[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas, BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota,
Vice Chair Ranking Member
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama PETE AGUILAR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ED CASE, Hawaii
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SUSIE LEE, Nevada
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Adam Sullivan, Ariana Sarar, Jacquelynn Ripke, Adam Harris,
William Adkins, Kiyalan Batmanglidj, Taylor Schwenke,
John Forbes, Gina Pizziconi Cupples, Kyle Mcfarland,
and Maxwell Morgan
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 2
Page
Oversight of the United States Navy and Marine Corps........... 1
National Guard and Reserves Forces............................. 161
Oversight of the Department of Defense......................... 287
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas, BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota,
Vice Chair Ranking Member
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama PETE AGUILAR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ED CASE, Hawaii
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SUSIE LEE, Nevada
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Adam Sullivan, Ariana Sarar, Jacquelynn Ripke, Adam Harris,
William Adkins, Kiyalan Batmanglidj, Taylor Schwenke,
John Forbes, Gina Pizziconi Cupples, Kyle Mcfarland,
and Maxwell Morgan
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 2
Page
Oversight of the United States Navy and Marine Corps........... 1
National Guard and Reserves Forces............................. 161
Oversight of the Department of Defense......................... 287
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-960 WASHINGTON : 2026
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
Tennessee CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland GRACE MENG, New York
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DAVID G. VALADAO, California PETE AGUILAR, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida NORMA J. TORRES, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia ED CASE, Hawaii
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa JOSH HARDER, California
TONY GONZALES, Texas LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana SUSIE LEE, Nevada
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi MIKE LEVIN, California
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas Washington
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona GLENN IVEY, Maryland
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NICK LaLOTA, New York
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia
Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
(II)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Wednesday, May 14, 2025.
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
WITNESSES
ADMIRAL JAMES W. KILBY, ACTING CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES
NAVY
THE HONORABLE JOHN PHELAN, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES NAVY
GENERAL ERIC M. SMITH, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony from the
Honorable John Phelan, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral James
Kilby, Acting Chief of Naval Operations; and General Eric
Smith, the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps.
Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your appointment. We have
already had several productive engagements, and I look forward
to continuing to work with you.
Admiral Kilby, General Smith, thank you for joining us
today. We greatly appreciate your service.
Today, we meet at a time of increasing global instability.
The Navy and Marine Corps are under extraordinary operational
demand, responding to threats across every domain.
For the past 19 months, Naval forces have engaged in daily
combat operations in the Red Sea to protect international
shipping from Iranian-backed Houthi attacks. These actions
underscore the critical role our fleet plays in maintaining
freedom of navigation and the security of global commerce.
At the same time, we face a rising near-peer challenge in
the Indo-Pacific. China continues to build the world's largest
Navy, surpassing the U.S. Navy in both ship count and
shipbuilding capability. China is on pace to surpass the United
States Navy in firepower in the coming years. Already today,
the Chinese far outnumber us in hypersonic weapons.
In any potential conflict with China, the Navy will be the
linchpin of our ability to project power across the vast Indo-
Pacific region. The sheer scale of that theater demands a
capable and ready fleet, and I remain deeply concerned that we
are not building or sustaining our Naval forces at the pace
required to meet that challenge.
Years of delay, cost overruns, and workforce challenges
have slowed production across critical shipbuilding programs,
including the Virginia- and Columbia-class submarines, Ford-
class aircraft carriers, and the Constellation-class frigates.
At the same time, the demand for capable, survivable platforms
is only increasing.
Delays in construction of the lead Columbia-class submarine
presents a significant risk to strategic deterrence. I
understand that the delivery schedule has continued to slip
since the 45-day shipbuilding review that was completed last
spring, and the Columbia program is now looking at an 18- to
24-month delay in delivering the lead ship. How has this
happened to the Navy's priority program?
Further, I fear the delays in the Virginia-class program
will only be compounded by delays in Columbia-class submarine
construction. The Virginia-class program continues to hover at
the construction cadence of 1.2 submarines a year versus the
necessary cadence of two per year.
Congress has invested significantly in the submarine
industrial base. I want to know when these investments will
prove out. While my optimism is waning, I am hopeful that the
recent award of funding for wage and productivity enhancements
at the prime shipyards will help turn the tide.
Ship maintenance and repair is another significant problem.
Too many ships are stuck in yards too long, impacting readiness
and deployment schedules.
The Navy continues to face serious challenges in sustaining
fleet readiness due to persistent maintenance delays across
both public and private shipyards. A shortage of skilled labor,
aging infrastructure, and inconsistent planning are undermining
our ability to execute timely maintenance availabilities.
The problem carries operational consequences that are
immediate and strategic. Delays ripple through deployment
schedules, degrade crew morale, strain already-overtasked
platforms. These readiness shortfalls directly impact the Navy
and the Marine Corps's ability to respond to global crises and
surge forces where needed. Without decisive improvements in
maintenance execution, we risk building a fleet on paper that
cannot meet operational demands in practice.
This brings me to the Navy's requirement around amphibious
warfare ships. While the Navy is required to maintain a fleet
of at least 31 amphibs, the current state of the fleet raises
serious doubts about whether that requirement is being met in
an operationally credible way. Aging hulls, maintenance delays,
and lack of sustained investment have eroded the operational
availability of our amphibious fleet, putting real pressure on
the Marine Corps's ability to train, deploy, and respond
globally.
Amphibious ships are not operational assets; they are
central to our ability to project power, reassure our allies,
and deter adversaries. The committee expects a plan not just to
meet the letter of the law but to ensure that the amphibious
fleet is truly capable and ready.
We must get shipbuilding back on track and strengthen the
industrial base that supports it. That includes looking to
expand international cooperation, particularly with close
partners like Japan and South Korea, who are developing
advanced naval technologies and regional shipbuilding expertise
that may present a collaborative opportunity. We to need to
create solutions to increase throughput, expand capacity, and
leverage private-sector partnerships where possible.
Now, I have questioned the Navy's future investment in
aircraft carriers, and I think we have seen a valuable
discussion as a result. We shouldn't be afraid to have these
debates. But I want to be clear today that aircraft carriers
serve a critical role in power projection and will most
certainly continue to provide the joint force with
extraordinary strike warfare and unrivaled air superiority as
we enter the Davidson window and beyond.
That said, we cannot effectively operate carriers without
aircraft. I am alarmed by the downward trend in Navy's
procurement in strike fighter aircraft over the last several
years. Today, the Navy faces a growing shortfall in strike
fighter aircraft as our carriers sustain a grueling and intense
operating tempo in the Red Sea and around the globe.
Admiral Paparo, the Indo-Pacific Commander, recently
testified that China is outproducing the U.S. in advanced
fighters and is now positioned for the first time to surpass
the United States in air superiority in the Pacific.
I will not parse my words here: We need sixth-generation
fighters. The U.S. Navy needs sixth-generation fighters. I am
concerned that any hesitancy on our part to proceed with the
planned procurement of the sixth-gen fighters for the Navy will
leave us dangerously outmatched in a China fight. We cannot
wait.
Further, we cannot expect to grow the defense industrial
base by undermining it. Aviation programs that rely on highly
specialized supply chains and skilled labor cannot be turned on
and off like a switch. If we continue sending mixed signals
through delayed buys, program instability, or shifting
requirements, we risk hollowing out the very industrial base we
need for future readiness. We must treat this sector as a
strategic asset, not as an afterthought.
Over the past year, the Navy has operated under intense and
sustained combat conditions in the Red Sea, the most active
maritime conflict zone in a generation. Daily missile and drone
engagements against Iranian-backed Houthi forces have turned
theoretical warfighting concepts into real-life execution under
fire. These operations are yielding invaluable insights into
missile defense, unmanned system integration, and command and
control in a high-threat environment.
But this persistent operational tempo comes at a cost.
Ships and crews are being pushed hard, deployments are being
extended, and readiness for other global contingencies is being
strained. The Navy must balance the urgency of today's fight
with the imperative to reset, repair, and prepare for
tomorrow's challenges. We look forward to hearing how this
experience is informing tactical development, force posture,
and long-term fleet health.
The conflict in Ukraine continues to demonstrate how low-
cost, autonomous systems, especially drones, can deliver
outsized battlefield effect against far more expensive
platforms. These conflicts are reshaping our understanding of
warfare, where speed, scale, and adaptability often outweigh
traditional measures of strength.
Our ability to capitalize on these emerging technologies
will depend on how effectively we partner with the private
sector. Many of the tools we need--artificial intelligence,
autonomy, and edge computing--are being developed outside the
traditional defense environment.
To keep pace with the rapidly evolving threat environment,
the Navy must do more than experiment; it must reduce barriers
to entry for commercial innovation and field successful
concepts quickly and at scale. I look forward to continuing to
partner with you on supporting and promoting innovation.
Over the last several years, the Marine Corps has undergone
a significant transformation. This shift to a lighter, more
agile, and distributed force capable of operating inside
contested maritime spaces is both bold and necessary.
As the Marine Corps pursues new capabilities to support
force design, it is essential that its acquisition programs are
grounded in rigorous analysis and supported by fulsome,
validated requirements to ensure systems are relevant,
sustainable, and delivered on time.
The future of the Marine Corps depends on getting this
right, and we are committed to providing the resources and the
oversight to make that happen.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to
recognize the distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for
any opening comments.
Thank you.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, Admiral Kilby, this is your first time
appearing before the committee. Welcome. I look forward to
working with both of you.
General Smith, it is a pleasure to see you again, and
congratulations on a second-year clean audit. Go, Marines. The
Marine Corps continues to be the premier example to the rest of
the services for responsible budgeting, and I thank you and my
constituents thank you for that.
As I said in our hearings last week, the fiscal year 2026
budget process is off to a very rough start. We just have over
4 months left until the end of 2025. To date, only the skinny
budget for the next year has been released, and there are
rumors that the full budget may not be released until June.
And that is why we have not been able to discuss with any
of the services the budget priorities in detail. And that is
going to be true for this hearing, unfortunately, as well. It
is disappointing, because the Department of the Navy programs
face long delays and other setbacks, and our committee must
have a better understanding of your fiscal year 2026
priorities.
I hope that each of you will reach out to the chair,
myself, and to all the members of this committee as soon as
details are released.
Mr. Secretary, I continue to be concerned about the ability
of the Navy and the industry to provide ships and submarines we
purchase on time, on budget. And this is something the chair
and I, as you heard from his statement, totally agree on.
This has been a challenge for several years, and now the
responsibility has fallen to you. We cannot continue to pay for
vessels that cost one amount at the start of construction and
end up costing dramatically more in later years.
I appreciate addressing both the delays and the
reinvigorating of the maritime industrial base. That was a
focus during your Senate confirmation hearings. You spoke
directly to this, and I appreciate that. So I look forward to
working with you to ensure that the industry and the government
can find solutions to get back on track.
I was also pleased to hear during your confirmation
hearings that you prioritize the health and safety of our
sailors and marines under your watch. Extended deployments
cannot only hurt the sailors or the marine but can also have
the possibility of harming their families.
Part of the reason for these extended deployments are the
delays at the maintenance facility yards in getting our subs
and our service vessels in and out of the water. And that, too,
needs to be addressed.
In last week's hearing with the Army, we discussed the
Army's transformative innovative--excuse me, I have a catch in
my throat--we discussed the Army's Transformation Initiative.
Part of the initiative is the Army's decision to end the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle program.
I have to say, I was dismayed when the Army made this
decision and did not consult with the Marines. That is beyond
disappointing. ``Joint'' means ``joint.'' That is what the
``J'' stands for. Joint decisions should be informed together
as part of joint programs if they need to change.
So I look forward to working with you, General Smith, in
determining the next steps for this vehicle, which your marines
rely upon.
And, finally, as I said when the Air Force and the Army
were before us, I am alarmed at the number and the manner in
which the Department has decided to implement cuts of civilian
personnel.
Public shipyards are of personal concern to me. Losing
shipyard workers with experience and failing to replace them
will only lengthen the problems we are now seeing at these
shipyards. Delays will worsen, and maintenance schedules will
not be executed on time.
So, Mr. Secretary, I would like to hear from you how you
will address these personnel cuts in relationship to the public
yards.
These cuts will also affect the execution of contracts and
other vital paperwork. We are already living with the impacts
of what happens when civilians take a buyout and stop working
on contracts. The contract isn't signed, the mission doesn't
get done, and the program falls behind, and it costs the
taxpayers more money.
I am also concerned that these cuts will shift
responsibility of completing these tasks to the same military
personnel that you would like to see most at work at sea or on
the training field.
So, once again, I welcome you all to the committee, and I
look toward to hearing your testimony.
Thank you for the courtesy, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I would now like to turn to the chairman of the full
committee, my good friend, Chairman Tom Cole.
Opening Remarks of Chairman Cole
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and
Ranking Member McCollum.
It is always a pleasure to be joined by the ranking member
of the full committee, my good friend from Connecticut, Ms.
DeLauro.
And let me go off my script for a second and just say, I
appreciate Ranking Member McCollum's remarks about the budget,
because she is spot-on. We absolutely need it sooner. That is
not your fault. I am not directing that at any of the three of
you. But this is one where OMB needs to pick up the pace if we
are going to have any chance of getting our work done on time.
So thank you, my good friend from Minnesota, for pointing
that out.
I want to welcome all three of you.
Mr. Secretary, delighted to have you confirmed and here
with us for the first time.
Admiral Kilby, General Smith, again, it is an honor to have
both of you with us today.
I want to extend my gratitude to you and to your
commendable and continuing service to our country and to the
men and women in uniform that you collectively lead.
Today, our Navy's mission has never been more consequential
or expansive. From the contested waters of the Indo-Pacific to
the turbulent Red Sea, our Navy and Marine Corps are on the
front lines of deterring aggression, projecting power, and
upholding the rules-based international order.
We are all deeply grateful for the bravery and
professionalism shown by our sailors and marines, especially
those operating today in harm's way in the Middle East. The
Navy's persistent operations in the Red Sea under extremely
dangerous and demanding conditions have prevented countless
attacks on international shipping and ensured the continued
flow of commerce.
These missions have not come without cost, and they are a
stark reminder that our Naval forces must be ready to respond
decisively across the full spectrum of conflict.
While we await the full details of the White House budget
request for the Department of Defense, this hearing will serve
as an opportunity to address a range of issues that face the
Navy and the Marine Corps.
One area of particular concern is the state of our
shipbuilding enterprise. We continue to see troubling delays in
the delivery of key platforms, including the Columbia-class
ballistic missile submarine, the Constellation-class frigate,
and the Virginia-class attack submarines. These delays not only
impact operational readiness but they also create a growing
strategic risk at a time when China is expanding its fleet at
an unprecedented pace.
This is not a new concern. The Trump administration rightly
recognized the importance of recapitalizing our fleet, with its
executive order aimed at revitalizing American shipbuilding to
better position the force to achieve a 381-ship Navy. While
that goal remains aspirational, it should continue to guide our
efforts as we consider how to strengthen our industrial base
capacity, streamline procurement timelines, and demand greater
accountability in program execution.
And we will also want to hear more about the Navy's
evolving posture in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in light of
China's coercive actions near Taiwan, in the South China Sea,
and beyond. Maintaining a forward, flexible presence in the
region is essential to deterring conflict and reassuring our
allies and partners.
The growth of unmanned systems, which my friend Chairman
Calvert referred to, on the surface, under sea, and in the air
is another area of intense interest. The Department has made
strides in experimentation and prototyping, but the path toward
large-scale integration remains unclear. We will want to know
how unmanned platforms are being incorporated into the fleet,
what operational value they are expected to provide, and on
what schedule they will be delivered.
Turning to the Marine Corps, we appreciate the continued
implementation of Force Design 2030, which reflects a bold and
forward-looking approach to modernizing the Corps for
distributed operations in contested environments. We look
forward to hearing from General Smith about how Force Design is
progressing, what challenges remain, and how the Corps is
adapting to lessons learned from the exercises and real-world
operations.
Strategic deterrence is also a key focus of this hearing.
In addition to its role as the steward of the sea-based leg of
the nuclear triad, the Navy is also responsible for maintaining
the TACAMO mission, our survivable airborne communications link
between national leadership and nuclear forces.
As the Navy moves forward with the recapitalization of this
critical capability through the E-XX aircraft program, it is
essential that the Department stay on track and avoid the cost
and schedule issues that have plagued other major acquisitions.
We are also aware of recent discussions about potentially
transferring elements of the TACAMO mission to the Air Force.
This subcommittee will want to understand the rationale behind
such a move, its impact on operational effectiveness, and what
it could mean for program stability going forward.
Of course, none of these platforms, strategies, or
technologies matter without the people who bring them to life.
Recruiting and retention remain pressing challenges across the
force, although I know certain progress has been made in recent
months. Both the Navy and Marine Corps have had to grapple with
difficult operational tempos, quality-of-life issues, and a
competitive labor market. We will continue to support efforts
to improve housing, family support programs, and the healthcare
of our servicemembers.
I want to close by thanking each of you again for being
here and for your service. I also want to thank the dedicated
men and women of your branches, uniformed and civilian alike,
who continue to operate in every corner of the world on behalf
of the American people.
We look forward to your testimony and a frank discussion
about the challenges you face and the resources you need to
meet them.
Again, thank you for being here today.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the chairman.
And I would now like to turn to the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for any opening
comments.
Opening Remarks of Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
and Ranking Member McCollum and Chairman Cole for holding this
hearing on the plans for the Department of the Navy in the
coming year.
And thank you to the witnesses--Secretary Phelan, General
Smith, and Admiral Kilby--for your appearing before us today
and for your dedicated service to our Nation. You keep our
Nation safe. You keep our sailors and marines safe. You ensure
that our allies are supported wherever democracy and freedom
are threatened around the world.
Today, I look forward to learning about what the Navy is
doing to get our shipbuilding back on track, especially with
regard to submarines. It is critical for our national security
that the Navy returns to a regular production of two Virginia-
class submarines per year and that the Columbia-class gets as
close to schedule as possible.
We need to understand how the administration plans to work
with Congress to ensure that that happens. Our ability to deter
and respond to threats around the globe is counting on it.
I also am eager to hear more about how the Marine Corps
will utilize the CH-53K program, how it will evolve into the
future. We must always work to ensure our servicemembers have
the best possible equipment to defend our Nation, and American-
made Sikorsky helicopters are the best in the world. I want to
ensure the CH-53 platform continues to serve as the backbone of
the Marine Corps's heavy-lift fleet.
Additionally, I want to hear about what we are doing to
modernize the Navy's workforce. I am very concerned to hear
that the Department of the Navy will be losing about 16,000
civilian workers, including workers at our public shipyards.
The Navy must work with the Congress and with our industry
partners to ensure that we have a highly trained workforce that
is ready to get the job done and respond to constantly evolving
threats.
And we all know that when you destroy the infrastructure
and hollow out the agencies, we cannot bring that back with how
quickly we would need to do that. So we should not be in the
business of destroying our infrastructure.
Also pertaining to the workforce, it is deeply regrettable
that the administration is choosing to inject culture-war
debates into the Department of Defense funding process. And I
am concerned with how that may hurt further recruitment
efforts, especially among women.
We must do all that we can to ensure that any American who
wants to bravely serve in the United States Armed Forces,
defend our Nation, feels that they belong and that they are not
going to be drawn into political warfare while confronting
legitimate threats to freedom, to democracy, and our national
security.
I thank you again, all of you, for being here today. I look
forward to listening to you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to dash to Homeland Security for a
portion of that. Will be back for questions.
Mr. Calvert. I look forward to it.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much for your indulgence.
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be
placed in the record. Please give a brief summary of your
statements.
Secretary Phelan, the floor is yours.
Summary Statement of Secretary Phelan
Secretary Phelan. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member
McCollum, and distinguished members of the committee, I am
honored to appear before you alongside General Smith and
Admiral Kilby to discuss the posture of the Department of the
Navy.
I am grateful to President Trump for the trust he has
placed in me to lead the nearly 1 million sailors, marines, and
civilians who make up our maritime force.
My North Star, or number-one priority, as Secretary is the
readiness of our sailors and marines. I will leave this
Department with three focus areas that will guide our Navy and
Marine Corps: strengthen shipbuilding and the maritime
industrial base; foster an adaptable, accountable, and
innovative warfighter culture; improve the health, welfare, and
training of our people.
In my first 30 days as SECNAV, I have visited the Indo-
Pacific, the southern border, the Gulf of America, several of
our installations, and eight public and private shipyards to
see our operations and challenges firsthand. I look forward to
sharing my observations with you today.
The United States commands the most powerful maritime force
in the world, but that dominance is under threat. China
continues to expand its fleet, build more advanced submarines,
and operate more provocatively and aggressively in contested
waters.
In the Red Sea, our warfighters are leading Operation
Prosperity Guardian, defending freedom of navigation. They are
doing an excellent job. At CENTCOM headquarters, I have
witnessed these operations and saw firsthand the
professionalism and expertise of our forces operating in this
area.
Closer to home, our maritime forces are working with
Federal agencies to disrupt drug and human trafficking, helping
to further secure our borders. On my second day in office, I
visited the USS Gravely in the Gulf of America and flew
surveillance missions with Patrol Squadron 26.
While our forces remain steady, rebuilding our hollowed-out
maritime industrial base is a national-security imperative, as
outlined in the ``Restoring America's Maritime Dominance
Executive Order'' signed by President Trump on April 9th.
Over the past month, I visited those eight shipyards across
the Nation's East Coast and the Indo-Pacific. I spoke directly
with shipyard leaders and the hardworking tradesmen essential
to our maritime operations. I now have a clear picture of where
our shipbuilding dollars have been going and am developing a
plan to fix what is broken.
As the Nation's first line of defense, the Navy and Marine
Corps play an indispensable role in securing national interests
and protecting our way of life. However, to truly strengthen
our defense posture, we must first ensure that the Department
of the Navy is accountable to the American taxpayer.
Accountability is not just a regulatory requirement; it is the
bedrock upon which we will build a stronger, more efficient
Navy and Marine Corps.
To instill an environment of adaptability in warfighting
culture, we must first demonstrate sound business practices and
financial discipline. Under my leadership, the Department of
the Navy will achieve a clean audit, following the example set
by the Marine Corps, which has completed two consecutive
unmodified audits.
We will leverage technology to drive smarter decision-
making, adopting lean management practices to eliminate
unnecessary overhead, and building relationships with private
industry to access cutting-edge solutions.
As we confront the mounting challenges of shipbuilding and
warfighting readiness, it is clear that our greatest asset is
the extraordinary men and women who serve: our sailors and
marines. We will continue to invest in recruiting, training,
and retaining the highest-caliber personnel. We will prioritize
quality-of-life and quality-of-service initiatives to ensure
that our sailors, marines, and their families have the
resources available to succeed.
During my travels, I have visited a number of barracks, and
although our new barracks are good, I was appalled by the
condition of some of our older barracks. I will hold leadership
and industry accountable until we deliver the standard of
living our servicemembers deserve.
As former President and Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Theodore Roosevelt once told Congress, ``A good Navy is not a
provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace.'' That
guarantee begins with hard work, and I am committed to putting
in the effort our warfighters deserve, while working alongside
this committee to build and maintain a force strong enough to
deter conflict and preserve peace.
I am honored to serve the Nation and guide the world's
greatest maritime force through these uncharted waters.
Thank you for your support, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I now recognize Admiral Kilby for your remarks.
Summary Statement of Admiral Kilby
Admiral Kilby. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum,
Chairman Cole, subcommittee members, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the priorities of the United States
Navy.
Your Navy provides the Nation with sea power and sea
control needed to preserve our way of life and ensure our
security and prosperity. Your oversight and funding ensure we
are ready when the Nation calls.
I am pleased to testify alongside Secretary Phelan, who
brings the needed and unique skill set and experience to help
us accelerate the work of our Navy, and alongside my partner
General Smith, the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
In the past year, our sailors have defeated hundreds of
drones and missiles and executed dozens of offensive strikes in
the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. They have
strengthened alliances and deterred Chinese aggression in the
Western Pacific. They have supported operations on the southern
border, and they have maintained an unbroken strategic
deterrent with our ballistic missile defense submarines.
In short, our Navy, integrated with the joint force,
remains postured and ready to fight and win.
We remain committed to a strong, global Navy, one that is
prepared to defend our homeland, deter our adversaries, and
prevail in war. We are laser-focused on China as our most
consequential opponent, while strengthening defense of the
homeland. We prioritize operations, training, and readiness
accounts to ensure our Naval forces remain ready, resilient,
and agile to execute national tasking.
The Navy and Marine Corps preserves peace through strength
through investments in our strategic deterrence, our defense
industrial base, and our installations via initiatives like the
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program.
Most importantly, we are continuing the strong commitment
to our people--our sailors, our Navy families, and our
civilians--through pay raises, investments in quality-of-
service initiatives and unaccompanied housing and childcare.
But we are facing some challenges.
First, the Navy has 23,200 gaps at sea. Thanks to process
improvements and targeted investments, we are on plan to reduce
that number significantly by the close of fiscal year 2026.
We are committed to attracting and developing Americans who
can innovate to solve hard problems and dominate in combat. The
Navy contracted over 40,000 sailors last year, the most since
2003, and we are currently on pace to exceed our recruiting
goal for fiscal year 2025.
Second, our ordnance expenditures in the Red Sea have
highlighted the strain on our munitions industrial base. The
Navy is working with both our traditional primes and new
entrants to close this gap, developing kinetic and non-kinetic
weapons at speed and at scale.
And, third, our platforms are not as ready as they need to
be. We set an ambitious goal to make 80 percent of our ships,
submarines, and aircraft combat-surge-ready by January 1, 2027.
To do that, we are reducing maintenance delays, we are
improving manning, training, modernization, and sustainment.
In all of these efforts, consistent and predictable funding
is foundational. We appreciate the continued support of this
committee.
In closing, I am proud of our Navy accomplishments in the
last year, and I am excited about the growing consensus that is
powering our maritime rejuvenation. The whole-of-government and
whole-of-Nation effort is essential to our security and
prosperity.
We have work to do to ensure that we remain the world's
most premier maritime force for another 250 years. Your
leadership and support are critical in achieving this
imperative.
On behalf of our sailors, civilians, and families around
the world, I thank you.
I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Admiral.
I now recognize General Smith for your remarks.
Summary Statement of General Smith
General Smith. Good afternoon. Chairman Calvert, Ranking
Member McCollum, Chair Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, ladies and
gentlemen, it is an honor to appear before you today alongside
Secretary Phelan and Admiral Kilby, my shipmate. I am here for
you on behalf of your Marine Corps, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
First, I would like to start by sharing the Marine Corps's
top three priorities.
First, restoring a 3.0 Amphibious Ready Group and Marine
Expeditionary inner presence. This is the Marine Corps's North
Star. That is one Amphibious Ready Group constantly deployed
off the East Coast, one constantly deployed off the West Coast,
and one Amphibious Ready Group episodically deployed out of the
FDNF, the Forward Deployed Naval Force, in Japan.
The Amphibious Ready Group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit
embarked is the most versatile tool in our Nation's arsenal. It
is the Swiss Army knife of the joint force. And we are working
closely with our Navy partners to maximize this capability.
Our second priority is accelerating Force Design. Force
Design is our righteous journey to adapt to the changing
character of war. The nature of war remains the same, but the
character changes.
We are in the implementation phase. We are fielding new
capabilities time now and reshaping formations across the
force, from our Marine Expeditionary Units and Marine Littoral
Regiments to our Marine Expeditionary Forces.
And, finally, improving quality of life. Every marine
deserves a clean, safe place to lay their head at night. They
don't ask for much, but they do ask for that. Barracks 2030 is
how we are getting after this. It is the most consequential
housing investment in Marine Corps history.
And quality of life goes beyond our barracks. We are also
investing in the well-being of marine families, because
retaining our marines means supporting those who stand by them.
We say, ``You recruit the marine, but you retain the family.''
I will close with this. Your marines remain the most ready
when the Nation is least ready. It is who we are, it is our
foundation: a forward-postured force, trained for combat, and
built to deliver flexible, lethal options anywhere, anytime.
Thank you again for your trust and support, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DELAYS IN SUBMARINE PROGRAMS
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
I will first recognize myself for 5 minutes before we get
into questions for both sides.
Obviously, Mr. Secretary, the committee is continually
concerned about the reported 18- to 24-month delay in the
Columbia-class submarine program.
As you know, the retirement timeline for the Ohio-class
boats is apparently, you know, unless I am corrected on this,
non-negotiable due to the aging hulls, which means any further
delay in Columbia directly threatens our ability to meet
STRATCOM's minimum deterrence requirement. As you well know,
the significant part of our nuclear deterrent is carried on the
Columbia--well, will be carried on the Columbia program.
Secretary Phelan--and maybe, Admiral Kilby, you may want to
come into this too--you can walk us through the primary drivers
behind the additional 18- to 24-month delay of the Columbia-
class submarine program.
And beyond the issues we have already seen, whether supply-
chain disruptions, workforce shortages, or integration
challenges, what risks remain most concerning to you as we look
ahead?
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question. I know this
is an important issue to you and a top priority for myself and
Admiral Kilby as well.
I think it is a combination of a first-of-class ship, still
an inexperienced workforce. It is supply-chain issues. It is
also a lack of modernization in some of the plants. And I
think, honestly, it is just sitting and going and talking to
the workers on ways of improving workflow.
And so these are things that--you know, I have met with the
CEOs of General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls to talk about
this and go through it. It was very interesting in some of
their assessments of what they did not perceive to be as
problems, where, when I went and sat down with the workers, I
got completely the opposite.
So let me just give you a couple of examples which might
help you understand in ways we think we can shift the schedule
left.
So, in Japan, I went to JMU. They get the productivity out
of one 8-hour shift that we get out of three shifts. I believe
that is for two reasons.
One, their average worker is 50 years old and he is a
career. They spend time there, they have been in that shipyard
a very long time.
Two, when I spoke to the welders in Japan, they spend zero
time on paperwork. Our welders spend between 30 and 40 percent
of their time filling out paperwork to match designs, et
cetera. That is a problem. The training when they come from
training and get actually on site is completely different.
So these are things that they need to work on. And I have
spoken to General Dynamics about it. We are working on a couple
of different other ideas as well. There were a couple things I
saw at Bath Iron Works, to be honest, that were excellent. And
there were some things being implemented at Portsmouth that
were really good that we need to start to integrate and do.
This is a very big concern. I do think we can get the
calendar shifted left, but it is going to take a lot of hard
work and a lot of effort. And it is my number-one priority
right now, given the strategic importance of this.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that.
Admiral, if you want to add anything to that?
Admiral Kilby. I think the Secretary covered it. I do have
the same concerns he does.
I have the same observations about maturity of workforce
and skilled labor. So, at our public yards and our private
yards, there has been a diminished--a loss of that experience,
so supervisors don't have the same experience they used to.
That is an important thing for us to correct.
Additionally, we are looking at extending those hulls in
our Ohio-class that can make sure we don't have a gap in
strategic deterrence. The first one is USS Alaska, which we
will extend through a PIRA in 2029, and there are four
additional hulls.
So I think that is an insurance policy to make sure that we
are still the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for that.
It is interesting to note what is going on in Japan and
South Korea, where they have a significant amount of the
world's shipbuilding capability. You know, we have dropped now
to, what, 3 percent of shipbuilding worldwide. The Chinese are,
what, 50 percent of ship construction? The Japanese and the
Koreans are about 35, 40 percent combined, and then the rest of
the world.
And so it is disappointing that we have gotten ourselves in
this situation. So we have a lot of work ahead of us, as you
mentioned, Mr. Secretary, to straighten this out.
Ms. McCollum, you wanted me to recognize----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, you are recognized.
BORDER SECURITY
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking. Thank
you. We have to go to the same place, talk to the Coast Guard.
But just, first of all, Mr. Secretary, Admiral, and--I
think we have got a fellow Texan--General, thank you for the
service that you have provided.
A couple things.
One, the military does bring some skills, some assets that
the Department of Homeland doesn't do. So we would like if you
can follow up on that and what you all bring to it. It is not
only the southern border but, of course, we have got the coast,
as you know. Number one.
Number two, you know, the law already calls for operational
and regulatory efficiency reviews. The law already calls for
contracting and procurement standards. The law already calls
for quarterly performance updates. The law already requires
development and submissions of updated performance measures.
I would like to just focus on the contracting and
procurement standard, as it has been brought up by both the
chairman and the ranking member--is, why can we not do things
on budget and on time?
I mean, if the Chinese can do it, the Japanese can do it,
and other folks can do it--you know, we always come up with,
``Well, we have got workforce development and all of that,''
but why can--you know, there are already penalties there for--
monetary penalties, suspension of work, and other things under
the law. You know, we keep coming up with excuses, but you have
got other countries that keep doing this.
On budget and on time are the two factors.
Finally, the last thing. And you can follow up on this
later on. In my San Antonio area, as you know, there has been
different suspension of contracts. There is one in particular
that had to do with some data, a data contract that deals with
servicemembers' records, data for promotion boards and other
things. Again, this contract was--you know, we think it was
necessary, and it was performing, but then you all cut it.
I don't want you to take up the time now, but have somebody
follow up on that.
But I would like to go and, you know, if you can mention a
little bit on border security, what you bring in that Homeland
doesn't have; but, more importantly, on budget and on time and
why other countries can do it and we can't.
Admiral Kilby. Why don't we start with the border piece,
and then we can go to another question.
So, from the Navy's perspective, 30 intelligence
specialists on the border helping with the southern border, 58
P-8 sorties for intelligence and surveillance, and now 3 ships:
Minneapolis-Saint Paul is the littoral combat ship, as well as
two destroyers. And they relieved two destroyers.
So the presence for counter-drug-flow, counter-immigration,
there is a maritime component to that that the Navy is
performing and has performed for a long time. You know, the
first time I got underway on a ship, in 1987, we had a law
enforcement detachment. And that is something the Coast Guard
and the Navy are really good at doing together to extend the
reach of the Coast Guard.
General Smith. Sir, in terms of the Marines, our First
Combat Engineer Battalion, based out of Camp Pendleton,
California, is operating on the southern border.
They are doing engineer tasks. They are constructing
concertina wire. They are building obstacles. They are doing
what they do. So they are continuing to get the training that
they would normally get at Camp Pendleton; they are just
getting it on the southern border.
But that is our contribution, is our First Combat Engineer
Battalion.
Mr. Cuellar. On budget and on time?
Secretary Phelan. Just real quick just on the border as
well. I mean, I think the Navy, since its inception, has been a
homeland defense organization. They work with the Coast Guard.
They do ballistic missile defense. And keeping sea lanes and
trade lanes open has been part of their job since inception. So
I think it is a very important aspect to what they do.
In terms of on time, on budget, I think it is a number of
different things.
One, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the industrial
base has been hollowed out. We have lost a lot of manufacturing
and our ability to manufacture. We have had prior conflicts
where we have spent a lot of money, and the bills for deferred
infrastructure spend, whether that is piers, docks, are now
coming due.
And it has been going on for a while. And so these are not
new problems. I mean, I have looked back at testimony 20 years;
I keep hearing the same things. I am trying to figure out why
it hasn't been fixed, to be perfectly honest.
But I will tell you, I think it is a combination of
bureaucracy--so, just to give you an example, in the Navy, in
acquisitions alone, we have 56,000 people in our acquisitions
department. Now, we did last year 217,000 contracts. That is 34
contracts per person. That is two contracts a month. Something
is off. You know, I keep trying to understand, what are all
these people doing?
