Senate Appropriations (Murkowski): Hearings to examine a review of the President's supplemental funding request of June 24, 2026.

Thank you. This hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee will come to order. Before we begin our hearing today, I want to take a moment to recognize the American service members who recently made the ultimate sacrifice while serving our nation. We extend our deepest condolences to their families, loved ones, and fellow service members, and we honor their courage, dedication, and sacrifice.

We also grieve today, in the first meeting of the Appropriations since his passing, the absence of our friend, our dear friend and colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. Turning now to the first panel, I want to express my appreciation for Senators Rounds, Butt, and Padilla for appearing before the committee today to talk about the urgent urgent needs facing their states. I also welcomed Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Rollins, and General Caine, and thank them for joining us to discuss the President's supplemental funding request. Our country has many urgent funding needs. For many agricultural producers, 2025 was a year in which the cost of growing their crop at times exceeded what they could earn from selling it.

Severe weather compounded these losses. This was certainly the case for many growers in the state of Maine. Our wild blueberry growers and apple producers had to contend with a challenge of a combination of challenging market conditions an excessively rainy spring that prevented pollinization, and drought conditions in the summer and fall. I expect that we will hear a great deal today about how declining commodity prices, rising input costs, labor shortages, trade disruptions, pests and disease, and increasingly volatile weather are squeezing our farmers' already thin thin margins. Nationwide, we have lost 200,000 farms in the last decade.

In Maine alone, more than 500 closed between 2017 and 2022, according to the most recent Census of Agriculture. Our farmers are part of the fabric of America's rural communities and they need help to survive. USDA has said that additional short-term assistance is needed to help producers weather these extraordinary conditions while long-term improvements take hold. I look forward to today's discussion and making sure that any assistance is structured to meet the needs both of row and special— specialty crop producers, such as we have in Maine. We will also hear today about the ongoing recovery needs of communities in North Carolina, as well as communities in California, and I suspect other states too, that are still working to rebuild after being hit by devastating hurricanes and wildfires.

I would note that the administration's statement that it is open to discussing additional relief for other urgent matters is encouraging because there is strong interest from members on both sides of the aisle in discussing additional targeted relief. Turning now to the defense request, I look forward to hearing from our Department of Defense witnesses and their discussion on why the supplemental funding is critical to supporting our service members and protecting America's national security. There are certainly divergent views on this committee about the decision to use military force against Iran. The Senate, as a body, has already taken numerous votes on these issues and will likely continue to do so. But irrespective of our differing views about the military operations, the fact remains that there are must-pay bills and urgent requirements facing the department that affect the ability of our troops to be well trained and more broadly of the US military to deter and defend against progre— potential aggressors worldwide.

I would note that some of the requirements, such as the shortfalls in munitions, have been well known to this committee for some time, and prior to the conflict with Iran, there has been bipartisan support to address these shortfalls. While these munition shortfalls have been years in the making, they are growing increasingly urgent. We should not undermine the readiness of our service members for any engagement. Or refused to rebuild critical capabilities. Our men and women in uniform do not decide where they are sent or the missions to which they are assigned.

Congress has a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools, the training, and the support that they need to accomplish their mission. On the topic of our service members, I would be remiss if I did not note that since January of last year, the department has removed a number of senior generals and admirals from their positions, blocked or altered promotion lists across multiple services, and intervened in several senior assignments. A recent New York Times story reported that about 40 senior officers were removed from promotion lists and more than two dozen generals and admirals were fired or sidelined, including Admiral Lisa Fran— Franketti, the first woman to lead the Navy. The Times further reports that more than half of those fired or removed have been female or Black, and that for the first time in more than a decade, no active-duty female naval officers are likely to be promoted to Admiral. I find this deeply troubling.

These are men and women who volunteered to serve our country and swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution. Over the course of their careers, they have earned the support and the trust of their commanders and subordinates. Led our men and women in uniform and were selected through rigorous command and promotion boards. They have served under presidents and defense secretaries from both parties. Reports that women and people of color are disproportionately fired or sidelined create the impression that their service is not valued.

This is likely to discourage well-qualified women and individuals of color from joining our armed forces, thus depriving us of their talent, dedication, and patriotism. The United States military is one of the greatest meritocracies in the free world. We need to make sure that it stays that way. I now recognize Vice President Murray for her opening statement. Thank you very much, Chair Collins, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today.

I first, too, do want to acknowledge the loss of one of our colleagues on this dais. Like so many, I was very shocked and saddened to learn of Senator Graham's passing. We disagreed on many issues, but there was no denying the energy that Lindsey brought to this job. And whenever we could, we found common ground and managed to get something done. So I just wanted to express that my heart goes out to his family, friends, and loved ones today.

