• 7 months ago
Sec. Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown testified in front of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.


Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00:00 Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair reserves the right
00:00:08 to declare the committee in recess at any point, but before I begin I want to
00:00:11 remind those in the audience this hearing is open to the public but
00:00:17 actions that disrupt or distract from the proceedings will not be tolerated.
00:00:20 I also want to remind members that if you have to enter or leave the room
00:00:24 please do so through the empty room and not through the doors in the back
00:00:27 because the noise is very distracting to our witnesses and members on the dais.
00:00:32 The chair reserves the right to remove disruptive persons from the hearing.
00:00:37 I want to thank our witnesses for appearing and for your service to our nation.
00:00:40 Over the last two months we've heard from each of our combatant commanders
00:00:45 that the threats we face today are more complex and more formidable than at any
00:00:50 point over the last 30 years. They each raised grave concerns about how
00:00:57 China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are working together to reduce America's
00:01:02 global influence, harm our alliances, and undermine our national security. Iran and
00:01:08 North Korea are arming Russia with deadly effect in Ukraine and China's
00:01:13 no-limits partnership with Russia is paying off for both countries. Russia is
00:01:19 getting critical economic assistance, rocket motors, and microelectronics from
00:01:24 China. Putin is using the assistance to keep his economy afloat and to produce
00:01:29 the missiles, aircraft, and other weaponry that is devastating Ukraine.
00:01:34 China is getting cheap oil and vital missile technology and enriched uranium
00:01:40 from Russia. Xi is using the assistance to help his economy
00:01:44 recover and to fuel his breathtaking buildup of space-based and nuclear
00:01:50 weapons. China is also buying over a million bars of oil a day from Iran in
00:01:55 defiance of Western sanctions. The Ayatollah is using the oil revenues
00:02:01 to fund his nuclear ambitions, arm his terrorist proxies, and launch an
00:02:06 unprecedented and unjustified direct attack on Israel. Putin, Xi, Kim, and the
00:02:13 Ayatollah are testing the credibility of American deterrence and the strength of
00:02:17 our alliances. After witnessing the president's disastrous withdrawal from
00:02:22 Afghanistan and his hand-wringing approach to providing lethal aid to
00:02:27 Ukraine, they sense weakness in American resolve. We can't leave them with that
00:02:34 impression and we can't let them continue to get away with their malign
00:02:39 actions. We must restore American deterrence, but to do so we need a budget
00:02:45 that will enable that. We need a budget that supports the rapid modernization of
00:02:50 our military, a budget that fully funds readiness to ensure we can fight tonight,
00:02:54 and a budget that will improve the quality of life of our service members
00:02:57 so we can recruit and retain the most lethal fighting force on the
00:03:04 planet. Unfortunately, this budget does not do those things. The 1% increase
00:03:10 it proposes entirely is inadequate. It actually is a 2% cut when you
00:03:17 factor in inflation, but this is the hand dealt to us by the Fiscal Responsibility
00:03:22 Act that we all have responsibility for enacting. As we move to mark up the FY25
00:03:31 NDA, we will play that hand that was dealt to us, but we all need to
00:03:37 understand the risk to our national security that this level of investment
00:03:41 presents. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what this budget
00:03:45 means for our military readiness, our modernization timeliness, and our efforts
00:03:50 to improve service member quality of life, and most importantly, what this
00:03:54 budget means for our ability to deter our increasingly undeterred adversaries.
00:03:59 With that, I yield my friend and colleague, the Ranking Member, for any
00:04:03 opening statement he may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our
00:04:06 witnesses, Secretary Austin, General Brown, Mr. McCord. Thank you for being
00:04:09 here, and thank you for your leadership in very, very difficult times. I think the
00:04:13 Chairman laid it out fairly well. It can be summed up as big threats in a tight
00:04:18 budget, and you have to figure out how to make that work. But as the Chairman noted,
00:04:22 we have that tight budget because that's what Congress passed and the President
00:04:25 signed, so we will have to find a way to live within it. I think the
00:04:29 national security strategy lays out those threats quite well. China, Russia,
00:04:34 Iran, North Korea, and then various transnational terrorist groups, all of
00:04:39 which are causing challenges across the world. I don't disagree with the
00:04:43 Chairman's assessment of those challenges or how increasingly the
00:04:47 problem is they are working together more and more to coordinate those
00:04:51 threats in a way that are deeply challenging. We do want to hear today
00:04:53 obviously about the two specific hottest spots right now, what's going on in
00:04:58 Ukraine. It is good that Congress finally passed the aid package to Ukraine. The
00:05:04 months of delay were very costly. I would be very interested in your
00:05:08 military opinion about where the fight in Ukraine goes from here and Ukraine's
00:05:14 ability to hold off the assaults that are coming from Russia. In the Middle
00:05:18 East, the war rages on with a continual threat that it could spread. I want to
00:05:23 compliment the administration and Secretary Austin in particular, Chairman
00:05:27 Brown, for the work to try and contain that, to work with our partners, to work
00:05:31 with our allies. But that challenge continues and I think it is even more
00:05:35 important that President Biden continues his push to try to get a
00:05:40 humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza with the release of the hostages. I know the
00:05:46 President has been negotiating that. A number of terms have been put on the
00:05:50 table. Hamas has repeatedly refused to accept that. I don't think we should
00:05:55 stop trying to get to that humanitarian ceasefire going forward and to work to
00:05:59 make sure that we get more aid in to Gaza. I know that we have begun to build
00:06:04 the pier to help get aid in from the sea. Any and all efforts necessary must be
00:06:11 put in place, which I very much appreciate. In terms of dealing with
00:06:15 the big threats on that tight budget, I want to advance the idea two things. One,
00:06:20 we need partnerships and we need diplomacy. We cannot do it alone and we
00:06:26 cannot fight everybody everywhere all at once. We may not like a wide variety of
00:06:32 things that these actors that we've talked about are doing. We have to live
00:06:36 in the same world that they do, which means we have to talk to China. Yes, at
00:06:40 some point I believe we need to talk to Russia. We need to use our diplomatic
00:06:44 skills and our partnerships and alliances because one of the things I'm
00:06:48 really worried about is that Iran, Russia, China and the others, they're beginning
00:06:52 to build partnerships. They're beginning to undermine our economic might. The
00:06:56 chairman laid out how they are fighting back against our sanctions by working
00:07:00 together. We cannot alienate the entire world and still meet these threats. We
00:07:05 need the rest of the world on our side. So I hope we will consider building on
00:07:09 the partnerships and diplomacy that we have used. I think the AUKUS agreement is
00:07:13 a great example. The quad that we've used, the 54 nation partnership that was
00:07:18 pulled together to help Ukraine fight off Russia. All those are good examples,
00:07:22 but we need to build on that. Lastly, I just want to foot snap what the chairman
00:07:25 said about recruitment and retention. Thank him and thank the quality of life
00:07:30 panel, Representative Houlihan, Representative Bacon led, which is
00:07:34 focused on making sure that we give our servicemen and women and their families
00:07:38 everything they need and give them the support. They are the backbone of our
00:07:43 military without any question and they deserve our support. With that, I look
00:07:46 forward to the testimony and I yield back. Thank you. I thank the ranking
00:07:50 member. Our witnesses today are the Honorable Lloyd Austin, Secretary of
00:07:55 Defense. General CQ Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Accompanying the
00:07:59 Secretary and the Chairman is the Honorable Mike McCord, Undersecretary of
00:08:02 Defense. He serves as the DOD's Chief Financial Officer and is available to
00:08:07 answer questions. No small job given that he's the Chief Financial Officer of the
00:08:12 largest organization on the planet. With that, we will recognize our first
00:08:18 witness, Secretary Austin. We'll start with you.
00:08:22 Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee,
00:08:27 thanks for the opportunity to testify in support of President Biden's proposed
00:08:31 fiscal year 2025 budget for the Department of Defense. Pleased to be
00:08:37 joined by our outstanding Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General CQ Brown, and by
00:08:42 Undersecretary Mike McCord, the Department's Comptroller. Let me start by
00:08:46 thanking this committee for all that you do to support the U.S. military, our
00:08:51 troops, and our military families. As Secretary, I've always been guided by
00:08:56 three priorities. Defending our nation, taking care of our families, taking care
00:09:02 of our people, and succeeding through teamwork. A budget request for a fiscal
00:09:06 year 2025 will advance all three of these priorities. First, the President's
00:09:11 request will invest in cutting-edge capabilities across all domains. That
00:09:16 includes $48.1 billion for naval and shipbuilding capabilities, $62.1
00:09:22 billion to reinforce U.S. air dominance, and $13 billion to bolster Army and
00:09:29 Marine Corps combat capabilities. Our request will also provide $33.7
00:09:34 billion to strengthen our space architecture, and $14.5 billion
00:09:39 to develop and field advanced cybersecurity tools. It will direct
00:09:44 $49.2 billion to modernize and recapitalize all three legs of our
00:09:49 nuclear triad, and it will sharpen our tech edge through a $167.5 billion
00:09:56 investment in procurement and $143.2 billion in R&D. Second, this
00:10:05 budget will support our outstanding troops and their families. That includes
00:10:09 raising base pay and housing allowances, investing in better housing, making
00:10:15 child care more affordable, and funding vital work to prevent sexual assault and
00:10:19 suicide in the military. And third, this request will help the Department further
00:10:24 deepen our teamwork worldwide. Our network of allies and partners remains
00:10:29 a strategic advantage that no competitor can match, and you can see its power in
00:10:34 our strengthening ties across the Indo-Pacific, in today's expanded and
00:10:39 united NATO, and in the 50-country Ukraine Defense Contact Group that I
00:10:44 convene. Our budget remains rooted in our 2022 National Defense Strategy. Our
00:10:50 request positions the United States to tackle the Department's pacing challenge,
00:10:54 the People's Republic of China, with confidence and urgency. It will help meet
00:11:00 the acute threat of Putin's increasingly aggressive Russia. It will help us tackle
00:11:04 the persistent dangers from Iran and its proxies. It will help us take on threats
00:11:10 from North Korea, global terrorist organizations, and other malign actors.
00:11:15 And it will help us continue to deter aggression against the United States and
00:11:20 our allies and partners, and to prevail in conflict if necessary. Now today, I
00:11:26 want to underscore three key messages. First, even as our budget request abides
00:11:31 by the mandatory caps set by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it is aligned to our
00:11:36 strategy. We made tough but responsible decisions that prioritize near-term
00:11:40 readiness, modernization of the joint force, and support for our troops and
00:11:44 their families. Our approach dials back some near-term modernization for
00:11:49 programs not set to come online until the 2030s. Second, we can only reach the
00:11:56 goals of our strategy with your help, and I'm truly grateful that Congress passed
00:12:00 the fiscal year 2024 appropriations in March. And the single way that, the single
00:12:07 greatest way that Congress can support the Department is to pass predictable,
00:12:11 sustained, and timely appropriations. My third and final message is that the
00:12:16 price of U.S. leadership is real, but it is far lower than the price of U.S.
00:12:21 abdication. As the President has said, we are in a global struggle between
00:12:25 democracy and autocracy, and our security relies on American strength of purpose.
00:12:31 And that's why our budget request seeks to invest in American security and in
00:12:35 America's defense industrial base. The same is true for the recently passed
00:12:40 national security supplemental that will support our partners in Israel, Ukraine,
00:12:45 and Taiwan, and make key investments to increase submarine production. In fact,
00:12:52 about 50 billion dollars of this supplemental will flow through our
00:12:55 defense industrial base, creating good jobs, good American jobs, in more than 30
00:13:00 states. So we're grateful for our partners in Congress who help...
00:13:05 [How can you talk about U.S. leadership when we're supporting genocide in Gaza?]
00:13:10 The committee will come to order. I'd like to formally request those in the audience
00:13:14 causing disruption to cease their actions immediately. Security, I'm going
00:13:19 to ask you to remove the disruptive persons. [It is illegal, it is immoral, it is disgusting. The whole world is watching what we are doing in Gaza right now. Secretary General, you are supporting a genocide. Stop supporting genocide. Free Palestine. Stop supporting genocide. Free Palestine.]
00:13:44 Apparently the protesters don't understand we don't have a Secretary General in
00:13:48 this country. With that, Mr. Secretary, you're recognized again. Thank you,
00:13:54 Chairman. We're grateful for our partners in Congress who help us make
00:13:59 the investments needed to strengthen America's security through both the
00:14:03 supplemental and the President's budget requests. The U.S. military is the most
00:14:07 lethal fighting force on earth, and with your help we're going to keep it that way.
00:14:11 And I deeply appreciate your support for our mission and for our troops, and I
00:14:15 look forward to your questions. Thank you, sir.
00:14:19 General Brown, you're now recognized. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, and
00:14:25 distinguished members of the committee, I'm honored to join Secretary Austin and
00:14:28 Honorable Mike McCord to appear before you today. On behalf of the Joint
00:14:33 Force, Department of Defense, civilians, and our families, I want to thank Congress
00:14:37 for your steadfast support and the opportunity to testify on the fiscal
00:14:41 year 2025 defense budget request, which reflects our shared commitment to
00:14:47 national security. I also want to thank you for passing the national security
00:14:51 supplemental, which provides vital support to our allies, partners, and our
00:14:56 defense industrial base to counter aggression and strengthen our joint
00:15:00 force capabilities and capacity in preparation for any future contingency.
00:15:04 The global security environment is increasingly complex. The 2022 National
00:15:10 Defense Strategy identifies five key challenges. The People's Republic of
00:15:14 China, our pacing challenge, continues its risky behavior around the globe.