And these are complicated contracts, but I will also be
honest, when I look at our contracting, it is poor. We don't
control our IP. We can't repair stuff. We don't have very good
penalties built in for lack of performance.
These are all things we are going to really try to change.
And I kind of called it in my confirmation hearing ``shared
risk.'' I think it is great for the private sector to make
money, and they should, but they should be paid according to
the risk that they take. And that is not going on right now,
and we need to fix that.
So it is not an easy solution, but it has our focus, and we
are going to get it fixed. It will take time. We will be very
transparent with all of you and walk you through and tell you
the good, the bad, and the ugly and try to get it sorted.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Chairman Cole.
TACAMO MISSION
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to something I mentioned in my opening
statement, Secretary Phelan. Could you tell us whether or not
we are looking at structuring the TACAMO mission and whether or
not we are looking at offloading some of those functions that
it currently provides to the Air Force?
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question, Chairman. I
am going to let Admiral Kilby answer that, but let me just give
you my thoughts.
Look, the investments in both the E-6B and its replacement,
the E-130, are critical to nuclear modernization. I am
committed to improving that. It is a critical part.
And then I will let Admiral Kilby comment on your specific
question.
Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir.
So, as Secretary Phelan said, the E-6, which you now know
so much about, has served us well. We need to make sure that
aircraft gets through its service life and is replaced by its
replacement.
There is another mission assigned to that aircraft now, the
ABNCP mission. And that is the mission that needs another
platform or a home, because the EC-130 just does not have the
room in it that the E-6 does to perform both those missions.
But, most important--and I agree with Secretary Phelan--we
must stay on track for the TACAMO replacement program. We have
gotten more than our money's worth out of the E-6s. We have had
this empennage problem, and we repairing those aircraft to make
sure they are safe to fly, they can provide continuity of NC3.
But I am committed to the TACAMO replacement program and
staying on budget and on delivery for that so we can do what we
do for the Nation.
The Chairman. And, again, just to not be redundant but to
be specific, are we talking about any of that mission moving to
the Air Force, or are we talking about keeping it within the
Navy?
Admiral Kilby. That is a discussion still at the Department
of Defense. The part I specifically talked about, though, was,
it will not go into the EC-130 replacement, because there is
just no room for the kit for that aircraft.
So there is a limitation to what the 130 can do. And it is
a performance game for us, we think, in the execution of NC3.
So we will have to figure out as a department, the Department
of Defense, what happens to that initial mission. And it may
not be an aircraft; it might be another means to provide that
secure comps.
The Chairman. Well, I would ask you to keep us apprised of
that. And I will tell you, since I have got a lot of E-6s based
out of my district and E-3s that are all being retired from the
Air Force where we are having to scramble to find replacements,
I am not sure the Air Force would have the capacity to do some
of the things you need to do. So, again, I would very much like
to know when and if that decision is made.
MUNITIONS
Let me ask you, too, quickly, if I may--and I would put
this to all of you. And Chairman Calvert raised it. I am very
concerned about where we are at in terms of munitions, in terms
of what is available, what you need, what we would have if, God
forbid, we were in, you know, a short-term conflict. It would
be short-term, because we don't have enough munitions to
sustain a long-term fight.
So where are we at in procurement, in stockpiling of the
munitions, particularly precision-strike types of munitions
that you think you would need in a conflict with a near-peer
power?
Admiral Kilby. Sir, I will take that one just for the Navy.
We are investing in the munitions we need, particularly to
be ready if we need to go to war with China. Those are
precision-guided, long-range munitions like Tomahawk, Maritime
Strike Tomahawk, LRASM, SM-6, SM-2, RGM, AIM-9X, AIM-120, and
the heavyweight torpedo. So all those munitions we need to
increase production on.
I am also of the mind that we need to look at other
vendors. And they may not be able to produce the same exact
specification, but they might be able to produce a missile that
is effective, which is more effective than no missile. So I
think we have to open our aperture a little bit.
But those munitions that I listed, we need to increase
production. And we have done so with things like the SM-6,
which used to have 125 rounds a year. We are ramping up to 300
rounds a year. We have restarted our Mark 48 line. That is our
premier torpedo. We stopped doing torpedoes in 1996 and now
have just reconstituted that line and are going to deliver 10 a
month, so that is 120 a year. That is a step in the right
direction.
But we need to stop looking, like I have, at the minimum
sustaining rate and look at what we need for protraction. I
think it is foolish to think that we are going to be in a
short, sharp war. If we go to war with China, this is going to
be a big deal. And it is going to be bloody, and there are
going to be casualties, and it is going to take time and
munitions. So our stocks need to be full.
The Chairman. Well, again, I would ask you to keep us
informed on that and what we can do to accelerate that process,
because I think we are all very, very concerned.
And I am glad to hear you are looking at alternatives,
because I think you are exactly right; I am not sure the
capacity exists in the traditional munitions that we have to do
it in a short-term and speedy fashion.
FORCE DESIGN 2030
Last question, if I can get to you quickly, General Smith.
I was just curious of your assessment of where we are at on
Force Design 2030. You know, how are things going? Are you on
schedule?
General Smith. Sir, thanks for that question.
Sir, we are on schedule. I am committed to Force Design,
balanced against our crisis-response and readiness missions.
We are investing in key capabilities, such as unmanned
systems, long-range precision fires--which you addressed--air
defenses, counter-small-UAS. We are enabling modernization
while retaining our capability for competition and crisis
response, which is our nom de guerre.
It preserves the capability of the Marine Expeditionary
Unit. Based on combat operational employments, the COCOMs have
asked us to accelerate some of our capabilities, such as the
MQ-9, our big-wing drone. Pair that with MADIS, our Marine Air
Defense Integrated System, and an MRIC, a Medium-Range
Intercept Capability, and we are well on our way to realizing
the value of Force Design as a stand-in force to enable us to
deter the PRC from--I won't say ``breaking out,'' but--breaking
out and, if they do, to punish them for it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy to recognize the ranking member, Ms. McCollum.
SUBMARINE PRODUCTION AND SHIPYARDS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, you were very refreshing in your
confirmation hearings with what--the learning curve you were
going to take on. You have been on the job for less than 2
months, and here you are, without a full budget in front of us,
us asking a lot of questions.
But I am going to--as a schoolteacher, I am going to just
press one more time for an answer for the question.
We haven't had two-sub production, I have been told, since
before COVID.
So you have been out talking to people, looking at the
shipyards, looking at workforce. You are doing your due
diligence. But we will start marking up a budget in June.
Secretary Phelan. Uh-huh.
Ms. McCollum. So do you have any idea of when maybe you can
come before the committee and tell us when we can expect to get
back to two subs a year?
Because the budget--I mean, what kind of conversations are
happening at the Pentagon about how we get back on track? And
are they giving you all the flexibility to put this priority
number one to move forward?
The other problem we discussed is the backlog for
maintenance in the shipyards. And you just mentioned, with the
Admiral, too, now, what is happening with the hulls in the
Ohio-class. That is something else you are going to be bringing
into the shipyards, and there is already backlog there.
So I know you are putting all the pieces in the puzzle
together. It has been 2 months. You are taking this
extraordinarily seriously. I want to be fair and recognize
that. But I have a job to do, too, along with these committee
members.
Do you have any idea when you think you might be able to
come back in front of the committee, within the next month, 2
months, with any kind of a plan and anything we have to look at
for the allocation of dollars to get you back on track?
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question.
I would tell you that we have been working very hard with
the DEPSEC and SECDEF on this issue. It has been a high
priority for them, as it is for us.
I think that we are trying to attack this problem from a
number of different angles to try to figure it out and get a
better idea. I would like to believe that we should be able to
come and sit down with you hopefully within the next month or 2
months. Give me a little bit of decision space time, because we
are still trying to get this all put together.
You know, a lot of what the companies will tell you is that
we took people off of Virginia and put them on Columbia, which
set them back on Virginia. I am trying to understand this,
because I think part of the problem also is, there are
materials they are waiting on. They take workers and shift them
from a Columbia to a Virginia, which does not make sense. That
is something that does not happen in the Korean shipyards or
the Japanese shipyards that I visited.
I saw a fair amount of automation at the Korean shipyards
that I have not seen in our yards that I think will help things
in a big way. And that doesn't--you know, a lot of people think
that means less jobs. It actually doesn't. It just means
different types of jobs. Because those machines still need to
be watched and kept abreast in what they are doing. So it is a
different type of training.
As soon as I have an answer, I will come and sit down and
give you the honest truth on what I think is the best we can do
schedule-wise and what we think these are going to be and how
quickly we can fix that problem. But it would be----
Ms. McCollum. I appreciate that. I really do, I appreciate
that. Because, you know, the President has put forward all
kinds of things--you know, top priority is Sentinel, which is a
huge boondoggle cost overrun that this committee is having to
deal with, and the concept--as has been described in this
hearing room--the concept of what Golden Dome is going to look
like.
For me, we have a task in front of us that has not been
completed, and, for me, that is my first priority, my first
mission. So I appreciate that.
AUKUS AGREEMENT
Along with that, the chairman and I had the opportunity to
go to Australia last year with some other committee members.
And do you think, with the AUKUS, that we are going to be able
to meet our requirements that are included in that agreement?
Is that part of the calculus on how we get back on track?
Admiral Kilby. It just may be a little more--because I have
been working this a little bit longer than the Secretary.
So we have accepted money from Australia to get to the
``.33'' part of 2.33. We have Australia workers at our Pearl
Harbor Navy Shipyard. We have maintained and done some
availabilities in Stirling. I think those are all on plan for
AUKUS Phase 1, and that is helpful to us.
But, to your point, ma'am, we have to get to the 2 and then
to get to the 2.33. So I think all that, in conjunction with
each other, is what we are going to try to bring to bear,
including the investments, supported by you, which we are
appreciative of, on both SIB and MIB, I think, are key to
clutch in. And that dividend will make parts more available and
we will be able to do our work faster.
So Phase 1 is on plan now, and we just need to watch it,
because, working with two countries, we have come across some
things that we didn't expect as far as bureaucratic roadblocks
to getting workers in certain places. So I think we are on it,
we are going to stay with it, and I think it is important for
the whole effort.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE CUTS
And then, lastly, Mr. Chair, General Smith, we had an
opportunity to talk just briefly about this, that the decision
for the Army to cut the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle came as as
much of a surprise to you as it did to this committee.
So if you could maybe share with some of the other members
of the committee how you think these cuts could impact you both
presently and in the future? And what happens with the cost per
unit for these vehicles for your budget as you are getting
ready to prepare it?
General Smith. Yes, ma'am.
The Marine Corps is fully committed to the JLTV program. It
is our workhorse on the ground tactical vehicle fleet.
It is a little bit too early to assess the impact of the
Army stopping their version of the program. But per unit costs
are clearly going to go up. APUC, the average per unit cost, is
going to go up when the orders go down, and that is going to
negatively impact the Marine Corps' ability to fulfill its
ground tactical vehicle mobility strategy, which has me
concerned.
Ms. McCollum. Well, when you have those numbers, we would
appreciate receiving them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
JAPAN'S SHIPYARD CAPABILITY
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlelady.
I just want to make a point too. Our former colleague, Rahm
Emanuel, who was the ambassador to Japan, would call me, and I
know he called the full committee chairman from time to time,
pointing out that Japan has significant shipyard capability and
capacity to help us with the maintenance of our ships without
having to send them back to CONUS. And right now apparently
there are some scheduling issues with some of the yard.
So I hope, Mr. Secretary, you are looking at some of our
colleagues in Japan and South Korea. They are great allies that
maybe can help you get you where you need to be.
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question, Chairman.
Look, all options are on the table. And I was very
impressed by what I saw in Korea, in Japan. I saw two ships
that they did maintenance work in Korea for us. Excellent. I
actually saw a DDG destroyer they made, which is 10 percent
bigger than ours--which, by the way, was an excellent ship. I
even think the combat information center was laid out better
than ours, looking at it.
So I think we have to really look at this. And I think I
kind of bucket it in two ways. There are short-term things we
need to do because we need to get hulls in the water, and there
is long-term. And the long-term is getting the maritime
industrial base, getting the jobs, getting those brought back
here.
I think you have seen what Hanwha did with Philly, with the
Philly Shipyard. They are very interested in expanding some of
their work here.
We have to put everything on the table. We are at that sort
of kind of period of time. And so, yes, we will definitely be
looking into that.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for that.
Mr. Rogers, the Dean.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS AND DRUG INTERDICTION
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let me discuss with you lay hold drug
interdiction. The Navy has a history of reliability issues with
littoral combat ships, but plans to decommission those ships
have halted due to other potential use cases, such as drug
interdiction missions.
The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship has recently gotten some
praise for its success in those drug interdiction missions. In
April of this year, the Minneapolis-St. Paul, the Freedom
variant LCS, stopped two suspected drug smuggling operations
within 72 hours through a combination of air and surface
operations in the Caribbean Sea.
The successful operation that I have described is one of
several good examples in recent years of an LCS interdicting
drug smuggling operations.
In 2020, the USS Gabrielle Giffords stopped a vessel in the
eastern Pacific that was carrying $106 million worth of
cocaine. In 2021, the USS Wichita and USS Sioux City seized $17
million and more than $20 million worth of cocaine.
These littoral ships, they are fast, they carry
helicopters, they have air and surface search radars, all of
which are very helpful in stopping drug smuggling operations.
These ships are also armed with missiles. They are unlikely
to be used against drug smugglers due to the cost of the
munitions.
Of all the Navy's warships, the LCS is probably the best
choice for counter-drug missions. But the program has been
repeatedly described as a costly misstep for the sea service.
The two classes of small but fast warships were designed to
operate in littoral nearshore waters and primarily seen as a
solution to an unclear problem.
Due to technical issues, the service has opted to retire
some of the oldest vessels years before their end of service
life. Others would be pawned off to regional partners and
allies.
In 2025, just recently, the Navy stopped buying LCSes,
halting production at the current 28 ships, rather than moving
forward with the 52 that was originally planned.
What can you say about this? Are we going in the right
path?
Admiral Kilby. Sir, if I could start and then turn it over
to the Secretary.
One, I think your points are spot-on. Even though it is a
Coast Guard mission to do drug interdiction, the Navy and the
Coast Guard have worked together on this for a long time. The
LCS presents some great attributes, as you pointed out. One of
them is a gigantic mission bay if needed.
So the ability to support General Guillot and Admiral
Holsey, both Northern Command and the Southern Command
commanders, for missions south of the border I think are a
great use of that vessel and it would allow us to free up DDGs
to do other things. So I think there is great potential there.
We have had some challenges with our hull mechanical
electrical system, particularly on the Freedom class. We have
addressed those through a combining gear fix.
So I think those missions can be well served by LCS,
allowing our DDGs maybe to be used for another mission in
homeland defense for General Guillot, like an out-of-area
deployer from either our West or East Coast.
So we will look at these platforms and we will field the
best Navy we can for the budget we have to do the missions
assigned.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we are being flooded with drugs. That is
beyond doubt. And it seems to me it is not too wise to holster
a weapon such as the LCS in this time.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, you are not totally aware of this, but both
the chairman, when I was the chair and he was the ranking
member, and now he is the chair and I am the ranking member, we
have asked repeatedly for ways in which the LCS, when it fits,
when it works, can be repurposed for doing programs such as
former Chairman Rogers was just talking about. And slow to get
us the report; the report was not very adequate.
And so if you ask somebody back in your office they can dig
up an old file for you. This is something that this committee
has been trying to figure out how to be best use for these
ships when it works. We know that they won't work for
everything. Some of them need to be retired and I want to be
clear on that.
But this committee has been asking for this for a long
time, and I just thought maybe you would want to know that.
Secretary Phelan. Thank you. I will look into that. We are
very good at putting together reports and studies and hiding
them and getting to us. So I am working on getting through that
as fast as possible. We will look into it.
We are spending a lot of time, honestly, trying to come up
with the appropriate force structure given the budget that we
have and the budget issues we have with some of the other
programs.
So we have some tough decisions to make and tough
tradeoffs, and that is really what we are going through as we
speak.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro.
VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE CONTRACT
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I know there has been discussion in my absence about the
Virginia class submarine contract, so I don't want to have you
be repetitive. But I just wanted to--a couple of things in this
area.
And we know that the contract announcement came at the end
of April. We were supposed to get it at the end of February.
But the April 30 contract modification indicated that future
Virginia class procurement will not be conducted through,
quote, ``block multiyear contracts,'' as has previously been
the case, but instead through one-off cost-plus-incentive-fee
contracts.
You have noted that the April 30 contract modification that
obligated the December continuing resolution money was
renegotiated to appropriately, quote, ``share risk between the
Navy and the industry,'' end quote. You have indicated that
this will serve as a template for future shipbuilding
contracts.
Whatever the contracting method that the Navy uses, we have
the same goal: getting production back on schedule and on
budget.
Can you explain in more detail how shifting contract
mechanisms will achieve that goal and create, as you described,
quote, ``more value for the American taxpayer''?
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question, Ranking
Member. And, again, thank you for the support of this committee
for the Virginia.
I think at the end of day we had a very tight timeframe in
which to try to get something put together quickly in order to
continue the production on Virginia.
What we ended up doing was we had a cost-plus contract,
which was eating us alive. And as you delay out schedule that
is pretty tough.
So we had to get money to them for workforce. We had to
send a demand signal to the private sector to put money into
their facilities and invest.
What I liked about what we were able to do on this contract
is we shifted it from cost-plus with a cap of call it--with a
130 percent ceiling to fixing it up to 86 percent of the cost,
but we brought the ceiling up to 138 percent.
So we ended up fixing the price more on this, which our
view was to put pressure on them to try to perform and get
quicker.
So the template is going to be more of a fixed price with
some incentives. And I think what we are missing to some extent
is incenting them to move faster.
So with a cost-plus contract, the longer you wait, the more
money you make, and that is what we have.
And we have to look also at one of the things--again, it is
still early--but we have to figure out who else can help us
build these and if there are modules we can have done somewhere
else to get this done, because we have a sole source supplier
and that is a big constraint. And there are a number of
infrastructure constraints that exist as well, both at the
public shipyards and at the private shipyards.
So to give you an example, one of the workers I met at
Norfolk told me that she has to get to the office--she has to
get to the yard at 5 in the morning, her shift starts at 7,
because the parking is so bad that she wants to get a spot
because she has to get home to her child after her shift is
over.
That is crazy. We need to fix that. And we need to come up
with some ways to do that.
But specifically to your question, we are able to fix this
now. And I think when we get to the next contract we will look
to try to modify that more and have more shared risk with them,
which is kind of locking in margin, locking in numbers, and
also trying to rationalize the supply base.
I think we have done some very good work with 3D printing,
which the admiral can talk about, in Danville. I visited a
company on the West Coast that does 3D printing that I think
has what appears to be a pretty good solution to our munitions
problem potentially.
We have to get more advanced. We need to try things. This
is a very--it is a thing the Navy does not like to do, and we
need to get better at that.
Ms. DeLauro. I just would say that the fixed price--and,
again, just tracking what those incentives are so that we don't
find ourselves back in the situation where you have got the
cost-plus issue. And obviously as you spread it out, there is
much more money involved. We tried to get that under control.
So I appreciate what you are doing. And we want to really
understand our regular communication about how that is working
and what that means in dollars and cents and what that means
and using that model.
It is important for us to know what these models are, as my
colleagues have said, because we are dealing with the money
here and being able to really be able to get you what you need,
but not at any price at all and production being slower than it
usually is.
Secretary Phelan. I understand the frustration. I have been
on it 50 days and I feel like I am in a perpetual game of
whack-a-mole whenever I find something new.
I don't have great news. I don't think it is going to be
good. I am going to be very honest. The numbers are eye-opening
to me. I am still trying to get through it and really sort
through what is real, what is on us, and what is on them.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Secretary Phelan. I am tired of the COVID excuse. I am
tired of a lot of these things. I hear we have a 139-year-old
facility. I am like, when you signed the contract it was 134
years old. So I am not sure that is my problem.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Secretary Phelan. And so we are working on that.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. And we want to be helpful in that.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more quick question?
Mr. Calvert. Real quick.
FUTURE OF MILITARY SHIPBUILDING
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Very, very quick. Just about the future
of military shipbuilding.
Let me just say it this way. Congress, we have invested
billions of dollars in the submarine industrial base. We need a
clear sense of what oversight and accountability mechanisms the
Navy has in place to ensure again that the money is well spent.
And we need to know how you are going to continue to engage
with this subcommittee and the Congress to ensure that we are
kept up to date on the Navy's work in this area.
Very, very quickly. We have seen the Army the last 2 weeks,
Secretary Hegseth, he is interested in reevaluating programs,
force structure, service-wide. We received little or no warning
on those changes.
And I would hope that if the Secretary's office is looking
at something similar for the Navy and the Marine Corps that we
would receive advanced notice and would be consulted on the
decisions. Can you commit to that?
Secretary Phelan. I am sorry. Give me the question you are
asking me. I am sorry.
Ms. DeLauro. I want you to commit to letting us know what
restructuring is, what services. Like Hegseth just said we are
going to reevaluate the force structure service-wide with no
warning about any of that. And we don't know if you are
planning anything similar for the Navy or for the Marine Corps,
and we need to be engaged and involved in that conversation.
Secretary Phelan. So obviously the administration has--the
President and Secretary Hegseth have put forth a plan to
flatten and streamline the flag officer and general officer
structure to ensure decisions are being made closer to the
warfighter.
And so we are looking at that as we speak, per that
instruction, and complying with that order. We are trying to
figure out how to streamline and make things more efficient,
and we are doing our best as to that. And that is all I can
tell you.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, I would just say this to you. If those
conversations are going on with regard to the Navy, that is
something that this committee should know about and be engaged
and involved in. We just don't want to be told that this is it,
this is the fait accompli. Hell no. Hell no. So I am hoping
that you can commit.
Mr. Calvert. We don't want a failure to communicate.
Ms. DeLauro. You got it.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Womack.
NEXT-GENERATION FIGHTERS
Mr. Womack. Ms. Kaptur, do we need to yield to Siri for a
question? [Laughter.]
Ms. Kaptur. I surprise myself all the time.
Mr. Womack. It happens to all of us.
Thanks, gentlemen, for your service to our country. I want
to ask a couple of questions.
The first one fits into the category of a good plan
executed now is probably better than a perfect plan executed
way too late.
And I realize the level of classification here so we can't
too far down in the weeds, but maybe in general terms on next-
generation Navy fighters.
The Air Force has moved out on their plan. The Navy has
not. I am concerned about the risk associated with delays. And
without getting too far down in the weeds, can you help me
understand how we mitigate risk and when we might expect a
down-select on that platform?
Because if everybody understands that there is a move-out
date for China on Taiwan of 2027, those are the kinds of things
that cause us to have to look at our acquisition process and
wonder if we are operating from behind.
So I don't know, Mr. Secretary, if you want to take that
one or if the admiral wants to take it. Then I will come back
with an amphib question for General Smith.
Secretary Phelan. I think we are still looking at the force
structure manned, unmanned, and understanding what is the right
balance, how to do that going forward.
So we are committed and I am committed to making sure we
have the ability to fight in the future and meet the next-
generation threats.
That is what we will look to do, and we are still working
through that. We are testing a number of unmanned platforms. My
own bias is manned and unmanned combined is probably the best,
but I am going to leave it to the experts as we learn more and
more. We have learned a lot from Ukraine, we have learned a lot
from some of these other conflicts on how we should fight and I
think that needs to inform our posture moving forward.
Mr. Calvert. Admiral.
Admiral Kilby. Just to comment on the sixth-gen fighter.
I have had the pleasure of briefing this committee on
carrier survivability and the Navy composition in the western
Pacific. The sixth-gen fighter is key to Air Wing of the
Future.
So to me, the carrier is the most survivable airfield we
have, period, end stop. The sixth-gen fighter is a keystone of
our Air Wing of the Future, which includes, as the Secretary
indicated, manned and unmanned aircraft.
And that is the beauty of an air wing, is that it can be
updated and still be serviced by the aircraft carrier, which is
a capital investment which we are going to have for a long,
long time.
To me it is the joint force that is going to win against
China. That is the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Army
and the Space Force. And the Navy brings mobility, which is our
chief attribute for you and the chief confounding thing for
China.
So the carrier is a big piece of that because it brings
mass volume fires over and over and over again, where a
submarine will have to be reloaded and a destroyer will have to
be reloaded maybe at some place and take it offline. That
carrier has got sustainment power and the thing that delivers
it is a fifth-gen and sixth-gen fighter into the future.
Mr. Womack. But back to the technologies. I realize that we
are deliberating the emerging technologies that will be central
into the decision-making process. These doggone technologies
are changing like every day, right? I mean, we are learning
stuff from the battlefield all the time.
And the private sector is doing a fine job of helping
understand how these developing technologies are emerging as
quickly as they are.
So at what point in time will we say time is up, we have
got to move out, we have got to make a decision and go? When
does that happen?
Secretary Phelan. I think at the end of the day, look, we
need to create more flexibility in our procurement. We need to
be able to adapt faster. We are very slow. We are putting ships
in the water that are 30 percent obsolete by the time they get
into the water. That is a bad, bad thing and we need to fix
that. So I don't have a specific answer to your question,
Congressman.
I think we are going to look at that. We are studying each
program line by line and trying to understand this.
I think the companies that currently serve us would tell
you, ``Oh, we have got to do this immediately.'' I am not sure,
because of the speed at which technology is moving. What we are
seeing in advanced manufacturing is changing daily.
And so what we will be able to do today versus 2 years, 3
years, 4 years, 5 years is going to take a while. I think this
comes back to my earlier comment about what our force posture
is going to look like.
I think what I found in business is the best way to be
successful is not to be reactive. It is to say, where do you
want to be in 5 years, where do you want to be in 10 years, and
then work your way backwards to get there. Don't try to work to
it, work back from it. And we are still in that process. I
don't know if that----
Admiral Kilby. I think, Secretary, you covered it.
But I just wanted to speak to the operational benefit of
sixth-gen fighter to the joint force. We are going up against a
world class adversary potentially and we have got to have world
class equipment. And for the aviation component of Air Wing of
the Future, that is a sixth-gen fighter.
Mr. Womack. Got it.
AMPHIBIOUS FLEET
Finally, with the remaining time I have, General Smith, you
and I have talked many times about amphibs. And I am very
concerned about the readiness rates that are critical to your
ARGs and what these rates do in terms of adding risk to our
ability to deploy.
So I am going to throw you that softball because I know you
have some strong feelings about your amphibious fleet.
General Smith. Well, sir, I am working closely with my
shipmate, Jim Kilby, Admiral Kilby, to bring the readiness
rates of amphibs up to where they need to be. We base our
amphibious readiness on 80 percent acebo (ph), 80 percent
readiness, and the current readiness is in the fortieth
percentile.
So it has got to come up. There are only two solutions:
either increase readiness or increase the number of ships and/
or a combination thereof.
But there is a thing called the Optimized Fleet Response
Plan, OFRP, that I am committed to, I know Jim Kilby is
committed to.
So we are working hard to produce the number of amphibs
required to produce a 3.0 ARG/MEU. That is, one Amphibious
Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit off the East Coast, one
off the West Coast, and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit out
of Okinawa, Japan, episodically deployed.
Again, it is the Swiss Army knife of the joint force. It
can do a whole lot of everything and a lot of combat. It can do
humanitarian assistance, disaster relief. It can evacuate
embassies. It can reassure allies and partners.
But it can do combat. It can knock down Houthi drones. It
can take out targets in the Red Sea. And it can keep sea lanes
of communication open.
So we think it is a good investment. And, again, it is the
Swiss Army knife. But I am committed to getting those
amphibious readiness rates up, and I know Admiral Kilby is as
well.
Mr. Womack. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Case.
EXPAND MIL-MIL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALLIES
Mr. Case. Mr. Secretary, first of all, commendation on
kicking off your tenure with a listening tour. That is great
that you get out of Washington and see what is happening out in
the field, both here and internationally.
On the international front, I have asked many of your
colleagues that have come in here this year about the extent to
which our military is now required to carry a heavier load in
our relationships with other countries around the world,
friends and allies.
But not just friends and allies, but potential friends and
allies, and the consequences really of withdrawing from some of
our other instruments of national outreach, for example USAID.
And as that has happened we obviously have some pretty
nervous--and the combination of other things, tariffs or
whatever--we have some pretty nervous friends and allies out
there. And our mil-to-mil relationships have really carried the
day in past comparable situations.
I guess what I would like to hear you talk about is, what
are the opportunities, from your perspective, in your
responsibility, to expand those mil-to-mil relationships? So I
am thinking about, for example, more joint training exercises,
more just people out there on the road as you have done,
meeting a little bit more with their colleagues around the
world.
Is that a conscious part of your planning, your policy?
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Yes. I mean, in Korea I met with the Minister of Defense
and the Acting President at the time. And in Japan I met with
their equivalent of the Joint Chiefs and their Minister of
Defense as well.
I think we are doing a number of joint exercises, and I
will let Admiral Kilby talk about them because I think they are
pretty impressive what we have been doing in the Indo-Pacific.
But I think, look, my message to the allies is the same as
the President said, which is we are your ally, but it is time
for you to pay your fair share. And I think that is the basic
message.
And what I have seen to some extent is in some cases we are
definitely seeing that and in some we are seeing the reluctance
and the political aspects of it.
From the military side, they want to spend it, they know
they need it, they know that they need to have the same
capability.
And I think, candidly, we need to attack even the
manufacturing aspect of this better. I think we need to be
speaking more about how do we both create our forces to make
sure that if we got into a major conflict that we can maybe
depend on them to help manufacture some things as well.
So I think that is a critical component. I have met with
the head of the Spanish Navy, the head of the Italian Navy, and
recently one of the Ministers of Defense from the U.K. came in.
Mr. Case. Thank you. Thank you for that.
And I think that I guess my only response to you is I think
we can both have higher expectations of our allies and partners
and maintain a much stronger military relationship as we all
get through a little bit of change and dislocation in those
relationships. I don't think it is an either-or.
If I can just shift on you, Admiral, you probably have
something to say on this, but I do want to shift quickly.
NAVIGATION PLAN
Admiral Franchetti of course came up with her navigation
plan in 2024, refined in, what is it, Project 33 in terms of a
timeframe. President Trump came out with his ``Restoring
America's Maritime Dominance'' in April, just a month ago.
I am trying to figure out how that all fits together in
terms of what we have to do in terms of funding you. Has
anything fundamentally changed in the goals or are there just
massive changes that you are going to go through where we have
got to go, ``Oh, wait a minute now, we have got to go in a
different direction or at least consider it''? Are these all
pretty much aligned going into the future?
Admiral Kilby. My opinion is they are aligned.
Now, Admiral Franchetti's focus was 2027, as is mine. So
the goals we were pursuing are goals to get after a force that
is as ready as possible by January 1, 2027.
The first goal is ready platforms. That is where the 80
percent combat surge ready comes from where 80 percent of my
aircraft, ships, and submarines that are not in depot level are
available to the fleet commander if needed.
We still are going to follow the process that General Smith
talked about to get them fully certified. But if they need to
get called over early, I want to know that those ships are
armed and manned and ready to go for the call.
So those are good targets and we are still moving out on
them.
Mr. Case. Okay. So, I mean, when we look at matching up
what has been done in the last year against the budget request,
we will see a continuity, I suppose that is one. I just don't
want to get surprised at anything coming out like, ``Oh, wow,
we are not doing that anymore.''
Admiral Kilby. I do not think you will be surprised.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Judge Carter.
DIRECTED ENERGY SYSTEMS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for what you do for our sailors and
our marines. You have a big-time job.
Admiral Kilby, you and others have acknowledged that
relying on expensive missile systems to counter low-cost
threats like drones is unsustainable.
What is the Navy's plan to rapidly field directed energy
systems like the mechanized enduring high-level laser for
shipboard use? And how are you incorporating lessons from the
Army's development to reduce cost per engagement and preserve
the missile power for higher and more important threats?
Admiral Kilby. Sir, I don't restrict that only to directed
energy, but that is certainly an area we are interested in. We
have a HELIOS installed on the Preble which is located in
Japan. We had some problems with testing but now we are up to
one-third of the power and we are going to continue to test
that weapon system and make sure it works.
You know, I have got buyer's remorse. When I worked with
General Smith in our last life, I was the N9, which is the
person procuring systems, and I was focused on a laser between
500 kilowatts and 1 megawatt because that is what it takes to
knock down an antiship cruise missile.
I wish I had been a little bit more thoughtful and taken a
lesser power weapon that would have been capable against UASes.
In the meantime, we are going to pursue that testing on the
HELIOS system, but we are strapping on a lot of systems on the
Ford Strike Group which is going to deploy next from the East
Coast, like a Coyote missile system, which is a much cheaper
version of a munition to ascend at a counter-UAS threat or a
high-velocity profile--projectile, sorry--high-velocity
projectile from the 5-inch gun. That is a very--a more
expensive--inexpensive way to get at it. Or Hellfire-Longbow
missile, which is a more inexpensive way to get at that.
So we are going to put those on that system. They are not
fully integrated with the combat system. But I think they will
be very effective and we will test them out at sea and then we
will procure them at scale if we need to.
Mr. Carter. That is good to hear.
GROWTH IN SHIPBUILDING WORKFORCE
Secretary Phelan, workforce development to revitalize the
maritime industrial base is crucial to speed up shipbuilding
and for readiness.
Are there currently planned partnerships between Department
of the Navy and Texas-based community colleges, trade schools,
or universities to grow the next-generation skilled
shipbuilding and maintenance workforce?
Secretary Phelan. As the product of a Texas college, I wish
I knew the answer to that, but I am going to let Admiral Kilby
answer that question. We are doing a lot of programs as it
relates to shipbuilding at a lot of different schools. I do
believe we do have them in Galveston, I think.
Admiral Kilby. Yeah, we have got to expand this, sir.
So one of the things the Secretary referred to was 2 weeks
ago I went to Danville, Virginia, where we have an Accelerated
Training in Defense Manufacturing Center. That is an exciting
proposition for me.
We used to send money to invest in the Navy in Danville,
Virginia. I watched five disciplines being trained 8 hours,
three sections a day, so 24/7, welders, nondestructive testers,
QAs, additive manufacturing, and a thing called CNC. They had
16 CNC machines. At Norfolk Naval Shipyard I have got two.
This part was produced in Danville, Virginia. It is a part
required to fix a HELO hangar door. When we went to go look at
how to make that part or if it was available in the stock
system, it was not. It would take 40 weeks to make this part
through traditional means. Danville did it in 19 days. And if I
did it tomorrow, it would be 5 days, because I don't have to
find the IP and get it run in the system and do a FYDP.
So to me, that is the promise, and we need to do that all
over our country.
Rep. Kaptur, we talked about how this could happen in Ohio.
That system is going to produce 900 people a year at a 90
percent placement rate that go into the defense industrial
base. That is the way to buy back our system so it has more
tradesmen in it than it has today.
We used to have 33 percent of our workforce was in that
category. Now it is 11. My son is going to welding school at
Northern Virginia Community College. I hope he goes to
Danville, Virginia, to get his cert.
Mr. Carter. I am very much looking to make the trades work
and have been for now about 10 years and invested quite a bit
of money in trades in many of our States because I have seen
this coming and hoping that when we get the trades going it
will work fine.
