you and thank everybody that serves under you.

Rodger Wicker (02:03:51):

Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Kaine.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:03:53):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hurst, I want you to just confirm something for me about the President's submitted budget. $ 1.5 trillion is about a 40 plus percent increase from FY26. Am I right that not a penny of that is to go to a pay raise for the 800,000 civilians who work for the Department of Defense?

Mr. Hurst (02:04:17):

We have 4.2% of a civilian salary set aside for bonuses to make sure we can recognize high performers in the civilian workforce in our part.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:04:26):

But you have guaranteed pay raises for the active duty in the Guard and Reserve component, but no guaranteed raises for civilians. Is that correct?

Mr. Hurst (02:04:32):

There are guaranteed raises for the military, but in the last year, this department's given out more civilian bonuses.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:04:37):

Well, if we're going to increase the defense budget by that much, I would hope the committee would take a look at this.

(02:04:43)
Chairman Caine. Man, I like the sound of that, Chairman Caine. General Caine, I want to ask you a question about Southern Spear, it's an operational question. I know from your background that you carefully act to keep military actions within the rules of war. What legal justification could there possibly be that would allow the US military to strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats, without a showing of evidence that there's narcotics on those boats?

Dan Caine (02:05:18):

Well, sir, as you know, our job is to show the range of options, the associated risks, and then take those execution orders, transmit them down to the COCOMs on legally appropriate and legally backstopped actions. I-

Senator Tim Kaine (02:05:35):

Could you give me a legal justification?

Dan Caine (02:05:39):

Well, sir, the execution order, I don't have a-

Senator Tim Kaine (02:05:41):

That would authorize striking boats that do not have evidence that they're carrying narcotics?

Dan Caine (02:05:45):

I apologize, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I don't have a copy of the order issued to SOUTHCOM with me today. It's classified in its own right, which clearly articulates based on a variety of criteria, what constitutes a valid military and legally valid target in that theater. And I just want to say, I know and trust that our commanders at echelon are rigorously following that legal opinion and those legal boundaries upon which we've been issued those orders.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:06:19):

And General Caine, I would encourage, again, my colleagues, I am at a disadvantage. I've seen the legal opinion, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. I've seen the targeting criteria, but I can't talk about them because they're classified. I've seen the secret list of DTOs against whom we have declared war that even they haven't been informed of, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. But I would urge all of my colleagues to go to the SCIF and read the targeting criteria and get briefed about it, and then also look at all of the files of all the strikes that have taken place. I've done that with the first 46 strikes or so, and I think there's a profound mismatch between what is occurring and the underlying assumptions in the legal opinion. And I would just encourage my colleagues to dig into this.

(02:07:08)
To Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, the War Powers Resolution specifies that a war initiated by a President without congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days. It can be extended by an additional 30 days if, "The President determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the US Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces." We're right at the 60-day deadline. Is the President intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally required certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove US forces from the war?

Pete Hegseth (02:07:57):

Just briefly on the previous question, we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations, so we treat them like the Al-Qaeda of our hemisphere, just as a note.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:08:05):

Yeah, but that was not the question I asked.

Pete Hegseth (02:08:08):

I know there's more to that question.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:08:09):

I asked whether there's evidence of narcotics.

Pete Hegseth (02:08:09):

I just think it's important for the public to understand that. There's no willy-nilly targeting of drug boats. We know exactly who these people are affiliated with.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:08:16):

I was asking about what's on the boats.

Pete Hegseth (02:08:18):

On Iran, ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House Council on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:08:30):

I don't, I do not... Yeah.

Pete Hegseth (02:08:31):

So they're not in. It's our understanding, just so you know.

Senator Tim Kaine (02:08:33):

Okay. Well, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and that's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration. We have serious constitutional concerns and we don't want to layer those with additional statutory concerns. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Rodger Wicker (02:08:53):

Thank you very much. Senator Sullivan.

Senator Dan Sullivan (02:08:54):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.

(02:08:58)
Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in the classified hearing today, but I do think the $1.5 trillion top line is historic, it meets the needs. And the other thing, as I mentioned in our earlier meeting, the President's done a really good job of getting other allies, NATO and Asian allies to step up, meet a 5% GDP of defense spending. And in many ways, that's what this is doing as well. So, isn't that important as well in terms of our global leadership? What you and the President are providing, is that example as well?

Pete Hegseth (02:09:34):