00:15:18 Newly aggressive Russia, with its unprovoked war against Ukraine. A
00:15:23 reckless Iran, who as we saw a few weeks ago, attempts to escalate regional
00:15:28 conflict with unprecedented attacks and support of proxy forces. A destabilizing
00:15:34 North Korea, which threatens regional security. And violent extremist
00:15:38 organizations with leveraged instability to advance their cause. These challenges
00:15:43 are interconnected, which demands a strategic approach addressing the
00:15:47 immediate threats, while also preparing for future contingencies. It requires all
00:15:51 of us to operate with a sense of urgency. Days after becoming the chairman, I laid
00:15:56 out three expectations in my message to the Joint Force. Honing our warfighting
00:16:01 skills has primacy in all we do. Modernizing and aggressively leading
00:16:05 with new concepts and approaches. And trust is the foundation of our
00:16:09 profession. Our military exists to fight and win our nation's wars. We train every
00:16:15 day to ensure we are so good at what we do, that we deter any adversary from
00:16:19 engaging the U.S. in conflict. This budget requests 147 billion dollars to
00:16:24 sustain readiness and ensure the department can counter near-term threats.
00:16:29 We are also focused on better integrating our allies and partners in
00:16:33 our planning and operations by investing in critical programs and...
00:16:39 [inaudible]
00:16:41 Suspend.
00:16:43 [inaudible]
00:16:45 We will remain in recess until the disruptive individuals are removed from the chamber.
00:16:51 [inaudible]
00:16:53 [inaudible]
00:16:55 General, you may proceed.
00:16:57 Sure. We are all focused on better integrating our allies and partners in
00:17:01 our planning and operations by investing in critical programs and capability,
00:17:05 expanding security cooperation, exercises, training, and interoperability. Our
00:17:11 investments in readiness ensure the Joint Force can respond when the nation
00:17:14 calls. While we are focused on readiness for today, it's critical to modernize and
00:17:19 lead with new concepts to prepare for tomorrow. The department continues to
00:17:23 invest in capability and capacity to outpace our competitors while
00:17:27 transforming from costly legacy platforms that are no longer relevant
00:17:32 to the threat. This budget strategically invests 167.5 billion in procurement,
00:17:38 underscoring our commitment to equip the Joint Force with unparalleled combat
00:17:43 capabilities across every domain. This budget also invests 143.2
00:17:48 billion in research, development, tests, and evaluation of future capabilities
00:17:53 that will retain our strategic edge. Finally, this budget invests significantly
00:17:58 in nuclear modernization, digital innovation, multi-year procurement of
00:18:03 critical munitions, and the strength in defense industrial base. With rapidly
00:18:08 evolving threats and technologies, accelerating our modernization is
00:18:11 crucial. Lastly, trust is the foundation of our profession. The Joint Force must
00:18:17 build upon and uphold the trust in each other. Trust with our families, trust of
00:18:22 our elected leaders, and trust of our nation. Enhancing the quality of service
00:18:27 and the quality of life of our personnel is not just a moral obligation, it's a
00:18:31 strategic imperative. This budget includes investments in quality of
00:18:35 service efforts such as advanced training, educational benefits, and career
00:18:40 development, while also investing in quality of life projects like housing,
00:18:44 medical clinics, and child care facilities, as well as funding spouse
00:18:49 employment initiatives, enhanced mental health resources, and robust
00:18:53 programs to combat sexual assault. We must create an environment where all can
00:18:58 reach their full potential. Trust that our Joint Force stands ready, ready to
00:19:04 defend our national interest, ready to deter aggression, and ready if necessary
00:19:08 to fight and win our nation's wars. I thank you for your support and
00:19:13 collaboration and our shared commitment to face the security challenges of today
00:19:17 and prepare for tomorrow. We're living in consequential times and there's no time
00:19:22 to waste. Thank you and look forward to your questions. Thank you, General. I
00:19:26 recognize myself for opening questions. General, I'll address this first
00:19:31 question to you. You talked about what the budget would do. As we know, we've
00:19:35 talked about this is a tight budget. Tell me what we can't do with this budget.
00:19:40 Tell me about some of the trade-offs that you've had to make as a result of
00:19:43 this 1% increase. Well, Chairman, I appreciate the question. As the Secretary
00:19:47 had in his opening remarks, what we had to do is we focused on readiness for the
00:19:52 near term and as we did that, there's some areas that we did not, we like
00:19:57 to not to modernize some capabilities that will deliver in later into the 30s.
00:20:01 And so that's where we had to address some of the shortfalls in this
00:20:06 particular budget by making those choices to focus on readiness. For example,
00:20:11 give me an example of something that you deferred. I'd have to get you more
00:20:17 detail, Chairman, but as you look at various capabilities and I would
00:20:20 say munitions is a key one of those that we've focused on as well as as we
00:20:25 look at our shipbuilding, our sub industrial base as well, and aircraft.
00:20:34 How is this budget going to affect your training? Do you have an idea about that?
00:20:39 Well, not much because we actually did focus on our readiness and that's why
00:20:43 the 147th bin Dodge is a focus on our readiness. We are a very capable
00:20:48 joint force and using the capabilities we do have today while we would
00:20:52 pursue future modernization is where our focus is on readiness today, Chairman.
00:20:57 Okay, I would ask this to both of you. I know you've got to be concerned about
00:21:03 this growing cooperation that we're seeing between Russia, China, Iran, and
00:21:08 North Korea. Do you feel like that this budget adequately resources our ability
00:21:14 to deter their organized and unified aggressive behavior in the coming years,
00:21:19 Mr. Secretary? Thanks, Chairman. The growing nexus between the PRC, Russia, and
00:21:28 the DPRK and Iran is concerning and this is something that we are
00:21:36 watching very closely. You know, as we look at what Russia is doing, because of
00:21:42 the damage that Ukraine inflicted on Russia's land forces, Russia turned then
00:21:47 to DPRK for additional munitions and in the form of artillery
00:21:55 munitions and missiles. Iran is providing Russia with drone
00:22:02 capability, technology, and actual drones themselves and that's made a difference
00:22:07 in Russia's ability to recover from the damage that
00:22:13 Ukraine has inflicted on them. And then North Korea, again, it's becoming more
00:22:20 confident because of its affiliation with Putin, so this is very
00:22:26 concerning. Something that we're going to have to watch, something that we're going
00:22:30 to have to make sure that we have the capability and capacity to work with our
00:22:34 allies to continue to deter and continue to promote peace and stability
00:22:41 in each of the regions. But to your point, very concerning and something that
00:22:48 we're going to have to stay on top of going forward. General Brown. I would
00:22:53 echo the Secretary's comments about being very concerning and watching how
00:22:57 these countries are working and somewhat interconnected. By the same token, what I
00:23:03 have seen in the seven months, tomorrow will be seven months I've been in the job,
00:23:06 I've engaged about 170 times with counterparts, my counterparts from around
00:23:12 the world, and what I found is as the world has gotten more complex, the
00:23:18 work with our allies and partners has strengthened. We watch how NATO has
00:23:22 strengthened, NATO is larger, but as I engage with the nations in Europe,
00:23:27 they're focused on the Indo-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific nations are also focused
00:23:31 on Europe because all these are a global threat to all of us. And you know, that
00:23:36 dialogue is definitely increased and I've seen that happen in the jobs I've
00:23:41 held as a senior leader. When you talk to your counterparts around the world, what
00:23:46 resources would they like to see us bring to the table as a part of that
00:23:50 effort to combat or deter the behavior you just described? Well, what I would
00:23:55 highlight is they're concerned about our collective defense industrial base and
00:24:00 bringing capability. You know, one thing I do find as I engage around the world is
00:24:03 that U.S. capability, U.S. equipment is highly desired and we've got to be able
00:24:07 to provide that capability and equipment and those are the things that they are
00:24:11 keenly interested in. They're also interested in our ability to work and be
00:24:15 able to interoperate, even when they have their own defense industrial base that
00:24:18 they're also trying to increase as well. And so it's how we work together and to
00:24:24 break down barriers to be able to work across our industries, across our
00:24:28 services, or across our governments will be important. Thank you, General. I yield to the
00:24:32 ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, a ton of topics we could cover.
00:24:36 I just want to ask one question and that is on recruitment and retention. I know
00:24:40 Secretary Austin, this has been a particular focus of yours for some time.
00:24:43 Can you update us on how we're doing? Obviously, the pandemic was a huge
00:24:47 challenge coming out of that. There have been other challenges. Where are we at in
00:24:51 your opinion on being able to recruit and retain the service members we need?
00:24:56 You're right, sir. COVID really caused us a significant problem in our
00:25:04 inability to get into high schools and work the areas that we typically
00:25:09 work for recruiting. Post COVID, we have been able to reverse those trends,
00:25:18 get back into the high schools, to advertise in the right markets, to
00:25:23 reestablish contacts with centers of influence. Each of the services has made
00:25:29 a concerted effort to hire the right kinds of recruiters and put the right
00:25:33 kinds of recruiters out there to represent the services. And
00:25:38 that's proving to be very, very helpful. As we look at where we are
00:25:44 right now, we see the curves beginning to bend. And in favor of more
00:25:52 productivity, I expect that Army, Air Force, Space Force, and the
00:25:59 Marines will all make mission this year, just based upon their forecasts. And I
00:26:05 attribute that to their hard work. I mean, they've been doing a lot
00:26:09 to reverse these trends. And you know, this is the tightest job market
00:26:15 that we've seen in a very, very long time. So there are plenty of
00:26:22 jobs for people to get, and so this has been very competitive. But I
00:26:29 think the services are doing the right thing. And again, I have to attribute
00:26:34 this to their hard work and their focus. The senior leaders are focused
00:26:37 on this in a major way, and I talk to them about this routinely. On top
00:26:42 of that, retention is the highest that it's been in a very, very long
00:26:48 time. And so when troops join us, they want to stay with us. And a
00:26:52 good part of that is because of what you continue to do to help
00:26:56 resource us to provide for them and their families.
00:26:59 Thank you. General Brown, you have the floor.
00:27:03 Thank you. As the Secretary highlighted, we do see a positive trend.
00:27:07 And since I've been not only as a service chief watching this and
00:27:11 coming through COVID and watching the numbers change, but also as a
00:27:14 chairman, I've had a chance to sit down and meet with recruiters from
00:27:18 all of our services. I've gone to one of our processing centers to
00:27:21 take a look and ask questions about the things we can do to increase
00:27:26 the throughput through our recruiting stations. At the same time,
00:27:31 it's how we engage. And one of the things when I talk about trust,
00:27:33 it's how we that have served, what inspired us to join, and how we
00:27:38 inspire the next generation and how we engage and show all the
00:27:40 opportunities that are available by serving in our force or serving
00:27:46 the nation at large. And so we do see some positive trends. And I
00:27:50 would also say the same thing with retention. The numbers, we're
00:27:53 meeting all of our retention, and we're doing very well there. But we
00:27:57 have to continue. We can't rest on our laurels. And that's why the
00:27:59 support of this committee in Congress, particularly as you look at
00:28:02 the quality of life, does play a role because it plays a role not just
00:28:07 for the member, but it plays a role for their family as well.
00:28:09 Absolutely. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
00:28:11 Chair and I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
00:28:14 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank each of you for being
00:28:17 here in your service on behalf of our country. And to me, it's so
00:28:20 clear that the primary function of the national government is to do
00:28:24 for us what we cannot do for ourselves, and that's national defense.
00:28:27 And so your service is more important than ever. And putting that
00:28:31 in the context, too, what we're talking about is deterrence of peace
00:28:35 through strength. And so what you're doing could not be more important.
00:28:39 And I particularly appreciate military service. I have four sons who
00:28:44 have served in Egypt, Afghanistan, in Iraq. My Navy son, the benefit
00:28:51 of military service is so exciting. My son served as a Navy doctor in
00:28:56 Naples. I now have three grandchildren who speak perfectly Italian.
00:28:58 So I look at military service as opportunity to serve, but opportunity
00:29:04 for a fulfilling and meaningful life. And so what you're doing, and
00:29:07 I'm so happy to hear about retention being good, Mr. Secretary.
00:29:11 That's great. Putting that in perspective, too, your service today
00:29:16 is more important than ever. It's been referred to in bipartisan,
00:29:20 with the terminology by Ranking Member Smith of partnerships among
00:29:27 adversaries. The leadership that we have with Chairman Mike Rogers,
00:29:32 who stood up against the dictators, and then your reference to authoritarians
00:29:37 or autocrats against democracy. I like to phrase it as dictators with
00:29:42 rule of gun who are invading democracy's rule of law. This is not
00:29:48 a war that we chose. This is a war that war criminal Putin chose
00:29:52 on February 24, 2022, when he invaded Ukraine and conducted mass murder.
00:29:58 This is another indication with the invasion by Iran, with its puppets
00:30:04 of Hamas of Israel on October 7. And we need to do all we can
00:30:08 to deter the Chinese Communist Party from an invasion of the terrific
00:30:13 country of Taiwan. With all of this in mind,
00:30:16 over and over again, we should be grateful. And I am very happy,
00:30:23 General Brown, that this week is reported that finally that long range
00:30:28 attack ins have been provided to the people of Ukraine to defend their
00:30:32 country provided by Germany, the United Kingdom and now the US. Additionally,
00:30:38 I hope that cluster bombs are provided as quickly as possible. We have
00:30:42 excess that need to be destroyed. I know a way to destroy them,
00:30:45 and that is to send them to the people of Ukraine. It's been reported
00:30:49 that world criminal Putin is jamming various precision munitions, causing
00:30:53 lower accuracy rates for targeting than advertised. And it's very important
00:30:58 that we equip Ukraine with the latest technology with F 16 being provided
00:31:03 to Ukraine by the Netherlands and Denmark. Will the department be
00:31:07 considering to have joint air to service standoff missiles to be more
00:31:12 advanced precision fires of the F 16 in the delivery package to Ukraine?
00:31:17 General Brown.