And 3D training is the real solution. I just talked to a
guy last night who was at an event I was at in Austin and he
told me his business was 3D printing for the Navy.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Carter. And I was glad to hear that.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Lee.
FALLON RANGE TRAINING COMPLEX
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General. Nice to be with
you.
I wanted to ask quickly about the Fallon Range Training
Complex, which is undergoing a significant modernization
project.
Can you outline where we are in this process, Admiral?
Admiral Kilby. Well, a lot of work, Congresswoman, on that,
and I am appreciative of that.
To protect that range, which is a world class range for us,
as you know, not only do our air wings get certified in there,
but we have made a significant milcon investment in a training
facility, to include other communities in the Navy, the surface
community as well as the aviation community, in a live virtual
constructive manner.
So that is one of our seven targets, Congressman Case, as
well, is to increase the ability to conduct training anywhere
we want, wherever we want, on our ships and our ranges. So
Fallon is the centerpiece of that.
Ms. Lee. Great. You spoke with Senator Jacky Rosen during
your confirmation hearing. It is my understanding that the Navy
is currently working to meet the requirement to give full
compensation for grazing permit holders who are being
displaced.
The current compensation offer, I understand, is said to be
inadequate. So have you had an opportunity to review this? And
could you give an update to that, where that stands?
Secretary Phelan. I am planning to go out to Fallon, I
think, the end of this month or very early next month for
myself to go see it.
As you know, I am trying to balance the fairness to the
grazing permit holders and the American taxpayer. I think that
my understanding is the bid ask, I am going to call it, is not
that wide and we are trying to figure out how to collapse that
down. I don't have an update since then, but I figured I am
going to go there and try to see if I can get that----
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that.
FORCE STRUCTURE
I wanted to just touch on force structure review as you
were talking about the need to cut the bureaucracy, I mean,
56,000 acquisition personnel.
But at the same time, I am hearing an incredible time-
compressing need to bring new capabilities--AI, directed
energy, autonomous systems.
Right now you have a hiring freeze. We have a deferred
resignation program.
I am just wondering, how are you managing and prioritizing
who gets cut, who stays, in light of this modernization need?
Secretary Phelan. So if you look at the workforce there is
basically about 12 percent of it that attrits every year. And
there was about another 8 percent that basically is in 1 year.
So if you look at what they have really done, is they have
offered up money to those and a lot of people have taken
advantage of it. Now, we have identified all those areas that
are critical where we cannot lose people. And so that has not
been offered to them.
I think the next round is really to really make sure that
we are rationalizing and making sure we are not losing key
people in other areas.
To me it is just the question of, are there things that we
can streamline and make it better? You talk about AI and what
it can do. It is an incredibly powerful tool. I used it in my
business before I retired and it had the capability of about
eight people when I was done training that system.
So it is very powerful and I think it can be used in
different ways. But I think it is very additive to people. So,
again, it is a tool, I think, that helps people.
I can let the admiral kind of go into more specifics on
some of the other things as well.
Admiral Kilby. We are working through those people that
elected to take the RP right now. So we are really looking at
the structure and saying, how do we make sense of this and get
the organization we need?
I am a shipyard fan. We lost 1,918 people from our
shipyards. But when I looked at the specificity and we are
still analyzing what trades did we lose from, was it overhead,
was it direct labor, the rough magnitude is two person, twice
the number of people in overhead from the trade.
So to me there is an opportunity to rebalance here, because
we want that ratio to be 20 percent indirect, 80 percent
direct, and we were a little out of balance. So there is an
opportunity to rightsize the force. But we do need people like
structural engineers to go adjudicate problems when we come
across them.
So we have got to come through that and do exactly what the
Secretary said and get the most effective organization. So we
are doing that work now.
Ms. Lee. That is good to hear.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Ellzey.
SIXTH-GENERATION FIGHTERS
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
Admiral, you are wearing eight stars and you are not
getting paid enough for it. And I just want you to know you are
doing a tremendous job.
General, force design has finally reached escape velocity
and you have withstood the attacks. And I am glad to see that
it is coming to fruition.
Mr. Secretary, I have never seen anybody work so hard,
travel so much, and learned as much as you have in only 50 days
in taking on this gigantic job.
Our entire top of the force structure in the Navy/Marine
Corps team is understaffed. You are still waiting on folks, and
so are you, and you are doing a tremendous job.
Our Navy, our joint force, and our future combatant
commanders need the Navy's sixth-generation fighter, or the F/
A-XX, as it is now called. Relying only on the Air Force's
sixth-gen fighter, called the NGAD, or now the F-47, it doesn't
solve our air superiority challenge; and neither does just CCA
on the F-18 or F-35 off our aircraft carriers.
I am a fervent supporter of the F-47 and I would have done
what was necessary to save it. It is basic math. We need more
air frames, land-based and carrier-based, and we need to
complicate our adversaries' targeting. And we do that by
outsticking them--or, in other words, having aircraft that have
longer range with weapons that have longer range so the carrier
can stand off and hit the enemy before they can hit us.
We do that with an AIM-174B and CCA on Gen 6 Navy fighter.
And industry is ready to do this, no matter what anybody says.
I am kind of getting tired of the bureaucratic brigade
delaying our mission to provide for the warfighters. We win
with both the F/A-XX and NGAD, not one or the other.
A 3-year year delay is a de facto cancellation and a win
for China--and Xi Jinping is watching.
One of the reasons we are even having this conversation is
because of a broken acquisition system and systems commands
that slow us down. What DIU and AFWERX can do in weeks or
months NAVSEA takes years to do. They either need to get better
or get DOGE'd. Let's start with the mandated flag officer
reductions by focusing on a Navy yard and freeing up some
housing space.
So, Admiral Kilby, I just want you to--you have already
mentioned that the carrier is the most survivable air field we
have. Can you elaborate a little bit on range and what Gen 6
and 174 bring?
Admiral Kilby. Sure. The sixth-gen fighter has some
capabilities that we need to counter the PRC. Those are
signatures, those are range, those are different engines. They
are all the things that will make it survivable.
The Air Force and Navy have different missions, but we are
going against the same threat. So if that threat dictates a
pivot to that sixth-gen fighter, then the Navy and the Air
Force and the Marine Corps and the Army and the Space Force
need to bring all that to bear as a joint force to be capable.
So I mentioned the Air Wing of the Future. This is kind of
the lead sled dog with MQ-25 to shape that out and understand
what that looks like. Not only does the sixth-gen fighter
replace a fifth-gen fighter, but it also replaces the Growler.
So that is an electronic attack aircraft capability that is
important in this fight because of the electronic warfare
capability it brings.
Mr. Ellzey. Absolutely. And I would like to point out that
the Chinese are showing us what they have got. It is two Gen 6
fighters and they are building more aircraft carriers. So
aircraft carriers are absolutely valuable.
FILL LSM GAPS
General Smith, since we are talking about NAVSEA and all
the fine work they are doing, can you share some more details
on how the Marine Corps plans to fill the LSM gap until we and
the Navy can deliver your suitable platform 8 years late?
General Smith. Sir, I can.
What I would say is we are looking for something that we
can get now, as a replicate for a Landing Ship Medium. The
Landing Ship Medium is purpose built. It is designed to move
and be an inter-island connector.
In the short term, we are looking at using LCU 2000s. We
are looking at using leased Stern Landing Vessels, so we can
get our TTPS, our tactics, techniques and procedures right,
until we can get the LSM that is purpose built for us.
Admiral Kilby. I would like to add we are also going to man
two EPFs. So we have a challenge with our MSC force now. I have
committed to work with MSC to have a CIVMAR crew on two EPFs
that serve the Marine Corps in this role until we can cover
down on this gap.
Mr. Ellzey. Fantastic.
Thank you, gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlemen.
Ms. Kaptur.
INDUSTRIAL AMERICA
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations to you.
And also, Admiral Kilby and General Smith, thank you for
your lifelong service to liberty. You are appreciated and all
those under your command.
Secretary Phelan, I think you are the first person that has
ever come before this committee within the first paragraph of
your formal presentation you mentioned the term defense
industrial base.
In the same paragraph you talked about the trips that you
have taken, the valuable trips to the Atlantic Coast and to the
Pacific.
Well, I come from industrial America, and when I heard
defense industrial America, I thought ``Ah.''
And we are not from the Gulf of America, we are Erie and
Ontario, Michigan, Superior, Huron. And back in World War II
Admiral Ernest King, who served as the Commander in Chief of
the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, came from a place
called Lorain, Ohio.
And what I didn't hear you say--and I am doing this
purposely just because I have the moment--there are shipyards
in Cleveland, Monroe, Marinette, Sturgeon Bay, Toledo in our
region. We also have the phenomenal capability to make steel.
We almost lost it, but we have struggled to come back. And the
Great Lakes are America's steel kingdom.
We have all the strategic metals. We have nuclear tooling
and machining because of the nuclear industry and what we do
with them. We have electric welding. We make air frames, big
ones. We do Mars boosters.
The amount of talent this takes from people who actually do
the work is extraordinary and America left us behind.
So people might describe their districts as agricultural or
tourism or other skills, but we are industrial America. And we
invite you to come see us some time, bring anyone you want.
We tried to work with the Department of Defense in many
ways to help in our school systems to attract younger people
into some of the skills that are needed. That has been harder
than the Mars booster.
So I mention this because you seem to care about that. We
have underutilized shipyards. We have phenomenal workers. They
do tooling, they do machining, they do things I can't do. When
we repair--it is hard enough to make the [inaudible] but then
when you have to repair it, that takes you to a different
level. And we have people that do that.
So America has a need, and I just want to put our part of
America on the map. Thank you for listening to that request and
you are welcome any time.
INCIDENTS
I also wanted to ask--and I don't know which of you
gentleman could answer this--over the past year the USS Truman
has faced several incidents in the Red Sea. In December an F-18
from the USS Truman, as you well know, was mistakenly shot down
by the USS Gettysburg. And within the last 30 days the same
carrier lost two F-18s to the ocean within a week of each other
during operations against the Houthis.
What might be done to prevent further such losses and
ensure the safety of our servicemembers in that region?
Admiral Kilby. Ma'am, I will take this and yield to the
Secretary.
There are four incidents. There was one other incident,
there was a collision. All those incidents on Truman are under
investigation right now. Accountability actions are being taken
or will be taken. And when those are complete, I will come
brief you. I commit to you to come brief you on those specific
incidents.
We are committed to learning what happened and preventing
it from happening again. And so until those come out, I can't
give you specifics. But I can tell you, we are going to build
those types of scenarios that those ships and aircraft were in
and train to it when we do our composite unit training exercise
which certifies a strike group to deploy.
GLOBAL MARITIME SECURITY
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Admiral, very much.
And finally, what steps are being taken to ensure the
operations in regions like CENTCOM and EUCOM are not undermined
by the increased focus on the Indo-Pacific? I am not against
what you are doing in the Indo-Pacific, but how can the Navy
maintain global maritime security in CENTCOM and EUCOM with
these other commitments?
Admiral Kilby. Well, ma'am, I would just tell you that
every one of those combatant commanders has a Navy assigned to
it, a Navy component assigned to it. In the case of Fifth
Fleet, that is the NAVCENT Commander Admiral Wikoff and the
Fifth Fleet, and their job is to manage and operate those
forces, in the case of CENTCOM for General Kurilla. So that
won't change.
We are focused on the Pacific to be sure, but we are
focused on wherever the Nation calls us to go, whether it be
EUCOM, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, or INDOPACOM.
So you have got our commitment, and we train our forces to
be ready to do anything in any of those AORs. That is our writ
to you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Aderholt.
AUKUS PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, glad to have you here today and enjoyed chatting
with you earlier.
The AUKUS partnership between the United States, the U.K.,
and Australia is now in its fourth year. Since then we have
made a lot of progress on both Pillar 1 for submarines and
Pillar 2 for advanced capabilities.
What are some of the lessons learned from the first couple
of years? And what can we expect for, say, the next 4 years?
Mr. Secretary, I will address this one to you.
Secretary Phelan. I will give you my 50 days of observation
and then probably pass it off to Admiral Kilby.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Fair enough.
Secretary Phelan. But I think what I would say is, look, I
think it is important allies. I think we are learning a lot
just trying to figure out how to do this together.
I would say from my own perspective some of the questions I
have been trying to understand is how much brain power is this
taking from us, because subs are very important in how we do it
and how we produce these.
But also being able to do bases and repairs in another
country I think is a good skill set for us to learn and
understand better. I believe we are learning from that and
learning how to build things.
I am still trying to assess the real costs of this to us,
not just dollars and cents but brain power. And so I look
forward to chatting with you.
Mr. Aderholt. Let me ask you this. Would you support an
AUKUS collaborative campus that would bring together our three
nations whose focus would be promoting further cooperation and
meeting both our Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 objectives of the United
States?
Secretary Phelan. You know, look, I think it is an
interesting idea to look at. It is harder for me to answer
because I think you have got a lot of distance. And we have
Australians currently, I think, at our base in Pearl Harbor.
And it is moving faster with them right now than the U.K.
So a campus, I think I would have to understand the concept
a little better and look at it. So I think it is certainly
worth looking at.
Mr. Aderholt. Admiral, do you want to?
Admiral Kilby. Just a specific, sir, there is tech sharing
we have got to work through from a lessons learned perspective.
For AUKUS Pillar 1, I think we have got it about right with our
schooling now.
Just to kind of give you a laydown of where we are at, we
have got 100 Royal Australian Navies in our nuke pipeline right
now. Those are our schools, so they benefit by graduating from
the schools. Ultimately they will have to create their own
school for now. We have got 120 Australians in Pearl Harbor
Naval Shipyard. And then the conduct of avails together in
Sterling is important.
So I think that campus idea, just not knowing it fully,
would be more aligned to Pillar 2 than Pillar 1, because our
system--that conveyer belt needs to keep working. And I don't
know that we, the Navy, we want to change our process right now
from nuclear production and how we qualify our enlisted sailors
and officers. So we would really have to look at that to see if
there is mutual benefit.
MOBILE NAVY YARD SITE
Mr. Aderholt. Before my time runs out, I just want to
mention that of course many think of Alabama as an Army and
Space state, but support for the Navy is large and it is
actually growing.
I am especially encouraged by the recent investments that
are in Mobile down on our coast to expand our Nation's maritime
industrial base in support of such critical missions as
submarine production and office.
Since the initial investment in September of 2024, what are
the next steps to develop the Mobile Navy Yard site and expand
the shipbuilding capacity there?
Admiral Kilby. Well, I think Austral has done a great job
turning those investments, and they are going to contribute to
that 2.33 problem we talked about earlier by producing modules
for our submarine construction.
I think there are other opportunities, too, sir, in the
unmanned world. So when we think about a hybrid fleet which is
going to have traditional manned destroyers, cruisers,
frigates, just like we are talking about aircraft unmanned,
there are unmanned ships that could be built at nontraditional
shipyards right now that could be very helpful to us.
One of our focus areas is nontraditional sea denial, and
that is the delivery of unmanned capabilities undersea, on the
surface, and in the air that can help in a 2027 scenario in the
western Pacific.
So I think there is a lot of opportunity there to expand in
nontraditional vendors and shipyards.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
I see my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Morelle.
INTEGRATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS
Mr. Morelle. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the ranking member.
And thank you, gentlemen, not only for being here, for your
service.
If I could just follow up Mr. Aderholt's question, Admiral,
can you talk about the integration of autonomous systems and
unmanned systems with manned systems? I know it is an attempt
to reduce risk to personnel, distribute operations, expand
maritime domain awareness.
What have you learned over the last several years in terms
of the development and experimentation about how--what insights
have you learned and sort of how have you used that and will it
influence the long-term integration of autonomous systems and
manned systems?
Admiral Kilby. So, sir, we have three fleet areas,
principally, that are working this now: Task Force 59 in Fifth
Fleet, Task Force 66 in Sixth Fleet, and the Fourth Fleet.
Now, there are different needs for those. I would tell you,
necessity is the mother of invention. So Admiral Cooper, when
he was the Fifth Fleet Commander, found himself ship-poor, so
he invested in unmanned technologies to do maritime domain
awareness with things like a saildrone, which is a persistent
vessel that can do maritime domain awareness. Similarly, Fourth
Fleet has adopted that.
The work being done in the Sixth Fleet is interesting
because it ports right over to support Admiral Koehler and
Admiral Paparo in the Indo-Pacific because those same
technologies can be used there in a manner that is effective.
So it is almost a battle lab for the Indo-Pacific.
So there is learning across all our fleets. The geography
drives the use case for what you need for that.
But our initial focus is this thing called ``nontraditional
sea denial.'' Ultimately, though, I want to get to a hybrid
fleet that engages our unmanned capabilities alongside our
ships, supporting our submarines, in the air wing of the future
for manned-to-unmanned teaming.
So, to me, that is the future state. And, last week, I was
in San Diego with Admiral Paparo and Admiral Koehler looking at
their experimentation and rehearsal of these very technologies.
SONOBUOYS
Mr. Morelle. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I want to maybe, if I can, just expand on the Indo-Pacific
and the use. Undersea dominance, I understand, is critical to
deterrence and force projection. I am concerned about what
appears to be a little bit of a mismatch between rising demand
for anti-submarine war capabilities and relatively flat funding
for key enablers like sonobuoys. I think I am saying that
right. That is a weird word.
Inventory levels are reportedly well below the global
floor, which raises questions about anti-submarine warfare.
Could you just elaborate along that line?
Admiral Kilby. I think you are spot-on. We got ourselves in
a non-effective position for sonobuoy manufacturers. But we
have increased our sonobuoys for everything but the MAC buoy
now.
So we want to get back to that global floor. We will
continue to invest in it. We appreciate your support in that
investment. And it is a key enabler for us to invest in.
But now we have two companies, Sparta and Lockheed Martin,
that are individually producing sonobuoys. They are not
producing something that have to be married up together. I
think that is a much better solution.
And my last stats are, about a 7-percent increase is what
we are shooting for every year. So I think that is an area we
definitely need to continue to invest in.
ACQUISITIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Morelle. Very good.
I just wanted to come back to something. I am new to this
committee. And when we had Secretary Driscoll, I think he said
something--and I am paraphrasing--essentially, that there were
35,000 people in the Army related to acquisitions. But, upon
further conversation, it turned out that it seemed like there
were about 5,000. The rest were engineers and people who were
involved with sustainment.
So, Mr. Secretary, when you say that there are 56,000
people, help educate me, what does that mean? Are they actually
all doing acquisitions, or are they are doing other things that
relate to sustainment and making sure that the engineering and
the contracts, et cetera, are appropriate?
Secretary Phelan. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
There is actually close to 80,000 if you count third-party
and contractors. But the total number is 55,833, of which
51,438 are civilian.
In cost estimating, there are 700. In financial management,
there is 2,127. In contracting, there is 7,959. In engineering
and technical management, there is 27,031. In lifestyle
logistics, there is 7,154. In program management, there is
7,483. Test and evaluation is 2,990. Other, which I am still
waiting for, is 389.
Mr. Morelle. So--and I see I am out of time, and I
apologize. Perhaps we could get just a definition of what all
those areas are and, when the appropriations request comes in,
how that will match up against those.
Secretary Phelan. I would be happy to follow up with you on
it.
Mr. Morelle. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back, sir.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for that answer.
Mr. Fleischmann.
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. Very, very
helpful to me. I am relatively new to the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee. I have chaired Energy and Water,
which of course has the NNSA portfolio, so I am very involved
with our nuclear arsenal.
But a little point of privilege. Admiral Kilby, I want to
thank you. Our office asked for a Defense fellow, and we
finally got one, and it is Lieutenant Davids, who is behind me,
doing a great job, an Annapolis grad, and doing a great job, a
Navy aviator. But he has been so helpful to me in a lot of the
conversations we have been having. So it is vicarious to you
and the Navy that I say thank you for that.
Admiral Kilby. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
I am going to ask a question about the Navy's demand for
tactical nuclear weapons.
As chairman of Energy and Water, I have the NNSA facility
and the Y-12 Security Complex in my district. I am very
interested in the health and effectiveness of our nuclear
capabilities. Our boomers, sir, are the survival leg of the
triad, and they will continue to be a critical deterrent to
nuclear-armed adversaries.
I believe nonstrategic nuclear weapons are a vital
complement to our credible deterrent in the Pacific. I am a
strong proponent of the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile
program, and I believe it is essential that we quickly provide
INDOPACOM with the flexible capability to deter adversary
escalation. The ability to deploy nonstrategic nuclear warheads
on a fast-attack submarine and perhaps eventually surface ships
greatly increases our credibility.
Recognizing, sir, that we are limited on our launch tubes
afloat, it is only necessary to have a small number of tactical
nuclear weapons to significantly complicate our adversaries'
decision calculus.
I think, given this dangerous capability gap, the emphasis
should be on speed. We do not need to reinvent the wheel when
we are talking about a capability we recently had in service
only 15 years ago.
My question, sir, to both Secretary Phelan and Admiral
Kilby: Can you share your vision for the SLCM program with this
committee? And how is the Navy working to ensure this program
does not stall in development purgatory for years when we need
a capability as soon as possible?
And I will defer to your answers.
Admiral Kilby. Thanks for your question, sir.
I share your opinion. I have had a couple of sessions with
Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe, who is the Strategic Programs Office
lead who will produce this. He is on target for a new
production by 2035.
But, to your point, he has looked at some alternatives, and
we haven't totally briefed the Secretary on those yet, but he
is looking at speed and an urgency to get something out sooner.
So we need to come through that with our Secretary, but I think
there are some possibilities there that we can work to.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Phelan. Look, I think that it is an important
strategic deterrent and gives the President more flexibility
and options to have, both for tactical nuclear attacks or non-
nuclear attacks.
So it is something that I think is an important component
to the force and one that I look forward to learning more with
the Admiral on, now that I know what is going on with it.
But I will find out----
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
Secretary Phelan [continuing]. And get back to you.
SUPPLY CHAINS
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
In my remaining waning time, I would like to talk about the
logistic challenges. I have spent most of my time in Congress
focused on energy--I am Energy and Water chair--all forms of
energy. And, in 2022, the Navy made a decision to defuel the
Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility in Hawaii. This removed a
strategic fuel reserve of over 250 million gallons of fuel for
military operations in the Pacific.
My question, for whoever would like to answer, please, is:
What is your assessment of the sustainability of our supply
chains for both our aviation fuel and ship fuel in the context
of a protracted conflict in the Pacific? What changes or
investments does our Navy need to make to ensure we can
adequately supply our ships and aircrafts in a protracted war?
Admiral Kilby. May I take a wag at this, sir?
So we need to have a distributed system. I have visited Red
Hill. We are committed to doing the work we have agreed to do
there, and we will continue to complete it by 2028 and all the
remediation that happens there. But we need to find other sites
and distribute them around the Indo-Pacific to make it hard for
China. Right? We don't want to make it easy for them.
So those can be mobile things. They can be, like, tankers
and supertankers. They could be fuel bladders that I have
talked about with my good partner General Smith. But there are
ways to resustain ourselves in a different manner that makes it
hard for the adversary to confound us.
So we are committed to that. There are alternate sites we
need to look at for those fuel storages in the Pacific as well.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, gentlemen.
And I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
SIXTH-GENERATION FIGHTERS
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for what you do for our country.
Let me follow up on what Mr. Ellzey questioned about and
talked about, whether it is fifth-generation, sixth-generation,
manned or unmanned, because there are open reports out there
saying that, you know, there could be a potential delay of
fielding the aircraft needed for our carriers.
Do you feel confident that that is not going to be the
case, regardless of what that mix is? And you have talked about
that. Are you confident that, whatever decision is made, that
you will be able to have the adequate platforms on our
carriers----
Secretary Phelan. Uh----
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. With no delay--with no delay
for that? Or are we looking at another delay because, you know,
decisions have to be made?
Secretary Phelan. Are you asking in general, or are you
asking with respect to a specific program?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I mean, again, without getting
into--because we are here, right? But open sources talk about
how we may be looking at, you know, having some pretty serious,
you know, 3-year delays on fielding on what we may need to be
fielding for our aircraft carriers.
Secretary Phelan. Look, I think, as I said earlier, we are
still trying to sort through the appropriate force posture----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I get that.
Secretary Phelan [continuing]. And appropriate balance
between manned and unmanned----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yep.
Secretary Phelan [continuing]. And what that should look
like.
I don't think we can ignore swarm drone technology and
where it is going to go and how fast it is going to develop and
what that means and what the implications are for the force in
sixth-gen and fighters.
Currently, our carrier is, I think, very, very good. It is
a mobile platform. It works very, very well. We will continue
to develop that posture and that idea and be able to pivot
hopefully as quick as possible.
So I think we are still analyzing and looking at it, but I
do not believe we are going to do anything that would
jeopardize the vulnerability of a carrier.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right.
Again, do you all feel confident about that, that we are
not going to, I mean, you know, 2 or 3 years down the road,
oops, you know, we don't have the capability, we don't have the
platforms, whatever that mix may be, on our carriers that we
need?
Admiral Kilby. Well, I guess, in a reality situation, to be
clear, the sixth-gen fighter isn't going to come by January 1,
2027. It is going to take time to develop that----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right.
Admiral Kilby [continuing]. And build it into the future.
So the 3-year part is a delay if we started the program
late, but it would deliver far into the future.
But we have to commit to that, because we are going to have
aircraft carriers that are going to live in this contested
environment. And that is my operational assessment, that we
need an air wing of the future that does everything the
Secretary just described for the reasons he described it, to
pace the threat.
So, in 3 years, we are going to deliver the fleet we have
to be as capable as it can be to counter the PRC, and then we
need to build that future fleet moving forward.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
Ms. McCollum. Would the gentleman from Florida yield on a
budget question?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Of course I would.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
So it came up this morning that, in fiscal year 2025, we
appropriated $453 million. The Navy doesn't have that under a
contract. And now we are understanding OSD is trying to say
that they don't want the $500 million in the reconciliation
pulled--they want that pulled from the bill.
So I think that is why, budgetarily, we have some of the
questions that we have.
So is it true that we don't have a contract signed? Is that
imminent to be signed, or is that not going to be signed? And
then has OSD asked for the $500 million to come out of the
reconciliation bill? Because that is, in part, why you are
getting these questions.
Secretary Phelan. The budget numbers are all over the
place, to be perfectly honest. And we are sitting down and
having meetings daily on different topics and different things.
I don't have a great answer for you as it relates to it. A
number of different programs we are going through are being
debated, just like we went through with the Virginia-class
contract----
Ms. McCollum. I understand that, Mr. Secretary, but when we
appropriate money, $453 million, and $25 million just for that,
that is what that money is for, and Congress doesn't make it
fungible for it to be used in other places.
So that is why you are getting the question. And we will
follow up with you on that.
Secretary Phelan. Appreciate it.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much. I thank the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Of course. A pleasure to yield to the
ranking member.
And I will get rid of some of the questions that I had
because some of my time has--let me--you have taken questions
about the direct energy----
Mr. Calvert. I will give the gentleman a couple minutes.
DIRECT ENERGY AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, no, I will be very brief, Mr.
Chairman.
Because I was going to talk about the sonobuoys, and that
seems to be kind of a bright spot, I understand. Torpedoes, as
well, is what I am hearing, that at least it is a step in the
right direction? All right.
So, direct energy. Are you--and, Admiral, you mentioned
that when you answered the question. And are you all--I have
heard that, for example, the Israelis have some kind of new
technology which is really, really interesting, potentially
requires less energy, whatever it may be. Are you looking at
other alternatives?
And, by the way--and, if you are, are you able to, if, in
fact, there is a good alternative--I am not saying there is or
there isn't--are you able to tap into, for example, if there is
an alternative that the Israelis might have, to be able to tap
into that?
Admiral Kilby. We want to get a workable technology to be
effective in the maritime environment for counter-UAS and other
things. I am open to all that technology and doing it rapidly.
I have to work through the steps in the bureaucracy to do that,
but I want to be open to it and exposed to it.
So, yes, there could be--high-powered microwave could be
another technology force to be effective in that space. So all
of that is what I call a ``renewable magazine,'' where I don't
have to load weapons to do that.
So that is our focus, is to have an ability to defend our
ships so we can use our high-powered or expensive munitions for
offense, not defense.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah.
But, again, if there were an ally--and I am just saying the
Israelis--do you have the ability to procure something from an
ally on something like that?
Admiral Kilby. I probably don't, and I have to work through
that. But I do believe that the time is right and the
indications are that we can look at things differently and
hopefully be more effective and agile. I am hopeful of that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah. Just please keep us in mind if you
think that there is something that we can do----
Admiral Kilby. Absolutely.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. To help you be more flexible
on things like that, if it makes sense, obviously.
Anyways, Mr. Chairman, you have been generous with my time.
I thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Valadao.
NAVAL AIR STATION LEMOORE
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you to our guests for being here today, and I
appreciate your service to our country.
Admiral Kilby, the Eisenhower--oh, I am sorry. Let me start
off with the Lemoore question.
Admiral Kilby, how is the Navy addressing the combat search
and rescue gap in the Pacific, particularly as aircraft crews
face longer-range missions and self-supported recoveries
without close support of a full Combat Search and Rescue Task
Force, as seen in previous conflicts.
Admiral Kilby. I will have to take that question for the
record and get back to you for some specifics.
I do believe this is in our contested logistics space, and
we are looking at how we do this at scale with large numbers of
people.
But I will take that question for the record and get back
to you.
OPERATIONAL REPORTING
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. I have been hearing that a
little bit from my home district base.
And then another question for Admiral Kilby: The Eisenhower
carrier strike group fired nearly 800 missiles during its
deployment to the Red Sea, at a cost of about a billion
dollars, to counter Houthi threats.
What is the Navy's plan to pursue more cost-effective and
scalable methods to address these types of asymmetric threats?
And how are you ensuring greater transparency in operational
reporting going forward?
Admiral Kilby. Let me take the first part. I spoke about
this a little bit, but we found ourselves in a positionwhere
those captains did what they had to do to knock down a threat,
and they used expensive missiles to do it. And they have done
it and are continuing to do it quite effectively.
We want to provide them an alternative where they can
defend their ships and other bases and allies in a cheaper,
more effective method. So that could be things like a high-
powered microwave or a high-velocity projectile, or a Coyote
weapons system from Raytheon that we got from the Army and
bolted on that system, or a Hellfire Longbow missile.
So those are things we are in process with experimenting on
the forward strike group which will deploy next if effective;
then we will procure them at scale.
But, ultimately, we want to get to the end state we just
talked about, where I have a relatively renewable, rechargeable
way to have terminal defense and have husbanded my magazines
for that offensive capability.
LEVERAGE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, thank you.
As the Marine Corps has looked to leverage artificial
intelligence to speed up decision-making and optimize
operations, how are you balancing rapid acquisition of these
technologies with the need to keep the marines in control of
final decisions? And how are you preparing marines to
confidently challenge or override AI-generated recommendations
when necessary?
General Smith. Yeah, sir, we are using our Marine Corps
Systems Command and, frankly, we are using our Combat
Development and Integration Command in Quantico to go after AI.
We leverage all of the DOD AI, artificial intelligence,
agencies.
We are always in control. There is always a human on the
loop. There doesn't have to be a human in the loop; there has
to be a human on the loop who can leverage the autonomy that is
brought by an AI system. We have to just determine where the
human is on the loop.
So I believe we are doing it. I believe that our Systems
Command and our folks in Quantico keep us well-apprised of how
we can leverage artificial intelligence for better decision-
making, more rapid fielding, and, frankly, more rapid
responses.
We don't need a human to direct the missile be fired. You
need to have a human direct the system to fire at an inbound
missile. When it is descending below 4,000 feet and closing in
on your ship, the CIWS, the Vulcan Phalanx, has activated. It
has permission already. There just has to be a human on the
loop.
MODERNIZATION OF NAVY'S IT SYSTEMS
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that.
I will go back to Admiral Kilby.
Can you provide an update on the progress of Operation
Cattle Drive, particularly regarding the modernization of the
Navy's IT systems? How many vulnerable legacy systems have been
decommissioned to date? And which key systems are currently
being prioritized for transition and onboarding?
Admiral Kilby. I will have to take that question for the
record. I am embarrassed to tell you I don't even know what
Operation Cattle Drive is. So I will get back to you.
Mr. Valadao. Well, when we get down the food chain to where
I am at, we have run out of questions to ask. Someday, I guess,
when I am further up, I will get to ask something more----
Admiral Kilby. You get a gold star for stumping the
Admiral.
MARINE CORPS ATTACK DRONE TEAM
Mr. Valadao. All right. I have a couple more seconds here.
Back to the Marine Corps.
With the establishment of the Marine Corps's Attack Drone
Team and growing demand for low-cost, armed, first-person-view
drones, how long will it take to fully equip all registered
Marine Corps formations, and how quickly can they be fielded
with compared to more traditional, costly platforms?
General Smith. I don't have a good answer for how long it
will take. The answer is, we are not fielding them fast enough.
I was just visiting our Attack Drone Team a couple of weeks
ago. What they are doing with low-cost detritables (ph) is
stunning. They are, you know, turning hundreds of dollars of
systems against thousands of dollars of inbound drones or
against adversary troop formations.
So I don't have an answer for you, but what I can tell you
is, we can't manufacture them fast enough. The Ukrainians are
doing it on the cheap, and we are trying to keep ours on the
cheap too. We are trying to make sure we build a Ford F-150
pickup truck, not a Denali.
And so we are building these as fast as we can, but I would
invite you, Congressman, down to our Attack Drone Team at
Quantico to get you a firsthand view of what we are doing. We
have invested the manpower and the brain power through our
Marine Corps Systems Command.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that. Thank
you----
General Smith. Sure.
Mr. Valadao [continuing]. Again, for your time.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the ranking member for any closing comments.
ARCTIC IMPACTS
Ms. McCollum. Well, I want to thank the three of you for
being here today.
And, Mr. Secretary, A-plus. I know that you are very
serious about getting back to us on the questions on personnel
and the rest. I look forward to it.
And then I am going to submit some questions. Some of them
actually have to do--are we back to calling it ``sea-level
rise'' rather than ``climate change''? I am not sure--or
``climate resilience''? But my questions are going to focus on
what is happening in the Arctic and installations, permafrost,
all those things that are going to affect what you can do up
there.
And then the chairman and I, as you know, are very
interested in what we can do as far as moving forward with
doing some icebreakers.
And then, also, a question for the Marines on the Arctic. I
want to make sure--being from the high north, the bold north,
whatever you want to call Minnesota these days, I want to make
sure that when you are out there participating in exercises
that you have everything that you need to practice, do your
mission, so that when you are out there doing it in real-time
that you can come home safely with no frostbite included.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Before I conclude, I want to thank all of you--Secretary
Phelan, Admiral Kilby, General Smith--for your testimony today.
And, obviously, all the subcommittee members are welcome to
submit questions for the record. And I would hope that you can
respond in a reasonable timeframe.
FIGHTER DECISIONS
One thing I just want to close with is: Obviously, you
heard a lot about the gen-six fighter. I think, you know, we
have had air dominance since 1942, and we hope to keep it that
way. Our men and women on the ground don't have to look up.
Now, maybe, with drones, they are constantly going to look up,
but certainly, with high-performance aircraft, being able to
control the air is extremely important.
And I know you have some short-term decisions you have to
make here pretty soon in order to meet the requirements of
these contracts. But we have, as you know, well know, a fighter
shortfall. I am not quite sure--we will probably put that
question for the record--how big a shortfall we have.