Now, I want to start with a few facts. 143 Days ago, President Trump started a war of his own choosing with Iran. He did not consult Congress. He did not get authorization from Congress. He did not build a coalition of allies.

He did not make a case to the American people, nor did he ever win their support. Two-thirds of Americans opposed the war, and the president's decision had catastrophic costs. 17 American service members have now died, and that includes 3 who tragically lost their lives over the last few days, and another is still missing. Several hundred more have been injured, including nearly 100 who've been hurt just in the last few weeks. We owe all of them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never repay.

Thousands of civilians have also been killed, and this administration will not tell the public or Congress the true financial costs of this war. But we know it is very well into the tens of billions of dollars. Tax dollars we could have spent helping people afford healthcare or building new housing have now been lit on fire by a president who blundered us into a disastrous war. And the cost to families' bank accounts are staggering. Economic growth has slowed to a crawl.

Inflation has shot up about 50% since this war began. On average, gas costs just under $3 on February 28th. Today it is over $4 and ticking back up with the Strait closed again. Americans have now paid more than $70 billion more on gas since this war began. That is over $550 more per household.

Fertilizer costs skyrocketed in the middle of spring planting, crushing farmers operating on extremely thin margins. And costing families more on just about everything they buy at the grocery store. The costs of this war have been astronomical. And what it is— what has it been for? What has actually been achieved?

We hear a different rationale for this war every few days. It was about preempting imminent threats, which we now know did not exist. It was about regime change. Than liberating the Iranian people. It was about destroying Iran's nuclear program and its navy.

And at one point, it was about taking out its ballistic missiles, until that is, until the president decided that actually, and I quote, "It's a little bit unfair for them not to have some." Trump has even suggested the war is about taking Iran's oil to quote, "Make a fortune." And now, the United States' primary strategic objective seems to be to actually just reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which of course was fully open, toll-free before this war began. President Trump has, by any objective measure, failed to achieve his goals. Our country is no safer or better off than before the war. In fact, we are considerably less safe. Our stockpiles have been depleted, and it will take years of production to fully replenish them, no matter how much money is thrown at this problem.

Our global force posture is much weaker, and as assets have been moved now to the Middle East, and we are now much further away from a long-term solution to halt Iran's nuclear program than we were before Trump ripped up the deal that President Obama negotiated, which secured actual measurable commitments and progress without ever starting a costly war. In fact, there are new reports that Iran may have moved nuclear assets into a mountain bunker, which raises concerns about whether Iran might restart its program. It used to be a pretty somber and serious thing, a president taking America to war and costing lives and taxpayer dollars. But this president has been downright flippant. The people I represent worry Trump thinks this is all a game and has sent men and women into harm's way without any sort of plan.

And now that he's driven that car into the ditch, he wants taxpayers to bail him out. As the daughter of a World War II veteran and a Purple Heart recipient, the way this White House has blissfully operated with no plan for success is disrespectful to our men and women in uniform. These are patriots. They are highly trained and have sacrificed tremendously to keep us safe. They shouldn't be forced to put a show on for the president's birthday parade or do the job of Border Patrol agents or risk their lives in a disastrous war that the president clearly failed to think through.

And as a U.S. senator, this administration's refusal to explain what it is doing or how this war is protecting Americans Its refusal to seek authorization from Congress and its expectation that Americans will now just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful, and it's insulting to the people back home that all of us represent. So here we are, 5 months later. The strait is closed. The ceasefire hasn't just disintegrated. This, this war is now spiraling.

Out of control again. The president is threatening escalation and war crimes and suggesting this could be another forever war. He has told us over 40 times now that a deal is near and the war will be over soon. But now he is asking for $70 billion more and for us to just trust him. It'll work out fine.

Look, I've been very clear. My Democratic colleagues and I will do absolutely everything to ensure that we do take care of our service members and keep this country safe. Chairman Kaine, I hope you know that every Democrat on this committee deeply respects the sacrifices that you and our service members and their families are making. Everyone who signed up to serve our country deserves to be more than an afterthought in a war that the president decided to launch despite all the blinking red warnings. But my colleagues and I cannot and will not support rubber stamping a request to bankroll this war and whatever other misadventures Trump wants to get us into next.

The American people want to see a quick and strategic end to this war, not $70 billion of their tax dollars sent to keep it going. And I want to make a few important points. First, the president's request is not even a primarily primarily a request to cover the costs of the Iran war. This request is chock-full of asks to fund unrelated DOD priorities, which should be considered through our annual appropriations process, not in an emergency supplemental. And that includes almost $1 billion for Southcom, nearly $1 billion to keep deploying the National Guard here in D.C., and more than $1 billion for the southern border.