00:31:20 Well, as we bring on the F 16, it's the not only the airplanes,
00:31:26 but it's the training of the pilots, also training in the meetings,
00:31:30 but also bring sure we have the weapon system to go with it. And
00:31:33 that's part of the conversation we're having with the countries that are
00:31:36 not only contributing F 16s, but as part of the Ukraine Defense Contact
00:31:40 Group, there is an Air Force coalition that the United States is part
00:31:44 of, and that is the dialogue that we're having to not only just get
00:31:48 to the airplanes, but also get it to a full capability. And a good
00:31:52 news. Secretary Austin in December, Japan announces transferring Patriot
00:31:57 interceptors back to us to replenish our stockpiles. Earlier this month,
00:32:01 there was a joint statement with Japan. The administration wants to pursue
00:32:05 co development, co production of missiles for forward deployed in the
00:32:10 Indo Pacific. This is great for the Indo Pacific. It really follows.
00:32:14 Indeed, NATO coming together with now with Sweden and Finland. The
00:32:20 assistance by the EU of all people for the people of Ukraine for
00:32:25 Europe. But with the Indo Pacific, are there other examples of defense
00:32:29 cooperation agreements that can be pursued to deter the dictators who
00:32:33 seek to destroy Western civilization?
00:32:36 Well, thanks, sir. As you know, we have done a lot of work to
00:32:42 strengthen our relationship with the R. O. K. We have, uh, promoted a
00:32:49 trilateral relationship between the R. O. K. Japan and us. You guys,
00:32:54 you witnessed months months ago, President held a summit here in the
00:32:58 United States with the leadership of those three countries. We've
00:33:03 strengthened our relationship with with the Philippines. And so now
00:33:07 we're we have the ability to operate alongside the Filipinos in more
00:33:14 sites in the Philippines. And three years ago, the leadership was
00:33:20 going to disinvite us and not allow us to operate in the Philippines.
00:33:24 But that my secretary, my time is up. But again, it's exciting to
00:33:28 see countries come together that we have not before from the Philippines
00:33:32 to Sweden and Finland. Thank you very much. Chairman Times. But you're
00:33:35 not recognized him from Connecticut. Mr Courtney. Thank you, Mr
00:33:39 Chairman. And thank you to both witnesses for your diligent service
00:33:43 in your testimony today. Mr Secretary, one of the smartest actions
00:33:47 which Congress in your department made was last year was enacting
00:33:51 Aukus authorities. I want to particularly compliment your legislative
00:33:54 team who worked with a number of us on the committee to successfully
00:33:57 steer a very complex package into last year's N. D. A. A. As you laid
00:34:01 out on page 16 of your testimony, it's not just an aspirational plan.
00:34:05 Aukus is moving out fast on many fronts. For example, I had the
00:34:09 pleasure to welcome the first three Aussie naval officers to sub
00:34:12 school at the Groton Sub Basin, Connecticut, where they learned
00:34:15 proficiency in the operation of nuclear powered submarines, a key
00:34:18 Aukus pillar one goal. All three, by the way, graduated in the top
00:34:22 five of their class and another 100 of their colleagues are going
00:34:24 to be following in their footsteps. Mr Secretary, having been on
00:34:28 this committee for quite a while, it was quite striking to me the
00:34:31 amount of focus in your statement on the need to grow and strengthen
00:34:34 our nation's defense industrial base. On page 20 of your written
00:34:37 testimony, you highlighted the department's publication last
00:34:40 January, the National Defense Industrial Strategy, which was the
00:34:43 first for the department to its credit. And that report honestly
00:34:46 laid out warts and all, all the painful history of neglect of that
00:34:50 base, which goes back decades and acknowledged particularly the
00:34:53 damage that procurement instability from the Pentagon has done.
00:34:56 Coming from a district with a submarine shipyard that was decimated
00:35:00 by such instability from 1990 to 2010, I could not agree more.
00:35:04 Over the past 13 years, however, Congress has led the way to
00:35:07 stabilize that yard and other yards and their supply chains with
00:35:11 steady two Virginia submarine per year procurement. And the
00:35:15 workforce has rebounded from a low of 9,000 to 23,000 today.
00:35:19 COVID's pandemic did slow down production and it's undeniable
00:35:23 that the recovering pace needs to continue to pick up. But I would
00:35:26 note that contract, contrary to the narrative coming out of the
00:35:29 department, starting last fall of 2023, four submarines have been
00:35:34 or will be delivered to the Navy by the end of 2024. USS Rickover,
00:35:39 New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Iowa and Idaho and Arkansas are
00:35:43 slated to be delivered in 2025. The supply chain has rebounded as
00:35:47 well with Congress's SIB investments going back to 2018. Those
00:35:51 investments need to continue, but so does procurement stability.
00:35:55 Unfortunately, the 2025 budget plan has injected unexpected new
00:35:59 instability by cutting a sub, a direct deviation from last year's
00:36:04 fit up in the Navy shipbuilding plan. And I would argue is also
00:36:09 contradicts the national defense industrial strategies warning
00:36:12 about the need to maintain procurement stability. As the
00:36:15 Wall Street Journal powerfully noted, US submarine technology
00:36:19 is a crown jewel of America's military power and a true
00:36:22 advantage over a rapidly expanding Chinese naval fleet.
00:36:25 Buying only one boat is a terrible signal for capital
00:36:28 investment. And it tells adversaries that the US is not
00:36:31 serious about rearming. I don't totally buy that last comment,
00:36:35 but I would say that having been home since the budget came out,
00:36:38 I've talked to supply chain companies who are hitting the
00:36:41 pause button on planned investments. This has a real ripple
00:36:45 effect when that signal shows instability. One of the
00:36:49 provisions of the AUKUS authorities was in the NDA section
00:36:53 1352 is something that I think is really at the center of what
00:36:58 we did last year, which is that it authorized the president of
00:37:00 the United States to certify the sale of three Virginia class
00:37:04 submarines starting in 2032, 2035 and 2038. That president
00:37:09 has to certify when that time comes, that those sales are not
00:37:14 going to degrade our own fleet. Nobody in this room knows who
00:37:18 the next, who that president will be after the 2028 election.
00:37:21 But to me, I want to make sure that that decision is as easy
00:37:26 as possible to make sure that the goal of AUKUS is going to be
00:37:30 achieved. Cutting a sub from the inventory, which is what this
00:37:35 budget proposal unfortunately does, in my opinion, makes that
00:37:39 decision harder. We're going to work hard on this committee. And
00:37:42 my colleagues are already hard at work in terms of getting
00:37:45 requests over to the appropriations committee. We did
00:37:48 it in 2007. We did it in 2013 under the Obama administration.
00:37:53 We did it in 2020 under the Trump administration. Again, I
00:37:57 think it is so important for the goal of AUKUS, which again, I
00:38:01 think is one of going to be one of your hallmark achievements
00:38:04 that we maintain procurement. And we, as I said, you know,
00:38:07 make that decision in the early 2030s as early as possible. I
00:38:12 don't have a question for you today, but again, with that,
00:38:14 I'll yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:38:16 Thank the gentleman chair now recognize gentleman from Ohio,
00:38:20 Mr. Turner.
00:38:21 Secretary Austin, General Brown, and Mr. McCord, thank you
00:38:24 for being here. Thank you for your leadership. Secretary
00:38:27 Austin, I know you are aware that last week, our ambassador
00:38:32 to the United States to the United Nations, in conjunction
00:38:36 with the Japanese brought forth a resolution to the UN Security
00:38:40 Council, asking for all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear
00:38:46 arms race in outer space, and to calling for prevention of a
00:38:54 nuclear arms race in space. This resolution was blocked by
00:38:59 vetoed by Russia and abstained by China. Secretary Austin,
00:39:05 what would be the effect if a nuclear device was detonated
00:39:12 today in outer space?
00:39:14 It will be it would have devastating consequences on a
00:39:21 lot of our capabilities in space, not only our capabilities,
00:39:26 but the capabilities of other countries. And so for that
00:39:30 reason, we think it's irresponsible for anybody to even
00:39:34 consider deploying or employing a nuclear device in space.
00:39:40 Well, Mr. Secretary, General Michael Trout of the commander
00:39:45 of Germany's military space command agrees with you. He
00:39:47 stated the worst case scenario of an indiscriminate nuclear
00:39:49 blast in space, radiating out at a satellite-frying
00:39:55 electromagnetic pulse across low Earth orbit would be
00:39:58 devastating, as you had said, for everyone. If somebody dares
00:40:01 to explode a nuclear weapon in high atmosphere or even space,
00:40:04 this would be more or less the end of the usability of that
00:40:07 global commons of orbit. Deploying a nuclear weapon in
00:40:10 space would also be counter to the United Nations Outer Space
00:40:12 Treaty of 1967. In addition, it would have catastrophic
00:40:18 effects on civilian use of space and our commercial use of
00:40:23 space. Mr. Secretary, why would someone put a satellite in
00:40:29 space that has nuclear capabilities to detonate a weapon in
00:40:33 space as opposed to just use a missile or an ICBM to detonate
00:40:37 a nuclear weapon in space?
00:40:38 [Mr. Cummings] Certainly a device like that could have a
00:40:45 much more extensive impact and cover more ground, for lack of
00:40:53 a better term, with one device than an anti-satellite weapon,
00:41:00 which is directed towards a specific target. This thing would
00:41:05 take away large swaths of capability. And as you pointed out,
00:41:10 not just our capability, but also allies and partners. And so
00:41:19 we don't really fully know or understand what the full effects
00:41:24 would be. It would depend upon the yield of the weapon, the
00:41:28 orbit that it was in, and all those things. But certainly it
00:41:32 would have--
00:41:33 [Mr. Lankford] Mr. Secretary, wouldn't one of the reasons why
00:41:34 you would put it in space as opposed to shoot an ICBM or
00:41:37 missile is because an ICBM or missile could be attributed as a
00:41:42 nuclear weapons attack on a country and would have a nuclear
00:41:46 weapons response?
00:41:47 [Mr. Cummings] That's right. If it was an attack on one of
00:41:54 our terrestrial capabilities, sure. But they also have the
00:41:59 opportunity or the ability to use a ground launch capability
00:42:03 to attack a satellite and take out some capability that's on
00:42:06 orbit.
00:42:07 [Mr. Lankford] Mr. Secretary, John Plum, the Assistant
00:42:11 Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, told reporters on
00:42:17 April 5th that Washington was in discussions with Russia
00:42:20 about the weapons plans and apparent confirmation that Moscow
00:42:23 is at least engaging on the topic. Is Russia developing an
00:42:28 anti-satellite weapon with nuclear capabilities?
00:42:29 [Mr. Plum] Certainly I would not want to get into a
00:42:35 discussion of intelligence information in an open hearing, but
00:42:42 certainly we can have that discussion.
00:42:43 [Mr. Lankford] So, Mr. Secretary, the reason why I ask you
00:42:46 the question and the reason why you're stumbling is because the
00:42:48 Biden administration refused to declassify this information. So
00:42:51 we're not able to have an open public discussion.
00:42:53 But one thing I'm concerned about is that, Mr. Secretary, in
00:42:56 your entire written testimony, you never mention anti-satellites
00:43:01 as a threat. You certainly don't even mention nuclear weapons
00:43:04 as a threat. But the administration is moving forward trying
00:43:07 to get the U.N. Security Council to take action.
00:43:09 I believe that this is the Cuban missile crisis in space,
00:43:13 and this administration is sleepwalking itself into an
00:43:16 international crisis. And I certainly want to encourage you
00:43:19 to encourage the administration to declassify this and take
00:43:22 every action necessary to avoid this space race that could, as
00:43:27 the--our ambassador to the United Nations says, be a nuclear
00:43:29 weapons space race.
00:43:30 [The Chairman] The gentleman's time has expired.
00:43:31 The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
00:43:34 Girmendy.
00:43:35 [Mr. Girmendy] Thank you.
00:43:38 My colleague from Connecticut talked about cutting a sub. We
00:43:42 make choices here, as you do at the Department of Defense also.
00:43:48 Mr. Secretary, on December 9, 2022, you gave a speech where
00:43:52 you said nuclear deterrence isn't just a numbers game, and that
00:43:58 thinking can spur an arms race. You stressed the importance of
00:44:03 working to reduce the global role of nuclear weapons, which we
00:44:07 just heard from our colleague, and I happen to agree.
00:44:12 For years I have questioned the viability and the premise of
00:44:16 the Sentinel program. In December, the Department of Defense
00:44:20 announced that the ever-escalating cost of the Sentinel
00:44:24 program, now estimated at at least $137 billion, had breached
00:44:32 the critical non-percursory limit, and that by law the program
00:44:39 must be terminated unless you, Mr. Secretary, certify that the
00:44:44 program is, one, essential to national security; two, that
00:44:49 there are no alternatives to the program; three, that the new
00:44:53 cost estimates are reasonable; and, four, that the program is a
00:44:58 higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced.
00:45:08 Am I correct in saying that you are aware of your task that
00:45:12 lies ahead?
00:45:13 [Mr. Liddy] I am, sir.
00:45:14 [Mr. Kucinich] I am pleased to hear that, because even without
00:45:19 the required analysis by law that the Sentinel program, far too
00:45:27 many Pentagon leaders have said, and I quote, "The Sentinel will
00:45:32 be funded. We will make the trades."
00:45:38 Mr. Secretary, can you assure us that you will require that a
00:45:43 truly fulsome and critical analysis of the Sentinel program
00:45:49 will be made, and that the alternatives, for example, a
00:45:53 submarine, will not be funded, so that the Sentinel program can
00:45:58 go ahead?
00:45:59 [Mr. Liddy] I can assure you that we will conduct a thorough
00:46:05 analysis in accordance with the Nunn-McCurdy Act
00:46:10 responsibilities and the responsibilities that you have outlined
00:46:14 as well.
00:46:15 [Mr. Kucinich] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I believe you have
00:46:19 until sometime in July to make that decision. And along the
00:46:23 course of early May or late May, you will, General Brown,
00:46:31 provide to the committees the analysis required by law; is that
00:46:36 correct?
00:46:37 [General Brown] We will. We will support the timeline to
00:46:42 enable the Secretary to make his determination.