And, obviously, the last couple of months, we have lost
three F-18s. And that line is shutting down, as you well know.
We have the last of the F-18s under construction. F-35s, we are
not getting as many as we had hoped.
And, you know, we are going to be--we are well underway on
the Enterprise and the Kennedy aircraft carriers, and so we are
going to be flying off aircraft carriers for a long time to
come.
So these are important decisions, and I know you are taking
it seriously.
And we will submit some questions for the record.
Mr. Calvert. We certainly appreciate your being here today.
And, with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Tuesday, May 20, 2025.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES FORCES
WITNESSES
LIEUTENANT GENERAL LEONARD F. ANDERSON IV, COMMANDER, U.S. MARINE CORPS
RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT D. HARTER, CHIEF OF ARMY RESERVE AND
COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN P. HEALY, CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
VICE ADMIRAL NANCY S. LACORE, CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY
GENERAL STEVEN S. NORDHAUS, CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. I want to apologize. We had a meeting with the
President of the United States this morning. So I was detained
along with the rest of the committee. Hopefully, they will be
coming in shortly, as the meeting is ongoing. We couldn't get
out of there.
But now the Subcommittee on Defense will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will convene for an open oversight
hearing to receive testimony on the National Guard and Reserve
Forces. I am pleased to be joined by General Steven Nordhaus,
Chief of the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant General Robert
Harter, Chief of the Army Reserve; Vice Admiral Nancy Lacore,
Chief of Navy Reserve; Lieutenant General Leonard Anderson,
Commander of the Marine Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General
John Healy, Chief of the Air Force Reserve.
Warm welcome to all of you, and thank you for years of
distinguished service.
The men and women of the National Guard and Reserve Forces
wear the uniform not only in times of war but in times of
peace, recovery, and crisis. The Guard and Reserve are not
simply backup forces. They are citizen soldiers who are
neighbors, coworkers, constituents who stand ready to serve at
a moment's notice. They fight overseas, but they also fight
wildfires in California--I can attest to that--and respond to
hurricanes and natural disasters throughout our country. And
the National Guard serves with our partners around the world
through State partnership programs to build critical capability
for our allies, as we saw in Ukraine. Most importantly, they
have also been on the front lines protecting our border to
ensure the flow of deadly fentanyl is stopped.
What makes these servicemembers unique is not just their
versatility but their dual commitment. They balance civilian
careers and military obligations with extraordinary
professionalism. But that balance is not without a cost. That
is why we must ensure that the Guard and Reserve receive the
same level of equipment, modernization, and training resources
as their Active Duty counterparts. That will require smart
sustained investment.
This committee has long supported the Guard and Reserves
throughout the National Guard and Reserve equipment account,
including 850 million in fiscal year 2025. I am interested in
hearing from you what more can be done through that account to
ensure that you can continue your great work. I also look
forward to hearing from all of the witnesses on how we are
thinking about innovation, taking calculated risk, and
retaining talent to address growing career areas such as AI and
cyber. What additional resources could Congress look at
providing to our organizations to make them more successful?
Last, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on specific
areas that equipment and modernization efforts would apply to
your organization. Where do you see current gaps that are
preventing the Guard and Reserve from being able to train and
integrate with Active Duty Forces?
So, with that, I now recognize distinguished Ranking Member
Ms. McCollum for her opening remarks.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Mr. Chair, I
stated to our people testifying this morning that I will be
leaving to go to Interior, which you and I both served on.
Right after my opening statement, Mr. Case will be here in my
stead. And I hope to be back.
So, good morning, again, to each and every one of you.
Thank you for appearing before the committee. Thank you for
your patience. As the chair said, you all play a pivotal role
in the safety and security of our Nation. And I want to not
only thank you but for each one of the service personnel under
your charge for their dedication to our country in protecting
the goals, objectives, the ideals of our Constitution.
As I have said in our previous meetings, fiscal year 2026
budget process is off to a very rough start. I think it has
gone beyond rough. I think we are in more than rough shape now
with the delays that we know are coming and knowing what the
numbers are going to be. And this is because there is only four
months left at the end of fiscal year 2025. And all that still
hasn't been finalized yet. So this committee really doesn't
know what foundation we are building on to get a budget done,
as the chair has been asking us to do in June.
The skinny budget this year has been released, and there
is, you know, rumors that full budget might not be released
until June. And we were told yesterday soon. Well, soon is not
soon enough. We have not been able to discuss in any detail the
budget priorities. So, specifically, it is disappointing that
we will be unable to discuss each of your priorities in
programmatic details for fiscal year 2026 at a time when some
programs are facing long delays and others are facing setbacks.
So I hope each and every one of you will reach out to the chair
and the members of this committee as soon as the details are
released to share your priorities for the coming year.
Our National Guard and Reserve Components are called upon
to support a variety of missions, including humanitarian
missions, overseas operations, increased support to the
southwest border. And the Guard, in particular, the State
partnerships, one in which the chair and I were just at with
other members of this committee in Lithuania--and State
partnerships, we work, quote/unquote, the regular, traditional
trips, but they were talking about how important the State
partnerships were to them.
So, given the announcement that the number of troops
deployed to the southern border mission will dramatically
increase, I would like to better understand how it will impact
each one of your units and how it will also impact the pace and
schedule of other deployments and exercises. I would also like
to understand how this mission may be affecting our troops'
morale, readiness, and retention efforts. It would also be
helpful if each of you would share the impacts of the
continuing resolution on the current pace of operations for
each of your services, including training.
And, with the announcement of the Secretary of the Army
there will be force structure change in equipment modification,
I would really like to hear from the Army Guard and Reserve how
this might impact troops in the units and the equipment under
your command.
And, finally, it would be helpful to understand the impact
of the civilian workforce. You already do a lot on a
shoestring. And these cuts could, and I believe will, further--
your ability to execute your missions with the success that you
deserve to have.
In serving our country, on top of managing the civilian
job, in many cases supporting a family, this is one of highest
forms of service our citizen soldiers do. They are truly
putting their country above themselves. So I thank you all for
your efforts today to give us the best information you have,
although I fear it will lack the substance and information we
need to do our budgeting. I look forward to a productive
dialogue today.
I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
We will now begin with witness testimony.
Without objection, your full written testimony will be
placed in the record. Please try to keep your remarks to 5
minutes or less.
General Nordhaus, we will begin with you for a brief
summary of your remarks. General, you are recognized.
Summary Statement of General Nordhaus
General Nordhaus. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Ranking
Member McCollum, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 433,000
National Guardsmen and their families. Our National Guard is
combat-ready, cost-effective, experienced, and dual-role both
State and Federal like no other force. As a primary combat
Reserve of the Army and the Air Force, the National Guard
delivers unparalleled operational capacity with strategic
depth. We represent 20 percent of the Joint Force and four
percent of the budget. And, since 1636, our unique force has
served in every one of our Nation's wars.
The National Guard's mission triad--homeland, warfight, and
partnerships--aligns perfectly with the President's vision of
peace through strength and the Secretary of Defense's
priorities and restore the warrior ethos, rebuild our military,
and reestablish deterrence.
In today's complex and dangerous environment, the Air
National Guard is 33,000 guardsmen globally engaged serving in
every combatant command. We are building elite units and combat
power to deter adversaries and, when called upon, win our
Nation's wars. We will prioritize our warfighters, champion
duty-status reform, full-time support, military technician
modernization, and improving medical access to build readiness.
In the homeland, we operate 15 of 16 aerospace alert sites
defending our skies. We are postured to support the Golden Dome
Initiative, leveraging our expertise in air and missile defense
and unique capabilities and strategic missile warning and
ground-based interceptors. We currently have 6,000 guardsmen
securing our southern border.
Additionally, our counterdrug program disrupted 13 billion
in illegal narcotics just last year. And, in disaster response,
the National Guard responded to six hurricanes and 62,000
wildfires supporting our communities, saving countless lives.
To sustain this ability, investments in foundational
readiness accounts such as flying hours, facility sustainment,
restoration, and modernization, weapon systems, sustainment,
and base operating support are critical to rebuilding our
military.
As a warfighting force, the National Guard provides 40
percent of the Army and 30 percent of the Air Force's
operational forces. Our combat readiness was demonstrated on
April 13, 2024, when D.C. National Guard forces neutralized
enemy drones and missile defense in defense of Israel supported
by Tennessee National Guard. This operation earned 11
distinguished flying crosses.
To continue to be interoperable, deployable, and integrated
with the Joint Force, we must recapitalize and currently with
our service into advanced platforms of helicopters, infantry
squad vehicles, fighters, tankers, and cyber. These
modernization efforts will help advance our warfighting
capabilities, deter adversaries, and maximize the return on
investment for our Joint Force and our taxpayers.
And, on partnerships, across nearly every ZIP Code, in 60
percent of the nation-states worldwide, we build trust, partner
capacity, and resilience that strengthens national security.
Locally, we collaborate with first responders across 2,500
communities. Federally, we work with interagency partners
countering drug trafficking and defeating cyber threats.
And, globally, our State Partnership Program, with 115
partner nations, conducted over a thousand engagements in 2024.
The National Guard's local-to-global partnerships ensures we
are stronger together and stronger tomorrow. The National Guard
is ready, lethal, and postured to ensure peace through strength
and deliver decisive victory, if needed. With your continued
support, we will transform at speed, will deliver an incredible
value to America. Your National Guard is always ready and
always there. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
General Harter, you are recognized.
Summary Statement of General Harter
General Harter. Good morning, Chairman Calvert and
Congressman Case, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the more than 180,000 soldiers and
civilians and their family members that make up your Army
Reserve, it is an honor for me to be here today, along with my
wingman, Command Sergeant Major Greg Betty.
Simply put, your Army Reserve exist for one purpose: to
deliver combat-ready soldiers and formations at time of need in
support of the Nation. First and foremost, I want to thank you
for your continued support of our warrior citizens. NGREA
specifically makes a tremendous difference for the Army Reserve
as we look to keep pace with modernization efforts. We are
thankful for the $131 million appropriated this year. NGREA
drives combat readiness for our formations. And our combat
readiness is critical.
During a recent mobilization tabletop exercise, Army
planners highlighted the 99 percent of all Army bulk fuel
transportation support resides in the United States Army
Reserve--99 percent. We are not a strategic formation. We are
an operational force by design and necessity. We are the
enabling force for the joint fight. To that end, nearly 9,000
Army Reserve soldiers are currently deployed globally across
all combatant commands, including over 700 soldiers supporting
operations on our southern border.
Our challenges have been relatively consistent over the
last several years, with our largest problem areas being
inadequate manning, aging facilities that don't support our
training requirements, and poor equipment readiness. We are
working hard to help ourselves.
Regarding manning, we are working with the Army--they
recruit for us--to increase accessions and hold recruiters to
account.
We are driving on retention, implementing health and
holistic fitness programs across our footprint and revising
processes for more deliberate and improved career management
for our part-time TPU force.
On the facility front, we are thankful for our military
construction and sustainment dollars. But we simply are not
resourced adequately to maintain or sustain our aging Reserve
centers.
As a result, we are relooking our stationing model with a
focus on investing our precious facility dollars and locations
that support recruiting, retention, and allow for readiness
producing training.
Finally, maintaining our equipment is hard. Nearly 80
percent of our equipment is stored at equipment concentration
sites located across the country. These sites are funded to
just 50 percent of our full time mechanic requirement. To
offset this challenge, we have initiated a pilot program to
store and maintain critical fleets at four locations in Europe
and in the Pacific. And we have remissioned our internal
support maintenance companies to conduct their annual training
at our centralized sites, turning wrenches, fixing our
equipment, and improving readiness.
There are three areas that I would ask for your continued
support: First, continued support of our Reserve Pay Accounts,
RPA, despite our end-strength challenges. We are aggressively
managing our people and seeing increased participation rates at
our battle assemblies. RPA makes a difference.
Continued support of NGREA. NGREA allows us to procure
modernized equipment that drives lethality. We only receive
about 1 percent of the Army's procurement budget. So NGREA has
an outsized impact on our ability to procure modernized
equipment. Over the past three years, we have purchased 2,300
mission command systems, significantly improving our
formation's ability to communicate effectively on the
battlefield.
Finally, we need consistent and predictable funding. Army
Reserve soldiers balance civilian careers with military
commitments, and continuing resolutions force us to delay,
curtail, or cancel training events. Predictability is essential
for our soldiers, their family members, and their civilian
employers. So I ask for your continued support.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
Admiral Lacore, you are recognized.
Summary Statement of Admiral Lacore
Admiral Lacore. Good morning, Chairman Calvert, Congressman
Case, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. For 110
years, the Navy Reserve has provided strategic depth for the
fleet to deter aggression and, when required, to prevail in
combat. We are globally a deployable and operationally relevant
force integrated into operations on the southern border and
filling critical gaps at sea.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this force
of which I am extremely proud. And with me today is Force
Master Chief Tracy Hunt, who, in keeping with his title, has
been a forceful advocate for Navy Reserve sailors. He will
retire in July after 36 years of exceptional service.
Over the past few months, Reserve C-130 crews transported
thousands of pounds of ordinates into the Red Sea fight,
keeping our ships on station, intercepting Houthi missiles,
conducting precision strikes, and safeguarding global commerce.
When the fleet needs logistics, whether to deliver firepower or
staying power, the Navy Reserve answers the call.
Warfighting readiness is priority one for the Navy Reserve.
As such, every drill weekend, annual training, exercise and
training dollar is focused on generating warfighting readiness.
It is an all-hands effort underwritten by our sailors,
civilians, and their families.
In April, the Navy Reserve officially met our authorized
end strength for the first time since 2020, resulting in an
exceptional recruiting effort combined with high retention.
Today, 15,000 of our nearly 58,000 reservists are in Active
Duty orders serving in every AOR. We deliver half the Navy's
intelligence and expeditionary combat capability.
And our Reserve logistic support wing flying the C-40 and
C-130 operates 24/7, 365, in INDOPACOM, EUCOM, and CENTCOM. We
are investing our warfighters because they are our strategic
advantage. They bring tactical expertise and civilian
experience that adds unique value to our force and expands the
Navy's capacity. We deliver the training, resources, and
quality-of-life initiatives that enable Reserve sailors to
maintain their warfighting readiness, and we are doing it with
a clear focus to deliver a force that is ready on day one.
The Navy is designed to operate as a distributed maritime
force, which demands an agile supply chain. The Navy Reserve
answers that demand. As I shared with many of you individually,
the C-130 Tango Hercules operated exclusively by the Reserve,
the Navy's only long-range intra-theater airlift for oversized
cargo. This capability is in high demand from fleet commanders,
particularly in the Indo-Pacific, playing a critical role in
the contested logistics necessary to sustain a maritime fight.
Last year, Navy Reserve airlift transported more than
80,000 passengers and 20 million pounds of cargo, sustaining
carrier strike groups in every theater, delivering salvage
teams, resupplying critical munitions, and providing repair
parts to keep F-35s flying in the Pacific and Aegis destroyers
on station in the Red Sea.
However, our C-130 fleet is aging and lacks the
survivability necessary to operate in a contested environment.
Recapitalizing with a KC-130 Juliet is critical to ensuring
that we can effectively and safely carry out the critical
intra-theater logistics missions for the fleet today, in 2027,
and well beyond that.
We are grateful for the strong bipartisan alignment on this
priority. NGREA is an essential appropriation for the Navy
Reserve, and we are grateful for it, but we need more. Our
requirements greatly exceed the Navy's percentage in NGREA. We
would benefit from a more balanced apportionment in NGREA
because the Pacific site will undoubtedly stress the maritime
services.
Chairman Calvert, Congressman Case, and members of the
committee, thank you for your support of the Navy Reserve and
the sailors, civilians, families, and employers who make our
mission possible. We remain committed to deliver what the fleet
requires precisely when the fleet needs it. I look forward to
your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Admiral.
Next General Anderson, you are recognized.
Summary Statement of General Anderson
General Anderson. Good morning, Chairman Calvert,
Congressman Case, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your Marine
Corps Reserve. I am honored to be here with my senior enlisted
leader, four-star Major Edward Mota, and my Command Master
Chief Michael Mussett, who will retire next month after 32
years of service.
The Marine Corps Reserve is a critical element of a total
force, it is essential to meeting current operational demands
while enabling the deliberate modernization of the active
component. We serve as a scalable, ready-force provider,
reinforcing all three Marine Expeditionary Forces. We
prioritize by battalion-level deployments but retain the
flexibility to deploy smaller, mission-tailored elements to our
most emerging requirements.
It has been a busy year since my last testimony. The
Reserve Marines are increasingly assuming operational missions
that give active units the time and space to retain and
modernize appropriately. And this balance, between crisis
response and future force design, is fundamental to our service
strategy.
Initiatives like the Littoral Craft Companies exemplify how
we our integrating new platforms and capabilities into Reserve
formations while supporting experimentation and innovation. But
the time is not on our side. From a Reservist perspective, the
2027 Davidson window is only 72 drills and 30 days of annual
training away. That is all the time we have to build and
maintain the lethality required to maintain--meet the pacing
threat. Every repetition counts.
Every dollar matters. Our training must be deliberate. And
our Reserve Marines, already balancing civilian careers and
family commitments, must have access to modern platforms and
realistic training to be lethal on day one. Continuing
resolutions and budget uncertainty introduce challenges to
these opportunities.
We thank the subcommittee for its continued support,
especially through the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Account. For the Marine Corps Reserve, NGREA is not just a
funding line, it is a warfighting requirement. These funds
allow us to field and sustain the platforms, communication
systems, and equipment that Marines need to train as they
fight. NGREA enables Reserve Forces to integrate with active
forces by quipping them with modern capabilities at pace. And,
with a 99 percent execution rate across recent fiscal years,
the Marine Corps Reserve has proven its ability to execute with
discipline and speed while maintaining our service's clean
audit.
The commandant has made clear that fully leveraging the
Reserve Component is one of our top priorities. Reserve Marines
bring unmatched depth, resilience, and asymmetric advantage to
the fight. With your continued support, they will remain not
only a force in readiness but a force in consequence. Thank
you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General. General Healy, you are
recognized.
Summary Statement of General Healy
General Healy. Chairman Calvert, Congressman Case,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
67,000 members, men and women of the Air Force Reserve, it is
an honor for me to be here today with my senior enlisted
advisor, Chief Master Sergeant Israel Nunez.
The Air Force Reserve embodies warrior ethos through
operational capability, strategic depth, and search capacity
across every corps mission both overseas and here at home. With
a 72-hour response time proven, we are always ready. Whether it
is combat operations, hurricane hunting, or fighting wildfires
from the air, we are supporting Federal, State, and local
agencies, ensuring the safety of our citizens here at home.
From those citizens, we recruit and train from the best our
Nation has to offer, holding them accountable to uncompromising
standards. If properly resourced, citizen airmen are the cost-
efficient solution to the DAF, providing more Air Force. We
operate our installations 28 days a month with just 25 percent
of our force. Compared to our Active Duty counterparts, we
deliver mission-ready airmen for only 30 cents on the dollar.
We are efficient. We are accessible. We are experienced, and we
are lethal.
The Flying Hour Program is at the foundation of our mission
readiness and lethality. However, the $145 million O&M mark in
the 4-year CR left us $26 million in the hole. Flying our
required plan will likely exhaust program funding by early
September, putting aircrew proficiency at risk.
Our fiscal year 2026 budget request outlines flying-hour
requirements to train agile, combat-ready aircrew. The best
operators need the best equipment, though. So thank you for the
$132 million in NGREA this year. But their readiness still
remains at risk.
Disproportionate Air Force Reserve legacy aircraft
divestment without program recapitalization fails to provide
equipment parity. By 2030, our cap portfolio will decrease from
a 20-year average of nine percent to just three percent. This
represents a 44 percent loss in operational surge capacity,
sidelining the world's most experienced title 10 fighters.
Concurrent and proportional fielding provides significant
return on investment through affiliation and retention. But
that is not happening. Modernizing platform drives the DOD's
competitive advantage to deter Chinese aggression. Strong
international relationships underpin deterrence.
In the past year, we have established the Reserve Allies
and Partners Program, RAPP, to formalize international
partnerships and conducted 28 bilateral engagements with 19
partner nations. We are building partner capacity through key
leader and mil-to-mil engagements, deliberately planned
exercises, and force development.
Our allies' and partners' interest in the Air Force Reserve
integrated base defense and a professionalized NCO corps helps
build successful global partnerships and serves as a powerful
deterrent.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
and for your continued support of the Air Force Reserve, our
citizen airmen and their families, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EQUIPPING THE NATIONAL GUARD
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General. And I will start the
questioning, and then we will go down through the members.
As we all know, the California Guard, as I mentioned in my
opening testimony, responded admirably earlier this year to
devastating and tragic wildfires, as the Guard does throughout
the United States, the respective Guard units. Given the
increasing frequency of domestic disasters--and we have seen a
substantial number of them just this last weekend--and civil
support missions, is the Guard adequately equipped and trained
to meet the growing State-level demands without compromising
Federal readiness? So I think I will start with you, General
Nordhaus.
General Nordhaus. Chairman, thank you for the question. And
I was able to land out at the California--right prior to the
first MAF taken off for the L.A. Wildfires. And so the National
Guard, as you know, is 430,000 strong, and across the board,
are 50 States, three territories, and the District of Columbia.
We get after the mission set, whether it is in the homeland or
overseas. Currently, we have 34,000 engaged globally, which is
less than 10 percent. So, as we look at the force, we are
capable of being able to meet the needs within the States and
around the globe as needed.
Certainly, we need help as we look at our foundational
readiness accounts, flying hours, weapons systems,
sustainments, facility sustainment restoration, modernization,
and base operating support. So, as we continue to look to those
things, to be able to make sure they are right so that we can
build readiness, that every dollar you put in the National
Guard gets after readiness not only in the homeland but around
the world.
Mr. Calvert. Any other comment?
General Healy. Just with regard to the wildfire fights,
too, I mean, it is a unified effort between the Guard and the
Reserve our 302nd Airlift wing also, actually out of sequence,
so out of the normal training cycle, participated in getting
rid of those L.A. Wildfires. So great team effort on that, both
the Reserve and the Guard, sir.
General Harter. Mr. Chairman, I would just offer that the
Army Reserve, we partner with our Guard teammates. We have
immediate response authority where we can help in local
communities. I think what is what critical on the equipping
side is that a lot of our equipment is that enabling
capability. We call it critical to use--water purification,
engineer equipment, and so forth, logistics equipment. We used
a lot of our engineers to respond to a hurricane in North
Carolina, effects of the storm. So continued funding of NGREA
and procurement dollars assist us in that effort. Over.
COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Another quick question, as you all
know--and this has been a bipartisan effort on all of us is on
this counterdrug program, and we certainly appreciate the
results that have been delivered so far. Congress provided 295
million to the Guard counterdrug program for fiscal year 2025
to provide funding for training and operations and also
provided an additional 26 million for the National Guard
Counterdrug School Program to provide necessary education to
support combating and drug trafficking efforts.
General Nordhaus, how can the National Guard best utilize
these resources to address this fentanyl crisis, as we are--
obviously it is terribly killing hundreds of thousands of
Americans.
General Nordhaus. Mr. Chairman, thank you for highlighting
this and incredible situation that we have to make sure we are
laser-focused on all the time. And I want to thank Congress for
all funds that go into Counterdrug. Each year the Counterdrug
Program is across the States, and they build those Counterdrug
Programs to use every dollar to get after helping local law
enforcement and others take drugs off the street.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, last year, $13
billion was credited with some help from the National Guard in
taking that off the street. And I can only imagine how many
lives that saved and families that were able to not have
fentanyl or another drug hurt them. 67,000 local law
enforcement agents were also trained through the five
counterdrug schools through the funding that the Counterdrug
Program.
We can never take our eye off the ball. We have to keep
getting better each year. We do lessons learned. We continue to
take those lessons learned and push those out across the 54.
And then, each year, we are looking at where the dynamics are
changing and where drugs are being pushed from one--maybe one
State to another State, or there is more pressure. And then we
move that money to make sure that we get the right resource to
the right place at the right time.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Any other comments?
Mr. Case.
ISSUES WITH THE BUDGET
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, to each of you, thank you for your service and for
that of the hundreds of thousands that you represent.
I want to focus on what Ranking Member McCollum said in her
opening statement. She said, quote/unquote, that the fiscal
year 2026 budget process is off to a very rough start. And it
could get a lot rougher as we look out over the budget horizon.
And she said that there are rumors that we won't get a full
budget until June. There is also the concern that we would be
required in this subcommittee and full committee to mark up
before any effective oversight of the full budget. And there
are even some concerns that some in the administration would
prefer that the normal budget process not occur this year and
move into another CR, which I think and hope we would all agree
would be a disaster.
And so, from our perspective, we are, in the discharge of
our oversight responsibilities, essentially having to shoot in
the dark at oversight right now and do predictive oversight
without knowing exactly what we are overseeing. And so that
forces us into trying to get the information from you that you
are in the middle of deliberating inside the Department of
Defense right now and to understand what the issues are that
you are facing with a CR. Because, as we stand here today,
since we are in a full year of CR, we are in a situation where
essentially the information and the decisions that we are being
asked to make right now are two years old. That is the last
time we did effective oversight on a decision that was actually
reflected in a full budget.
So I am just going to go right down the line here and ask
each of you: What are the principal issues that you are dealing
with right now in the budget that we can start to get a handle
on before we have a full budget, before we have full
information, and especially if we do not have the opportunity
to provide full oversight before we have to make major
decisions in this subcommittee?
General Nordhaus, what is the biggest issue you are facing
today?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, first I would like to thank
Congress for adding some adds in the yearlong CR with SPP,
NGREA, and our full-time mannings to be able to use those in
fiscal year 2025. Certainly, on the readiness accounts, the
foundation, it is every part of readiness. So every dollar you
put in that we can put a mechanic out on flight line to be able
to get helicopters or the machines that we operate to get after
readiness is critical. Weapon system sustainment as well on
parts, those dollars matter. So whatever we can do to increase
that capability along those lines.
And then, on the modernization, as we talked about fighters
and tankers and cyber, those are all critical as we go into the
future along with what we are doing with the Army.
And then, lastly, for our warfighters, there are things
that we can do in the future, whether it is duty-status reform,
full-time support, or mil-tech modernization that can have a
big impact as we go forward into the next year.
Thanks, Congressman.
Mr. Case. Admiral Lacore. Biggest budget issues you are
facing right now.
Admiral Lacore. Thank you, sir. Congressman, I think the
biggest issue for us related to people is the predictability in
being able to get Reservists on orders. It impacts not just
morale, but it impacts readiness. We are not able--you know,
they can't commit to their civilian employer, and they take
time off from their civilian employer, and then we can't come
through with the order. So that is a big one as far as the
people go.
As far as equipment, we are very grateful for the adds we
have gotten in 2024 and 2025 for the C-130 because, as you
heard, C-130 is our number one equipment priority. And we are
behind glide slope for that recapitalization effort. So those
are our biggest impacts.
Mr. Case. Thank you. I am sorry I am doing this fast, but I
need to get through all of you. General Harter?
General Harter. Yes, sir, the biggest issue really to the
Reserve Pay Accounts. So that runs across our formation as far
as getting our soldiers' orders cut, getting them to training
exercises. We have some big training exercises coming up. We
are looking at how do we manage that. And then it gets to Class
Nine repair parts for our equipment because that is all
budgeted for and how do we order that? So those are the two
biggest issues, followed closely by military construction and
sustainment of our facilities. That is what we are looking
close.
Mr. Case. General Anderson.
General Anderson. Yes, thank you, sir. I echo the thanks on
including NGREA in this year's CR. That was certainly
beneficial. But, for us, we had to reduce our reenlistment
incentives for the remainder of this fiscal year as the number
one impact.
And I think, second, as we lose our operational funds, not
only for the Reserve component but on the Active Component in
the Marine Corps, our exercises are minimized, which gives us
less time to train with our Active Component Forces like we are
going to do when we are in the First Island Chain.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
General Healy.
General Healy. Sir, echoing much of what has been already
said, the predictability and stability of being able to pay our
participants is one of the biggest factors. With the O&M
accounts, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we are going
to be $26 million short of flying out or flying hours this
year. So we are working trying to figure that out.
In addition, quarterly authority during a CR doesn't work
well with weapon system sustainment when you got large ticket
items, like $62 million to put a B-52 into periodic depot
maintenance. So those continue to be challenges as we go
forward.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. And let me concur with Mr. Case. None of us
like CRs. And so, obviously, we are looking toward the
administration to get us numbers as quickly as possible. Any
advice that you can give to folks, that would be appreciated.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
has been helpful.
And, to echo what the chairman said, we hate CRs. They are
devastating.
Let me first start by--to General Healy, Homestead Air
Force Base. You know it well. You know, we have state-sponsored
terrorism just 90 miles from the United States. We have all of
the humanitarian issues that continue to arise in the
hemisphere. And, yet, the airplanes there are--we have, what,
28 Block 30s that my staff actually reminded me that they first
rolled off a production line the same year that IBM unveiled
its first laptop. And it is insane.
And so is there a formalized plan for replacing those F-16s
at Homestead Air Force Base? And, if not, what do we need to do
to try to kind of move that in the right direction, General.
General Healy. Well, sir, I appreciate the question. And
Homestead has certainly got a place in my heart. We are going
to plan on using that for our first deployable combat wing. The
men and the women of the 482nd Fighter Wing are leading the
charge for the Air Force Reserve getting after that.
With regards to the plan, the current program on record
only has the F-16s pre-Blocks, as you mentioned Block 30s, only
funded through fiscal year 2027. There is no program of record
beyond that to date.
With regard to how we move forward and how we get beyond
that, typically, I would recommend and advocate speaking to
Congress, but I am doing that right now. So we are looking
towards--we are trying to put everything we can towards getting
F-35 potentially as a recapped item. But, as I mentioned in my
opening comments as well, we are systematically being
nonreinvested for divested aircraft. So anything that we can do
in order to show the value associated with the Air Force
Reserve--we manage our bases. Essentially, as I mentioned as
well, you know, we can do 20 percent of the capability of the
Air Force right now for only three percent of the cost. We can
manage these at a cheaper rate than the Air Force, sir.
RECRUITMENT
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I will follow up with you, Mr.
Chairman, about that at a later date. Let me also just now,
though, with the time that I have, another question to all of
you. And the issue is recruitment. And how are you all doing
with recruitment? Is there something that we could be doing to
assist in recruitment? And we already heard about your kind of
financial crunches. But what else could we do, and how are you
doing generally? Whoever wants to--if you all want to kind of
just briefly touch on that.
General Healy. Sir, from a recruiting perspective from the
Air Force Reserve, we put quite a lot of resources into it.
And, as a result, last year, we met our recruiting goals and
exceeded them this year. This year, we are currently producing
roughly 2.6 recruits per recruiter, which is actually the best
in Air Force right now, exceeding the 1.9 per month that the
Active Duty is doing.
We fully expect that we are going to exceed our recruiting
goal for this year. The challenge for us is the retention rate.
We are about 1 percent under our retention rate. And that is
going to get down to the wire with regards to whether or not we
meet end strength.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Anybody else want to?
General Harter. Congressman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes, sir.
Mr. Harter. Thanks for the question. Our challenge in the
Army Reserve is the Active Army recruits for us. We are part of
the United States Army recruiting enterprise gets after it for
us. We provided roughly 1,400 Army Reserve AGRs to support that
effort. And, while they are making big strides with CAMPA 1
recruiting, they have continued to miss our number. They are
delivering about 70 percent. And what that equates to is we are
currently short about 9,500 privates. And what I tell folks is
that is equal to about 60 truck companies.
And so we are working on our bonus program, and we are
working closely with USAREC and getting the branding out. It is
a wicked hard problem to recruit for the Army Reserve, but,
again, we are working with our Army teammates to get after
that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Yes, sir.
General Nordhaus. Congressman, the National Guard continues
to see historic levels of recruiting and retention. The Army
National Guard, when I came into the job seven months ago, was
focused on getting to 325,000. We are at 328,000 guardsmen. On
the Air National Guard side, we are at 105,000, which is our
funded strength. And we are going to continue to do well
through the rest of the year, and our retention continues to be
strong.
A lot of those things deals with how we are getting after
commands, the bonus criteria, and payments that we are doing,
Army recruiter master trainers, and then also working to get
our folks through MEPS as fast as we can.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay.
General Nordhaus. We are going to keep our foot on the
accelerator because we want to keep and retain the best
warfighters out there.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes, please.
Admiral Lacore. Thank you for this question. Navy Reserve
hit end strength last month, and we anticipate being about 600
personnel above end strength. And that is the first time since
2020. And we attribute a lot of that to our recruiting effort
by which we established a Navy Reserve recruiting Reserve
command. So we own the prior service mission now. So we are
responsible for recruiting folks off Active Duty----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great.
Admiral Lacore [continuing]. Which has gone a long way.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If the chairman will allow just a few more
seconds.
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ten seconds.
General Anderson. Thanks to success of Marine recruiting,
we have maintained our numbers. Even through COVID, as you
know, and Marine Reserves are no different. We are 5- to 600
over our NDAA for this fiscal year. We are healthy both in
recruiting and retention. And part of that is due to the
support from Active Duty recruiters. So where could we get
help? Again, the CR affecting the budget for our recruiters has
certainly hurt us this year.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And thank you, Chairman.
PAY RAISES
Mr. Calvert. On that subject real quick, we just did a
recent pay raise for E-1, C-4s. Was that helpful?
General Healy. Yes, sir.
General Nordhaus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Kaptur.
NEED FOR TECHNICIANS AND MAINTAINERS
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. You are
always welcome here on both sides of the aisle. And we are very
proud of you, and we are proud of your service and those under
your command, your service to our country and to liberty.
I wanted to--all of us come from different parts of the
country. The gentleman to my left, Hawaii. So that is Pacific,
right? And the gentleman to my right, Texas. Well, I am Great
Lakes. And we each look at the world in a different way based
on where we come from.
But I was struck by your testimonies--and I read them all
last night--how many of you mentioned in one way or another the
shortage and need for technicians and those that actually work
and create the new technologies of the future.
And, General Nordhaus, when we spoke recently, I was struck
by something you said related to the Guard base in my region,
180th Fighter Wing you know well, is because of the
maintainers--you said, if I am quoting you correctly--that the
unit scored as high as it did. Is that a correct quote? Am I
quoting you correctly on that?
General Nordhaus. Yes, ma'am. I believe the National Guard
has incredible maintainers because of the experience that they
have, how they work together as a team. But, yes, the 180th
Fighter Wing certainly has incredible maintainers.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, the reason I say I am going to ask each
of you, in terms of recruitment as well as the situation our
country faces--we can't produce airplanes on time; we can't get
our ships built on time; each of you faces challenges within
the units that you command--what programs do you have or could
have that would better work with local assets, be they
educational or otherwise, to help us create a stronger stream
of people who build and maintain? There is a program called
Star Base--some of you may be familiar with. I am not saying
that is a good program that the military has, but it is
something that started.
What other programs exist within the military that could be
a better funnel to move people into these professions that are
so desperately needed both by the military and the private
sector?
We have a serious shortage of technicians and mechanically
trained people. We see it in our region every day, even though
we try. Is there anything any of you is aware of within your
branch that might be expanded to help in this way? And I am
talking about younger people--perhaps 13--12, 13 to 18--that
could link to local organizations. What within the military
exists or could be expanded?
General Anderson. Ma'am, if I could, locally near my
headquarters in New Orleans, we have the New Orleans Military
Maritime Academy. It is 100 percent Marine Corps JROTC school
in New Orleans with over 900 students that bring in and
introduce the trades early on to get them interested in that.
Because, to your point, ma'am, they make that decision
early on in high school, which route they might want to take.
And, even though they are not joining, they may not join the
Marine Corps, they are interested in the maritime industry and
the trades. Some of them go to Coast Guard and other services
as well. But that is a program at least early on that we have
got in the Marine Corps.
General Harter. Ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me, just one second, General. Who has
the lead on that in that area?
General Anderson. Ma'am, the school, it is a privately run
school. But the Marine Corps JROTC, the Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps, it is funded by the Marine Corps, by the
service. We provide uniforms, boots, you know, all the basic
things for the young students there at the school.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Yes, General?
General Harter. Yes, ma'am. We use JROTC as well to
navigate into that youth population and familiarize them with
opportunities in the United States Army Reserve. I will tell
you just like in Toledo, though, in Army Reserve, we have our
private-public partnership program where we reach out into
communities, and we try to, orient, you know, youth that want
to join to opportunities in the Army Reserve but specifically
in the technician area.
We are doing a hiring fair actually in Toledo in September
where we will illustrate, ``Hey, here are some of the
technician mechanic jobs we need. We are only funded to 50
percent of requirement. We have a lot of shortages. You can
join the Army Reserve, become a great American soldier. We will
get you trained up.''
So we will continue to drive on that.
Ms. Kaptur. We will follow up on that.
Yes, General.
General Healy. Junior JROTC just the same. That is run by
the Active Duty Air Force Air Education and Training Command.
And then it gets down to the individual bases that we are at
for community outreach within any programs that they have in
the local community, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
General Nordhaus. Congresswoman Kaptur, one thing I did in
a previous job down at CONR First Air Force was Civil Air
Patrol. And so that is another thing--that civil Air Patrol
goes across from the Air Force. And then, as you know, our
guardsmen and from each of Reserve Component here, we work out
in the community. So I think it is about getting the word out
across the board about what we do and how we do it and then
continue to recruit and retain the best and the brightest.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Womack.
STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, to the Generals, Admiral, thank you for being here
today.
One of my favorite topics of the Reserve Components, and it
is no surprise that, when issues regarding the Guard and
Reserve come up in this subcommittee, that a lot of heads look
in my direction because of my experience down through the years
with the National Guard.
I want to ask General Nordhaus about the State Partnership
Program. We have a lot of them scattered around the country. I
think we have 18 down in the Indo-Pacific region. Arkansas just
recently had a big exercise with Guatemala not terribly long
ago.
I personally believe these SPP programs are just really
important. And it is a two-way street. It is good for the
State. It is also good for the host nation.
What are your thoughts about expansion, and what budget
constraints could impact our ability, particularly as we look
to the Indo-Pacific region?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, thank you for the incredible
question. And, to funding across the board, I want to thank
Congress for State Partnership funding.
As we look to the future, right now, we have 115 partners
around the globe. Sixty percent of the nations are partnered
with a State partner. And, last year, we did a thousand
engagements that one percent of the theater security
cooperation budget.
Like you talked about, whether it is an INDOPACOM. I just
recently went out to Timor-Leste with Rhode Island. Their
partnership is only three years old. And they are with the
latest democracy on the planet in Timor-Leste, and that
relationship was incredibly strong. And the President and the
Minister of Defense all thanked me repeatedly for that
incredible relationship.
Then I met with Hawaii and Guam, when I was over there, and
also saw their incredible partnership with the Philippines. And
so, as we look to the future, every time we get asked to
partner with another nation through the State Department and
through the combatant commands, multiple States are asking to
be that State partner. So I don't think we are short on the
ability to add State partners out there, but we do need
consistent funding. As those partnerships grow, we need a
little bit to kick it off each year to start those key leader
engagements and then the additional funding.
And, as you look at the funding for the State Partnership
Program, the combatant commands, I hear them talk all the time
about how incredibly important it is. And I think a little bit
of extra funding in there continues to robust that program
across the board for our national security.
Mr. Womack. Are you still getting good comments, good
reviews back from the host nation and from the units
themselves?
General Nordhaus. Absolutely, Congressman. Recently, I met
with Norway in the Pentagon with Minnesota and just over the
stop incredible relationship there. Sweden and New York came
into town. That partnership is only 3 years old. I know
Virginia and Finland, that partnership has kicked off since
those two nations have joined NATO. And just over and over hear
the robust coordination between our States--you know, our
States have went to combat with their State partners. I know
that, in an upcoming JROTC operation, they are going to have a
couple State partners actually train with them. So it is not
only do we do mil to mil, but we do it globally, but it also
goes mil to civ and then civ to civ.
COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS
Mr. Womack. Another question, budget-related question, I
have had some concerns about constraints on the budget and the
impact it could have on our ability to get units to the combat
training centers or to the exportable combat training centers.
Is that a concern? Is this something that--I mean, I consider
these combat center rotations to be very important to our
readiness, and I would assume that you would agree that, for
the Reserve Component, it is no different.
General Nordhaus. Congressman, certainly the CTC rotations
that we do are critical to our readiness each year. And, this
year, we are doing two, and we are going to do one XCTC. And
then, while that contract is expiring, we are going to go to
CRC. So there are combat readiness exercises. And there are
going to be 15-day deployments. We are doing force on force
beginning after large-scale combat employment operations.
As I talked to Lieutenant General Stubbs, our Director of
the Army National Guard, he thinks there is great opportunity
here and that we are going to find good training and that it
will make us more lethal and more ready for the warfighting if
we are called upon.
Mr. Womack. Yeah, thank you. You referenced John Stubbs.
For the benefit of my colleagues up here, a long, long time
ago, when I was a battalion commander, John Stubbs was one of
my lieutenants. And, since that time, he has become the
adjutant general for the great State of Arkansas and now the
director of the Army Guard. We are very, very proud of him. And
I am assuming you are getting your money's worth from his
service.
General Nordhaus. Absolutely, Congressman.
Mr. Womack. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Cuellar.
ROLE AT THE BORDER
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank all of ya'll for your service and the
men and women that work along yourselves.
Two questions: One has to do with the role that you play at
the border. I am from--I represent border areas. I live there
at the border. And then the other one has to do with the impact
of the Army Transformational Initiative on the National Guard.
I will talk about the border.
The National Guard has provided border security for many
years. Again, working with the Department of Homeland in a host
of different missions, they have done that both in Federal, in
a State status, performing a number of duties that include
detection, monitoring, logistics, and transportation, enhancing
the work that CBP, or Border Patrol, does down there. And that
is to impede the denial or deny the illegal crossings,
situational awareness. And we certainly want to thank you.
Now that the numbers have gone down, Border Patrol has
pretty much, you know, it is not the way that we are trained,
so I would ask you to, you know, continue doing the work you
are doing there, but to look at some of the basic work. For
example, let's assume this is the Rio Grande. Right now, the
roads of Border Patrol come in this way. They need more river
roads so they can patrol the river, is one thing I would ask
you to consider, number one.
Number two, there is--you know, unless you are from the
border, you are not familiar with the invasive carrizo-cane
that just grows very high on both sides of the border. But one
of the things that we could do is to get rid of that carrizo
cane. And we have added moneys to get rid of that carrizo so
Border Patrol can have a clear side of view.
So, since the numbers have gone down, I would ask you,
besides the work you are doing, is talk to Border Patrol and
talk to them about river roads and the eradication of carrizo-
cane. And I think that would be extremely helpful.
Besides, keeping in mind that one-third of the cameras for
Border Patrol are working, two-thirds of the cameras are not
working. Think about that. Two-thirds of the cameras are not
working for Border Patrol. So those are some things that I
think, living on the border, I think will be very useful.
And then the second question, General, I would like to have
a better understanding of the impact of the Army
Transformational Initiative on the National Guard. As you know,
the Army National Guard has four Apache battalions, including
the First Attack Recon Battalion 149 Aviation in the State of
Texas. So there is more of us, a few of us from Texas, which
currently is flying the D model Apaches that I understand are
supposed to be divested.
So what is the Army's plan for the Guard to ensure that we
have a full fleet of current Apache helicopters. And what is
the plan to sustain and upgrade the fleet? So those are my two
questions.
General Nordhaus. Congressman, thank you for the questions.
As we work super close with Secretary Driscoll and General
George on the Army side, with Army Transformation Initiative,
the Army National Guard is very synced in. And, obviously,
National Guard is 325,000 really--really 328,000 strong. And
so, as we look at going into the future, keeping that
transformation very synced with the Army is important. And that
has been synced across the board. As we look at Army aviation,
I see that continuing to go in a very good direction. From the
Apaches, as we look at the Echo models, we have transformed two
of the four. A third is in transformation right now. And then
Texas will transform in the future to Echo models. And I see a
strong future for the National Guard as we go through this
transformation with the Army.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Anything on the border?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, on the border, General
Guillot. As the combatant commander, General Guillot and I know
each other well, and we work very closely--1,500 of our
guardsmen are in title 10 that fall underneath him. So we will
certainly pass these comments forward on to General Guillot.
And also I work with General Suelzer, who is the adjutant
general for the State of Texas, and where we have about 4,400
guardsmen supporting Operation Lone Star in the State of Texas.
And so I have been down to the border twice to see our
troops down there and how they are getting after the mission to
seal the border.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah, and when the numbers were high coming in
from the border, Border Patrol needed help in logistics,
transportation, and all of that. The numbers have gone down
tremendously. In fact, in the Laredo sector, a day, we get
maybe 30, maybe 40 individuals. And so, across the board, the
numbers are gone. So the logistics, the intelligence, and all
that is very important. But I would ask you, again, everybody
looks at the shiny objects. It is the basic things that should
be done at the border that will have long-term effects. The
river roads--imagine the river, right here--the roads run this
way, not this way. And the carrizo cane, they go almost as high
as this ceiling--and again they are on both sides. I am just
talking about the U.S. side. Just clearing that up will provide
a better view from cameras, eyesight, horse patrols by Border
Patrol. So I would just ask all of you, whoever is involved in
this, just to pass that on. And I have talked to General on
this, but I think it is important that we keep the basics in
mind.
With that, I want to thank all of ya'll for the work that
ya'll do and thank the men and women that serve with y'all.
Thank you.
General Nordhaus. Thanks, Congressman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Fleischmann.
TANKER FLEET
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank each and every one of you all for
your service and your dedication and your excellence and for
your time here today. I would like to especially thank
Lieutenant General Harter for taking time to come and visit us
in our office with your great staff yesterday and meeting with
my staff. Very helpful and insightful, sir. Thank you.
I have got a couple of questions. So I am going to try to
condense this a bit. First question is on the tanker fleet. As
you know, I am from the great State of Tennessee. Tennessee's
134th Air Refueling Wing was rightfully honored for their role
in Operation True Promise. I believe 11 air guardsmen were
awarded the distinguished flying cross for their service. Just
truly, truly outstanding.
The Navy's current tanker, the KC-130T, has a mission
capable rate of about 30 percent. Apparently, it is, quite
frankly, not a survivable aircraft in the contested
environment. The KC-130T fleet is being recapitalized to the J
model apparently.
My question for the Navy and Air National Guard, can you
share with this committee your role in logistic sustainment and
provide your assessment of our current tanker capacity to
sustain protracted conflict in the Pacific?
And a followup question: The KC-130J and the KC-46
complement each other's roles. Is there a target number between
the Air National Guard and the Navy Reserve that would be
sufficient to fulfill our projective logistics demands?
Admiral Lacore. Well, thank you, Congressman. I appreciate
your interest in our airborne logistics.
For the Navy, you are right; the KC-130 Tango mission
capable rate is not great. It is not where it needs to be. And
this is a Reserve-only mission, that we support the Active Duty
for the intertheater logistics.
So it is critical that we recap to the Juliets for their--a
couple reasons. One is, they come with integrated survivability
systems, which will allow us to operate in a contested
environment. But, two, we are also anticipating a mission-
capable rate of above 70 percent for those aircraft. So that
will be essential to what we do.
The Pac Fleet Commander has already asked us, you know, to
work on organic aerial refueling, and we are doing that with
the Tangos, but it is a long haul. They are not all plumbed for
that, whereas the Juliets will come with that plumbing already
established.
We anticipate, with that, at least two times the aerial
refueling rate, and if we include ground refueling as well, we
are looking at probably eight times our refueling capability in
theater, which will be a huge win for us in the Pacific.
Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
General Nordhaus. Congressman, as we look at the Air
National Guard--and, in the previous role, I worked out at
NORAD--and as you looked at tankers to support not only the
homeland defense mission but then you have the nuclear mission
that you need to support and then you have the other COCOMs,
tankers are an incredibly vital capability and requirement for
our Nation to be able to do air superiority.
The Air National Guard has 36 percent of the Air Force's
air-refueling capacity. And so most of that is in the KC-135,
which does amazing work, but it is an aging fleet and will be--
need to be able to modernize in the future.
The KC-46, as you know, we have several units out there.
NMOG-7 will be announced towards the fourth quarter of 2025.
And we look forward to continuing to modernize the fleet in
coordination with the Air Force as we go forward.
PACIFIC LOGISTICS
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Thank you both.
Now I have a question about the Army Reserve's role in
Pacific logistics.
The Army's fleet of landing craft, logistics support
vehicles, and utility vessels play a significant role in the
military logistics ecosystem.
General Harter, yesterday, in my office, you emphasized
that the Army Reserve delivers over half the Army's maneuver
support capabilities and over 90 percent of certain key
theater-level enablers like sustainment, medical, and
engineering.
My question, sir, is: I am deeply concerned about the age
and size of the Army's watercraft fleet. Can you provide us
with your frank assessment on the health of the Army logistics
fleet and ability to sustain a war in the Pacific? And what
would you prioritize, sir, to improve your capabilities.
Thank you.
General Harter. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
So we have divested our watercraft fleet, although that
might be coming back. So we are posturing for that, how we
support Active Army, sir.
But with regards to the question, what we discussed
yesterday, you know, I said 99 percent of bulk petroleum
transportation support is in the Army Reserve. And in that
tabletop exercise that we ran, it was focused on the Pacific
theater. So what we are looking to do--again, NGREA plays a
huge role in how we modernize our fleet and get after the new
tankers that the Army is providing.
And then we are also looking at how we posture equipment
forward. We have already tested it in the European theater,
where we put some of our own equipment forward that will be
needed early in the fight. And we are now starting the posture
for INDOPACOM and in the Pacific theater, because we will not
have time to get that equipment there in large-scale combat
operations.
So I thank you for that question.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
And I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Cuellar, on that issue on the carrizo cane, we call it
``arundo'' in California. As you recognize, it is an invasive
species, and it was brought in by the Spanish to use for thatch
material back in the day. So, something we should----
Mr. Cuellar. Pete and I were saying maybe it was ``chorizo
cane,'' but that is Mexican food.
Mr. Aguilar. I support any chorizo cane.
Mr. Calvert. There you go.
Mr. Aguilar.
F-15EX LOCATIONS
Mr. Aguilar. Let's hope there are no tariffs on that
carrizo.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah. We should put a tariff on it, though. It
is invasive.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for the testimony today.
General Nordhaus, I know Chairman Calvert thanked you for
the support that the Guard has offered Los Angeles during the
wildfires, and we appreciate that--to all of you.
General Nordhaus, as you are aware, the Air Force is in the
process of decommissioning F-15Cs. The California Air Guard is
scheduled to receive F-15EXs to replace their aging F-15Cs. I
am concerned about recent announcements that appear to direct
some of the F-15EX aircraft to Selfridge over Fresno and New
Orleans.
My first question is: Can we expect to see delays in the
delivery of the F-15EXs to Fresno? And how are you working with
the Department to ensure that the Cal Guard doesn't have a gap
in the F-15 mission?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, thanks for the question.
In a previous role as the CONR First Air Force Commander, I
understand the mission set very well and what Fresno does for
NORAD/NORTHCOM in that mission space set. Incredible unit out
there.
I recently was out in Portland and had the opportunity to
fly in an F-15EX. So it is a great aircraft that will come into
the Air Force. And the Air National Guard is bringing that on
board.
We also work very closely with the Air Force as we continue
to modernize the force, and we appreciate the additional F-
15EXs coming into the Air National Guard.
We are working very closely with the Air National Guard,
General Pirak, our Acting Director of the Air National Guard,
working very close, hand-in-hand, with not only the Air Force
but the Air Force Reserve about what bed-down for fighters
looks like in that future.
As we look to the F-15EX and the C model transition there,
they are working that very closely so there are no gaps or
seams, and they are trying to mitigate any impacts.
TRAINING TRANSITIONS
Mr. Aguilar. Will there also be--with the training courses
for the A-10 pilots transitioning, could the A-10-to-F-15EX
transition cause some manning shortfalls across the F-15
enterprise?
General Nordhaus. Well, Congressman, I would say this:
Transitioning from an A-10 to an F-15C, it will be a longer
training program, and so that will have to be planned and
really thought out very well.
Going from an F-15C to an F-15EX, like I am seeing up in
Portland, is a very quick transition. And so the pilots up
there, I was very impressed by them. They have 36 pilots at
Portland; 22 of them are instructor pilots. So I know the vast
capability and experience, and that will help make transitions
from F-15C to F-15EX go very quickly.
Mr. Aguilar. Are you passing any concerns, you know, up the
chain?
I mean, I hear what you are saying, but, clearly, with the
change in Selfridge, this could be a problem. When some of
these transition from the A-10, it will have a longer education
gap, a training gap there; and the potential for the gap with
EXs to Fresno.
I mean, you are conveying any--any concerns you may have--I
am not saying that you have any--but any concerns you have are
being conveyed when it comes to timeliness?
General Nordhaus. Certainly. All the bases are talking to
the Air National Guard Readiness Center, and they are passing
that information up to the Director of the Air National Guard,
and we are working with the AirForce.
As we look to the future, understanding each of those
pieces--and then you also have the production of the F-15EXs
coming off the line. And so we want to understand what that
looks like in the future, and then we will take that into
consideration and minimize any gaps or seams so that we keep
warfighters flying healthy aircraft to get after deterring our
adversaries.
SPACE NATIONAL GUARD
Mr. Aguilar. General--I don't mean to pick on you here--the
administration has expressed interest in establishing a Space
National Guard. Can you share how the Bureau is interacting
with the DOD and the administration in establishing a Space
National Guard?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, yeah, thank you for the
question.
Once again, in a previous role, I was the AFSPACE Commander
for SPACECOM, so I understand the space mission pretty well. I
know our Air National Guardsmen have been doing this mission
set for 30 years.
NDAA 2025 has that transfer of 578 into the Space Force. We
are working very closely with the Space Force and with the Air
Force on that transition.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
CONCERNS WITH F-15S
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
I also share Mr. Aguilar's concern about the F-15s. We
haven't had a really good briefing on that and the Fresno
situation. Some of us believe that rotation was changed, so we
want to take a look at that.
And, also, how does that affect the air cap at March Air
Force Base? Because those aircraft presently are coming out of
Fresno, and how are we going to deal with that if there is a
delay?
General Nordhaus. Chairman, thanks for the question.
Working with General Guillot, the Air Force, and with the
Air National Guard, those are pieces and things that we are
going to have to work out and make sure that we have the right
aircraft in the right location to be able to do the mission set
for homeland defense and homeland security. And I am very
confident that we will work out solutions in the future,
Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I look forward to working with you on that.
General Nordhaus. Thanks, Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rogers.
GRAY EAGLE DRONES
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, lady and gentlemen, to the subcommittee.
Let me focus my time on the Army National Guard securing
funding for the Gray Eagle drones.
Since 2023, Congress has included funds to procure these
platforms. And yet here we are, still awaiting a decision from
the National Guard Bureau on where they will be stationed.
There is a significant amount of infrastructure work that needs
to be done to house the Gray Eagles, and we are at the point
where we can't wait anymore.
When can we expect a basing decision? When do we expect
that will be made, that decision? And what capability gaps
might there be due to these delays?
Sir?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, thanks for the question.
As far as the basing decision for the 12 Gray Eagles that
were in the NDAA 2023, those have been pushed out, and the
announcement, it was made to Arizona.
As far as the NDAA 2025, those will go through a basing
decision and through the Army force structure, like we do with
any basing decision. And so we are very deliberate, follow a
strategic process, both on the Air Force side and the Army
side, to make sure that we take everything into consideration,
and then make funding decisions as we go into the future.
Mr. Rogers. Earlier this month, the Army Transformation
Initiative was announced, which included mention of canceling
Gray Eagle procurement for the Active Component.
Tell us about the importance of the Gray Eagle drones for
the National Guard. How might the Army Transformation
Initiative affect your plans for Gray Eagle drones in the
Guard?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, as we look at the--Army has
18 divisions. Eight of those divisions are in the Army National
Guard. And, currently, as we look to have UAS capability in
those divisions in the future, we are looking to bed down and
work with the Army on that.
So the first one was Arizona as we look at the Gray Eagle.
And that will get bedded down over the next--you know, 2026,
2027, as we take that into the force.
And we look forward to learning from that and bringing
UASes into the Army National Guard and working with the Army on
the future on UASes in the other divisions as we go forward.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we will be keeping an eye on it.
General Nordhaus. Thank you, Congressman.
DETERIORATED FACILITIES
Mr. Rogers. Quickly, let me ask you about deteriorated
facilities.
You all would probably agree with me in saying that our
facilities within the Guard and Reserve are old, deteriorated,
lack the modernized infrastructure to support emerging missions
such as cyber operations and domestic responses.
In Kentucky, the National Guard has been vital in the
emergency response to natural disasters. As we speak, the Guard
is on Active Duty in my home county in Kentucky due to heavy
tornadoes on Friday night. So they serve a very important
mission.
Despite their indescribable value, there are multiple
facilities in my district which are all but obsolete. And yet
it seems nearly impossible for National Guard and Reserve units
to get the funds necessary to make these much needed
improvements.
What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance for
National Guard and Reserve facilities? And what percentage of
Guard and Reserve facilities fail to meet modern standards?
General Nordhaus. Congressman, on the National Guard, we
have 2,200 armories across 2,000 locations. The average age of
our armories are about 48 years old. So every dollar that comes
in to get after facility sustainment, restoration,
modernization is critical to the National Guard for our
readiness and to be able to go forward.
As far as the exact rates, I will have to take those for
the record and get those back to you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Well, my time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
And I also share the gentleman's concern regarding the Gray
Eagle or the MQ-9. It has been a very effective platform both
for ISR and for combat purposes over the years. I haven't met a
combatant command around the world who doesn't want more of
them.
So it is interesting that the higher up we go on the
ladder, it seems that the less support--but when you get to the
combat areas, they all want them. They all want them badly.
So, with that, Ms. Lee.
AIR REQUIREMENT AT NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here and for your service and
leading soldiers in our country.
And I wanted to turn to General Healy.
In your statement, you touched upon this, that the Air
Force Reserve pre-block F-16s at Nellis, serving the 706
Aggressor Squadron, are being divested.
It is not clear what is filling the void at this time, and
so can you tell me what the plan is to fill the adversary air
requirement at Nellis Air Force Base?
And can you also touch on the impact that divestments like
this have on the Reserve mission, on your ability for the
Reserve to provide the depth, capacity, and capability?
General Healy. Well, thanks very much, ma'am, for the
opportunity to answer the question.
That is accurate; the 706 is scheduled for divestment. We
will be divesting the 19 aircraft, pre-block F-16s, between
October and December of this year. And there is no program of
record to replace that right now.
So any options available to the Air Force are going to be
year-of-execution funding to either have civilian contract air
pick that up--at, I would expect, a higher cost, between $12
million and $18 million more a year, to manage it than our
current cost structure for our F-16s there. There are also
opportunities that we might be able to use additional aircraft
participating using the ranges there to act as aggressors as
well.
With regard to the impact to it, it is going to be about 88
people that are ops and maintenance folks currently working on
the F-16 program that are going to be reprogrammed back into
the Air Force Reserve coffer, so to speak, where we have holes.
We do have mission for most of them, whether it be CCA and
bringing CCAs along or the RQ-170 programs, that are still
within that same Nevada area.
But, ultimately, what we are going to be losing, too, with
the reduction of those is about a 40-percent loss of instructor
pilots that are currently providing adversary air for the
fighting force in order to get them ready and trained to go.
TUITION PARITY AND RECRUITMENT
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
I wanted to turn to General Harter.
I had the pleasure of visiting our soldiers at the Dunaway
Army Reserve Center earlier this year, and while I was there,
it was highlighted that an issue impacting recruitment is
tuition parity in the National Guard. It is my understanding
that 33 States offer this for Guardsmen but there is no
commensurate program for Reserves.
And so can you speak to the disparity and the impact this
has on your recruitment?
General Harter. Yes, Congresswoman. Thanks for that
question. It was great having--General Kotulich got out there.
So I appreciate you coming out and visiting our Army Reserve
soldiers.
So recruiting for the Army Reserve is hard. I acknowledge
that, right? Many young men and women who walk into a
recruitment center are looking to either go Active Duty--and if
they do want to go part-time, the benefits that our National
Guard teammates offer are incredible.
And so we are working with local statehouses and Governors
to try to create more parity in those benefits. I mean, an
example would be--and I can't remember which State; it could be
Virginia or Pennsylvania or both--but if you walk in and join
the National Guard, your college tuition is paid for, your
spouse's college tuition is paid for--if it is a State school--
and all of your children.
And so, by the same token, an Army Reserve soldier that
might want to join the Army Reserve and is a constituent of
that State, those benefits aren't afforded. And I understand
that, right? And we are not Title 32. But we continue to work
it.
At the end of the day, the Army Reserve, the impacts of the
shortage of manpower--I talked about it--60 truck companies. So
we continue to work with our COMPO 1 teammates--they recruit
for us--and then continue to work and partner with the National
Guard.
I would offer, it is not a zero-sum game. We don't have
combat arms formations, and so we are not in direct competition
with our Guard teammates.
Ms. Lee. Uh-huh.
General Harter. And so we continue to work that across the
footprint.
NGREA FUNDING
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you.
I will address this to the panel. Maybe, General Nordhaus,
you would like to speak to this.
Something that you all touched upon is the NGREA
appropriation being critical for readiness, from firefighting
to rescue, to procurement of critical equipment, upgrading
weapons systems. However, we know that the purchasing power of
this account has fallen 83 percent since 2015.
I think you touched upon, we are sort of at even keel right
now, but we still are at a disadvantage there.
Can you touch on how critical this funding is? And what
level would allow you to achieve your goals?
General Nordhaus. Congresswoman, thanks for highlighting
NGREA. I have been in combat in an F-16 with an NGREA-bought
Sniper pod, or LANTIRN pod, or Litening pod, an engine that is
in the back of the F-16. And so, without those NGREA, I
wouldn't have been able to accomplish the mission set that I
needed to help save lives on the ground.
Ms. Lee. Okay.
General Nordhaus. And so, when you look at whether the
NGREA is purchasing things on C-130s or on fighters or other
things in the Army National Guard to be able to give them the
capabilities that we need to be able to communicate back and
forth, it helps to make sure that we are interoperable and
deployable and can be part of the joint team consistently
across the board.
So that NGREA funding is critical for the National Guard
and for the Reserve Component.
General Healy. Yes, ma'am. If I could add on, too. So we
have a $1.5 billion backlog on modernization efforts for our
aircraft. They are legacy airplanes, 38 years old. Eighty-eight
percent of our fleet is over 38 years old.
So we typically are getting between $150 million and $155
million a year in NGREA. Greatly appreciate it. $132 million
this year. We can easily execute up to $175 million, $176
million in order to get after that backlog of modernization.
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you for that.
I am over my time, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Ellzey.
MARINE CORPS RESERVE
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here.
I was going to start serious, but then I looked at the
panel, and I decided that, according to my written notes here,
``Beat Army'' and ``Beat Air Force'' are not just a slogan, it
is a reality--this year. So I am sorry I had to say that in
good fun.
Thank you all for being here.
As I look at this distinguished panel--and I mean that with
all seriousness--I see combat leaders and corporate knowledge,
the likes of which can't be replicated anywhere else. And as we
start any fight or respond to any attack, after a sustained
amount of time, it is the corporate knowledge and the aircraft
and the men and women that are represented by you that are the
ones who sustain that fight.
And so I think that you have an incredibly difficult job,
especially when we talk about recapitalization, and it is never
met, but when you come to the fight, you bring the second-rate
stuff but the first-rate fighting men and women.
So thank you for being here.
General Anderson--``Loni,'' as I have known you for many,
many years--in the short time that I have here, give me about
30 seconds of, if you could ask me to ask you a question, what
would it be, and answer it real quick.
General Anderson. What are your Marine Corps Reserves doing
today?
And, Congressman, 12 percent of the marines deployed
forward are Reservists today. And that number is going to
triple through 2027. So, as we continue to prepare for the
fight, that is what the Marine Corps Reserve is focused on.
And we are part of the total force. Like the chairman
mentioned earlier, we are not an afterthought; we are part of
the solution. It is not something that we do later. We are
forecasted in our deployments out through 2031 so our members
can plan, prepare, and be ready for that deployment.
Mr. Ellzey. That is the perfect answer.
General Anderson. Thank you for asking.
KC-130JS
Mr. Ellzey. Yeah.
And those folks are dual-hatted. They are doing civilian
jobs back at home with families, and then they put on the
uniform, as all of you have, and go to the fight. And that is
to be commended. And we have relied on that in every fight
since Desert Storm and even before.
As we talk about the INDOPACOM, which is usually the first
word that comes out as we are talking about China, we talk
about contested logistics. The Marine Corps is going to play a
very large role in that, but so is--``contested logistics'' not
only means cargo but it also means tanking.
And, Admiral Lacore--no slouch yourself in the cockpit. I
think that you and I shared the round domes in San Diego at the
same time when I was at HS-4.
We have tried to get you all some recap on your KC-130Js.
Talk a little bit about the capabilities of the J versus what
you have that you are trying to recap on and how many you need
in fiscal year 2026 to accomplish that mission of contested
logistics.
Admiral Lacore. Thank you, Congressman. Happy to talk about
that.
As you know, the C-130 is only operating in the Reserve,
and it provides the Navy's only intertheater airlift capable of
moving oversized cargo. And we are not part-time. We are doing
this 24/7/365, in all the major theaters.
We have 27 aircraft right now, the Tangos, with an average
age of 34 years and a mission-capable rate of 40 percent.
Recapping to the Juliets will get us, first and foremost,
survivability systems which will allow us to operate in that
contested environment, but we also anticipate a 75-percent
mission-capable rate, which will go a long way.
We started this recap journey in 2024, and we are behind
glide slope, honestly. The plan was to be at 32 aircraft by
2030. We got one in 20, two in 2025, and we are super-grateful
for them. But, right now, for the out-years, we need to be
looking at six per year in order to get us where we need to go.
And what are we going to get out of this? A lot. We
anticipate doubling our sortie rate, getting three times the
service radius in combat. And if you are looking at aerial
refueling and ground refueling in an austere airfield, we are
looking at eight times what we have currently available to us.
Mr. Ellzey. Okay.
Well, I know that the KC-130J, for those who don't know,
the J will only refuel Marine Corps and Navy aircraft. It
won't--at least in this configuration, will not refuel our Air
Force brothers and sisters.
So, as we talk about the INDOPACOM, which is--it is an all-
services fight, but we talk about the Naval services a lot. So
you said--what was the percentage of availability of the T?
Admiral Lacore. About 40 percent.
Mr. Ellzey. About 40 percent. So we are just a couple
years--if we fund you for what you need over the next 2 to 3
years, you are actually going to surpass your capability with
far fewer aircraft because of the higher availability rate,
right?
Admiral Lacore. Absolutely.
Mr. Ellzey. So we need to be emphasizing getting you what
you need in the next couple of years. Would you agree with
that?
Admiral Lacore. A hundred percent.
Mr. Ellzey. Okay.
Admiral Lacore. Absolutely agree.
Mr. Ellzey. All right.
Admiral Lacore. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Ellzey. Five minutes goes fast.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. McCollum.
SUPPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The New York Times reported last week that the Department
of Homeland Security would be requesting the DOD to provide
20,000 National Guard forces to assist in the removal of
immigrants from the United States. This was based on an order
from the President to increase deportation forces. The article
also stated that State Governors would ask for volunteers for
this duty.
General Nordhaus and Guardsmen will be called up for this
mission on the southern border. Are they being called up as law
enforcement personnel to assist in the removal of immigrants,
outside the United States, or both?
If they are to be called up for the removal of immigrants,
can you share with the committee the following: Where will the
Guardsmen be called up? What activities will they be executing?
And will law enforcement be among them?
So the question becomes, having been a State
Representative: Under what legal authority will the Guardsmen
be utilized? Because some of the Guardsmen will have been maybe
law enforcement, sheriff's officers and others, and they would
have some arrest authority in certain circumstances.
So can you explain how you see law enforcement personnel
being used, just folks that maybe don't serve in law
enforcement in a regular capacity in their civilian job, and
people who are law enforcement in their civilian job, if they
will be given different duties or different duties expected of
them?
General Nordhaus. Congresswoman, thank you for the
question.
I do know that the Department of Defense has received a
request for assistance. It is just initial into the building
and is being staffed. I don't have specific details or how the
Department will execute on that request for assistance at this
time.
I do know that the National Guard has supported law
enforcement, whether it was in Presidential election,
inauguration 60 or in 59, and multiple times across the States
that the National Guard gets trained and ready. We operate
under the authorities of either the State and the Governor or
operate under authorities from Congress.
And so we take those things very seriously, and we make
sure that we are following the Constitution, we are following
the law and any policy and guidance, and then that our
Guardsmen receive the training and are put on missions that
they know exactly what they need to do, when they need to do
it, and how they need to do it. And so we will be focused on
that going forward.
Ms. McCollum. Okay. Well, I think there are a lot of legal
questions that our Guardsmen and -women need to know before
they are assigned to duties, and I expect due diligence to be
done.
Because there is also talk about using more Federal lands--
using land and the Federal Government declaring it part of a
national emergency and then putting military personnel on
there. Then does that make it a military base?
I think there are a lot of areas which we don't understand
as of yet. At least, I don't. And I feel I have an oversight
responsibility to understand what the roles are going to be.
Because I don't want to put any person, military or whether
they are Guards or non-Guards, in a position where they are
given an order where things haven't been really thought out
very clearly, because it is going to be their name in the
paper, it is going to be their unit in the paper. And I just
want to make sure that we do our due diligence and, when we
give them a mission to fulfill, that we have thought of all the
legal responsibilities and obligations they have.
TRAINING IMPACTS
The other question that I am concerned about is: As these
activities increase, how does that affect their training and
their qualifications for a near-peer fight? How do you work
with the Department, with the President, to find that sweet
spot.
And that is my only question that I have, Mr. Chair.
General Nordhaus. Congresswoman, thank you.
As we talked about the National Guard being 433,000-strong
and currently 34,000--just over 33,500 today around the globe,
and so that is less than 10 percent. And as we see when
hurricanes, wildfires, things hit a State, we are able to use
Emergency Management Assistance Compacts and be able to go to
wherever is needed to provide that support in a State also
while we are training for the wartime fight.