00:46:45 [Mr. Kucinich] In your opening remarks, General Brown, you
00:46:48 said that, quote, "Our investment in nuclear capabilities
00:46:52 reflects a judicious balance between advancing cutting-edge
00:46:59 technologies and phasing out legacy capabilities." Fourth-grade
00:47:05 math would indicate that at $700 million a copy, $137 billion
00:47:13 can buy you somewhere more than 120 B-21 bombers, complete
00:47:18 with an ISRO, or perhaps seven Columbia-class submarines for
00:47:28 $137 billion.
00:47:34 Choices to be made here. Is an attack submarine important?
00:47:40 Is an additional 120 or so B-21 bombers, complete with an
00:47:47 LSRO, important, more important than a Sentinel? Can the
00:47:57 Minuteman III be life-extended? And, by the way, committee
00:48:00 members, why do we consistently write into the NDAA that there
00:48:05 must be 400 ICBMs? There has been no analysis to indicate
00:48:12 that.
00:48:13 And has the Joint Requirements Office Oversight Council
00:48:19 actually revisited the military requirements necessary for the
00:48:24 nuclear enterprise? Has that been done, General Brown?
00:48:28 That is part of their task, is to continue not just on the
00:48:31 nuclear portfolio, but across all of our portfolios for our
00:48:35 short war fighters.
00:48:36 I await that analysis. I yield back.
00:48:39 The Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
00:48:44 Lambert.
00:48:45 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Austin, your written
00:48:47 testimony says that the fiscal year '25 budget invests in air
00:48:51 and missile defense systems which will 'preserve our ability
00:48:55 to deploy combat-credible forces when needed.' However, the
00:49:00 missile defense agency's budget you delivered to Congress was
00:49:03 almost $1 billion below fiscal year '24 budget projections. It
00:49:09 canceled, cut, or delayed several munitions programs.
00:49:13 In fact, the day after I protested these cuts recently to
00:49:16 the director of the missile defense agency, Iran launched a
00:49:19 direct and massive attack on Israel that included over 100
00:49:23 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 150 attack drones.
00:49:27 Yet we have limited stocks and we have allies and friends who
00:49:30 are desperate for us to give them some of our limited stocks.
00:49:34 So why did the Department choose these drastic cuts to missile
00:49:38 defense at a time when we need it more than ever to protect our
00:49:41 homeland and our allies and partners?
00:49:43 Thank you, sir. As I stated earlier, because of the FRA, we
00:49:52 did have to make some choices, and they were always tough
00:49:55 choices. And we recognized that we needed to invest in current
00:50:03 readiness, and we put a $147 billion request on the table to
00:50:06 do that.
00:50:07 And going forward, we will invest in those things that we
00:50:12 weren't able to invest in in this budget if we get support for
00:50:16 an increased top line in the out years.
00:50:17 [Mr. Chaffetz] Okay. The chairman asked you both specifically
00:50:21 to give an example of something that has been deferred, and I
00:50:23 have got one here I would like to refer to. The budget you
00:50:27 submitted also delays the glide phase interceptor. This would
00:50:31 be a defense against hypersonic weapons until after 2035.
00:50:36 That is 11 years from now. And yet they have this capability
00:50:40 today, Russia and China both, especially China. So how is this
00:50:44 meeting the threat of hypersonics when we have this threat
00:50:48 staring at us today, to put it off until 2035?
00:50:52 [Mr. Davis] Again, for those capabilities, those investments
00:50:58 that wouldn't deliver capabilities until after 2030, for this
00:51:03 current budget, we decided to not invest in that, but invest in
00:51:08 that in later years.
00:51:09 [Mr. Chaffetz] Well, thank you for clarifying that, but I am
00:51:13 thinking we need to reexamine. Sure, there is a lot of
00:51:16 priorities here, but this is one we have got to reexamine.
00:51:21 Also, changing gears to nuclear deterrence, when the Biden
00:51:25 administration came into office, one of its first acts was to
00:51:28 offer an unconditional 5-year extension on the New START
00:51:32 treaty. I believe this was a short-sighted gift to Vladimir
00:51:36 Putin. According to the State Department, Russia is now in its
00:51:40 second consecutive year of violating the New START treaty.
00:51:44 And last year, the Strategic Posture Commission, a
00:51:47 bipartisan committee composed of great experts, published its
00:51:53 report that described the current nuclear modernization
00:51:55 program of record as being necessary but insufficient, given
00:52:00 China's breathtaking increase in nuclear capability.
00:52:05 Mr. Brown, I will ask you this one. So neither Russia or
00:52:09 China are appearing at all interested in coming to the
00:52:12 negotiating table, and yet we now have the growth of a third
00:52:17 nuclear superpower in this world. So a New START treaty is
00:52:25 probably going to expire in 3 years without being renewed by
00:52:29 the Russia and the U.S. What should we be doing to prepare for
00:52:33 that eventuality?
00:52:37 Thanks for the question. And what I would say is what we
00:52:40 need to do is not only thinking about the treaty, and I
00:52:43 realize that will be policymakers, but from my perspective
00:52:45 as a chairman, as a warfighter, is making sure we are getting
00:52:48 capability in our nuclear portfolio, but also our
00:52:52 conventional portfolio. I sat down with the Strategic Posture
00:52:55 Commission. We talked not only about our nuclear portfolio,
00:52:58 but also our conventional capabilities as well. And what's
00:53:01 really important to be able to do that is to have consistent
00:53:04 funding, consistent demand signal to provide that capability
00:53:10 as we work with our defense industrial base. And those are the
00:53:12 things we will need to do.
00:53:14 As the Secretary highlighted, right now we are focused on
00:53:16 readiness based on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. But as we
00:53:19 look to the out years, we do need to focus on not only
00:53:22 identifying the capability, but giving it consistent funding
00:53:26 and then being able to accelerate that capability into the
00:53:28 hands of our warfighters.
00:53:29 [Mr. Kucinich] Okay. Well, thank you both. We are addressing
00:53:32 some of the immediate needs right now, I believe, in a good
00:53:35 way. But we really need to look at these out years for what's
00:53:38 going to be coming down later.
00:53:41 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
00:53:42 [Chairman Towns] I thank the gentleman.
00:53:43 The chair and I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
00:53:45 Norcross.
00:53:46 [Mr. Norcross] Thank you, Chairman, and to the witnesses
00:53:49 for being here today and certainly for your service to our
00:53:51 Nation.
00:53:52 In your opening remarks and quite often prior to this, we
00:53:57 have talked about the American defense industrial base and
00:54:01 certainly coming out of the pandemic and since then with the
00:54:04 wars raging primarily in Ukraine, we have seen the imbalance
00:54:11 that we are having in the industrial base, that we have those
00:54:15 risks in the supply production and the delivery.
00:54:19 And certainly you have started and we must have a what I
00:54:22 would call more aggressive posture in order to build that up
00:54:28 because not only does it need to be resilient and reliable, it
00:54:31 also needs to be affordable. And certainly starting from behind
00:54:36 the finish line, building that up in a quick way is usually not
00:54:42 the most efficient.
00:54:43 So to date, and this would go to you, Secretary Austin, is
00:54:48 what has the Department done from where we started a few years
00:54:53 ago on this quick and immediate need to build up in particular
00:54:59 our munitions base? Could you elaborate on some of the steps
00:55:02 we have taken?
00:55:03 [Secretary Austin] In order to maintain our competitive
00:55:05 edge, we are going to have to continue to invest in munitions
00:55:13 and we are doing that. We have done that with your help. As
00:55:17 you know, for '24 we asked you for a number of multiyear
00:55:22 procurement authorities and you supported us with that request.
00:55:26 And over the last three years or so, we have invested north
00:55:31 of $75 billion in munitions, which and I might add in the
00:55:38 supplemental that you just approved for us, there are resources
00:55:44 in that supplemental that we apply to the industrial base and
00:55:49 help them expand to increase their capacity to meet the current
00:55:53 demand and the demand in the future. So I want to thank all
00:55:58 the members for that.
00:55:59 But we put a lot of work into working with industry leaders
00:56:04 to increase capacity, increase capability, and again, with
00:56:11 your help, that has been very effective.
00:56:13 Now, we also need to work with allies and partners to
00:56:16 increase international capacity as well. And my Undersecretary
00:56:22 for Acquisition and Sustainment is leading the charge to work
00:56:26 with other countries to promote them expanding their industrial
00:56:31 base as well.
00:56:33 Even after everything is all said and done, as you know,
00:56:36 we are going to have to make sure we are producing enough
00:56:39 capability to help allies and partners who have dug deep in
00:56:44 support of Ukraine and other things, help them replenish their
00:56:48 stocks after we have replenished our stocks as well.
00:56:50 [Mr. Sensenbrenner] Well, I certainly appreciate that. And
00:56:53 sending the right signals to industry so that they are prepared
00:56:57 is incredibly important.
00:56:59 And that leads me to the next question, the assessment
00:57:02 and how we are going to manage at some point, hopefully
00:57:07 sooner than later, that we are going to build not only our
00:57:11 stocks up to the tune of $50 billion under the aid package,
00:57:14 but to help our allies and partners. How are we going to send
00:57:18 the correct signals to industry that when we meet that, it is
00:57:22 just not going to drop off?
00:57:24 Mr. Courtney talked about the submarine base of years
00:57:27 ago and what happened to that when we abruptly stopped. How
00:57:30 are we going to manage our munitions base that we are building
00:57:33 up now, but when we backfill, how are we going to handle that?
00:57:37 [Mr. Davis] Well, it is certainly something that we are
00:57:42 focused on and we will continue to work with industry on.
00:57:47 There is certainly when the demand shrinks a bit, we have to
00:57:51 be cognizant of the fact that we have to have a capability to
00:57:55 rapidly expand if required.
00:57:58 Now, the way that we produce munitions, the way that we
00:58:02 design production lines, all of those things have to be taken
00:58:06 into account. Maybe there are things that we can compress so
00:58:09 that we can rapidly expand when called upon to do that. But
00:58:13 those are things that we are taking a hard look at. And
00:58:17 industry has been very supportive thus far, and I expect
00:58:22 that they will be supportive going forward. We have got to
00:58:24 send the right signal to them, to the point that you are
00:58:26 making.
00:58:27 [Mr. McHenry] Certainly. And we also have to look at the
00:58:31 reserve munitions that we have had in the past and say, is that
00:58:35 adequate given the way that Ukraine and other areas of the
00:58:40 world have really operated in the last 6 months to 2 years?
00:58:45 Certainly that is incredibly important. And I yield back.
00:58:48 [Mr. Gowdy] I thank the gentleman.
00:58:49 I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman.
00:58:51 [Mr. Whitman] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:58:53 I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
00:58:55 Thanks so much for your service to our Nation.
00:58:57 General Brown, I want to discuss the cost and exchange
00:58:59 ratios between our weapons and weapons of our adversaries.
00:59:03 You know, I have talked all the time about the way we win
00:59:06 this competition is we have to get more per hour dollar than
00:59:08 the Chinese get per their yuan or the Russians get per their
00:59:11 ruble. And unfortunately today that is not the case. I know
00:59:15 you have supported CCAs and that sort of accumulation of mass
00:59:21 where we can do quickly. I think that is absolutely where we
00:59:23 need to be.
00:59:25 I want to talk a little bit about the unit costs of where
00:59:28 we are today. The unit cost for an SM-6 missile is $4 million.
00:59:34 The unit cost for a Shaheed-136, the kamikaze-style drone
00:59:38 that is being used by Iran against Israel, being used by the
00:59:42 Russians against Ukraine, is $50,000 a copy. I am not a
00:59:48 mathematician, but this is not sustainable.
00:59:50 I want to show the other slide, too, where we talk about the
00:59:55 annual production for SM-6 missiles. The United States, we
00:59:58 build 125 SM-6 missiles a year. If you look at the production
01:00:03 of the Shaheed-136, 6,000 a year. I am not a mathematician,
01:00:09 but this math just doesn't add up. There is no way that we can
01:00:12 counter both in mass and in cost what we are seeing from our
01:00:16 adversaries. And this is in many other areas around the world
01:00:20 and we have seen this developing capability.
01:00:23 I want to make sure that we are doing more to do the right
01:00:27 thing to counter these threats. I want to know, why does the
01:00:31 Joint Staff, using the Joint Requirements Oversight Council,
01:00:35 continue to support exquisite requirements in the face of
01:00:40 these expendable platforms that our adversaries are using?
01:00:43 Listen, we are going to go Winchester really fast, not just
01:00:45 on ammunition, but also on money. Tell me, how are we getting
01:00:50 to a point of where we are able to counter these class 3 UAVs
01:00:55 with mass and affordability?
01:00:57 [Mr. Liddy] Well, I appreciate your question because I am in
01:01:00 the same spot you are. And that is why I often talk about we
01:01:04 have to have capability and capacity. It is one thing to have
01:01:07 high end capability but limited capacity or low end capability
01:01:10 with a lot of capacity. And we have got to be able to balance
01:01:12 across that.
01:01:13 And so the examples you used for the SM-6, particularly when
01:01:18 you look at the events that happened on the 13th of this
01:01:20 month, we used a combination of capabilities to include
01:01:24 air-to-air missiles, AIM-9Xs and AIM-120s. And so we have got
01:01:28 to have a range of capabilities in addition to non-kinetic
01:01:30 capability, directed energy. And so that is where my focus is
01:01:34 as the Chairman. And I am very much focused with the JROC to
01:01:39 change that perspective to ensure that we are not just focused
01:01:41 on this high end capability, but we focus on a range of
01:01:44 capabilities to ensure we have many opportunities and options
01:01:50 that are cost effective against the threat.
01:01:52 >> Very good. Thank you. Secretary Austin, President Biden
01:01:55 has said in the past that we will defend Taiwan if they are
01:01:59 attacked by China. In your estimation, do we have the
01:02:03 capability and capacity today to adequately equip our forces to
01:02:11 pursue this mission of defending Taiwan?
01:02:14 >> Our military is the most powerful military on the planet.