And so, from your National Guard, we are always ready,
always there. We are making sure that we are using every dollar
that Congress gives us to maximize that training and readiness
so that we can answer the call when called upon.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Cole was unable to attend today, but his statement will
be placed in the record, and he wanted to emphasize his support
for the Guard and Reserve over the years and his continued
support.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I appreciate everyone here for
coming out. I apologize again for starting late.
And, with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Tuesday, June 10, 2025.
OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WITNESSES
THE HONORABLE PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
BRYN WOOLLACOTT MACDONNELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good morning.
The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will convene for an open oversight
hearing to receive testimony regarding the Department of
Defense from the Honorable Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense;
General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs.
Mr. Secretary, General Caine, congratulations to you both
on your new roles, and welcome to your first hearing before the
subcommittee. We look forward to working with you closely to
provide for our common defense.
And a very special welcome to Ms. Bryn MacDonnell.
Bryn, it is great to have you back here in this room. You
sat beside me on this side of the dais, so it might be a new
feeling, sitting where you are now. So I am sure it is
bittersweet that you are no longer serving as a member of my
staff, but I commend your service to the Nation.
And, Mr. Secretary, you are lucky to have her. I have no
doubt that she will provide you with the same level of faithful
advice that she provided for me.
The work we do in this committee has never been more
important. We are navigating an increasingly complex and
uncertain global environment, with adversaries like China and
Russia pursuing aggressive actions and challenges in regions
like the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and beyond.
Our military must be prepared to meet those challenges, and
that preparation requires substantial investments in both
personnel and equipment. But we also must be responsible
stewards of the taxpayer dollars. Balancing national security
priorities with fiscal responsibility is a delicate but
necessary task.
Mr. Secretary, I commend you for quickly hitting the ground
running and focusing on your key priorities of reviving the
warrior ethos, building our military, reestablishing
deterrence, and ensuring the defense of our homeland.
The American people expect their borders to be secure. The
challenges of our southern border, including the ongoing flow
of illegal drugs, human trafficking, and other illicit
activities, are growing threats to our security and must be
addressed. The cartels exploiting our border are increasingly
sophisticated and dangerous. The Department of Defense has a
critical role in this fight.
Mr. Secretary, I applaud your efforts in focusing resources
to ensure the border is secure. I look forward to more
discussion about what resources are necessary to keep the
momentum going without compromising our ability to meet threats
abroad.
I also want to hear from you both about the readiness of
our force. I have heard from senior military leaders and
servicemembers alike about the ongoing concerns related to the
health of our force, including the need for modernization, the
ability to respond quickly to emerging threats.
While this committee has consistently provided funding for
investments in next-generation systems, from hypersonics to
autonomous platforms, we are still seeing troubling delays and
cost overruns in a number of programs.
We simply cannot deter near-peer competitors like China by
falling short in sustaining our defense and industrial base.
That is why it is critical that we continue to focus on the
pace of modernization, particularly in areas like air
superiority and munitions production.
The committee has been steadfast in our support of entities
within the Department that challenge the status quo, such as
DIU, the Office of Strategic Capital, and APFIT. These
innovation entities are alternative pathways to deliver
capability quickly to the warfighter. And I would appreciate
the opportunity to work with you to bolster these activities as
a way to bring disruption and competition into the Department,
which, in my experience, can yield better and faster results.
I also want to discuss the critical importance of our
partnerships and alliances. The AUKUS agreement is one of the
most significant defense initiatives in recent years, with the
potential to reshape the strategic landscape in the Indo-
Pacific.
As we pursue these initiatives, we must ensure that we are
maintaining our own military capability. Our shipbuilding
programs remain over-budget and behind schedule and under-
delivered. This is simply not acceptable, and we need to have a
credible, executable naval force structure plan to keep pace
with threats that we face, particularly from China, while
ensuring taxpayer accountability.
Finally, we must always remember the men and women who wear
the uniform. For far too long, we heard from too many junior
enlisted servicemembers who were struggling with basic needs.
These men and women, the backbone of our Armed Forces, they
perform the tough and often dangerous work that keeps our
country safe.
I was proud to help secure a 10-percent raise for our
junior enlisted servicemembers on top of the 4.5-percent raise
that all servicemembers received last year. It is critical that
we continue to provide support for all those who fight in
defense of our great Nation.
We ask a lot of our military, and the strategic landscape
is more complex than ever. I look forward to a frank discussion
on how we are matching resources to priorities and honoring our
commitments to both readiness and to our people.
I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Ms.
McCollum, for her opening remarks.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank all of you for appearing here
today. And I would like to thank all the men and women who
serve in our military, both wearing the uniform and as
civilians.
As I say often, national security is holistic and not just
defense spending. Do Americans have the healthcare that they
need? Are we providing good nutrition to our kids so that they
can eventually grow up strong and serve in our Armed Forces?
Cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in the reconciliation bill put
the whole of our society at risk, and I believe that this
weakens our national security--all so billionaires can have
their tax breaks.
It is also irresponsible for us to assume that you can fund
the defense programs through an unstable reconciliation
process. That is why it has never happened before in our
Nation's history.
What else has never happened before was the Department of
Defense operating under a full-year continuing resolution. The
CR was endorsed by President Trump, OMB Director Vought, and
you, Mr. Secretary. After enactment of the CR, the Department
had 45 days to submit a spend plan to Congress. In many cases,
it ignored congressional intent.
OMB has an obligation to get money to the services so that
contracts can be executed in a timely fashion, but every
defense company, from the smallest startup to the largest
prime, has told me it is going too slow. Time and taxpayers'
dollars are being wasted. Our national security is being put at
risk because of the lag time. CRs are simply wasteful.
But the point of this hearing is the President's fiscal
year 2026 budget request, and we don't have it. It was due in
February. Today is June 10th. Four months from now is the end
of the fiscal year, and all we have is a very rough draft. The
DOD has failed to submit a complete request.
So, today, we are forced to mark up a rushed and, for me,
an incomplete Defense Appropriations Act. I don't blame
Chairman Cole or Chairman Calvert. The fault is squarely on the
administration.
But just like the CR, this has national security
ramifications. We do not have the critical information, the
granular details, on the DOD programs that we need to make in
order to be effective and efficient with our decisions.
The President proposes; Congress disposes. And that is how
our government works. How can I work with this administration
in good faith when we don't have a full blueprint of the
President's priorities?
For example, Golden Dome at this point is merely a concept;
it is not a plan. None of us have been briefed yet on how you
intend to spend $175 billion or deliver this program in three
short years.
We do not know if priorities like Golden Dome, if they do
not survive the reconciliation process, what will the
Department do? You can't come back to this committee and ask us
to fill those gaps. Defense spending should never have been
included in reconciliation.
Mr. Secretary, it is still incumbent upon you to provide us
with the real budget request. That is the only way to finish a
full-year bill that will address DOD's complex issues like
delays to the Virginia- and Columbia-class submarine programs;
the skyrocketing costs of the Sentinel program; ensuring our F-
35 fighters are operational; and taking care of the quality-of-
life issues for our servicemembers and their families that they
deserve.
We also must understand the administration's approach to
geopolitical concerns like Russia's illegal invasion of
Ukraine; or plans to address the military capabilities of the
People's Republic of China; or adequately support our future
military posture in the Arctic as the polar ice caps continue
to melt.
We don't know the answers because the administration has
not submitted a budget.
Mr. Secretary, let me close with this: It is no secret that
we have some serious disagreements.
The President's decision to call the National Guard troops
to Los Angeles was premature, and the decision to deploy Active
Duty Marines, as well, is downright escalatory. Active Duty
military has absolutely no role in domestic law enforcement,
and they are not trained for those missions.
I ask you, Mr. Secretary, and I ask the President, follow
the law.
I was also appalled by your decision to fire Chairman
Brown, Admiral Franchetti, and other military leaders who
served our Nation with distinction. You fired them without
giving a single reason why.
Many Americans, myself included, have witnessed what is a
deliberate effort to silence and diminish the achievements of
minorities and women in the military. Their dedication, their
heroism, their sacrifice on behalf of our Nation deserve
recognition, not erasure.
As a former history teacher, I know and acknowledge
uncomfortable truths about our own history. It is the only way,
when we recognize them, that we move forward together.
Since World War II, the Department has made great strides
in building a military that is more reflective of the
population of this Nation. That should be celebrated. It should
not be reversed. That is how we build a more perfect Union. We
build it together.
But, Mr. Secretary, today, I have a job to do. We must
provide the resources necessary to make sure our men and women
in uniform can accomplish their missions and come home safely.
And on that, Mr. Secretary, I am sure you and I both agree. To
do that, we need a budget from you as soon as possible--a
complete budget.
I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the courtesy, and I yield
back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
And before we hear from witnesses, I would like to
recognize the distinguished chairman of the full committee, my
good friend, Chairman Tom Cole, for any statement.
Opening Remarks of Chairman Cole
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert,
Ranking Member McCollum. And always good to be here with my
good friend and negotiating partner, the ranking member of the
full committee, Ms. DeLauro.
Welcome, Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, and we thank
you for your service to our great Nation. As today marks your
first appearance before this subcommittee, I want to reaffirm
my commitment to work with you and work to ensure that we have
a strong defense.
We convene at a time of significant global uncertainty. The
threats facing America are diverse and evolving and demand a
strong, agile, and effectively funded Department of Defense.
As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, my
primary responsibility is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
allocated wisely and effectively to safeguard our security.
First, I want to address the readiness of our Armed Forces.
We must ensure that our troops are fully equipped, trained, and
prepared to meet any challenge. I am particularly interested in
the current state of our defense industrial base and the steps
being taken to address any identified shortfalls in being able
to meet production demands.
Next, I want to address the modernization of our military
capabilities. It takes us too long to acquire new weapons
systems. Meanwhile, our adversaries are rapidly developing
advanced technologies. We must not surrender our technological
edge or allow our forces to be under-equipped and outgunned.
I would like to hear about your plans for Golden Dome,
hypersonics, and other programs that are evolving with the
constantly changing nature of war. It is imperative that we
invest in technologies that will define the future fight. At
the same time, we must remain realistic about development
timelines and avoid overcommitting to a single approach at the
expense of adaptability.
It is important that this subcommittee understands how
tradeoffs and risks were approached in this budget. I have been
concerned about capability gaps during transitions from one
platform to the next. And while space is the next frontier, I
am hearing more and more that space offers an answer to every
problem.
While I am optimistic about space-based capabilities, I
certainly think platforms like the E-7 offer tremendous
capabilities until and, frankly, beyond when space is fully on
line. We need diversified capability and support for programs
across domains to ensure continued military dominance.
And I also want to hear more about the Department's efforts
to produce a budget that balances maintaining a strong defense
posture with exercising fiscal responsibility. I will be
seeking assurances that the Department is maximizing efficiency
and eliminating wasteful spending, and, Mr. Secretary, I look
forward to hearing more about what you have done with the
efforts undertaken so far.
I must say, I do agree with my friend Ms. McCollum; we need
more information than we have gotten from OMB. That is not your
responsibility, but it is critical for us to be able to make
the decisions we are going to have to make.
And, again, I understand all the complexities of being a
new administration. Nobody ever meets the timeline when they
first come into office. And we have gotten a lot of good
information from OMB. But the reality is, we, frankly, need
more than we have received so far to make the decisions that we
are called upon to make.
I want to emphasize the importance of congressional
oversight, and, again, I am committed to working with the
Department of Defense to ensure that our national security
objectives are met. However, we also have a duty to hold it
accountable for its spending and performance.
And I think I can speak for almost everyone in this room:
No one liked the way the fiscal year 2025 process ended. Again,
that is not your fault, that is our fault, and there is plenty
of blame to go around. But it is certainly an experience I
don't want to repeat. I don't want you or your colleagues at
Department of Defense to have to operate under a CR again for
the coming year. I know the difficulties that places on you.
Every member of this committee knows that. You have my
commitment we are going to work hard to avoid that this year.
But, again, we need some help from all concerned in the process
to achieve that goal.
And almost no one, again, as I said, liked the way the
process ended, but we owe it to the men and women in uniform to
get this right. It will require collaboration with the
Department to inform and produce a product that will meet that
goal. I look forward to being your partner in that effort.
And, again, I want to thank you for being here today.
And, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary
service to this country before you assumed this position. I
think that is one of the reasons why we have done as well
recruiting, is people that are thinking about putting on the
uniform of the United States have confidence in you because you
have made that decision and you served this country with
distinction before you ever came on this post. And leading by
example is an important thing, and I want to thank you for the
example you set for men and women that wear the uniform of the
United States.
With that, again, welcome in your first appearance, and we
look forward to hearing your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to now turn to the ranking member of the full
committee, Ms. DeLauro, for any opening comments.
Opening Remarks of Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Chairman Calvert and
Ranking Member McCollum, and always to, again, my dear friend,
the chairman of the committee. We have worked together for many
years in producing, I believe, bipartisan appropriations bills,
and it is our attempt to be able to do that this go-'round as
well.
Thank you for holding this oversight hearing on President
Trump's Department of Defense.
To our witnesses, Secretary Hegseth, Chairman Caine, Ms.
MacDonnell: Welcome to the House of Representatives, and thank
you for appearing before us today.
Defense is the largest portion of our discretionary budget,
yet you have still not sent this committee a complete budget
request. We are in mid-June, Mr. Secretary. We are marking up a
defense funding bill in a few hours. And yet we have no idea
what your Department actually needs. We have no details as to
how you want to implement your plans.
We should be discussing how you plan to get our submarine
programs in order, how the Black Hawk platform will be utilized
into the future, and how you plan to improve our
servicemembers' and their families' quality of life.
It is unacceptable for us to move forward with a defense
funding bill without this information, and it is regrettable
that the administration has put us in this position. If we
cannot complete this process on time, we risk yet another
continuing resolution, which is wasteful, inefficient, and
detrimental to our military readiness.
Already, your methods for funding our Nation's defense
programs are as unwise as they are unprecedented. You backed
the first-ever full-year continuing resolution for the
Department of Defense. Particularly Defense has always been
opposed to moving in that direction because of the uncertainty
that a continuing resolution portends for defense and for the
defense industry. Now you are relying on a risky and a partisan
budget reconciliation process instead of regular appropriations
to fund vital programs. The appropriations process is wherein
lies the power of the purse, according to the U.S.
Constitution.
However, this is still an essential opportunity for
oversight, and the Department of Defense, under your
leadership, is in desperate need of it.
Your tenure as Secretary had been marked by endless chaos.
Your first day in office, the Inspector General, whose job is
to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse, was fired. Weeks later,
you dismissed the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and five
other admirals and generals.
Your careless sharing of military secrets in a non-secure
Signal chat, which could have placed American airmen in danger,
led to the firing of Former National Security Advisor Waltz.
You have directly fired several of your top advisors, and
the ranks of civilian staff have been decimated within key
agency posts, including the Defense Health Agency and the
Missile Defense Agency.
Mr. Secretary, of all the Cabinet departments, stability at
the Department of Defense is the most critical for Americans'
safety and security.
Going after waste in defense and an audit among contractors
is long overdue, as is a fresh look at defense after what we
learned in Ukraine. But that requires thoughtfulness and
cooperation, not rash and reckless purges of leadership and
rank-and-file staff. And firings based on political loyalty are
an affront to what our Constitution and our military stands for
and depends on.
Meanwhile, this administration has done seemingly
everything possible to alienate America on the world stage and
turn our back on our allies, particularly Ukraine. Our
belligerent trade wars and the dismantling of our humanitarian
mission all have implications for our national security.
Why would anyone trust us or partner with us when we are
busy undermining our allies' economies and encouraging China to
fill the vacuum we are leaving by abandoning our humanitarian
mission? The bags of flour that I have seen on foreign soil
that say ``USAID,'' ``U.S.,'' ``Product of the United States of
America'' will be gone and, instead, will be replaced by
``China'' or ``Russia'' or ``Iran.''
Conflicts around the world that President Trump promised he
would resolve overnight are only escalating. While we need to
focus and prepare for threats to freedom and democracy
worldwide, the Department of Defense is mired in controversy
and chaos.
The American people expect, deserve, and demand better from
their military leadership, and the lawlessness across the
government must end. This administration has unlawfully
dismantled agencies and stolen funding across the government to
give billionaires a tax break.
America's future soldiers are learning in our public
schools. Our future sailors might rely on Medicaid to see a
doctor. Our future airmen and -women might only have a meal to
eat because of SNAP or food stamps, or they may live in
subsidized housing. If tomorrow's servicemembers are worried
today about having their most basic needs met, then they are
being held back from their fullest potential, and that weakens
our national security.
National security is not just machines and munitions. It
requires a whole-of-government approach, which is why this
administration must provide us an acceptable and complete
budget as soon as possible so we can conduct proper oversight
and why this administration must cease the lawless stealing of
appropriated funds.
I thank the chair and ranking member.
And I look forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
We will now begin with witness testimony.
Gentlemen, without objection, your full written testimony
will be placed in the record.
Secretary Hegseth, we can start with you for your summary
of your remarks. Mr. Secretary, you are recognized.
Summary Statement of Secretary Hegseth
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member
McCollum, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify in support of President Trump's
proposed fiscal year 2026 budget for the Department of Defense.
I am honored to testify today alongside General Dan Caine,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bryn MacDonnell, who
is performing the duties of DOD's Comptroller and Chief
Financial Officer.
I am also proud to represent and serve our warriors and
their families. Today, as they do every day, they are keeping
America safe. They are defending the homeland, they are
standing up and deterring Communist China, and we are working
hand-in-glove with allies and partners to achieve peace through
strength.
I would actually like to start by thanking this committee
and Congress for your bipartisan leadership to give our troops
a big pay raise in 2025. This included an additional 10.5-
percent raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers, E1 to E4.
Thank you also for supporting other initiatives that will
improve quality of life for our warriors and their families.
With a focus on our troops and their loved ones, I have
directed additional actions that will further improve their
quality of life. These include making historic investments in
improving the living conditions in barracks and base housing,
reforming the PCS process to reduce the cost and stress of
moving, and improving the quality of care provided by the
defense healthcare system.
Now, the best part of my job is meeting and interacting
with troops and their families. I hear their concerns. I know
how it feels to face those challenges; I have been there
recently. Each of these initiatives responds to feedback that I
have received from the force, and I will keep listening and
looking for ways to improve their quality of life.
Under President Trump's leadership, this budget puts
America first and gives our warriors what they need. The $961.6
billion budget request--over $1 trillion for national
security--will end four years of chronic underinvestment in our
military.
In the last four months, we have moved quickly to reverse
course after four years of weakness and mismanagement. We found
nearly $30 billion in savings across the Department, and we
have reinvested those savings. We have killed wasteful
programs, targeted bureaucratic excess, and redirected funding
from Biden-era priorities to President Trump's priorities.
We are reoptimizing the civilian workforce and
repositioning resources to better support our warfighters. We
are working with the Department of Homeland Security to
increase border security. We have reduced China's malign
influence in our hemisphere. We have defended freedom of
navigation in the Red Sea.
However, we still have a lot of work ahead of us to achieve
peace through strength.
To carry out the President's mission, we have three core
priorities, as was mentioned: restore the warrior ethos,
rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence.
First, we are restoring the warrior ethos. President Trump
has charged me with focusing on warfighting lethality,
meritocracy standards, and readiness. That is exactly what we
are doing. We are focused on what is important: warfighting and
warriors.
We are sweeping away distractions and bloated bureaucracy.
We have set standards that are high, equal, and unwavering. DEI
is dead. We replaced it with a colorblind, gender-neutral,
merit-based approach.
Our force is responsibly--is responding--excuse me--
responding positively, incredibly to these changes. And thanks
to President Trump, recruiting and retention is higher than it
has been in decades, at historic numbers.
This budget provides a historic level of funding for
military readiness, putting our warfighters and their needs
first.
Second, we are rebuilding our military.
Twenty-five years ago, our military was unchallenged, yet
we squandered that advantage as China carried out an
unprecedented military buildup. President Trump is correcting
those mistakes. We are reviving the defense industrial base,
reforming our acquisitions process, rapidly fielding emerging
technologies to put the best weapons in the hands of our
warfighters.
This includes investment of $25 billion in the Golden Dome
for America, a downpayment on President Trump's priority to
defend our homeland. It also commits more than $62 billion to
modernize and sustain our nuclear forces. The budget allocates
$3.5 billion for the F-47, the world's first sixth-generation
air superiority fighter.
This budget will revitalize our shipbuilding industrial
base, with $6 billion in funding in fiscal year 2026, $47
billion in shipbuilding total. The budget increases
significantly funding for autonomous systems, long-range fires,
drones, and hypersonics. We will put these capabilities in the
hands of our warfighters.
Third, we are reestablishing deterrence. When our opponent
sees our well-equipped, tough-as-nails warriors, they will
decide that today is not the day to test American resolve.
Credible deterrence starts at home, and it starts with
securing our borders. We will achieve 100-percent operational
control of the southern border, with crossings already dropped
99.9 percent.
It also starts in our neighborhood, in the Western
Hemisphere. As you know, as we have said, the Indo-Pacific is
our priority theater and China our pacing threat. That is why I
have traveled twice to the Indo-Pacific region to meet with our
allies and partners, and they have responded.
As we shift in that direction, President Trump looks to
those allies and partners to step up, to share in the burden of
their own defense. He also sees them, as I do, as force
multipliers alongside the United States, and we are making
progress in that. As the President has rightly pointed out, it
is only fair that our allies and partners do their part. We
can't want their security more than they do.
So the Department of Defense is executing a commonsense
agenda to achieve peace through strength. The threats we face
are serious, and so must our investments be. So what this
budget does, it matches capabilities to threats. We must
overcome decades of neglect and decline. We must fortify our
position as the world's most lethal fighting force. And we must
act fast.
This committee is our critical partner in everything we do,
and your leadership and oversight is essential. So we look
forward to accomplishing these goals, to achieving peace
through strength, to supporting our warriors, protecting our
citizens and taxpayers, together with you.
May God grant us the wisdom to see what is right and the
courage to do it. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Caine, you are now recognized for your remarks.
Summary Statement of General Caine
General Caine. Thank you.
Chair Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, other leaders,
members of the committee, I am honored here today to join
Secretary Hegseth and Ms. Bryn MacDonnell to appear before you
today to testify on the President's fiscal year 2026 budget.
Today's hearing reflects our shared commitment to maximize
efficiency, accountability, and lethality to our taxpayers'
investments, ensuring that every expenditure increases the
survivability of our joint force, providing our warfighters
with the advanced capabilities and capacity and cutting-edge
technologies required to dominate our adversaries.
I have deep gratitude for everyone in this room and your
commitment and cooperation to help us deliver the capability
and capacity for our 2.8 million members of our joint force,
the civilians that serve alongside us, and, of course, their
families--all required to work together to deliver, as the
Secretary said, peace through strength.
It is my responsibility as Chairman to understand the
global set of conditions, advise the Secretary, and integrate
our joint forces to confront and manage risks worldwide. This
demands a comprehensive understanding of all domains--space,
cyber, air, sea, undersea--and all military services, each
region, and at times our allies, partners, of course, as we
consider carefully what they bring to the table, and to inform
the decisions that you will make to give us the finite taxpayer
dollars required to ensure the greatest strategic impact with
that investment.
The President's budget enables the joint force to defend
our great Nation against adversaries seeking to do us harm. We
are relentless in our pursuit of innovation and technology that
allows us to deter our adversaries at every opportunity, while
ensuring we are positioned to win on the battlefields of the
future when called upon.
This budget empowers the joint force to get after Secretary
Hegseth's three pillars, as he mentioned--restoring warrior
ethos, rebuilding our military, and reestablishing deterrence--
and ensures, from my perspective, the joint force is properly
armed, globally integrated, and ready.
The President's budget invests in our warfighters. To win
on the battlefields of the future, as I said, our forces must
be properly armed, with the right capabilities--lethal, modern,
reliable, survivable, and at scale. Victory requires people and
platforms that will overmatch the enemy day after day, systems
that will be required to operate under the harshest of
conditions, and technologies that will give our warfighters the
decisive edge that they deserve.
This budget gives us the necessary tools to reinvigorate
our national and defense industrial base. Our Nation is full of
incredible talent, and we need to get every bit of it moving in
the same direction.
This budget also helps the joint force get globally
integrated. I think we are relationship entrepreneurs within
the joint force, which requires us to work together with the
military, our allies and partners, industry, and, of course,
the interagency to be connected before crisis begins.
Finally, the President's budget reflects our mandate to
stay ready, always on the account, anticipating the next fight,
not fighting the last fight, and delivering for our force and
their families.
Our force and our families are the last and most important
part of this budget. This budget makes meaningful investments
in our servicemembers and their families, improving quality of
life, housing, medical care, and the moving process, along with
our most precious asset, our people, who must be properly
armed, integrated, and ready.
I also want to highlight the servicemember over my right
shoulder quickly, the senior enlisted advisor to the Chairman,
who will retire after 37 years, Sergeant Major Troy Black. He
didn't know I was going to say this today.
So, in conclusion, it is an honor every day to serve
alongside some of the most extraordinary warriors, civilian
teammates, and families that our Nation has ever known. I
assure this committee that the joint force remains committed
and capable and ready to defend our Nation. With your continued
support and prudent investment, we will maintain that
competitive edge at scale.
I want to also remember today our deployed and their
families, who are out there on the front edge of our Nation
making sure that we are safe here in this committee room today.
And I would be remiss, as I always try to remember, to
remember our fallen and their families who have made the
ultimate sacrifice.
I thank the Congress for your support and collaboration. I
thank this committee for your efforts and leadership. And I
look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
REDUCTION OF FORCE AND DOT&E
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I want to make sure that each member has a chance to ask
questions, so everybody will have 5 minutes for their remarks
and answers. Remember, when the little light comes on and it is
yellow, you have 1 minute left.
So I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, the Department recently issued a memo
reducing the civilian personnel at the Office of Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation by about 74 percent and reduced
the budget by 80 percent.
Now, everyone on this subcommittee can attest that I have
been beating the drum for reductions in DOD personnel--civilian
personnel--since I became a member of the committee, and that
is a long time. In fact, I have a bill that would require the
Department to reduce civilian staff by 15 percent based on
merit.
However, I think we need to be intentional and clear-eyed
about the functions that we reduce. As you know, DOT&E was
established by Congress in 1983 to centralize and strengthen
operational testing, ensure that weapons systems are rigorously
evaluated for combat effectiveness and suitability, and to
address deficiencies in oversight and standardization within
the Department of Defense.
And there are a lot of examples of DOT&E catching flaws
that would have had catastrophic consequences for our military,
including loss of life. Like, one example is the M2/M3 Bradley,
which was designed to transport troops, provide fire support.
The Army approved the system, touting the armor, firepower, and
mobility. However, when the independent testing was done, it
was found out the aluminum armor was not a good idea and was
susceptible to failure, and early versions caught fire and
burned. And so, obviously, we made changes and rectified that,
and the Bradley has been a valuable part of our military ever
since.
But we share the same goals--to create a more efficient,
leaner DOD--but with things like Golden Dome coming along, we
want to make sure that the technologies we pick are going to
work and that we fund them accordingly.
So I understand the reduction is seeking to remove
duplicative functions. We are not interested in delays, and I
know that that is really high on your list. However, a layer of
independent testing is, I think, important.
In light of that, with the reduction, how will you ensure
that if the military services tasked with testing and
evaluating their own programs will not revert to past behavior,
which showed they would approve systems in order to meet
operational needs or budget timelines?
So, with that, Mr. Secretary, let's see if we can have an
answer to that.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
question. And how we evaluated DOT&E was a reflection of the
overall approach we take in the Department, which is: How
efficiently do we operate? Where are the bottlenecks?
We talk about the things you talk about every single day.
How do we get hands--how do we get systems, platforms, future
capabilities in the hands of warfighters as quickly as
possible?
And so a review led by myself, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, our friends at DOGE who have worked with us, have
helped us look and identify places where we might find
efficiencies. Now, I work and my hands are directly in the
middle of that to ensure that, as we seek those efficiencies
and reduce those redundancies, we are not doing so in a way
that undermines our capabilities or safety for warfighters in
the future.
After we got rid of a lot of the really low-hanging fruit
of tens of billions of contracts and things that we have
reduced that were duplicative, that were completely wasteful,
that were creating PowerPoint presentations that no one was
looking at, you start to look at things like DOT&E, Testing and
Evaluation--which, in a headline, sounds quite significant, and
it can be in many ways.
But when you ask the services, when you ask the Joint
Staff, you talk to the Comptroller and CAPE and you go across
the other Under Secretaries, there is a universal recognition
that DOT&E's mission has bloated and expanded well beyond the
scope of what it was supposed to be and, as a result, was
expanding by months and sometimes even more than that the
amount of time it was taking for systems to actually make it in
the hands of warfighters.
So you still have services and other places doing that
testing and evaluation. This remains in place at a right size.
So we see it as a right-sizing of DOT&E. So it still provides
that oversight and ensures across the joint force we are
recognizing the challenges, but it doesn't add unnecessary
time.
So we recognize why it was created. We want it to do its
job, but not more than its job. And that is what we believe it
is doing, by reforming it.
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you for that answer.
Obviously, as we expect new systems, new technologies to
come on line quickly, we want to make sure, as this committee,
that we are funding it properly and make sure that you can
handle the volume which you are anticipating.
Especially with a new technology like Golden Dome, which,
you know, we still--as the ranking member pointed out, we still
haven't seen a clear definition of what it is--it is a
strategic theater system, lower 48, Hawaii, Alaska, the rest of
it--and how these layered systems are going to be put out there
to defend the country and to make sure that we are not spending
a lot of money unnecessarily. So testing and evaluation is
going to be an important part of that.
With that, I recognize Ms. McCollum.
DEPLOYMENT OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I plan to ask you some budget questions
about the following: the cost of the Qatar plane; where the
money for the Army's parade is coming from; or the National
Guard deployments to the border, where that funding is coming
from.
I honor and celebrate the United States Army, but I would
like to know how much this parade is going to cost. I have sent
the Department letters on several occasions on this, and I am
still waiting for a response.
But then something else happened this weekend, and it needs
to be addressed, and that is the President's premature and
escalatory decision to deploy not only the National Guard
troops to Los Angeles but Active Duty Marines as well.
Mr. Secretary, we are both from Minnesota. I was in the
Twin Cities during the riots that followed the murder of George
Floyd. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets for
days. Governor Walz made the decision to call up the Minnesota
National Guard.
At no point did we need--the citizens of Minnesota request
that the Marines be deployed. Our State and local law
enforcement, along with our National Guard, who have worked on
crowd control, they were more than enough. They were more than
capable of handling this situation.
History has proven that law enforcement and the National
Guard are more than capable of handling situations more
volatile than what happened this weekend. We all see the
continuous loops on TV, but this looks nothing like the George
Floyd protests or the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992.
Mr. Secretary, this is a deeply unfair position to put our
Marines in. Their service should be honored. It should not be
exploited.
The President has issued an executive order and talked
about deploying troops across the country.
Los Angeles County has 17,000 law enforcement personnel,
and the State of California has 24,000 National Guard troops.
So that is why the Los Angeles chief of police did say, and I
quote, ``The possible arrival of Federal military forces in Los
Angeles, absent clear coordination, presents a significant
logistical and operational challenge for those of us [who are
charged] with safeguarding this city,'' the end of his quote.
As I mentioned before, in Minnesota, we train for those
things together. So there is no need for the Marines to be
deployed.
So here are my budget questions, though: What is the
current cost for what is taking place in California, and how is
it going to affect this budget or the budget we are currently
serving under? How much are these deployments going to cost for
both the Marines and the National Guard?
And what training or duties are not taking place because of
these deployments? Where in your limited budget, sir, are you
going to find--in the remainder of this fiscal year, are you
going to pull the money to cover these deployments? What holes
are being created?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for the
question.
You are right; we are both originally from Minnesota, which
is why I recall 2020 quite well, when Governor Walz abandoned a
police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground and
also allowed----
Ms. McCollum. So, sir----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. 5 days of chaos----
Ms. McCollum. Sir, your----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. To occur inside the streets
of Minneapolis.
Ms. McCollum. [Off-mike.]
Secretary Hegseth. The police precinct, ma'am, was
abandoned and burned to the ground. And because of that, the
National Guard was eventually, far too late, mobilized.
And President Trump recognizes a situation like that,
improperly handled by a Governor, like it was by Governor Walz,
if it gets out of control, is a bad situation for the citizens
of any location.
So, in Los Angeles, we believe that ICE, which is a Federal
law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct
operations in any State and any jurisdiction in the country,
especially after 21 million illegals have crossed our border
under the previous administration.
ICE ought be able to do its job, whether it is Minneapolis
or Los Angeles----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I have limited time. I asked a
budget----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. And they are being----
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Question. Could the Secretary
please address the budget? Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth. You asked about the situation in Los
Angeles, and we believe----
Ms. McCollum. I asked about the budget.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. ICE agents should be----
Ms. McCollum. I asked about the budget, sir.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Allowed to be safe in doing
their operations. And we have deployed National Guard and the
Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties,
because we ought be able to enforce immigration law in this
country, unlike what Governor Walz did in 2020.
There are 17,000 LAPD. You mentioned that. There would be
18,000 if not for the defund movement that folks like Gavin
Newsom and Karen Bass have----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, if the----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Implemented. The police
chief----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, if the Secretary----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Said she was overwhelmed,
so we helped.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Is not going to ask the
budgetary questions--I will yield back my time if the Secretary
refuses to answer the budgetary questions I put before him.
They are important.
What training missions aren't happening? Where are you
pulling the money from? And how are you planning this moving
forward? These are budget questions that affect this committee
and the decisions we are going to be making in a couple of
hours.
If you are not going to answer them, please let the
chairman know, and I will take back my time and I will yield it
back to the chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Secretary, why don't you just let us know
what accounts you are pulling the money to to fund----
Secretary Hegseth. Well, thankfully, unlike the previous
administration, we have a 13-percent increase in our defense
budget, and we will have the capability to cover down on
contingencies, which is something----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. The National Guard and the
Marines plan for. So we have the funding to cover down on
contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law
and order in a major American city.
Mr. Calvert. All right.
Secretary Hegseth. As far as training, all of the units on
the ground have been fully trained in their capabilities of
what they are----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Executing on the ground.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. I asked for budgetary. If he
needs to get back to the committee with the numbers, I would
appreciate it, both current and present.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. All right.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth. Happy to submit them for the record.
Mr. Calvert. The gentlewoman will receive an answer to the
question for the record.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
RETIRING LEGACY SYSTEMS AND E-7S
Mr. Secretary, again, welcome.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, I am very concerned
about retiring legacy systems. They need to be retired--no
problem there--but doing it too fast and not having
replacements coming on line.
I have a particular concern where E-3s, as my colleagues
know, AWACS, are--there are just 31 of them in the fleet, or
there were. Fifteen have been retired since 2023. They fly out
of Tinker Air Force Base for the most part, which is in my
district, hence my parochial but I think legitimate interest
here.
I am very interested in seeing--and this committee has done
some important work in positioning us to acquire and field the
E-7s. It is not a new technology. Our friends in Australia use
it; our friends in the United Kingdom use it. Much superior to
what we have.
And so, again, this is one of the areas where we are
concerned where we don't have the budget information from OMB
we would like.
So I am curious about what your thoughts are on the
platform and replacing them. Do you have any idea about the
speed and cost that you are planning to move in that particular
area going forward?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, I appreciate the question, Mr.
Chairman.
And priorities and decisions are what we are in the
business of, on the budget side, on the capabilities side. And
I think President Trump has charged us with making the big,
difficult decisions after a lot of deferred maintenance and
deferred decisions, to ignore parochial priorities in large
part and focus on what the Department needs and where it needs
it and when it needs it.
And that means some tough calls. And there are platforms we
have supported as a result, and there are some platforms and
systems that we won't support going forward because the
services have requested it or we have identified those are
systems and platforms that don't orient toward a future threat.
And we have learned a lot of things--a lot from what has
happened in Ukraine. We have learned a lot from what China is
attempting to do and the systems they are building.
So, if we have systems and platforms that are not
survivable in the modern battlefield or they don't give us an
advantage in a future fight, we have to make the tough
decisions right now. That is my job, that is the Chairman's
job, and it is our job to fund those new systems and make tough
calls.
So the E-7 is an example of that. We are going to fund
existing platforms that are there more robustly and make sure
they are modernized, but we believe most of the ISR or a great
deal of the ISR in the future will be space-based. And not in a
scientific, space-based ``we hope we will get there,'' but in a
``we are funding capabilities that will surpass some of those
airborne capabilities.''
So we are willing to continue to review things like the E-
7, but, from our view, investments in existing systems that
carry forward that capability, alongside even bigger
investments in space-based ISR, gives us the kind of advantages
we need on a future battlefield.
The Chairman. I think that is a fair point.
I will point out, I have been on this committee a long time
and watched the U.S. Army waste $29 billion on a future combat
system because it was going to be so great. And it didn't, and
we wasted a ton of money.
We have a platform here that works. Space is great. It is
unknown; it is undeveloped. And I would just urge you to look
at this pretty carefully as you make the decision. We certainly
will as a committee.
I don't know how much time I have left, because the clock
is not running.
Mr. Calvert. You are the chairman, so----
HIRING FREEZES
The Chairman. Well, I will try and be respectful of the
committee and certainly respectful to our witnesses.
I have one other quick question, if I may. And I think
probably a lot of Members have had these concerns.
Look, I am largely very much in favor of the hiring freezes
and some of the things you have done personnel-wise, so this is
not a criticism. But I do hear that we have certain exempt
positions, like aircraft mechanics, like firefighters--and we
are having a problem with that again.
Fort Sill, I have the home of the Field Artillery and Air
Defense Artillery as well. It is a pretty military district.
Nobody is being critical, but we are having a hard time
getting--these are exempt categories--those filled.
Can you sort of tell me where we are at on that? Because
these are mission-critical people.
Secretary Hegseth. That is a great question, sir. It is
something we are paying very close attention to. In fact, we
meet on it multiple times a week. It includes shipbuilding
capabilities, childcare centers. There are a lot of positions
that affect our industrial base, our capabilities, or our
families that we are working diligently to ensure we are
getting those exceptions as quickly as possible, those waivers.
But we are also trying to do right by right-sizing the
civilian force, which has gotten too bloated too fast and has
mostly been right-sized through voluntary separations through
DRP. So I acknowledge that.
And we can get you a full list of the exemptions, as well,
to make sure you understand where we are making tradeoffs.
The Chairman. I would appreciate that very much, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thanks
for your courtesy.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. DeLauro.
SUBMARINES AND SHIPBUILDING
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to focus, Mr. Secretary, my question on
submarines and our national security, our military
shipbuilding. And, as I said specifically, submarines--critical
investment for national security and for the economy of my home
State of Connecticut.
This is a yes-or-no question, Mr. Secretary: Do you agree
that continued investment of the Department of Defense in
submarine production is, in fact, critical to the United
States's national security and military readiness?
Secretary Hegseth. Very critical.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. So ``yes.'' Thank you.
And we agree. They will continue to be a critical asset to
deter adversaries, sustain the advantage we have in undersea
domain, and the Defense Department should continue to support
these programs.
What is the status of the Department's investments in
submarine programs?
Secretary Hegseth. A 14-percent increase in fiscal year
2026 on the Columbia and a substantial increase in the Virginia
as well.
So we are ensuring a defense-submarine industrial base that
has been left behind, that has been----
Ms. DeLauro. Well----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Neglected, is fully
invested----
Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. We have funded the submarine base
here.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. To make sure we are
speeding up on funding the submarines.
Ms. McCollum. More than half.
Ms. DeLauro. More than half. And you can go back to last
December. But I want to move on.
Do you know where our submarine production currently stands
and whether current production is sufficient to bridge the gap
between current fleet size and projected need?
Secretary Hegseth. There is a gap, but we believe we are
closing it, ma'am. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro. And if you can get to us the information about
how, in fact, that you can close that gap, because we do not
have any information or data that can substantiate what you are
saying.
Your department's initial budget proposal includes
incremental funding for the Columbia-class submarine. Is that
going to raise alarm bells across the defense industrial base
by signaling a lack of commitment to the program?
Secretary Hegseth. No. We could not--ma'am, we could not be
more committed to Columbia. The centrality in the triad,
ensuring it delivers on time, it is central to the deterrent
and the base of the United States.
Ms. DeLauro. Do you know how much----
Secretary Hegseth. So we are very committed to that.
Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Of a financial hole this will
create for the defense industrial base? Will there be a
financial hole for the defense industrial base in 2026?
Secretary Hegseth. Certainly not. Based on our projections,
there is not a hole. We are investing in Columbia robustly.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Without numbers--it is my understanding
the Department is planning to move $3.1 billion for the
Columbia-class from 2026 and spread it over 2027 and 2028. This
creates a serious problem for industry in the short term and
hampers shipbuilders' ability to reach an adequate production
rate.
Have you been in contact with Electric Boat or with
Huntington Ingalls about your plans?
Secretary Hegseth. Almost every day, our Deputy Secretary
of Defense alongside our Secretary of the Navy are actively
engaged with all of our shipbuilders and shipyards to make sure
their needs not only are being met but their shortfalls are
being addressed so that we can close that gap in real-time----
Ms. DeLauro. Uh-huh.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Which has existed for quite
some time.
Ms. DeLauro. So that you can--you can really lay out for us
the information which we would like to get, you know, this
committee needs to take a look at. Because I know you believe
that submarines are important, as I do. But getting the
specific information about where we stand, what the production
rate is, what gaps there may be.
We are willing to listen to all of that, because, in fact,
in contrast to what your earlier statement was, we have, in
fact, supported mightily the submarine industrial base from
this committee. That has not been neglected.
Do you have a plan for making the investments necessary to
ramp up submarine production to the necessary elections?
I would just tell you, as part of the December continuing
resolution, Congress included $5.7 billion for the Department
to put on contract for two additional Block IV and one Block V
Virginia-class submarines. The Navy advised Members that these
funds were required to be placed on contract by February of
2025, yet the Department did not put funding for the two
additional Block IV boats on contract until April 30th.
So do we have a plan--do you have a plan for making the
necessary investments to ramp up submarine production to the
necessary levels? And what is that plan?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, first of all, I want to thank
this committee for the flexibility alongside fiscal year 2025
and the continuing resolution, plus----
Ms. DeLauro. Well, I would hope you would thank this
committee for the funding----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. A lot of flexibility
provided on the submarine----
Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. That it has made.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Industrial base, and we----
Ms. DeLauro. We have made a serious investment. So your
first statement is inaccurate. We have focused squarely on
submarines.
And we now want to know where that is going and what your
plan is for the continued investments to meet production levels
and make sure that that is an area that is covered for our
national security.
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, I fully acknowledge the
investment this committee has made in shipbuilding. And the
challenge is, our department, under the previous
administration, squandered a lot of that by----
Ms. DeLauro. Please----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Not investing it properly--
--
Ms. DeLauro. I want your plan. I have had difficulty with
the prior administration, and I don't mind calling them out.
What is your plan for the future? Can we get that in writing
and on paper so that we know where you are going? Because we
don't have anything today. We have zip, nada, in knowing where
you are going.
Secretary Hegseth. We----
Ms. DeLauro. You can talk percentages, you can talk about
whatever you want, but unless this committee sees dollars and
cents and where you are going and what your plan is, then we
may reconsider what you need to do to go forward.
Give us the details.
Secretary Hegseth. Congresswoman, we have the details, and
we will provide them for you.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, then let's have them before we--my hope
is that we could get to it before we go to a markup within a
few hours here today.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. The gentlelady yields back her time.
The dean of the House, Chairman Rogers.
DEFENSE FROM ADVERSARIES WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen, lady.
Let me ask you about the stunning success of the Ukrainian
drones of last week. Are we seeing the ushering in of a new era
of warfare, the use of drones from afar?
After all, these drones were smuggled into Russia, hidden
for a great span of time, and then activated from 2,500 miles
away. Are we prepared both defensively and offensively, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Hegseth. I will answer that and then maybe hand
it to the Chairman.
I would say, sir, it was a daring and very effective
operation that we were not aware of in advance and reflects
significant advancements in drone warfare, which we are
tracking in real time inside Ukraine and taking that feedback
to help us better understand how we can better produce more
lethal attritable drones but also advance our counter-UAS
systems so that we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack
like that.
The Chairman and I got together right after seeing that and
saying, ``What more can we do to ensure we are prepared and our
country is defensible against something like that?''
I will hand it to the Chairman.
General Caine. Mr. Secretary, Congressman, thank you for
the question. I think it goes to your more strategic question
about, is the way and nature that we are fighting our wars
changing, sir?
The answer is likely yes. Mass numbers of rounds moving
back and forth with precision and autonomy are all things that
are advancing in the technology trend exponentially. One of the
things that I have talked with some of the leaders of this
community and the committee about are buying capabilities along
the technology curve or ahead of it. And so I do think it was a
bold move, and it represents a new and different way of
fighting wars, as we have seen over the past few years in that
particular fight, sir.
Mr. Rogers. What do we need to do to protect ourselves from
a similar type raid by an adversary?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, intelligence is critical,
human intelligence, signals intelligence, every aspect of how
we get ahead, get to the left of a problem like that. And
certainly our Department, in conjunction interagency, are
focused on that.
But then it is rapidly fielding the commercially available
technologies, in some cases, but others proprietary, whether
they are EW, whether they are microwave, whether they are
kinetic, to defeat drones either individually or in swarms in
multiple locations against, you know, protecting our people,
protecting our installations, protecting our critical
infrastructure, protecting our bombers.
And some of that speaks to Golden Dome and what we will do
there, but you also have the particulars of the immediate. Our
forward-deployed troops, are they properly covered by counter-
UAS systems? Do we have the best systems forward deployed? And
that is something we are looking at every single day.
We live in a dynamic operating environment, and we are--it
is--the Chairman knows this, the deputy, our policy shop. We
are focused on ensuring that this is front and center
considering how central this threat will be going forward.
Mr. Rogers. Well, these are low-cost, high-tech weapons, if
you will, and has been dominated by China. 90 percent of drones
are produced by China, I am told.
What does that tell us about what we need to do here at
home?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, it is not--first of all,
making sure we are less reliant on Chinese technology in any
part of the supply chain, which is something we can speak to,
because that has been an aggressive part of our effort at DOD,
but, also, recognizing it is not just China. Of course, Iran
invests substantially in drone capabilities. And then learning
a lot from partners on our side, like the Ukrainians, who have
developed these systems, and fielding that quickly.
So commercially available, attritable that we can produce
at home is important to us.
Mr. Rogers. Congratulations to all three of you, and we
wish you well.
I yield back.
Secretary Hegseth. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Question really quickly. Is the press story accurate that
40 percent of the long-range bombers from Russia were destroyed
in that attack? Is that an accurate number?
General Caine. Sir, I am not exactly sure what the
percentage is, but I also know that I may not say that in open
session.
So I will take that and get back to you through appropriate
channels.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Ms. Kaptur, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome our guests. I come from a family of combat
veterans going back a long time, and my comment is the use of
certain words and what they imply.
When I hear ``warrior ethos''--and I hear it a lot from
you, Mr. Secretary--I am concerned. All the soldiers in our
family, all of whom fought and received medals for their combat
service, call themselves soldiers. Marines are trained to kill.
In terms of domestic policing, our police and our National
Guard at the State level, carefully used but also our State
police are used in civil enforcement, and they are good.
I don't need any reply. I just am concerned about what
those words you often utter actually do in people's minds and
change the language we have used since the founding of this
Republic. So I just--that is a concern of mine.
I wanted to go to the General, and Chairman, if I could. We
have heard a lot this morning about defense industrial base,
and this is something I ran for office on a long time ago.
We have not made significant progress as a country in this
regard. And the places that made things, whether they were
machine tools, whether it was composite materials, were left
behind. It is one of the reasons for the division in our
society.
So I am very interested in knowing what specifically and in
which accounts--and I hope you can get this back to us within a
week and a half--you are going to focus on in order to inject
additional resources in the defense industrial base of this
country. What will that look like? We are just successful now
in helping steel to revive and some of our composite metals.
Forty years ago, I wrote a title to the defense bill
dealing with strategic metals. Nobody at Department of Defense
cared, okay? So I am interested in which accounts, if you could
kindly get back to me on that, and what--when you say ``defense
industrial base,'' budgetwise in which accounts, what does that
mean?
All right. I don't expect you to answer it now. Can you
tell me when you might get that information back to us?
General Caine. Well, ma'am, you just said a week and a
half. So I know the awesome humans behind me are scribbling
madly to come back to that.
Can I just make a quick comment? I happened to be a lucky
guy that served in the private sector for a while, and I ran a
machine shop in Texas, along with a metal finishing business.
So, when we talk about defense industrial base, I broaden that
out to really the national industrial base. There are certain
components that are made on the defense side, but, as you
articulate, ma'am, many others are made in the small machine
shops out around this entire Nation.
When I talk about mobilizing our Nation, I think of that
national, not just defense industrial base. What do we have to
do to create greater capacity all the way down the chain to
include jobs at the local level for those people that build
quality parts and deliver on time with shorter lead time and
lower cost. And so I have great empathy for what you are
talking about, and we will get back to you just as soon as we
can.
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
And, General and Secretary, going back to the drone attack
in Ukraine, a country that was invaded by the Russian
dictatorship starting in 2014--they have been at war for a
decade, more than a decade--what they have done with drones is
astounding. It is going to change warfare.
One of my questions is, what are you doing to establish
relations with Ukraine and not turn your back on them as an
administration and help them win, help liberty win? This has
implications way beyond the boundaries of Ukraine.
Russia has got 11 time zones. I mean, this is the most
important test of liberty for our NATO alliance in my lifetime,
and we better help win. And that involves moving forward faster
on drone technology.
I am very worried about our air bases where we have secure
assets. Mr. Secretary, can we defend them today if they were to
have a similar attack?
Secretary Hegseth. We are certainly very focused on that,
ma'am, and we are learning every day from Ukraine.
I think we would need to clarify what ``win'' means. This
President is committed to peace. He is committed to stopping
the killing, and he was not in office when it started in 2014.
There were no additional incursions in his first term, and
then, under the previous administration, Vladimir Putin sought
to take Ukraine.
We are committed. This administration is committed to
peace, to stopping the killing, and we think that serves the
American interests.
Ms. Kaptur. Did you just leave Ukraine, Mr. Secretary? Did
you just leave Ukraine?
Mr. Calvert. Gentlelady's time has expired, but if you can
get back to us on that, that would be great----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Did not leave Ukraine.
Ms. Kaptur. Have you visited Ukraine?
Secretary Hegseth. No, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. My first trip there, sir, was 1973.
Mr. Calvert. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
ARMY TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for your service. We are very
proud of you.
I am fully supportive of the Army's outgoing modernization
efforts and the recent Army Transformation Initiative that
combined the Army's Futures Command with TRADOC to become the
Transformational and Training Command.
How are you both going to create a partnership between the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and
technology and this new command to ensure the acquisition
authorities are modernized and synchronized to achieve the
maximum lethality and deterrence?
Secretary Hegseth. I will take that. Maybe I will hand it
to you, Mr. Chairman, as well.
We are very encouraged and supportive of the Army's
Transformation Initiative. General George has been critical to
that, as has the Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll. And
together it has been a heck of a partnership and a willingness
to get at the core issues facing today's Army and ensuring it
is reformed and modernized to meet the threats of the future.
One of those aspects is merging those commands, and I can
tell you, whether it is the warrior ethos or lethality, that is
central to why we make decisions, ensuring that we are not
making decisions on behalf of bureaucrats or process--but to
ensure we are getting the most lethal aspects of what we do
front and forward as quickly as possible. And that involves
things like Futures Command and TRADOC.
And, when you merge those things, you have to make sure you
are getting rid of things that are redundant and pushing
forward things that matter the most, but I will defer to the
Chairman.
SUCCESS IN INDOPACOM
Mr. Carter. Well, I share that commitment completely, and I
share the transformation. What do you see as the fundamental
capabilities this command must develop to ensure we have
lethality and deterrence necessary to succeed at INDOPACOM? We
have got--that is where the future is.
General Caine. Sir, I will first echo the Secretary's
respect and appreciation for Secretary Driscoll and General
George. They are a team. And that is always great to see from a
warfighter's perspective when you have such a nested combat
pair, if you will, that are driving at the same set of
objectives.
I think there is clarity, Congressman, in the minds of both
the Secretary and the Chief on the need for things like long-
range fires in the Pacific. And, in order to pay for those,
they are making those difficult decisions down the Army
Transformation Initiative in order to pay for them.
Mr. Carter. Well, when we started talking about the Futures
Command, one of the things that I was hoping we would do is we
would not get a project stacked up on somebody's desk in a
stack that high, and when you got down to checking on that,
``Oh, that goes to you,'' and it goes on top of another--on the
bottom of another stack that high.
And so we get delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed
in certain areas of bureaucracy. I think that is dangerous for
our country as we look forward at INDOPACOM.
General Caine. Yes, sir.
NEXT-GENERATION ENERGETICS MANUFACTURING
Mr. Carter. That is why I asked the question.
Another issue that is very important, the Department has
historically relied on outdated production techniques--
energetics manufacturing, which may have remained unchanged
since the Second World War.
How is the Department ensuring that investment in next-
generation energetics manufacturing, such as AI, machine
learning capabilities, and enabling an assurance of--quality
assurance robotic-driven load, assembly and pack and automated
formation processes--a priority and transition out research and
development that is capable of producing these pathways?
In other words, a modern way to load and turn out
ammunition, in the simplest terms.
Secretary Hegseth. We are robustly funding things like DIU,
like SCO, like the Office of Strategic Capital, to ensure that
commercially available options, other companies are able to
compete that traditionally are not involved in procurement at
the Defense Department so that the valley of death is
eliminated and you are able to bring in actual competition and
dynamic solutions.
Otherwise--ammunition is a great example. It is very
antiquated in many cases. We are still making rounds the way we
made them after World War II. You have to project out what you
want to make, send that signal to industry, and then allow
innovators to enter that space so they can bring new technology
and rapidly field those new technologies.
Otherwise, you are stuck doing it the same way you have
always done it.
General Caine. I was going to add something, but I will
hold off if you are going to----
Mr. Calvert. If we can get a written response to the
gentleman from Texas on that.
General Caine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. That is a concern of all of ours, to modernize
our manufacturing capability----
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. So we can get back manufacturing
to the United States.
Mr. Cuellar, you are recognized.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE COMMAND IN SAN ANTONIO
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and all three of you all, welcome, and thank
you for your service.
I represent an area from San Antonio all the way to Laredo,
the border. In San Antonio, we have got Joint Base San Antonio,
the largest joint base in the Department of Defense, that
contributes over $151 billion to the Texas economy. We support
266 mission partners.
San Antonio also has the second largest cyber footprint in
the Nation, hosting the Sixteenth Air Force Cyber, and, of
course, the military facilities that are the best in the
country also.
Along with that, going down to Laredo, the largest port in
the country, ninth largest in the world. After eight Chinese
ports, number nine in the world is Laredo.
And my question, Mr. Secretary, has to do with one of your
plans, and I ask you to--welcome you to San Antonio, let the
San Antonio folks come in. It has to do with Army--U.S. Army
North and U.S. Army South. I am not going to go with their
missions or the critical mission.
But what concerns us in San Antonio, both the Democrats and
Republican Members of Congress and Senators, we are concerned
that, in setting up a Western Hemisphere Command, which I think
it is a good idea, that you move it away from a place like San
Antonio where, you know, we have the infrastructure, the
personnel, the community partnerships to work with you on this.
And I say this because I think your testimony has about--
about 11,900 troops that are down there working with Homeland,
which I support. And, keeping in mind what's happening with the
cartels in Mexico and other places, I would ask you to--when
you look at this Western Hemisphere Command, that you don't
move it 1,500 miles away from the border, especially to a place
like San Antonio.
I think our Texas--I think we have a few Texans here that
can talk about the rest of the State of Texas, and some wannabe
Texans also that can talk about what--the facilities we have.
But I would ask you to--as you consider this, to keep the
command--Western Hemisphere Command in San Antonio.
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, count me amongst some of the
wannabe Texans. Tennessee is close enough.
Mr. Cuellar. We got no State income tax.
Secretary Hegseth. True. I appreciate that concern. It is
something that has come up multiple times in conversations with
Secretary Driscoll and General George in reviewing their Army
modernization plan and consolidation with the recognition that
some of those changes, when we go through a posture review and
as we are looking at commands, are going to include some tough
choices.
Some of that includes ranks and positioning, but you still
are going to have at some level a south and north bifurcation.
The question is where that is headquartered. We are in an
ongoing review on that, of exactly where that will shake out.
But I would encourage continued deliberation with Secretary
Driscoll. They have been thoughtful about it and will continue
to be.
Mr. Cuellar. And I understand that there is decisions that
have to be made, efficiencies and all that. But just ask you,
as you look at that, if we are doing so much investment on the
border, if we already have the infrastructure down there in San
Antonio and all the support from the other military bases
across the State of Texas, and the partnership, I would ask you
and the Secretary to please, before you make a decision, go--go
drink the water, you know, go feel what we have in San Antonio
and the surrounding areas in Texas to consider that instead of
just making a decision by the paper on that.
And certainly I ask you to consider also the second largest
footprint that we have at cyber there in San Antonio and
working with the top cyber university, UTSA, there. And, of
course, the military facilities that we have, which are the
best, and certainly during the Afghanistan and Iraq war, that
area was in luck.
So I just ask that, before any decisions are made, consider
making a trip to San Antonio and have your folks understand. I
know some of you have been in Texas before, and I would ask you
to look at that.
So, with that, Mr. Secretary, and all of you all, thank you
for your service.
Secretary Hegseth. Noted, sir. And thank you for your
contributions to securing the border, which has been a huge
priority for President Trump. We are going to get 100 percent
operational control, and it is because of support from folks
like you. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Chairman Womack.
FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGES
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My thanks to our witnesses here today. Secretary Hegseth,
General Caine, thank you from the bottom of my heart and on
behalf of this committee for your service to our Nation.
Obviously, we face a number of challenges and pacing
threats across the globe in all domains, and we have to ensure
that the Joint Force is ready to fight and win our Nation's
wars. So let me begin with General Caine.
What risks do the recent force structure changes or
proposals in the Army and Marine Corps present to the Joint
Force given your Global Force Integration responsibility? Can
you speak to that for a minute?
General Caine. Yes, sir. And I will be mindful of the
environment that we are in and speak broadly, and thank you for
the question.
You know, we are having to make some difficult choices to
pivot some of the combat capability that we have now to the
combat capability that we need in the future. Both services
alongside the Department of the Navy and the Department of the
Army are making those changes in order to provide us with the
combat capability and capacity that we need at scale to create
the dilemmas that we have to deliver for the Joint Force and
our adversaries.
So, at this point, we are doing the right pivots,
Congressman, to make sure that we have the right depth that we
need.
NATIONAL GUARD COMPONENTS
Mr. Womack. Secretary Hegseth, both of you understand the
unique value proposition that the National Guard provides the
Joint Force, having served. And, gosh, for a long time it was
just me and Hal Rogers up here as the Guard guys. So it is good
to have some company.
As we are looking to be efficient with Federal dollars, I
always kind of believe that the Guard and the Reserve component
structure in general brought what I called value to the force.
I realize it is probably not at the same level of proficiency
that the Active Duty counterparts might have, but they bring
value to the force. And, when we need to surge responsibly and
quickly, then the Guard and Reserve are certainly at the ready
to do that.
My question is pretty simple. Can you both commit to
ensuring that the National Guard component is resourced and
equipped properly to meet not only today's operational demands
but those in the future?
And I ask this question having had experience back in the
day when the National Guard was more or less a Reserve force,
and it was only after 9/11 that we began to use the National
Guard in a truly operational form. And I thought it did a lot
of great things for the Guard. I thought it brought value to
the force, and I worry sometimes that we may, you know, pivot
back to the time when the National Guard is relegated to more
of a Reserve structure rather than able to surge with our
forces in a moment's need and be able to deliver combat
capability and combat service support capability when needed.
Can you speak to that, Secretary?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, I think it is an excellent point.
The National Guard and Reserve bring great value, not to
mention the civilian skills--the additive civilian skills that
they bring. Completely recognize the shift that happened after
9/11. I was a part of that, as were many people in the Guard of
our generation.
I think we are entering an even--another phase, especially
under President Trump with his focus on the homeland where the
National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how
we secure that homeland and apply those civilian sets across
the spectrum.
So, when you are looking at, say, the Army, for example,
what we need in the active Army vis--vis the National Guard
will not be a reflection of what we need or don't need. It will
be a rightsizing where that particular application would be
best used, and the National Guard is a huge component of how we
see the future, sir.
Mr. Womack. General Caine.
General Caine. Sir, I will--you know, the policymakers tell
us what size our force should be, but I will commit to you--
and, by the way, thank you both for your service in the Guard.
As a fellow guardsman, you are legendary in those hallways.
What I will commit to you is that I will make sure that the
voice of the Guard is heard at the policy level pursuant to my
job as the Chairman.
Mr. Womack. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Case.
PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE INDO-PACIFIC
Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Secretary, at the Shangri-
la Dialogue in your speech of May 31, you stated--and I quote--
``Here in the Indo-Pacific, our futures are bound together. The
prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific are linked to those
of your people.''
You went on to talk about the benefits from the, quote,
``peace and stability that comes with a lasting and strong
American presence here in the Indo-Pacific,'' end quote.
Do you believe that the only way to achieve our
contributions to peace and security and stability in the Indo-
Pacific is through military strength alone?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, certainly not through military
strength alone, although military strength is the business that
we are in. So we are building partnerships across mil to mil,
whether it is the Philippines, Japan, Australia, more actively
than any other part of the world, because the application of
American strength is not America alone. It is by, with, and
through partners who share mutual objectives, and so we are----
Mr. Case. So you----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Very invested in military-
to-military relationships.
Mr. Case [continuing]. As the Secretary of Defense, believe
that we need to take a broader approach in the projection of
national power, national influence than simply our military. Is
that correct?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, that is not my job. My job is
the military applications.
Mr. Case. Yes.
Secretary Hegseth. So others will determine the broader
spectrum of that, but it is always useful to have other
applications of power as well.
Mr. Case. Okay. But how others actually do that does impact
your job in running our military, right? I mean, your military
operations, your military presence, your mil-to-mil
relationships--that I agree are important--are all going to be
impacted by our nonmilitary projection of power, influence, and
assistance throughout the Indo-Pacific. Is that correct?
Secretary Hegseth. I would just say that, from my two
recent visits to that region, meeting with many of those
ministers of defense multiple times, their focus is what
capabilities can we share together, interoperability and
capabilities that establish deterrence because the most
important message America can still send and they can still
send is hard power capabilities: What can we project? Where can
we project it? As the Chairman said, what dilemmas can we
create?
That is the business that we are in. And so we work with
those partners that share common goals, and our militaries are
working better together than they ever have, and I think that
helps support----
Mr. Case. And I appreciate your focus on the military side.
That is, obviously, directly your job.
But I am asking you to think and comment more broadly on
our big picture approach to the world. This administration, for
example, has proposed to reduce the State Department by $8.3
billion, the Economic Support Fund, the Development Assistance
and Democracy Fund, and the Assistance for Eurasia.
This administration has illegally sought to destroy U.S.
Agency for International Development and, in its budget
request, reduce it significantly down to close to zero.
This administration has proposed to reducing the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement effort by
$1.2 billion. This administration has proposed to eliminate the
Millennium Challenge Corporation--or not eliminate it but
reduce it by $1 billion, a significant reduction.
One of our principal agencies that assists us with meeting
the needs of the Indo-Pacific in the infrastructure area and
what I think you would agree are key strategic countries, such
as Indonesia, such as Kiribati, such as the Philippines, such
as the Solomon Islands. This administration has proposed to
reduce international organization contributions by 83 percent.
This administration is not following through on commitments
that we made to the Freely Associated States, all of which are
strategically critical to this country to expand veterans
services in those three countries: Palau, the Federated States
of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.
This administration appears to be slow-walking the
resurgence and expansion of the Peace Corps throughout the
Indo-Pacific.
Do you think that that will affect your job in the military
space with your relationships with those countries?
Secretary Hegseth. No. Sir, I would add to that list the
elimination of most USAID programs, which I don't hear anything
about because a lot of them were wasteful and duplicitous--and
I am glad we got rid of them.
Mr. Case. Well, I have had those conversations with----
Secretary Hegseth. And, as far as--you mentioned
international organizations. The 83 percent reduction, again, I
hear nothing about that because----
Mr. Case. Have you talked to those countries----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Those organizations are not
serving U.S. interests and so----
Mr. Case. Secretary, have you talked to those countries?
Secretary Hegseth. We shouldn't be funding them if they are
not serving U.S. interests. So I don't hear from our allies
problems about that.
Mr. Case. Well, I don't think you are talking to the right
people.
Secretary Hegseth. We are not part of their calculus of
American power.
Mr. Case. If you talk to any one of those countries, they
will tell you that they are deeply concerned with the reduction
of nondefense dollars, and it will, in fact, influence our
presence and our contribution to your stated goal of peace and
stability and security in the Indo-Pacific.
Secretary Hegseth. I think they respect that we are
reducing waste on programs that aren't actually affecting
change on the ground.
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
RECRUITMENT AND SOUTHCOM LOCATION
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
And, to the three of you, thank you. Thanks for being here
and thanks for your service.
Mr. Secretary, I have two questions. First one is--and you
mentioned recruitment at the beginning. During the last 4
years, we got used to just hearing how the recruitment was not
doing well, and it was just the new reality. And then, all of a
sudden, that reality has changed.
If you can comment on why that reality--I think a lot of us
know, but if you could talk to us about this new reality, which
you don't hear much about in the press, about how that has
changed dramatically? Question number one.
Question number two is, a number of years ago, SOUTHCOM was
moved from Panama to south Florida. There is a lot of reasons
for that move. It was to--because it was in close proximity
with others, like JIATF South, Special Operations Command South
in Homestead, Joint Task Force Guantanamo, the Joint Task Force
Bravo in Honduras, the U.S. Coast Guard Seventh District, which
is the busiest district in the entire country, but also
because, in south Florida, you have this multicultural,
multilingual community.
And, as you know, SOUTHCOM deals with multiple countries,
40 different languages. So it was not just a cost savings
potentially, but it also made a lot of sense. I believe that
continues to be the case. Nothing has changed. If anything has
changed, it is that the Western Hemisphere has gotten a lot
more dangerous. Obviously, we have Iranian influence, Russian
influence, Chinese influence.
I am very grateful, Mr. Secretary--I don't know how much
you had to do with that--of the President's change in attitude
on no longer appeasing enemies of the United States in the
Southern Hemisphere, whether it is Venezuela or Cuba. But,
again, there goes the importance of having SOUTHCOM where it
is.
I just would like your thoughts, if you have had an
opportunity to look at that because it was moved from Panama.
It just wasn't in south Florida for the heck of it. It was a
decision made. It was the right decision. It has proven to be
the right decision.
So two questions. If you can answer them, I would love to
hear it.
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, thank you for the question about
recruiting.
What changed is a Commander in Chief that America's young
people believe in. President Trump was elected in November,
inaugurated in January. At first, I called it the Trump bump,
but then it became clear that is not enough. This is a tsunami
of support amongst young Americans who want to serve under a
President who they know has their back, who will fund them
properly, who will not use them unnecessarily, and will make
sure they are part of deterrence for the country with a focus,
first and foremost, on the homeland, then deterring strengths
and making sure our allies step up and carry more of the
burden.
So you have got a historic surge in the Army, the Marine
Corps, Navy, Air Force, you name it. Americans are responding
because they--there is--the President has a new spirit, and he
is right. You can feel it in the ranks. You go out to
formations; you talk to men and women on the border; they
believe in what they are doing in securing that southern
border.
You talk to them across the world, they are enthused about
this new administration and its leadership. So it is President
Trump, sir.
As far as SOUTHCOM, it is--President Trump's focus on our
hemisphere has in many ways reinvigorated the mission of
SOUTHCOM and the recognition of securing American interests but
also pushing back Chinese malign influence. Panama is a great
example of that but across Central and South America.
So SOUTHCOM is right where it is. We are grateful for the
great work that they do. I have had an opportunity to spend a
lot of time with them and their commander. We work by, with,
and through a lot of allies----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, I am a little confused. Are
you telling me that the folks that are now voting with their
commitment to the country are not upset that they are not able
to use different pronouns? That is not--is that not a priority
for the folks that are now signing up for our military?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, if they wanted to get a woke
indoctrination, they could just go to college. Instead, they
are joining the military, where we are focused on the basics.
We know men are men; women are women.
Standards will be high, and we are getting rid of the
distractions, the ideologies, the politicization that was in
our ranks so that soldiers, men and women, can do their jobs on
behalf of the Nation.
I think that is all that American people--that is all the
people who want to serve want is that clarity and that support,
and President Trump is giving it to them.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Now, Mr. Secretary, I would also add I
think having you there has made it very clear what the attitude
is. I will tell you, to me, it is really, really refreshing,
and I thank you all.
Secretary Hegseth. I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Lee.
CRITICAL MINERAL POLICY
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit to the
record an article from The New York Times entitled ``China's
chokehold on this obscure mineral threatens the West's
militaries.''
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, this article that I just referenced
outlines how the Department of Defense paid an Australian firm
10 times more than it paid MP Materials, an American firm, to
onshore the full ecosystem of rare earth production. MP, the
largest U.S. rare earth producer, has invested $1 billion of
its own capital since 2020 and employs more than 800 Americans.
Yet it was undercut by an Australian firm that never even broke
ground in the U.S. MP Materials is ready to install their
samarium processing equipment and help the U.S. combat China's
export controls.
And I want to note that China produces the entire world
supply of this obscure rare earth metal that is used almost
entirely in military applications because of its heat-
resistant--its use in heat-resistance magnets.
So my question is, in accordance with the administration's
America First agenda, do you agree that subsidies should first
support U.S. companies already investing, hiring, and paying
taxes in the United States? And can I have your support in
ensuring that the Department critical mineral policies will
align with this goal?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, it is an excellent question. It
is something we have been very focused on. In fact, my Deputy
Secretary, it is his A number one, is ensuring that sourcing of
critical minerals, whether they are heavy or light rare earths,
are sourced reliably in America first, and, if not, then
amongst allies.
I won't reveal or talk about more than that in a setting
like this because we have reserves, and we have capabilities,
but at the same time, we have to aggressively work--and MP
Materials, Mountain Pass, is a great example of a place where
we can partner with industry.
But what does China do? You know this. China undercuts the
market intentionally to try to corner the market, and we have
to account for that in the things that we support.