01:02:20 And not only do we have more capability than anyone else, in
01:02:27 terms of the ability to use what we have on hand and to
01:02:31 integrate fires and to maneuver responsibly and effectively, we
01:02:36 also work with allies and partners and increase their
01:02:38 capability as well. You have seen us do that pretty
01:02:41 effectively in the Indo-Pacific thus far, and we continue to
01:02:45 build upon that. AUKUS was mentioned earlier. This is an
01:02:52 incredible capability that is a game changer. And it will
01:02:57 certainly add to the overall deterrence in the theater. But
01:03:02 there are a number of examples like that throughout.
01:03:04 >> Let me drill down a little bit further. When we look at
01:03:08 what we're going to face in that theater, we're going to be
01:03:10 operating in a highly contested environment, which means we
01:03:13 have to be able to reach Chinese assets at long range in order
01:03:17 to degrade that environment to a contested environment where we
01:03:19 have a much, much better advantage. Tell me, where are we
01:03:22 with magazine depth and capability and capacity currently
01:03:26 with long-range precision strike weaponry in that theater?
01:03:30 >> Well, we -- again, I think when you look at our
01:03:37 capability, I think we're in a pretty good place. We never
01:03:39 have everything that we want, but certainly it's the mix of
01:03:44 capabilities that's important here. And that's our goal, to
01:03:48 make sure that we have the right mix of capabilities to ensure
01:03:51 that we can be effective.
01:03:52 >> The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair and I
01:03:54 recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna.
01:03:56 >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for your
01:03:59 service to our nation.
01:04:02 President Sisi of Egypt has said that an invasion of
01:04:05 Rafa would have catastrophic consequences both for the
01:04:09 humanitarian situation and for broader regional peace and
01:04:13 security. President Abbas has said, quote, it would be the
01:04:17 biggest catastrophe in the Palestinian people's history.
01:04:22 And yet this morning I read that Prime Minister Netanyahu is
01:04:26 saying with or without a hostage deal, he plans to go in to
01:04:32 Rafa. Mr. Secretary, we're the greatest nation in the world.
01:04:35 We're the most powerful nation in the world. This is not a
01:04:39 time for vague ambiguities. Will you please commit today and
01:04:44 send a clear message to Mr. Netanyahu that he should not go in
01:04:48 to Rafa?
01:04:49 >> What we have emphasized throughout is that we -- they
01:04:57 must do what's necessary to protect the civilians in the
01:05:02 battle space. A much better job of what we've seen thus far.
01:05:05 And as you know, they're north of a million civilians that
01:05:10 have moved into that space that if you're going to conduct
01:05:14 operations, then those civilians must be accounted for and
01:05:17 hopefully moved out of the area.
01:05:20 And certainly if they were going to conduct operations, we
01:05:24 want to see a different approach to those operations as well.
01:05:28 But thus far we've not seen the civilians moved out of the
01:05:32 battle space. And again, what they have said is that their
01:05:37 operations will be sequential, where they account for the
01:05:42 civilians and move the civilians out of harm's way before they
01:05:46 would --
01:05:47 >> Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary. Would you oppose it
01:05:49 if you don't see a plan? If tomorrow he goes in without a
01:05:52 plan, would you oppose that?
01:05:53 >> Of course I would.
01:05:55 >> And would there be consequences in that case if Netanyahu
01:05:58 goes in without a plan?
01:06:00 >> The consequences, of course, that would be determined by the
01:06:02 President.
01:06:03 >> Would it be on the table to stop offensive weapons if he did
01:06:06 that?
01:06:07 >> Again, that's determined by the President.
01:06:10 >> What would be your military advice if he did that?
01:06:13 >> I'll never share my military advice that I give to the
01:06:16 President with anyone.
01:06:18 >> Let me ask this, though. You would certainly oppose it
01:06:20 without a plan. In your years and I -- you know how much
01:06:22 respect I have for you and your service, do you really believe
01:06:26 that there is a conceivable plan of evacuation that would save
01:06:31 civilian lives and allow Netanyahu to go into Rafa? Could you
01:06:35 come up with such a plan?
01:06:36 >> I could. And -- but it takes time. And, of course, we see
01:06:45 some signs that they are moving towards that direction. But in
01:06:50 terms of all of the things that need to come -- that need to
01:06:54 take place before, you know, an attack happens, we've not seen a
01:07:01 number of things that we believe that will have to happen
01:07:03 before.
01:07:04 >> What are those things that you think need to happen in
01:07:07 terms of a plan that would give you confidence that civilian
01:07:10 lives would be protected?
01:07:11 >> And they have a plan. The question is, can you execute --
01:07:16 are you executing the plan? And how much time are you
01:07:19 allocating for that?
01:07:20 >> What are some main concerns you have of what you've --
01:07:22 either the lack of plan or lack of execution?
01:07:25 >> Lack of execution.
01:07:26 >> And what would be the specifics of what you would want to
01:07:31 see that they're not doing today?
01:07:32 >> Making provisions for the civilians, wherever you direct
01:07:37 them to. Do you have sustainment in that area? You know, do you
01:07:44 have the ability to move them from where they are now to
01:07:47 wherever you're going to direct them to? And then are you
01:07:51 willing to protect them as you do that?
01:07:54 So, you know, the housing, the medical care, all that stuff
01:08:01 that needs to be in place, you know, we've seen some signs
01:08:06 that some of that's coming together, but clearly not --
01:08:09 >> And where would they move these million people to? So
01:08:12 you're saying before they go into RAFA, they would need to
01:08:14 move all the million people out of RAFA who are civilians?
01:08:17 >> I doubt that they'll move all of them out, but certainly
01:08:21 the preponderance of the people, sure.
01:08:24 >> But what --
01:08:25 >> They can only go north.
01:08:26 >> And my time is almost expiring. We have 200, 300,000
01:08:31 left. Do you have a sense if they were to go in, how many
01:08:35 deaths, civilian deaths we're talking about? I mean, if they
01:08:39 were to go in?
01:08:40 >> Well, there have been far too many deaths, civilian deaths
01:08:43 already, and we certainly -- if they were to go in, we
01:08:47 certainly would want to see things done in a much different
01:08:50 way, and the number of civilian deaths would depend upon what
01:08:54 they're doing and how they're doing it. But, again, the two
01:08:59 things aren't --
01:09:00 >> Gentleman's time has expired. Chair, I now recognize the
01:09:02 gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
01:09:03 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to
01:09:06 submit for the record an article from Financial Times dated
01:09:09 April 28th, 2024 --
01:09:11 >> Without objection, so ordered.
01:09:13 >> -- entitled "Western Banks in Russia Paid 800 Million Euro
01:09:16 in Taxes to the Kremlin Last Year." Figures represent a
01:09:19 fourfold increase on prewar levels and come as profits jump at
01:09:24 European lenders still in the country. And, Mr. McCord, I know
01:09:28 you've gotten away without questions, but since your degree is
01:09:30 economics and with a master's in public policy, I'm going to
01:09:33 come to you with part of this.
01:09:37 In this article, one of the paragraphs reads, "Western
01:09:40 lenders have benefited from the imposition of sanctions on most
01:09:44 of the Russian financial sector, which has denied access to the
01:09:47 swift international interbank payment system. That made
01:09:50 international banks a financial lifeline between Moscow and the
01:09:55 West."
01:09:56 Secretary Austin, when you started, you said this is a choice
01:10:00 between democracy and autocracy. I agree with you 100 percent.
01:10:06 Russia has faced sanctions from the U.S. and our European
01:10:09 allies. Those sanctions have in many ways been ignored. India
01:10:13 has certainly bought oil from them, skirting sanctions. And we
01:10:16 talk about China. We expect that from China. I would have
01:10:20 hoped that India would have supported democracy a little better
01:10:25 than they have.
01:10:27 My question, Secretary McCord, is how do the Department of
01:10:35 Defense and U.S. interagency partners and the militaries of our
01:10:39 European allies coordinate to ensure the sanctions enforcement?
01:10:43 And how does Ukraine win if the sanctions are not enforced and
01:10:47 Russia's economy is allowed to continue to grow?
01:10:50 [Mr. McCord] Mr. Scott, I would say from the start, the
01:10:56 administration's approach on Ukraine has been emphasized
01:10:59 interagency. Treasury and State in particular have the lead on
01:11:03 some of the items you mentioned, export controls and sanctions.
01:11:06 But we have, between military assistance, security assistance,
01:11:10 economic assistance, humanitarian export controls and sanctions,
01:11:15 applied that whole-of-government approach.
01:11:18 You are citing, I think, some of the, if you will, human
01:11:21 nature problems that you have of incentives around the world to
01:11:25 try and evade these for individualized gain, perhaps. But I know
01:11:29 that Treasury in particular has worked hard to have an effective
01:11:35 regime on the front.
01:11:36 [Mr. Lankford] Let me have my time. Mr. McCord, I appreciate
01:11:38 your answer. I respectfully disagree with you. I think that the
01:11:42 Biden administration could have done more to enforce the
01:11:47 sanctions, and I think that our European partners could have
01:11:49 done more to enforce the sanctions. And I think that if Russia's
01:11:51 economy was not growing, then Russia would not have been able to
01:11:55 reconstitute its military and its military industrial base the
01:11:58 way they would have. And it would not be costing the Ukrainians
01:12:04 what it is in people, and it would not be costing the world what
01:12:09 it is in support financially and with weapons if the sanctions
01:12:14 had been enforced.
01:12:18 General Brown, what is the impact on the battle space when
01:12:21 sanctions are not enforced?
01:12:22 [General Brown] Well, not being an economist, but being a
01:12:27 war fighter, I think the key part I would highlight to you is
01:12:30 the access to capability on either side. And that can determine
01:12:37 the outcome of a military conflict.
01:12:39 [Mr. Lankford] The quantity and the quality of the weapons that
01:12:42 your opponent has because of the money they have. Is that a safe
01:12:46 answer?
01:12:47 [General Brown] That is a fair statement.
01:12:48 [Mr. Lankford] That is my concern with the sanctions not being
01:12:51 enforced, not just by the Biden administration, but by our
01:12:53 European partners as well. Do you have the necessary authorities
01:12:58 to take military action against the shadow fleet of vessels
01:13:03 that is illegally transporting Russian oil and funding Vladimir
01:13:07 Putin's war?
01:13:08 [General Brown] That is not something that we are, from an
01:13:13 authority standpoint, that we are as a military focused on right
01:13:18 now. I mean, we have been focused on supporting Ukraine, and we
01:13:21 work closely with the interagency on how we identify to address
01:13:25----
01:13:26 [Mr. Lankford] I have a tremendous amount of respect for you,
01:13:28 General Brown, and you too as well, Secretary Austin. But I will
01:13:32 tell you, supporting Ukraine means defeating Vladimir Putin in
01:13:36 Russia. And if we are going to defeat Vladimir Putin in Russia,
01:13:40 then we have to do two things. One is we have to enforce the
01:13:42 sanctions so that his economy will fail and he cannot continue
01:13:47 to reconstitute his military and build the weapons that he is
01:13:49 and supply the weapons that he is. And the other thing is we
01:13:53 have got to be willing to punch him back inside Russian
01:13:56 territory. And so when I see a Biden administration that won't
01:14:01 enforce the sanctions and our European allies not enforcing the
01:14:03 sanctions, and when Ukraine hits Russia in Russia, Biden is
01:14:06 saying, please don't do that anymore, that is a problem.
01:14:10 [Mr. Gowdy] Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from
01:14:12 Massachusetts, Mr. Keating.
01:14:13 [Mr. Keating] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
01:14:17 country's leaders in defense for their service. Eight days ago, I
01:14:22 was at the Polish-Ukraine border visiting with our 82nd Airborne,
01:14:27 who were doing a logistical job that no other country in the
01:14:31 world could do, and thanked them for their service. Seven days
01:14:35 ago, I spent nearly an hour in Kiev with President Zelensky.
01:14:40 During that time, we had a far-reaching conversation. But
01:14:44 time and time again, the most important thing he hammered in to
01:14:49 all of us--there was only four of us, bipartisan group--was the
01:14:53 need for air defense. You know, in Ukraine, they have an air
01:14:57 defense. In Kiev, their second-largest city, was getting
01:15:00 pummeled as we sat there, our Kiev, with major attacks. He
01:15:05 thanked us for the supplementary package. But can you tell us
01:15:10 what we are able to do to help Ukraine's air defense? They are
01:15:15 a resilient country. They are producing their own armaments in
01:15:18 the midst of a war. But what can we do to improve that air
01:15:23 defense?
01:15:24 [Mr. Davis] Well, certainly, thanks, sir. And, first of all,
01:15:27 thanks for visiting, and thanks for your support, along with all
01:15:32 your colleagues, to get the supplemental approved. That was a big
01:15:39 measure of assurance to our colleagues there in Ukraine and to
01:15:45 our allies in NATO.
01:15:49 So as you know, I convene some 50 countries every month to
01:15:55 talk about how we are going to continue to provide security
01:16:01 assistance to Ukraine at scale and speed.
01:16:06 Air defense has long been one of the things that we have
01:16:09 emphasized over and over again. When people were talking about
01:16:12 other capabilities, we continued to emphasize that this is what
01:16:15 Ukraine needs most. And that is playing itself out to be true,
01:16:18 because we watch Russia continue to launch missiles that have
01:16:23 been supplied by, you know, North Korea drones that have been
01:16:30 supplied by----
01:16:31 [Mr. Quigley] I am sorry to interrupt, Mr. Secretary. Do we
01:16:33 have the assets in place, you know, Patriot's missile systems in
01:16:37 particular, among that 56-member group, to do more in immediate
01:16:43 sense?
01:16:44 [Mr. Davis] There are countries that have Patriots. And so what
01:16:47 we are doing is continuing to engage those countries. I have
01:16:51 talked to the leaders of several countries, you know, myself
01:16:55 here in the last 2 weeks, encouraging them to give up more
01:17:00 capability or provide more capability. And so we are going to
01:17:04 stay with this.
01:17:05 And, you know, I talk to the Minister of Defense of Ukraine
01:17:09 every week. And so he is clearly aware of what we are doing,
01:17:14 engaging others, and looking around the world to try to get
01:17:16 additional capability.
01:17:17 [Mr. Quigley] Well, you have our commitment and my commitment,
01:17:19 as I talk to our allied leaders, which I do several of them
01:17:22 every week in my two capacities and committees. So I will
01:17:26 continue to emphasize to them the importance of doing that,
01:17:29 too.
01:17:30 One other quick question. Just to expand a little bit on what
01:17:34 Representative Khanna had just said, few people in the world, I
01:17:39 think, know as much as you do about the difficulties and
01:17:44 challenges of urban warfare. I believe you have, and I know the
01:17:48 President has, talked about lessons learned that we have
01:17:51 learned as a country ourselves. You talked about some of the
01:17:55 military logistical issues. Can you just briefly, in the short
01:17:59 time here, there are other issues, too, in lessons learned in
01:18:03 those types of warfare situations, and they affect the
01:18:07 civilian population, too. Can you just briefly tell us what
01:18:11 you have learned?
01:18:12 [Mr. Davis] Clearly, one of the lessons that we have learned
01:18:14 is that you have to make sure you are doing all you can to
01:18:20 protect civilians, because if you don't, then you will create a
01:18:26 longer-term problem for yourself as some of those civilians then
01:18:31 turn against you in the future. And so we have emphasized that a
01:18:36 number of times to our colleagues and continue to do so.
01:18:38 I talk to my counterpart in Israel on a weekly basis. We have
01:18:45 talked some 40 times, 40-plus times, since October 7th. And
01:18:50 these are things that we continue to hammer home. I think it is
01:18:54 an imperative.
01:18:55 [Mr. Blumenauer] I must say, your constant efforts all
01:19:00 through this, given the fact you overcame some of your own
01:19:04 health issues, is really extraordinary. And I want to thank you
01:19:07 for that. And I yield back.
01:19:08 [The Chairman] The chair and I recognize the gentleman from
01:19:10 Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.
01:19:11 [Mr. DesJarlais] Thank you, Chairman. I thank the witnesses
01:19:14 for their service in appearing here today.
01:19:17 General Brown, has the need for a land-based leg of the
01:19:21 nuclear triad decreased since the decision was made in 2014 to
01:19:26 recapitalize the ICBM fleet?
01:19:28 [General Brown] No, it has not.
01:19:30 [Mr. DesJarlais] Okay. Since that time, China has undertaken
01:19:35 what multiple STRATCOM commanders have described as a
01:19:38 breathtaking expansion of their nuclear arsenal, including a
01:19:41 massive investment in silo-based ICBMs. Do you think that that
01:19:46 strengthens the case for modernizing our ICBM fleet?
01:19:49 [General Brown] It does. And I would say just when you think
01:19:53 about our complete nuclear portfolio, not only our ICBMs, but
01:19:55 also with our maritime-based capabilities, but also our
01:19:59 bombers, all those play a role, particularly when you think
01:20:02 about the aspect of not only you have a PRC that is advancing,
01:20:06 but you also have Russia as a nuclear threat as well.
01:20:10 [Mr. DesJarlais] Okay. So to be clear, it is your best military
01:20:13 device that will need an ICBM capability for the foreseeable
01:20:17 future; is that correct?
01:20:18 [General Brown] It is, because it is all part of the triad,
01:20:22 and each part of the triad actually plays a key role to ensure
01:20:24 that we are able to not only our strategic deterrence, but the
01:20:28 extended deterrence it provides for our allies and partners as
01:20:30 well.
01:20:31 [Mr. DesJarlais] Thank you.
01:20:32 Secretary Austin, I agree with your sentiments that Ukraine is
01:20:35 morally right in its resistance against Vladimir Putin and the
01:20:38 Russian Army. However, I don't think that alone should guarantee
01:20:41 United States assistance to carry on this fight in perpetuity
01:20:44 without any clear, coherent plan or strategy. And these feelings
01:20:48 are shared by my constituents in Tennessee, and I think their
01:20:51 frustration is building as the question of what the endgame is
01:20:55 here continues to go unanswered.
01:20:57 Can you help us today describe how things are going to turn
01:21:01 out better in the upcoming 8 months? We are over 2 years into
01:21:04 this war. We have contributed a lot of money. We have just
01:21:08 approved another $61 billion. How do you see this playing out
01:21:12 over the next 6 or 8 months?
01:21:13 [Secretary Austin] Thank you, sir, and thanks for your support
01:21:19 with the supplemental.
01:21:20 We have been clear from the very beginning that what we want
01:21:25 to see is a democratic, independent and sovereign Ukraine that
01:21:29 has the means to defend itself and deter aggression going
01:21:34 forward. Now, there are some things in the immediate term that
01:21:39 I believe that Ukraine needs to be able to do. One is to
01:21:44 maintain access to the Black Sea, because as you have seen
01:21:50 here recently, they have managed to continue to export grain
01:21:55 using the Black Sea corridor. They also have to defend in the
01:22:03 north and east, where we see Russia mounting increased small
01:22:11 attacks and probably maybe are looking to mount a larger
01:22:14 attack in the north and east. That is their industrial base,
01:22:17 so they have to support that.
01:22:19 And then the third thing I think they need to do is to
01:22:24 place additional pressure on Crimea. As you know, Russia is
01:22:28 using Crimea as kind of a transit zone to push up supplies
01:22:35 and personnel in support of their efforts in southern Ukraine
01:22:39 and eastern Ukraine. So, again, our overall goal is to make
01:22:43 sure that Ukraine, at the end of the day, remains a
01:22:46 democratic, independent and sovereign State that can defend
01:22:49 itself.
01:22:50 [Mr. Davis] And that doesn't really answer your question as
01:22:54 far as the strategy, and maybe I didn't ask it directly
01:22:57 enough, but, I mean, as far as an endgame, do we see a peace
01:23:01 settlement? Do we see outright victory? How long will it be
01:23:04 before they come back to the well? We just did $61 billion.
01:23:07 You know, there has been a lot more prior to that.
01:23:12 What can we tell people? I mean, the President actually did
01:23:15 try to explain this a little bit last week in response to the
01:23:18 aid package. He was on TV or at least a visible press
01:23:21 conference where he tried to describe it. We have been
01:23:23 imploring the DOD and the administration to tell the American
01:23:26 people why this is so important, why this investment is there.
01:23:30 So what is, in your opinion, the endgame timeline? When will
01:23:33 it be needing more money? And, you know, what does victory
01:23:36 look like?
01:23:37 [Mr. Davis] As is the case with most conflicts of this
01:23:40 type, it ends with some sort of negotiation. And, again, if
01:23:48 that happens, when that happens, we want Ukraine to be in the
01:23:51 best possible position to be able to achieve its goals and
01:23:57 negotiate for the right things. It is up to Ukraine when that
01:24:02 happens and what they choose to agree to or not to. Our goal
01:24:08 is to make sure that they have the security assistance to be
01:24:11 able to continue their fight to protect their sovereign
01:24:14 territory.
01:24:15 [Mr. Gowdy] The gentleman's time has expired.
01:24:16 The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms.
01:24:18 Lutken.
01:24:19 [Ms. Lutken] Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Chairman, Mike.
01:24:21 Good to see you all.
01:24:24 I want to ask a question a little bit different than my
01:24:26 peers that comes from looking forward at threats. Mr.
01:24:32 Secretary, you know, your job as the Secretary is to deal with
01:24:36 everything that is going on in the world, and it is messy right
01:24:39 now, but also to look at future threats.
01:24:42 And I want to put on the table this idea that the United
01:24:46 States is poised to let in a huge flood of Chinese electric
01:24:51 vehicles into the United States. In the European Union, they
01:24:55 let in their first Chinese EV in 2021. They now have almost
01:24:59 25 percent market share.
01:25:02 So all the cameras, light detection, radar, data
01:25:08 collection, cameras, all the stuff that we have concerns
01:25:12 about even putting on our military vehicles, right, Chinese
01:25:15 origin equipment we would never put on our military vehicles,
01:25:19 are now poised to be flooded into the United States, driving
01:25:22 around everywhere, collecting data on our military bases, on
01:25:26 our key infrastructure. As someone who develops our war
01:25:30 plans on other states, you can imagine how interesting that
01:25:34 data might be to adversaries.
01:25:37 So I have a few questions I asked, similar ones to the
01:25:40 Secretary of the Army when she was here. They are not gotcha
01:25:43 questions. I'm a CIA officer who is trying to process that we
01:25:49 were concerned about data, who owns the data of a thing like
01:25:53 TikTok, and the idea of a fleet of vehicles coming into the
01:25:57 United States collecting all this data that's housed and
01:25:59 handled by the Chinese Communist Party really bothers me as a
01:26:04 national security issue. So just a series of questions. They're
01:26:06 not gotcha questions. They're just legitimately, would we want
01:26:11 a potential adversary to have high-fidelity 3D maps of every
01:26:15 military base and installation in the country?
01:26:17 >> We would definitely not want that.
01:26:20 >> Would we want a potential adversary to have high-fidelity
01:26:24 maps of infrastructure such as power plants, ports, highways,
01:26:27 and bridges?
01:26:28 >> Absolutely not.
01:26:29 >> Would we want any potential adversary to hack into ground
01:26:33 vehicles and pilot it remotely or disable a vehicle in the
01:26:37 United States?
01:26:38 >> No.
01:26:39 >> Would we want a potential adversary to be conducting
01:26:43 cyber espionage, collecting sensitive intelligence through
01:26:46 any phone or Bluetooth-enabled device on a ground vehicle?
01:26:50 >> No.
01:26:51 >> Okay. You get my point here. I think the thing that I'm
01:26:55 concerned about is that the United States, we're a free
01:27:00 market economy. We value that. We're good capitalists. But in
01:27:04 today's day and age, some of the most dangerous collection goes
01:27:08 on through commercial means. And obviously, I'm from Michigan.
01:27:12 You don't have to guess why I'm asking about this because we
01:27:16 are making the American vehicles where the data is housed here.
01:27:20 We asked for a report from the Department of Defense a year
01:27:22 ago about the national security implications of Chinese
01:27:27 connected vehicles. We have not gotten that report. I know
01:27:30 your congressional affairs people are behind you. I'd ask
01:27:34 that we actually see that report because this is about
01:27:36 preventing future threats, not just dealing with the admitted
01:27:40 mess that we have around the world. Changing gears, I just
01:27:48 have to ask, we had General Karela, the head of CENTCOM,
01:27:50 here in front of our committee a few weeks ago. And I asked him
01:27:54 as one of our most decorated officers who got shot three
01:27:57 times in Mosul, has served in Iraq, has served in tough
01:28:00 places, what is the military strategy for Rafa? Can you
01:28:04 articulate the Israeli military strategy for going into Rafa?
01:28:08 >> I'd have to let the Israelis articulate that strategy.
01:28:12 >> Have they provided it to you? >> We've gotten some concepts,
01:28:18 but in terms of detail plans. >> Okay. So no, we haven't
01:28:21 gotten the military plan. For the pier that's being set up, as
01:28:24 I understand it, as many as 1,000 U.S. uniformed officers
01:28:28 are going to be involved in setting up that pier. A smaller
01:28:31 number will be resident there. If we are shot at, if more
01:28:34 artillery is shot at us, who is responding and with what
01:28:40 operating procedures is that military responding?
01:28:42 >> Yeah. I've -- General Brown and I have spent quite a bit of
01:28:47 time with General Karela working through our force protection
01:28:51 plan, and I'm confident that he's put the right measures in
01:28:54 place. >> Will the Israelis be responding if the
01:28:56 United States is shot at? >> The Israelis will provide
01:29:00 additional security in the area. That's right.
01:29:03 >> I just think given the differences I think we have with
01:29:07 the Israelis on civilian casualties, we better get right
01:29:10 clear about what the response is going to be when we are shot at,
01:29:14 since I don't think many Americans feel that it reflects
01:29:16 the same values that we have here.
01:29:18 >> Ladies and gentlemen, I recognize the gentleman from
01:29:21 Florida, Mr. Gates. >> Let's stay on the same subject.
01:29:23 Ms. Larkin just said there will be about 1,000 U.S. service
01:29:26 members operating a pier system off of Gaza. How many of them
01:29:30 will have guns, Mr. Secretary? >> Typically all of the deployed
01:29:35 service members carry guns, and they have the ability to
01:29:38 protect themselves if challenged.
01:29:41 >> So if someone from land in Gaza shoots at our service
01:29:46 members who are on the $320 million pier that we're
01:29:49 building, you're telling me our service members can shoot back?
01:29:54 >> They have the right to return fire, to protect themselves.
01:29:57 >> So now I want to move to the likelihood that you think
01:30:02 someone from land in Gaza might shoot at our service members on
01:30:07 this pier. Do you think that's a likely scenario?
01:30:10 >> That's possible, yes. >> This is a very telling moment,
01:30:14 Mr. Secretary, because you've said something that's quite
01:30:16 possible that could happen, right? Shots from Gaza on our
01:30:20 service members, and then the response, our armed service
01:30:23 members shooting live fire into Gaza. That is a possible
01:30:27 outcome here so that we can become the port authority and
01:30:30 run this pier. Right? >> That's correct. I expect that we
01:30:36 will always have the ability to protect ourselves.
01:30:37 >> Don't you think that counts as boots on the ground? President
01:30:39 Biden told the country that we weren't going to have boots on
01:30:43 the ground in Gaza. >> And we won't.
01:30:45 >> Okay. But you guys parsed the distinction between -- like
01:30:49 when Americans think boots on the ground, they think Americans
01:30:52 in harm's way or engaged actively in a conflict. You guys
01:30:55 seem to be sort of saying that boots on a pier connected to the
01:31:02 ground, connected to service members shooting into Gaza
01:31:06 doesn't count as boots on the ground?