Ms. Lee. So the answer is yes; I can have your support?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, ma'am.
COLLABORATIVE COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I also want to turn now to the
Collaborative Combat Aircraft.
I represent Las Vegas, Nevada, so we are very excited that
the Department will base the CCA unit at Creech Air Force Base,
which is the center of excellence in uncrewed aircraft systems.
And I want to make sure that the Department has the resources
they need to make this program a success.
Last year, the Air Force had to shift $383 million to the
CCA program, plussing it up by 60 percent. Can you assure me
that your budget request will fully fund the CCA program this
year?
Secretary Hegseth. Ma'am, it does fully fund the CCA, and
we believe in the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the loyal
wingman concept, this idea that you project power more robustly
through autonomous, semiautonomous systems that we can--that
amplify our lethal effect. So, yes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Great. Can you give me an update on the
first--what the first flight in the production decision for
Increment 1, and are we on track for the flight? When will it
be?
And, finally, when do you anticipate the production
decision this fiscal year? What quantity of aircraft will we
procure? How many vendors will you award, and what factors are
you considering?
Secretary Hegseth. Bryn, feel free to chime in. You are
talking about the CCA still, correct?
Ms. Lee. Yes.
Secretary Hegseth. My understanding is later this year on
the flight.
Ms. Lee. Do you know the date?
Secretary Hegseth. As far as the--I don't know the exact
date, ma'am. But, Bryn, you might know.
Ms. MacDonnell. Yes, ma'am. We can get back to you on the
specific date. It should be this fiscal year.
And, for our budget request, it is $804 million for the
Collaborative Combat Aircraft.
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you. How much time do I have left?
I will just--also, can you then outline what is planned for
Increment 2? What type of capabilities can we expect, and what
timeline in critical milestones?
Secretary Hegseth. We will get back to you on that one,
ma'am.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
With that, I yield.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlelady.
And I would just like to point out that Mountain Pass is in
San Bernardino County, California, one of the only--critical
mineral mines only left in the United States. Hopefully, that
will change soon.
Mr. Joyce, nope. Mr. Ellzey.
INVESTMENT IN F/A-XX
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sergeant Major Troy Black, thank you for all your years of
service. You have been serving this country since Ronald Reagan
was President in 1988.
You leave behind a distinguished career in uniform, wearing
that uniform, service to your country. You have served as the
senior enlisted adviser to the Commandant of the Marine Corps
and now to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
And I think that what will be most missed, if you didn't
know this about him, in 2010, he received the Bronze Star with
a Combat V for running across several hundred yards of mine-in-
place fields to pick up a fallen Marine.
You are a Marine's marine. You will be missed. You are the
pride of Louisville, Kentucky, and I would like to say, on
behalf of this committee and our Nation, we are grateful and
fair winds and following seas.
[Applause.]
Mr. Ellzey. Secretary Hegseth and General Caine and Ms.
MacDonnell, glad you are here. I am personally grateful for
your service to our country and for sharing your valuable time
with us today.
You bring a nontraditional perspective to your tenure as
Chairman, having been a guardsman and an entrepreneur. Thank
you for saying ``yes'' once again when called to serve; also, a
Distinguished Flying Cross and two Bronze Stars. You didn't get
that by sitting behind a desk. You are a fighter pilot's
fighter pilot. You helped the plan to bring down Scuds in 2003.
So thank you for your service.
And, Mr. Secretary, I want to salute you for your
leadership and action-oriented approach at the Pentagon. You
have created a sense of urgency that General Caine refers to in
his testimony. And, back to the issue of what we are not
talking about today, and it is recruitment, because, in this
family business, all-volunteer-force of ours, parents and their
children who want to serve our country are now no longer afraid
to sign up for fear of them being misused or not having their
merit being rewarded appropriately. So thank you.
You have also highlighted our service academies in that
effort. Mr. Womack and I both serve on the Boards of Visitors
at West Point and the Naval Academy, so thank you.
Also appreciate your guidance on using commercial solutions
and acquisition and on reducing the inflation that we have seen
in the numbers of flag and general officers. And I think we can
make the Pentagon a triangle pretty quick.
There are more Navy admirals in the various systems
commands than there are in the fleet. That is too many flags in
D.C. and not enough at the waterfront or the flight line.
Speaking of acquisition, I want to turn to the plans of a
sixth-generation fighter.
General Caine, in his prepared statement, states that the
F-47 will continue to ensure U.S. air dominance for decades. I
am a fervent supporter of not only F-47 but whatever the F/A-XX
is going to turn out to be. And I want to make that clear to
everyone listening.
Our Navy, our Joint Force, and our future combatant
commanders need the Navy's sixth-generation fighter, the F/A-
XX. Relying only on the Air Force's sixth-generation fighter
does not solve our air superiority challenge because whether
they are coming from Guam or Diego Garcia, the DMPIs are
already set and the missiles are already guided. It is a
nonmoving target. An aircraft carrier moves its DMPI every 30
seconds.
So we can't do either of those with only the Air Force's
planned buy. So we either want to win or we don't, and I know
we want to win. We have to do it with the F/A-XX.
A 3-year delay is a de facto cancellation and win for
China, and they are watching. Don't take my word for it. They
are conducting unrestricted warfare against us right now.
And, if you read the Thirty-Six guidelines from the Sixth
Century and they talk about how do you defeat an enemy--or Sun
Tzu--you defeat them at home with fentanyl, by taking out our
military members before they can even join, 70,000 a year. They
are being successful in how they are doing unrestricted
warfare, and that is exactly what they are conducting.
They are also showing us their sixth-generation aircraft
right now. And there is at least three that we know they are
working on. We can't give the field to them and say, ``Fifth-
generation is okay for the Navy, but it is not the Air Force.''
We must have both.
So several well-informed, well-respected leaders shared
with us the importance of having both the Air Force and the
Navy sixth-generation fighters, Admiral Paparo, General Allvin,
and Admiral Kilby, acting CNO.
I am not going to put you all on the spot, but I just want
to make it clear. If you would like to address it, you may. I
am just putting it that it is that important to me.
So what troubles me about the Pentagon needing to be a
triangle now is that--one of my favorite movies is ``Office
Space.'' You remember Milton? Milton down there with the
Swingline? We are not really sure what he did, but he sure made
a lot of trouble for everybody.
I think we have a lot of Miltons in the systems commands
and down there in the Pentagon, maybe at CAPE, who are telling
you that we can't do something when we absolutely can. They
need to go. So let's get rid of Milton. Let's invest in this
generational investment.
I would like to thank General Calvert--Chairman Calvert--
Chairman Calvert for his investment into the F/A-XX and the
bill and present to this subcommittee later today.
So thank you all. Appreciate it.
Mr. Calvert. Go Navy. Mr. Morelle, you are recognized.
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, General--Chairman. I am grateful
for your service and grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing
today.
I don't want to pile on, Mr. Secretary, and I am brandnew
to this subcommittee, but I will say that, in the same way we
wouldn't go into battle without knowing the number of troops,
weaponry, and the number of armaments, equipment, supplies, it
is really almost impossible for this committee to do its job
without details from the President, from the Department on a
budget request.
So I wonder whether or not we can get a commitment from all
of you to come back before the committee when the full--the
budget--the President's budget request has been delivered, so
you can answer questions in detail about it?
Secretary Hegseth. I certainly will make sure you get those
details, Congressman.
Mr. Morelle. Well, getting the details is important, but
also being able to answer questions about those details and
what they mean, I think, would be helpful. So, obviously, this
is the chairman's decision, but I would ask you to consider
coming back before the committee when the President's budget
request is submitted to us so we can get your sense of the
various items in it.
I want to go back to a topic I think Ms. Kaptur raised,
which is Ukraine, and I really appreciate your comment when you
referred to partners on our side like Ukraine--so I am glad we
still consider them partners on our side.
UKRAINE
Last week, the Ukraine Defense Contact Group met in
Brussels. I know we did not attend; you did not attend. And I
don't believe you appeared even remotely, but that was a
meeting which allies coordinated billions in aid to help
Ukraine.
We are talking about funding right now without a budget,
without a plan, to setting U.S. support in what I consider the
most serious conflict in Europe in a generation. So can you at
least give us a sense, Mr. Secretary, of the Presidential
drawdown aid authorized through January 20, do you know how
much has actually been delivered?
Secretary Hegseth. Which----
Mr. Morelle. The Presidential authority that was given
through January 20 when the new administration took over.
Secretary Hegseth. The ongoing PDA 71 through 74 and 75,
which has not been allocated. We are in the middle of drawdown
71 through 74----
Mr. Morelle. Okay. Do you have a sense of how much has
actually been delivered?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't know the exact amount that has
been delivered, but we are actively monitoring as well as the
life span of certain munitions, munitions which remain critical
for us and them and critical for Allied Israel. We are paying
very close attention to the----
Mr. Morelle. Okay. And you can give us the details?
Secretary Hegseth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you. Do you know whether the Department
is prepared to ask for funding for the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative and at what level?
Secretary Hegseth. It is a reduction in this budget. As you
know, this administration takes a very different view of that
conflict. We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is
in the best interest of both parties and our Nation's interest,
especially with all the competing interests around the globe.
I don't think the word victory has been well-defined or the
path to it. And, as a result, a path to peace that stops the
killing and the carnage is something that President Trump is
very invested in.
Mr. Morelle. Well, I would certainly--I think I would
define victory as making sure incursions--illegal incursions by
the Russian Federation into Ukraine, which is a sovereign
nation, would be a victory, but I will leave that aside.
GOLDEN DOME
I want to just touch briefly with the limited time I have,
the President's announced $175 billion Golden Dome that has
been talked about, I know that--what has been talked about, we
understand that reconciliation includes a $25 billion
downpayment. We haven't really received much in clarity on the
specifics.
Can you tell me what the $25 billion will be used for?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, there are many specifics that
are not fitting for this setting. We are happy to get you at
the appropriate level the specifics you request.
But what we have done is we have built out the entire
understanding of what the architecture would look like ensuring
it includes existing capabilities that could be fielded
rapidly, as President Trump has made the case. We need this
now, not conceptually in the future.
We had SDI under Ronald Reagan, which was a conceptual,
which was a concept. We fast forward to the ability to deliver
these things, and the American people deserve that kind of
protection.
So multiple layers from multiple different types of threats
coordinated with sensors both on the ground and in space at
other layers. And we have one of our best Space Force generals
fully focused on that project in General Guetlein, who has a
background in understanding those types of architectures.
So we have pulled the program up to the Office of Secretary
of Defense to make sure it is monitored on a monthly--well, a--
--
Mr. Morelle. Can you tell us what the appropriations
request will be for Golden Dome in the 2026 fiscal year?
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman--Ms. MacDonnell, you can get
back to us on that----
Ms. MacDonnell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. For the record. We appreciate
that.
Mr. Fleischmann, you are recognized.
NUCLEAR RECAPITALIZATION
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome Secretary Hegseth, General Caine and Mrs.
MacDonnell. Thank you. This has been an outstanding hearing.
Let me just say this: The world is a dangerous place. The
Nation is a dangerous place. Heartfelt thank you to each and
every one of you officers stepping up and for doing an
exemplary job. Thank you so much.
As most of you know, I represent the Third District of
Tennessee. That is the great Oak Ridge Reservation, birthplace
of the Manhattan Project.
In addition to serving on this prestigious subcommittee, I
am the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, which has
the NNSA. I am deeply involved in the recapitalization and
modernization of our Nation's nuclear deterrent.
It will come as no surprise I have concerns about both our
progress and posture. Our progress is a concern as we are
recapitalizing the entire nuclear deterrent all at once.
Meanwhile, Russia has recapitalized its triad minus some
bombers, and China is rapidly expanding its numbers and
fielding a triad. Of course, there is also North Korea and the
looming prospect of a nuclear Iran.
As we focus more on the Pacific or post Cold War posture,
it is a concern due to the lack of in-theater nonstrategic
nuclear weapons. This creates a deeply worrying capability gap
in the most critical theater.
I will ask my questions in this, ask for your answers.
First, Secretary Hegseth, given the struggling strategics
threat picture, what is your outlook on the current pace and
scope of nuclear recapitalization?
And then, General Caine, what are your ideas to fill this
nonstrategic nuclear capability gap in the Pacific? Are there
any ways Congress can better support the Department's efforts
to meet these increasingly tight deadlines?
And I will listen to your responses. Thank you.
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, thank you. First, if I would just
take liberty, both the Chairman and I have taken up almost all
the oxygen from Bryn MacDonnell here. I would just take issue
with the characterization that we have not delivered a budget
and we don't have details and we are not delivering on it. She
and her team have done a fantastic job of working as rapidly
and as detailed as possible to deliver what we feel very
confidently is a robust, detailed delivery of the President's
agenda for fiscal year 2026.
So, Bryn, thank you for the work that you are doing and all
the details and focus on that that have come through.
And the nuclear triad is certainly a part of it, NC3, every
single aspect of that. Sentinel, with the Nunn-McCurdy breach
has to--we are taking a very hard look at that while fully
funding it. Columbiaclass, critical, B-21, which, for
the most part, has been a success story but needs to be
continually monitored, as any major platform does, and then the
SLCM-N as well, investing in that capability, considering the
advantages we have on the submarine side.
So we are fully funding, in fact even more so in most
cases, that capitalization and modernization, which we have to,
considering what our adversaries are up to.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
General Caine. Sir, I just echo the Secretary's comments
about nonstrategic nuclear weapons, SLCM-N and the others. And
I think it really for me centers around four Cs that we have to
do across the enterprise: Change of culture, to get after it
faster. That is the first one. We have got to create
competition across the continuum and the defense and national
industrial base. We need to buy better contracts and get
greater capacity.
So no adds other than that, Congressman.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. So, if I may, you all feel
reasonably comfortable with the way that we are modernizing our
triad?
Secretary Hegseth. Well, sir, I am not comfortable with the
way the Sentinel upgrade had been happening.
Mr. Fleischmann. Understood.
Secretary Hegseth. With the recognition that it is behind
and can't be. And so we are getting at dynamic ways to address
that. Different alternatives, our Deputy Secretary and his team
are very focused, along with Bryn: What do we fund? Why do we
fund it? How do we look at new ways to do it? Because the way
we have approached it so far has gotten us nowhere fast.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. By the way, I welcome you all
to visit Oak Ridge at any time.
Thank you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Aguilar.
NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENTS
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairman General Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. That is right.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Calvert. Okay, Private, go ahead.
Mr. Aguilar. The clock is still moving.
Mr. Secretary, I want to express my severe concern with the
deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles without
consultation with the State of California. There have been
photographs that have shown these troops sleeping on the floor
and have not been provided fuel, food, or water by DOD.
How long will this deployment last? And why were we
unprepared to provide them basic necessities such as food and
water?
Secretary Hegseth. The commanders and troops on the field
are very well-prepared, sir. They responded incredibly rapidly
to a deteriorating situation, with equipment and capabilities.
We have made sure, from the top down--as a Secretary of
Defense who has been in a unit holding riot shields outside the
White House during the chaos of the summer of 2020, I know what
it is like to be immediately deployed into a situation like
that.
There are moments where you make do as best you can
temporarily. But we are ensuring they are housed, fed, water,
capabilities in real-time from my office, because I care that
much about the California Guard and the Marines and the men and
women who are supporting----
Mr. Aguilar. That wasn't true as of yesterday----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Our ICE agents on the
ground.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. So you should check with your
office.
Secretary Hegseth. It is true every day. And that is a
disingenuous----
Mr. Aguilar. How long will the deployment last?
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Attack that misrepresents
how much we care about our troops----
Mr. Aguilar. How long will the deployment last?
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. And what they are doing to
defend ICE agents. I am not going to take the fact that we
don't care about the troops. Nobody cares more about the troops
at the top than this----
Mr. Aguilar. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Secretary and the Chairman
and our department.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. How long will the deployment
last?
Secretary Hegseth. We stated very publicly that it is 60
days, because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters,
and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers----
Mr. Aguilar. What is the estimated cost----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Know that we are not going
anywhere----
Mr. Aguilar. What is the estimated----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. We are here to maintain the
peace on behalf of law enforcement officers----
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Chair----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. In Los Angeles----
Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate you answering the question.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Which Gavin Newsom won't
do.
Mr. Aguilar. What is the estimated cost of the deployment
for the Guard and the Marines to L.A.? And where is this
funding coming from? Will it be coming from quality-of-life
programs----
Secretary Hegseth. I think----
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. That affect our servicemembers or
our families--if you want to wait until I finish the question--
--
Secretary Hegseth. Before I hand it to----
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Such as updates, housing, and
barracks?
Secretary Hegseth. Before I hand it to Bryn, the
insinuation that we are pulling money from housing and barracks
in order to fund this is----
Mr. Aguilar. We are just asking.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Disingenuous and incorrect.
Mr. Aguilar. I am just asking.
Secretary Hegseth. Bryn can give you the numbers,
absolutely.
Ms. MacDonnell. So the current estimated cost is $134
million, which is largely just TDY cost--travel, housing, food,
et cetera.
Mr. Aguilar. Where is it coming from? That is the cost, but
where is it coming from?
Ms. MacDonnell. Out of their O&M accounts.
Mr. Aguilar. With the most recent deployment of the
Marines, Mr. Secretary, what is the justification for using the
military for civilian law enforcement purposes in L.A.? Why are
you sending warfighters to cities to interact with civilians?
Secretary Hegseth. Every American citizen deserves to live
in a community that is safe. And ICE agents need to be able to
do their job. They are being attacked for doing their job,
which is deporting illegal criminals.
That should happen in any city, Minneapolis or Los Angeles.
And if they are attacked, that is lawless. And President Trump
believes in law and order. So he has every authority, and he
has done, mobilizing----
Mr. Aguilar. He hasn't cited----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. National Guard or Active
Duty troops under U.S. Code----
Mr. Aguilar. Yeah. Let's talk about----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. To protect Federal agents--
--
Mr. Aguilar. Let's talk about the U.S. Code.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Agents in their job, which
is----
Mr. Aguilar. Let's talk about U.S. Code. 10----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Exactly what we are doing,
and we are proud to do it.
Mr. Aguilar. 10 U.S.C.----
Secretary Hegseth. We are proud to do it.
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Secretary, 10 U.S.C. of the U.S. Code,
12406, as a legal basis that the President used, cites three
examples and circumstances for the Guard: invasion by a foreign
nation, a rebellion or dangerous rebellion against the
authority of the Government of the United States, or the
President is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of
the United States.
Which authority is triggered here to justify the use?
Secretary Hegseth. I don't know. You just read it yourself,
and people can listen themselves, but it sounds like all three
to me.
If you have got millions of illegals----
Mr. Aguilar. You think the President is unable to----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. And you don't know where
they are coming from----
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Execute the laws of the United
States?
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. They are waving flags from
foreign countries----
Mr. Aguilar. You just said----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. And assaulting police
officers and law----
Mr. Aguilar. You just said that the President is unable----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Enforcement officers, that
is a problem.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. To execute the laws of the United
States?
Secretary Hegseth. No. The Governor of California is unable
to execute----
Mr. Aguilar. Well, the Code says----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. The laws of the United
States.
Mr. Aguilar. The Code says the President----
Secretary Hegseth. The Governor----
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. And you said all three apply.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Of California has failed to
protect his people, along with the mayor of Los Angeles. And so
President Trump has said he will protect our agents, and our
Guard and Marines are proud to do it.
Mr. Aguilar. The law also says, Mr. Secretary, that the
``orders for these purposes shall be issued through the
Governors of the States.''
Secretary Hegseth. You and I both know that President Trump
has all the authorities necessary, and thankfully he is willing
to do it, on behalf of the citizens of Los Angeles----
Mr. Aguilar. You also----
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. On behalf of our ICE
agents, on behalf of our country.
Mr. Aguilar. We have also pulled a billion dollars for the
border as well. So this just goes into the same, you know,
fund? 134----
Secretary Hegseth. Congressman, what is the----
Mr. Aguilar. What did you indicate? 134 million?
I was asking Ms. MacDonnell.
Secretary Hegseth. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar. 134 million goes on top of the billion that
has been pulled for the border?
Ms. MacDonnell. So the funding that was pulled for this
year was largely in FSRM, and in this budget we are actually
looking to plus that funding back up to backfill that for our
troops and for their families.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Valadao.
GLOBAL HOUSEHOLD GOODS CONTRACT
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, thank you, General, thank you, Ms.
MacDonnell, for being here.
I know a lot of things have been asked already, and since I
am the bottom of the totem pole in seniority here, all my
questions get asked first, so I will hit one that is a little
closer to home for me.
Secretary Hegseth, thank you for addressing the challenges
military families have faced under the Global Household Goods
Contract. I have heard directly from my constituents about
these issues, so I appreciate your direct--I have heard
directly from my constituents, so I appreciate your directive
to review the contract and raise rates during peak PCS season.
Can you commit to continuing to work with us to monitor the
impact and make further improvements as needed?
Secretary Hegseth. Sir, I appreciate the question.
We heard, as well, the worsening PCS change-of-station
process that military members are facing, that the new attempt
to reform it had failed. And we got that word quickly.
And when we did that, we didn't try to excuse it away or
cover it up; we immediately confronted the process. We fired
the person in charge. And we said, we are going to, in this
peak season, plus up the amount we reimburse so that families
are reimbursed properly. And we use both systems, the legacy
system and the new system, to ensure their needs are actually
met.
At the end of that process, we will then do a thorough
reform of how it actually happens. It hasn't worked for far too
long. Everybody knows it. It is about time we take a look at
the process.
I mean, think about the things we can deliver in real-time
to people in far-flung places across the country and across the
world, and you can't reliably move an E4 from California to New
York and ensure that the goods get there within a week? That is
a failure of the United States military, and we are going to
fix it.
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
Next question: Secretary Hegseth, with rising tensions
involving Russia and China, what steps is the Department taking
to ensure our defense industrial base can meet the surge in
demands across multiple theaters?
Are we seeing adequate investments in munitions stockpiles,
logistics, and supply-chain resilience, and particularly when
it comes to critical inputs like rare-earths and other
essential minerals?
Secretary Hegseth. I would just echo exactly what you said.
It is because of the urgency of the moment, the reality of the
threats we face. The threats that are joining forces in sort of
an anti-American, anti-Western bloc are developing capabilities
that they are fielding and trying in other theaters to refine
them.
The munitions that we have, where we use them, how we
procure them, and what we use them for, the supply chain that
goes into the materials on those munitions, unfortunately we
inherited a Department that didn't pay enough attention to
that, that seemed to think sourcing from adversaries was going
to be okay in a time of contingency or crisis. We are changing
that.
Or were content to make the same munitions we have had in
the past because, well, they were made in somebody's district
or they were made in somebody's State and that is the way we
always do it. We are not doing that anymore. We are making the
tough calls based on the threats we face, matching it to the
capabilities.
And I am happy to sit in front of every and any committee
and explain why we are doing it. Because it is about time; it
is about time we challenge that. And that doesn't mean we don't
want input. We do want input. We know why people are invested
in certain programs and certain systems. But it is our job to
make the tough calls.
And President Trump has asked us to do that. I am willing
to make the tough calls, whether it is on personnel, systems,
platforms, modernization, and partner with folks like General
Caine and the Joint Staff, who have been with us on every step
of the way.
HYPERSONICS AND MUNITIONS
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
I have a little more time, so, Secretary Hegseth, as the
Department looks to stay ahead of near-peer threats, will the
defense budget continue to invest in hypersonic weapons and
defense systems, including unmanned, high-mach, and next-gen
aviation technologies?
Secretary Hegseth. The answer is, yes, in a way,
unfortunately, the previous administration did not.
So, if you are looking at--long-range fires, autonomous
systems, hypersonics are part of warfare--long-range drones--
are part of the warfare of the future. That means we are
investing in them to be better than our adversaries. Not accept
the fact that we have matching capabilities, but what more can
we do to enhance those so we are ahead of the curve?
Because when President Trump says we have the best
platforms, the best systems, the best fighters, the best ships,
the best vehicles, he means it, and we mean business on it, and
we are going to deliver it.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you.
And I have 30 seconds. So, General Caine, if Congress had 1
extra dollar to invest today most effectively to strengthen our
deterrence posture against China, Russia, and threats in the
Middle East, where should it go? Twenty seconds.
General Caine. Wow. I am going to take 19 of those,
Congressman.
Probably--probably in munitions. I don't know how much we
would buy for $1, but I would want to make sure that the joint
force is properly armed, at scale, at the tactical edge, and
the youngsters that volunteer to serve have what they need.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Joyce.
PREPOSITIONED STOCKS IN THE INDO-PACIFIC
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary, everybody, I appreciate it. We had to go out to
other--you won't believe this, but there are other hearings
taking place. So I went over to bug Secretary Turner and now
came back, so it is your turn.
Secretary Hegseth, your April 30th memo on Army
transformation and acquisition reform directs the Army to
expand prepositioned stocks of equipment to the Indo-Pacific. I
expect we would need to enhance our industrial-base capacity to
support this effort.
Could you discuss the importance of increasing
prepositioned stocks in the Indo-Pacific and how this affects
the Army's resources for fiscal year 2026?
Secretary Hegseth. It is a great question, because it
marries up two things that need to be linked and synched and
often aren't--right?--the capabilities that we have in the
priority theater and where we preposition those capabilities.
So my job exists on multiple axes of that. One is working
with allies and partners to make sure we have places to
preposition them----
Mr. Joyce. Uh-huh.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. Many of which we can't talk
about here today. But in the event of a contingency, we can't
be relying on a supply chain that reaches all the way back to
the States or even to Hawaii or even to Guam. You need to
recognize the prepositioning of stocks.
But then you have to have those stocks, and they have to be
the relevant ones for the systems that you are deploying, and
you need a defense industrial base to deliver on that. Which is
why we have made historic investments in munitions, focusing on
priority munitions that would be applied in our priority
theater, with a recognition that every munition we spend
somewhere else--and I say that as someone who--very proudly. We
conducted a very successful freedom-of-navigation campaign
against the Houthis to ensure that our ships don't--and, by the
way, two of our ships transited the BAM successfully and the
cease-fire held, very recently.
So it doesn't mean you don't expend munitions. You
judiciously expend them, with an understanding that you have to
safeguard others for future fights and prepositioning, and then
invest in your industrial base.
And I think that is why you see a budget with a 13-percent
increase. A 13-percent increase in a defense budget is
significant and allows us to both invest in the President's
priorities and fast-track munitions that we are going to need.
CONTESTED LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES
Mr. Joyce. For a guy chairing a committee that has to cut
his by 57 percent, I can tell you that being plus-13 is a lucky
day.
General Caine, our forces face growing challenges
sustaining operations across contested environments,
particularly in the Indo-Pacific. China is investing in
capabilities designed to disrupt supply lines, access to
forward operating bases, and target critical logistics nodes.
What steps are you taking to strengthen contested logistics
capabilities? And what investments can Congress make to ensure
that you have operational resilience?
General Caine. Well, Congressman, thanks for the question.
You know, history tells us that the professionals talk
about logistics. And that is what was the big differentiator
between us and our adversaries in World War II, was really the
logistics power.
You know, our teammates within the joint force are looking
carefully at this right now. And as we look at the adversaries'
threat arrays that they have and our ability to defeat them and
move the combat capacity that we need to through those
difficult places is a key part of that.
I don't have a specific number for you, but what I will
commit is, as we think through what contested logistics looks
like, as we think through what forward supply points on the
First and Second Island Chain might look like, we will stay
close with the committee to make sure that we are communicating
early, often, and always about what our needs are.
Mr. Joyce. Well, I certainly appreciate that.
And I would throw out that, having a small Air Force
Reserve airport in Youngstown, Ohio, area----
General Caine. Some great C-130Js up there----
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
General Caine [continuing]. Congressman. Yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Joyce. Appreciate the help on their fire department for
the new inventory we got.
But the old stuff we had there, you had maybe eight planes.
They were cannibalizing three to feed the five, because we
didn't have parts in storage----
General Caine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Joyce [continuing]. And those type of things.
And I think that has played out in other areas for us as
well. And we need to not only make sure we have the
manufacturing industrial base but we also have the ability to
have the parts and inventory to keep all those things on line,
or we have to remove them from service.
General Caine. Yes, sir. I know General Allvin and the team
at the Air Force is looking hard at that, too, to make sure
that we have the right stuff on the shelf prior to that we
need, not just in the C-130 community but the other airframes
within the Air Force and, frankly, the joint force.
Parts are always going to be a driver. And I am really
encouraged by the innovation that is happening to look at
things like additive manufacturing, where we get a hold of the
specs from companies like Lockheed and others and can just 3D-
print right on the spot the requirement.
Mr. Joyce. Those have to be in any procurement you do from
now on that----
General Caine. Yes, sir. I think so, sir. You know, the
force of the future will fix on the spot, so they will need to
be able to have the parts right there.
And as we look at mission command and delegating
authorities and responsibilities to our younger commanders and,
you know, complex command-and-control problems, part of that is
going to be the ability to sustain our force out there at the
edge.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, General.
General Caine. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. And thinking of logistics, it made me think-
of--what was it?--General Marshall, who went out in the 1930s
and met with a young lieutenant colonel and said, ``He is the
best logistics officer I have ever met.'' And that was General
Eisenhower. Three years later, he was a four-star general. So
logistics are important.
Mr. Aderholt, you are recognized.
GOLDEN DOME INITIATIVE
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, everyone, for being here this morning.
And as we wrap up the hearing today, let me say that the
Golden Dome initiative represents, in my opinion, a substantial
investment in our national security. And I credit this
administration in pursuing this bold project, and I share your
ambition for it. So thank you for moving forward on that.
I want to follow up with my--from my colleague from New
York. The President has said that he has chosen an option that
will total $175 billion. Can you confirm that number? And when
do you hope to make this system of systems operational?
Secretary Hegseth. I will have Bryn confirm it, but our
belief is that 175 is the totality, that this is the initial
investment, but that a lot of the investment will eventually be
in systems, some of which are already in production, and we
will need to ramp up the production of them.
Because the President has charged us with having this
mission-capable by the end of his term. This is not something
that is futuristic. This is not something that will happen in
some distant future based on some technology we don't yet have
or can't field.
Our approach to Golden Dome will be making sure we can
procure existing layers that can talk to each other, with new
layers on top, because this is a layered system, as was
mentioned----
Mr. Aderholt. Uh-huh.
Secretary Hegseth [continuing]. To include drones as well,
in partnership with the services.
So can you confirm that, Bryn?
Ms. MacDonnell. Yes, sir. Nothing to add. That is all
accurate.
And we are still planning towards what the final number is,
but the $24.8 billion we are requesting this year is that
downpayment on the near-term capabilities that we are looking
at as part of the architecture.
AUKUS PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
Let me switch over, and I would like to get your thoughts
on the AUKUS partnership, not merely as a cornerstone for our
Indo-Pacific defense strategy but also as an opportunity for
our defense industrial base.
And, in fact, we have heard from a lot of Australian and
U.K. businesses who are ready, willing, and able to move
production to the U.S. given the new regulatory framework under
Pillar 2. Britain and Australia set the standard for defense
cooperation, bringing real capability and firepower to the
fight.
Can you preview how this administration intends to fund
Pillar 2 efforts to develop and field joint capabilities
between all three partners?
Secretary Hegseth. It is a great question, sir.
I have spent a great deal of time with both Minister of
Defence Marles from Australia as well as Secretary of Defence
Healey from the U.K. to really get our arms around what would
be mutually beneficial in this trilateral arrangement.
So there is the recognition with Australia in Pillar 1 that
they are investing in our industrial defense base. We want to
provide them capabilities. We want to make sure those
capabilities are part of how they use them, with submarines,
but also how they integrate with us as allies.
In Pillar 2, we don't want to rely just on the architecture
of the previous administration. We are looking at sort of the
opportunity for a signature program or programs we can work on
together that benefit all three that create processes or
procurement opportunities of systems we need for future fights.
And we have had--in fact, as recently as last week, I spoke
with Secretary Healey about that.
And we are looking for those one or two signature programs.
We have a menu of options. We are at the point where we will
get to right-sizing it and determining it.
Mr. Aderholt. And you feel, at this point, that things are
on track and you are----
Secretary Hegseth. That is what we are monitoring,
especially in Pillar 1, sir, to make sure that expectations are
properly set so that we are not, you know, missing deadlines or
expectations are shifted in the wrong direction.
So we are having honest conversations with our allies like
we should, with a recognition that by investing in each other
and that defense industrial base we can have a multiplying
effect.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. McCollum, any closing statement?
PROVIDE BUDGET INFORMATION
Ms. McCollum. Just--yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So, to Mr. Aguilar's question--and, Ms. MacDonnell, you
were helping to fill in the blanks--the money is coming from
FSRM--and that is about a 25-percent cut to that budget--to
fill on what is happening on the border and now what is
happening in Los Angeles.
So if you could get us the details of what is not going to
happen in that account because of that, that would be fabulous.
We might want to look and see if we prioritize things in next
year's budget to make sure that they are covered.
Mr. Secretary, the top line on the budget before us is $830
billion. It is not $901 billion. It is just not. That is the
number we have to work with.
You can talk about an increase. You have a lot of things
baked in. Hopefully, that goes in reconciliation. Six billion
dollars for revitalizing shipyards; 3.5 for F-47s; 25 for
Golden Dome. But that is all in reconciliation, and we can't
include that in any of our planning. And that is why we are so
concerned about getting the money breakouts in front of this
committee.
And I will give you an example. The Navy, their J-Books
where they break everything down--I know you are really
familiar with them--we had 30 of them in front of us when we
were getting ready to do our appropriation last time. We have
zero in front of us this time.
So, you know, Mr. Secretary, I know--I believe, honestly
believe, you want to provide the information, but time is of
the essence, because this committee wants to do its best work,
together, both Democrats and Republicans, to make sure the
women who serve in our Armed Forces have the equipment that
they need to do the missions that they are assigned to and come
home safely, because we honor their service and their
commitment.
Get us the information.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
And I would just make--so where we are going to agree, that
we need some more detailed information.
We are going to go ahead and--we are going to go upstairs
here and do the subcommittee mark, but then later this week we
are going to do the full committee mark on this bill.
The Senate is pushing off doing their appropriation bills
in general until after reconciliation passes, because they want
to incorporate that. But we don't have the luxury of time. We
will just have to work out the differences we have in
conference.
But it is hard for us to do our job without the J-Books,
without the detailed information. And I know you know that.
And so you might talk to your friends at OMB and--if OMB
has any friends; I don't know if they do--and see if they can
get this going for us, because that would be very helpful.
With that, Mr. Secretary, thank you; Chairman, thank you;
and, Ms. MacDonnell, thank you. We appreciate all of you being
here today.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Phelan, Hon. John................................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Kilby, Admiral James W........................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Smith, General Eric M............................................ 69
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Nordhaus, General Steven S....................................... 163
Prepared statement........................................... 166
Harter, Lieutenant General Robert D.............................. 179
Prepared statement........................................... 181
Lacore, Vice Admiral Nancy S..................................... 188
Prepared statement........................................... 190
Anderson IV, Lieutenant General Leonard F........................ 209
Prepared statement........................................... 210
Healy, Lieutenant General John P................................. 227
Prepared statement........................................... 229
Hegseth, Hon. Pete............................................... 294
Prepared statement........................................... 297
Caine, General Dan............................................... 314
Prepared statement........................................... 316
[all]