01:31:08 >> It does not. >> I think you're going to find the American
01:31:12 people have a different perspective on that. And if we're
01:31:14 going to have people shooting into Gaza, we probably should
01:31:16 have a vote on that pursuant to our war powers. But I want to
01:31:18 bring us now closer to home and the F-35 program. Is the
01:31:21 F-35 program a failure? >> No.
01:31:24 >> So let's go over -- how much does an F-35 cost?
01:31:27 >> Well, it depends on the variant.
01:31:30 >> A hundred million? Safe to say? A hundred million a copy?
01:31:35 Okay. So we just had the Air Force in here, and I said what
01:31:39 percentage of these F-35s are fully mission capable? And they
01:31:44 said 29%. Do you have any basis to disagree with that
01:31:48 assessment? >> I don't have any basis to disagree with
01:31:51 you, Mr. Secretary.
01:31:52 >> So at a hundred million a copy, 29% being fully mission
01:31:57 capable, does that seem low to you?
01:32:01 >> It's a complex airframe. And, again, there are a number of
01:32:07 reasons why a platform could be not operational at any one
01:32:11 given time.
01:32:12 >> Right. But I mean, how many --
01:32:13 >> Having said that, it is probably -- it is one of the best
01:32:16 aircraft in the inventory.
01:32:17 >> The best aircraft in the inventory. Well, Mr. Secretary,
01:32:21 there's a GAO report that takes a very different view. Mr.
01:32:24 Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to enter the GAO report
01:32:27 entitled "F-35 Sustainment Costs Will Continue to Rise While
01:32:30 Planned Use and Availability Have Decreased."
01:32:32 >> Without objection, so ordered.
01:32:34 >> It reads, "Costs to sustain the F-35 fleet keep increasing
01:32:38 from $1.1 trillion in 2018 to $1.58 trillion in 2023. Yet DOD
01:32:45 plans to fly the F-35 less than originally estimated, partly
01:32:49 because of reliability issues with the aircraft. The F-35's
01:32:52 ability to perform its mission has also trended downward over
01:32:56 the last five years." Is there any of that in the GAO report
01:32:59 that you disagree with?
01:33:00 >> I don't, no.
01:33:01 >> Okay. So how many $100 million paperweights do we own?
01:33:08 >> I would not categorize the F-35 as a paperweight.
01:33:13 >> Well, if it's not mission capable, do we just stare at it
01:33:18 and admire it?
01:33:19 >> We continue to work to make sure that we get our aircraft
01:33:25 operational and continue to--
01:33:26 >> I don't know. Don't you think at $100 million to clip, more
01:33:30 than 29 percent should be fully operational? And if the fact
01:33:33 that we can't get them operational--you know what Secretary
01:33:36 Kendall said when he was sitting in that chair? He said the core
01:33:38 root of the problem is that we had let Lockheed Martin build
01:33:42 this thing, and then we gave Lockheed Martin the full system
01:33:45 performance contract. And they keep bilking us, according to
01:33:49 the GAO, and we sit around staring at a $100 million airplane
01:33:54 that can't fully perform the mission, and you're sitting here
01:33:57 telling me it's not a failure.
01:33:59 Just own up to it, Mr. Secretary. Just say, "This airframe
01:34:02 has not delivered. It's too costly. It's not being utilized
01:34:06 as we should, and we should never again make the mistake of
01:34:10 doing a full system performance contract with the very person
01:34:13 who built the aircraft." Could we agree to that?
01:34:15 >> I agree. In the future, we should have a different
01:34:18 approach. I'm sure that Secretary Kendall also told you--
01:34:20 >> I think the committee is going to help you move to that
01:34:21 different approach quite quickly.
01:34:22 >> The things that he was doing to get the--yeah.
01:34:23 >> The gentleman's time has expired. Let me give people our
01:34:27 situational awareness. Votes have been called. There is a
01:34:31 series of nine votes, Sixth Amendment votes, or two minutes.
01:34:37 My plan is to continue for about another 15 minutes before we
01:34:43 recess and then come back at the conclusion of the votes. The
01:34:47 walk-off time will be 12.30.
01:34:49 With that, Chair, I recognize the gentleman from
01:34:51 Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton.
01:34:53 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:34:55 Mr. Secretary, you said your budget priorities are near-term
01:34:58 readiness, modernization, and support for troops and families.
01:35:02 Those absolutely seem like the right priorities for me.
01:35:05 And you've famously said, "Accelerate change or lose." And,
01:35:11 of course, you're talking about our pacing China--pacing
01:35:14 challenge China primarily. But, Mr. Secretary, you also
01:35:17 explained that your budget "dials back some modernization."
01:35:21 Now, how is that compatible with "accelerate change or lose"?
01:35:26 >> So those platforms that won't deliver capability before
01:35:29 2030 are the ones that we chose not to invest in in this budget.
01:35:35 Now, we recognize that we will invest in those programs in the
01:35:39 out years, and that will require an increase in the top line.
01:35:43 >> Mr. Chairman, most of this committee is in wholehearted
01:35:47 agreement that this budget is inadequate. But why would you
01:35:51 delay modernization rather than following the lead of the
01:35:54 Marine Corps and just cutting old systems, many of which are
01:35:57 big and expensive to maintain?
01:36:00 >> Well, that's part of the dialogue we have with our
01:36:05 Congress. And that's the challenge that I see in some cases
01:36:08 where, as we look at the capabilities that we have to have
01:36:10 today, at the same time, as we transform the force to the
01:36:14 future, and balancing between the two. And that's where the
01:36:18 focus has been across the force. This is an area that we've got
01:36:23 to continue to have dialogue of the things that we were willing
01:36:25 to let go of so we can actually invest in and modernize in the
01:36:28 future.
01:36:29 >> Well, I have no doubt that this is your philosophy. I
01:36:33 question whether it is really the focus across the force. I
01:36:37 mean, I think with the exception of the Marine Corps, and a bit
01:36:40 of credit is due to the Air Force as well here, there's been a
01:36:42 real reluctance to divest of old platforms. I mean, I asked this
01:36:47 question of Army leadership just last week. I said, give me an
01:36:49 example of one old platform that you're cutting to make room
01:36:55 for modernization. And the Secretary of the Army used a future
01:37:00 reconnaissance attack aircraft, a future capability. She's
01:37:04 talking about cutting a future capability. Can you give me, Mr.
01:37:10 Secretary, just a couple of examples of old weapon systems that
01:37:15 are big and expensive to maintain that the Army is cutting to
01:37:20 make room for modernization?
01:37:21 >> Well, certainly, I mean, if you had the Secretary of the
01:37:25 Army here to speak to that, I'm sure that what she told you is
01:37:29 accurate. So I don't want to challenge that. But there are
01:37:32 things like older artillery platforms like the M777 that we
01:37:38 provided to Ukraine that we no longer use in our inventory to
01:37:45 the extent that we were before, that we are, you know, that we
01:37:49 were moving out of the inventory. But some of these things that
01:37:53 are no longer useful for the Army are useful to us in the next
01:37:57 fight. And as far as the Army is concerned, we're able to
01:38:01 transition those items to partners and allies who need that kind
01:38:07 of capability.
01:38:08 >> Well, let's do that. I mean, let's sell them. Let's get some
01:38:09 money. Right? But we've got to make money in our budget for
01:38:13 modernization. Because if we don't accelerate change,
01:38:15 accelerate, not just change at the rate that we're changing
01:38:18 right now, but accelerate change, we are not going to be able
01:38:21 to keep up with China.
01:38:22 And, Mr. Secretary, I just want to be clear, you are
01:38:25 endorsing the Secretary of the Army's response to my question,
01:38:29 "Name an old system you're cutting," when she named a future
01:38:33 system that you've chosen not to invest in.
01:38:35 >> No, I -- the reason I said what I said was I really don't
01:38:39 know the full context of -- but to your point, that is a future
01:38:43 system and not a system that we would typically look to divest
01:38:47 of. The systems that we want to divest are the systems that are
01:38:50 too expensive to upgrade, to modernize, or no longer relevant
01:38:56 in a future fight.
01:38:57 >> I mean, we live in a world where $5,000 drones can destroy
01:39:00 $5 million tanks. Now, I'm not saying there's never going to be
01:39:03 a use for a tank again, but we're still building a lot of
01:39:06 tanks. Poland has just agreed to purchase a whole bunch of
01:39:09 tanks. I don't know what nation they plan to invade with these
01:39:13 largely offensive weapons. But that doesn't seem like a very
01:39:16 wise investment for us or our allies.
01:39:19 So I would just encourage you -- I know there are a lot of
01:39:21 tank supporters in Congress. There are a lot of F-35 supporters
01:39:24 in Congress. But you've got to come to us with tough cuts,
01:39:28 because coming here and just saying we can't modernize is not
01:39:31 acceptable.
01:39:33 Replicator is a good example of a revolutionary change. But
01:39:36 when they came before the committee, I asked them, you know,
01:39:38 Ukraine is innovating a lot on drones. Just tell me, when is
01:39:42 Replicator program, with our GDP, going to catch up with
01:39:45 Ukraine that has 0.7 percent of our GDP? And they said at the
01:39:49 present pace, we're not. We can't beat China at that rate.
01:39:54 >> The gentleman's time has expired. The chair and I
01:39:56 recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.
01:39:58 >> Thank you, Chairman Rogers, and thank you to all three of
01:40:01 you for being here today. I want to congratulate General Brown
01:40:03 on becoming chairman. We were colonels together, one stars and
01:40:06 base commanders in Europe. So congratulations.
01:40:09 My first question is to Secretary Austin concerning the
01:40:12 Ukrainian aid. Is it the administration's plan to send long
01:40:16 range ATACMs to Ukraine? I hope it's yes.
01:40:23 >> We have already done that, sir.
01:40:24 >> Already done it. But the intention is to keep sending
01:40:27 more.
01:40:28 >> Well, we will provide as much capability as we can.
01:40:33 >> I think we want to ensure that we're sending difference
01:40:35 makers. They're not feeding into the gridlock, from my
01:40:39 perspective. General Brown, I want to talk about nuclear
01:40:42 survivability. For 29 years, we flew the looking glass 24 hours
01:40:47 a day with a general on board that could take over our nuclear
01:40:49 forces of the White House, the Pentagon, or strike composite. In
01:40:53 1990, we stopped flying that mission and had it on ground
01:40:56 alert primarily. We think the threats are back to what they
01:41:00 used to be with the behavior of Russia and the behavior of
01:41:04 China. And now we have weapons that can strike us in 15
01:41:08 minutes. So we think it's even more imperative to have this
01:41:10 capability. What are the plans to bolster our nuclear command
01:41:16 and control survivability?
01:41:19 >> This is a, Representative Fitz, an ongoing conversation
01:41:23 about how we advance our nuclear command and control and
01:41:27 maintain that nuclear command and control in the environment
01:41:30 we're operating in today, particularly against a threat.
01:41:33 I'd also say as we advance the technology, there's also
01:41:36 opportunities to change that approach as well. So that's
01:41:39 where our focus areas are as we look at combined joint
01:41:44 command and control, how that also feeds into our new
01:41:48 command and control as well.
01:41:49 >> I know there's alternative ways to provide that same
01:41:54 capability, but my impression has been, this has been under
01:41:58 discussion for years now, I think at some point we need to
01:42:01 resolve it and have a plan so that we can -- and it's not
01:42:04 really for us, it's for Russia and China to know that no
01:42:07 matter what they do, they can't catch us asleep and can't
01:42:10 decapitate us. And so it seems to me that we should have a
01:42:13 plan soon. Because I just feel like this has been an ongoing
01:42:18 discussion of what we should be doing. So I just want to
01:42:21 submit that to you.
01:42:23 Back to you, Secretary Austin, on Taiwan. Deterrence starts
01:42:27 today, and I'm under the impression we're being told that
01:42:30 there's a huge backlog of weapons that we owe Taiwan. One
01:42:35 report was 20 billion. What are we doing to expedite getting
01:42:39 these weapons to Taiwan?
01:42:40 >> Well, I stood up a Tiger team to address this issue as
01:42:45 soon as we came on board, figure out what the nature of the
01:42:49 backlogs were -- was, and then what are the things that we can
01:42:53 do to work through those backlogs and get this capability
01:42:59 to Taiwan and others, quite frankly, as quickly as
01:43:02 possible.
01:43:03 They came up with a number of insights. That task force
01:43:06 still exists, by the way. And my challenge to them is to
01:43:10 continue to work through challenges and obstacles to make
01:43:16 sure that we're moving as rapidly as possible.
01:43:19 As you know, sir, there are a number of things that go
01:43:21 into this equation. You know, industry -- industrial issues
01:43:26 and challenges, you know, you name it. But, again, I think we
01:43:32 have been able to move some things forward a bit faster, but
01:43:36 this work needs to continue on. We're going to reduce the
01:43:39 backlog. I can't predict to you what exactly when that's going
01:43:43 to be, but I think, you know, it's a thing that we'll stay
01:43:47 focused on.
01:43:48 >> Day one of the war is too late, and we just know the best
01:43:51 way to stop it is sea mines, harpoon missiles, long-range
01:43:55 terrafence. And so I think, you know, obviously it's imperative
01:43:59 that we expedite those deliveries.
01:44:01 My last thing I would like to point out to Secretary Austin
01:44:05 or at least discuss, we put 31 recommendations together to
01:44:09 improve quality of life in the military. One of them was a
01:44:11 targeted pay raise for E1 through E4. You know, some of the
01:44:15 leaders in OSD -- I'm not saying yourself -- pushed back on
01:44:18 that, saying the pay is adequate. But, yet, we have good
01:44:20 evidence that many of our junior enlists are on food stamps,
01:44:24 relying on food banks. And we just think we've got to do
01:44:26 better.
01:44:27 And there was an article that came out today or yesterday
01:44:30 that fast food restaurants are paying more than our E4s are
01:44:35 getting who are not married. So we hope that we'll have your
01:44:39 support for a targeted pay raise for E1 through E4. And with,
01:44:42 like, 15 seconds left, would you care to comment?
01:44:44 >> Well, I want to thank you for the support that you've given
01:44:47 us to date. You know, I asked you for a 4.6 percent pay raise
01:44:53 for the 4s in '23. You supported us in '24, the budget that was
01:44:59 just appropriated. We asked you for a 5.2 percent pay raise. You
01:45:03 supported us for that.
01:45:04 That's a long --
01:45:05 >> General, your time has expired.
01:45:06 >> Thank you.
01:45:07 >> The chair and I recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey.
01:45:08 My intent is to recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey and
01:45:12 the gentleman from Indiana. And then we will recess until about
01:45:15 1235.
01:45:16 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
01:45:18 And, Mr. Secretary, General Brown, thank you for coming
01:45:22 today. I'd like to start off because in February I went with a
01:45:28 Hasko del to Rafa in part to see what was going on because of the
01:45:33 concerns over the building humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We then
01:45:38 went to see Netanyahu, and I said to him at that time that there
01:45:43 was a growing humanitarian crisis which he needed to address
01:45:46 urgently.
01:45:49 I encouraged him to open up the Arres Crossing to get more
01:45:53 humanitarian aid into Gaza. He did not address this in any marked
01:45:59 way until the World Central Kitchen bombing in April. At that
01:46:04 time he did begin to address it, but still not nearly enough to
01:46:10 stop the ongoing crisis moving into famine in certain parts of
01:46:15 Israel.
01:46:16 So part of National Security Memorandum 20's requirement is
01:46:21 that the DoD weigh in on Israel's certification that they are
01:46:26 addressing this humanitarian crisis. And that's coming up in a
01:46:29 little bit over a week as I understand it.
01:46:33 Mr. Secretary, can you tell me about your conversations with the
01:46:38 Israelis, your discussions about our values and why this is
01:46:42 critical and what the response has been?
01:46:44 Well, this is a point I make frequently with my counterpart and
01:46:52 encourage them to do everything that they possibly can to
01:46:55 protect the civilians in the battle space and use the weapons
01:46:58 appropriately. This is a professional military, and my expectation
01:47:02 and the expectation of our government is that they do, in fact,
01:47:07 do that.
01:47:08 So this is, again, to answer your question, a conversation that
01:47:12 we frequently have. And, again, we'll continue to have those
01:47:17 conversations because it's really important.
01:47:20 In terms of, you know, our assessment, the assessment that's
01:47:27 upcoming, as you know, the State is working on that assessment,
01:47:30 and I'll confer with Secretary Blinken at some point, but we've
01:47:35 not had that conversation yet.
01:47:37 And along the same topic, we continue to hear Netanyahu say
01:47:43 he's invading Rafa. The President continues to push back against
01:47:47 that. There still seems to me to be no viable option for a
01:47:51 humanitarian corridor, even a place to receive the 1.4 million
01:47:56 people in Rafa right now with tents or humanitarian aid.
01:48:00 Certainly the vetting process alone, while Netanyahu suggested
01:48:04 it would take him two weeks to do, I don't think any of our
01:48:06 military would suggest that that is enough time.
01:48:09 Can you talk about any discussions you've had with the
01:48:12 Israelis regarding Rafa and what you believe their war plan there
01:48:15 is right now?
01:48:16 Again, I, you know, emphasized a number of times that they must
01:48:21 do what's necessary to take care of these civilians that are not
01:48:26 combatants and move them out of the battle space and take care
01:48:30 of them wherever you move them to. And you have to allow
01:48:34 sufficient time to do that appropriately. And we've had that
01:48:38 conversation a number of times. I have seen them put some things
01:48:43 in place, but you and I know that there's a lot more that needs
01:48:46 to be done before, you know, we can say that they've accounted
01:48:52 for these civilians and taken care of them.
01:48:56 I've also asked them to do things sequentially. So that must be
01:49:01 the first thing that must be done before they consider any other
01:49:04 military operations.
01:49:05 Thank you. And then changing topic, you know, I've grown
01:49:12 increasingly concerned because we've seen some of the Supreme
01:49:15 Court cases on abortion. And recently one of those has been
01:49:18 EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. And
01:49:23 Title X does not cover that. Title X does not cover what EMTALA
01:49:27 calls stabilizing care for our civilian facilities, meaning it's
01:49:31 not just the health, it's not just the life of the mother, it's
01:49:34 the health of the mother.
01:49:36 I remain concerned that our service women are not being given
01:49:40 the opportunity or the protections of their health. And that
01:49:44 means that in these hospitals, their reproductive organs are not
01:49:49 protected. So in other words, the doctors are not required to
01:49:52 give them treatment simply to preserve their ability to have
01:49:57 children in the future.
01:49:58 Have you looked into this? And are we taking any further steps
01:50:03 to protect our service women and give them better reproductive
01:50:07 health care?
01:50:08 No, we've not. The reproductive health care policy that we have
01:50:14 in place does not specifically address the issue that you
01:50:17 raised, but it's a valid issue for sure.
01:50:19 I would recommend you give her an answer for the record, because
01:50:21 we've got to go to Mr. Banks. General, his time has expired.
01:50:23 The gentleman from Indiana is recognized.
01:50:25 General Brown, according to the Blue Star Families 2023 annual
01:50:29 survey of military families, trust in the military is down to
01:50:35 the lowest that it's been in 20 years, down sharply nearly 20
01:50:40 percent since President Biden took office.
01:50:42 The poll also says that only 32 percent of military families
01:50:46 would recommend service to a relative.
01:50:49 That's down 55 percent since 2016.
01:50:52 The National Independent Panel on Military Service and
01:50:56 Readiness poll says that 68 percent of active military
01:51:01 members have witnessed the politicization of the military.
01:51:05 And the Reagan Institute poll in November of 2022 says that only
01:51:08 48 percent of Americans had a, quote, "a great deal of trust in
01:51:14 the military," down from 70 percent in 2018.
01:51:17 What do you attribute that to?
01:51:20 Well, I appreciate the question.
01:51:21 And, you know, I'm not sure what I attribute it to.
01:51:25 But one of the things I'm focused on, and I highlighted in my
01:51:28 message to the Joint Force, is trust is the foundation of our
01:51:30 profession.
01:51:31 And what I'm focused on is, as the chairman, is that our trust
01:51:38 goes to our members, to their families, our leadership, and to
01:51:42 the nation.
01:51:43 You would agree those are disappointing numbers,
01:51:46 startling, if they are true, really fact?
01:51:49 I will tell you that, you know, as a senior military officer, I
01:51:55 want the nation to trust us.
01:51:56 And when I see numbers like that, it is disappointing.
01:51:59 And my goal is to lead by example.
01:52:02 The general testified in this room, the quote, "I want to
01:52:04 understand white rage.
01:52:06 What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this
01:52:09 building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United
01:52:13 States?"
01:52:14 What do you think he meant by that?
01:52:15 And was it appropriate?
01:52:16 I don't know what he meant by it.
01:52:18 Was it appropriate?
01:52:19 You know, I'm not going to comment on it.
01:52:21 General Milley confirmed that he secretly called Speaker Pelosi
01:52:24 about President Trump's mental fitness and nuclear command
01:52:29 authority.
01:52:30 Do you think that's acceptable conduct of someone in your
01:52:32 position?
01:52:33 Well, I'll tell you, in my position, what I will continue
01:52:36 to do is provide professional military advice.
01:52:38 Would you ever be open to a call with Speaker Johnson about
01:52:40 President Biden's mental fitness?
01:52:44 When I talk to Speaker Johnson, I'll talk to him about the
01:52:46 things that are tied to my military advice.
01:52:48 It wouldn't be appropriate, though, would it, someone in
01:52:51 your position?
01:52:52 I'd focus on providing military advice.
01:52:55 General Milley told his aides that President Trump was
01:52:57 preaching, quote, "the gospel of the Führer."
01:53:00 Do you think it's okay for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to
01:53:03 compare the commander-in-chief to Hitler?
01:53:06 In my position, I would -- Yes or no, General?
01:53:10 No.
01:53:11 Is that appropriate?
01:53:12 It's not appropriate.
01:53:13 General Milley testified in a question to me that he, quote,
01:53:16 does interviews regularly with print media, books,
01:53:20 documentaries, videos on TV because, quote, it is a part of
01:53:24 a senior official's job.
01:53:26 Do you agree that talking that frequently to the media is part
01:53:29 of your job?
01:53:30 Do you talk regularly off the record to book authors?
01:53:35 Since I've been in this position, I haven't talked to a
01:53:36 book author, but I do talk to the media off the record.
01:53:38 Okay.
01:53:39 General Milley testified to the Senate that he talks to the
01:53:41 media, quote, two, three, four times a week and that it is,
01:53:45 quote, very important to make sure that senior officials talk
01:53:48 to the media.
01:53:49 Do you talk to the media four times a week?
01:53:52 Not quite that frequently, no.
01:53:54 During his farewell address in reference to President Trump,
01:53:57 General Milley said, quote, "We don't take an oath to a wannabe
01:54:00 dictator."
01:54:03 Do you think it's acceptable to cause the current commander-in-
01:54:06 chief a wannabe dictator?
01:54:09 I choose my words wisely.
01:54:11 It's not appropriate, is it, to call the commander-in-chief a
01:54:14 wannabe dictator?
01:54:16 Your term ends in October of 2027.
01:54:19 There's a presidential election coming up.
01:54:21 The current president might win.
01:54:22 The former president might win.
01:54:27 That's why this matters.
01:54:29 And the politicization of the military is something that I
01:54:32 think all Americans care deeply about because it contributes to
01:54:36 that decline in the public trust.
01:54:39 It contributes to that historic recruitment crisis that we find
01:54:42 ourselves in today.
01:54:44 And I'm just curious, General, I've always wanted to ask you,
01:54:47 how can we repair the damage done by your predecessor who
01:54:50 has a -- who will always have a reputation as perhaps the most
01:54:54 political general that's ever sat in the position that you sit
01:54:56 in today?
01:54:57 What I'll focus on is, you know, leading by example,
01:55:01 knowing and following what's expected of us as military
01:55:05 members, and staying true to my oath.
01:55:07 I think it's really important.
01:55:08 Thank you.
01:55:09 I yield back.
01:55:11 I think the gentlemen, as I said earlier,
01:55:13 we will now recess for votes.
01:55:16 My plan is, as we walk off the floor at 1230,
01:55:19 we'll reconvene approximately 1240.

Recommended

1:28
I
Up next
Sadiq Khan is ‘tackling’ homelessness with charity football game
The Independent
1:08
Mishal Husain’s final message to BBC Radio 4 listeners after 11 years on air
The Independent
0:50
Car removed from swimming pool after driver crashes through fitness center’s wall
The Independent
3:44:29
House Rules Committee Debates Anti-ICC Bill After Arrest Warrants Issued Of Israel's Netanyahu
Forbes Breaking News
43:38
BREAKING NEWS: GOP Senators Tear Into Biden Over New Executive Order On Border Security And Asylum
Forbes Breaking News
3:53
Raul Ruiz Asked Point Blank: 'What's Your Position On Gain Of Function Research?'
Forbes Breaking News
3:56
Top Dem Defends 6-Foot Social Distancing After Bombshell Fauci Admission It 'Wasn't Based On Data'
Forbes Breaking News
0:33
AOC: 'Patently Unproductive' To Have Israel's Netanyahu Address Congress
Forbes Breaking News
14:50
Chuck Grassley Calls Out Hillary Clinton & Crossfire Hurricane In Response To Trump Guilty Verdict
Forbes Breaking News
14:38
'We Should've Been Honest': Brad Wenstrup Confronts Fauci Over His Handling Of COVID-19 Pandemic
Forbes Breaking News
2:26
JUST IN: Hunter Biden Arrives At Wilmington, Delaware, Federal Court For Hearing In His Gun Trial
Forbes Breaking News
31:46
BREAKING NEWS: Speaker Johnson, House GOP Leaders Rip 'Sham Trial' That Led To Trump Guilty Verdict
Forbes Breaking News
13:33
Bernie Sanders Slams 'Netanyahu And His Extremist Government' After Biden Announces Ceasefire Deal
Forbes Breaking News
7:08
BREAKING NEWS: Matt Gaetz Directly Confronts Merrick Garland About 'Lawfare Against Trump'
Forbes Breaking News
1:19
BREAKING NEWS: First Lady Dr. Jill Biden Arrives At Federal Court For Hunter Biden’s Gun Trial
Forbes Breaking News
4:01
'I Know Where You're Going': Fauci Grilled By GOP's Lawyer About Gain-Of-Function Research
Forbes Breaking News
31:31
WATCH: GOP Lawyer Spends Half An Hour Questioning Dr. Fauci About Vaccine Mandates, 6-Foot Rule
Forbes Breaking News
2:22
Dr. Fauci Asked Point Blank About How 6-Foot Social Distancing Rule Came About
Forbes Breaking News
1:10
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Funding Government 'Does Not Matter' After Trump Guilty Verdict
Forbes Breaking News
1:07
VIRAL MOMENT: John Rose’s Son Steals The Show Making Funny Faces Behind Dad’s House Floor Speech
Forbes Breaking News
7:42
JUST IN: Senate Democrats Warn Of Threats To Reproductive Rights After Dobbs Decision
Forbes Breaking News
11:28
'Enormously Disappointed': Chrissy Houlahan Fires Back At Beth Van Duyne Over Abortion Amendment
Forbes Breaking News
1:19
JUST IN: Famed Sex Therapist, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, Dies At 96
Forbes Breaking News
4:05
Political Scientist Reveals Issues In Minnesota Under Gov. Tim Walz
Forbes Breaking News
7:25
‘SBA Has Failed To Substantially Produce Documents’: Beth Van Duyne Presses Offical On Delay
Forbes Breaking News