Secondly, President Trump is making this request as the Pentagon has a record-breaking $1 trillion total budget for FY26, including over $75 billion it has in unspent money from Republicans' big ugly bill. Understand you may have mismanaged your budget, Secretary Hagelseth, but you have to do your due diligence to fix the cash flow problems you've caused before asking taxpayers for more. Third, the, the president is now asking for all of us to approve tens of billions of dollars in new funding for the war while his administration still has yet to share actual cost estimates, essential information to justify this request, and a plan for where on earth this conflict goes next. This administration is either hiding the truth from Congress and the American people, or if you take at face value what they've said in, in the few briefings that we've had, they have no idea what is going on and no plan to right the ship, neither of which is acceptable. Now, Trump is also asking Congress for over $10 billion to help struggling American farmers who have been crushed first by the tariffs and then by this war.

Which has shot fertilizer and diesel costs through the roof. I'm digging into that request, but let me be clear. As we're looking at what farmers might need to weather Trump's storm, we must also help families put food on the table. And to do that, we should delay and ultimately reverse Republicans' deep cuts to SNAP, which have already kicked at least 1 million kids off of food assistance. Finally, Trump has also requested— and I'd read this one twice to believe— $1.3 billion in new funding for the State Department for global health and humanitarian needs, at the very same time his administration is withholding more than twice that amount in funding that has already been signed into law and is available for the same purpose.

He's also asking for authorities to make U.S. taxpayer dollars subsidize the Venezuelan oil industry and to finance the establishment of private investment funds like the one he just handed over to one of his ballroom donors. Unfortunately, Secretary Rubio is not here with us today to explain those requests, to talk about how this war forced one of the largest evacuations of our diplomatic posts ever, or to explain whether as a national security advisor he still thinks this war is, quote, the right decision and whether he still, quote, believes in it strongly. So this is really a request to make taxpayers pay for the president's reckless decisions, from the Iran war to his trade wars to his global health cuts, all while doing nothing to help our families back home who are suffering because of those decisions. And that, that is what we should be focused on, helping people, because as Senator Padilla and others on both sides of the aisle will tell us shortly, there are urgent domestic needs that we should be addressing instead of sending more money for Trump to drop bombs overseas. Priorities like disaster relief for our communities that have been ravaged by the unthinkable, or taking action to lower families' costs.

You know what's a crisis right now? The fact that there are families I hear from back home who are working full-time and still being forced to decide whether to skip meals so they finally can buy their kids a pair of shoes. You know what's a crisis? The fact that hospitals are shutting down and kids are going hungry because of Republicans' cuts. Instead of bankrolling the president's war or sending ICE $70 billion, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could work with us to quadruple our investments to cure cancer or help families afford childcare or help them afford to cool their homes.

Those are policy choices, and Republican leadership has chosen to focus on funding war and ICE endlessly without a single cent for our American families. So let me close with this. This president says we can afford— can't afford healthcare, we can't afford childcare, we can't afford housing, but somehow we can always afford another war. No price tag on that. Families in Washington State are skipping doctor's visits so they can afford groceries.

Trump wants Congress to cut him a blank check for a war that no one supports. The American people entrust us to spend their taxpayer dollars strategically and thoughtfully. This is a huge responsibility. So let me be clear. I'm ready to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan way, as always, to address the needs of our nation and the American people.

But I hope we can have real conversations about why there seems to always be money for Trump's wars, but never money for the families back home who are desperate for a little relief. So I look forward to today's discussion. Thank you. I will now introduce our first panel of witnesses. Today we're going to be hearing first from our colleagues Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina, and Senator Alex Padilla of California.

I welcome all of you, and Senator Rounds, we'll begin with you first.

Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to highlight why food security and national security go hand in hand. I'd also like to thank the Trump administration for recognizing that input pressures have made it more difficult for American farmers to support their own operations. In South Dakota, farming and ranching is more than a job. It's a way of life built on hard work, stewardship, and the hope of leaving the land better for the next generation. Feeding and fueling the world has never been easy.

Producers continue showing up year after year despite drought, floods, disease, pests, volatile markets, and other challenges beyond their control. This supplemental funding request comes at a critical time. Farmers and ranchers are facing production costs that exceed market returns. Higher fertilizer, diesel fuel, seed, equipment, and crop protection costs, coupled with retaliatory trade practices and continued market uncertainty, have put enormous— have put enormous financial pressure on producers. Specifically, the projected loss per acre across the country in 2026 for corn is $131, for cotton $342, for wheat $114, and for soybeans $80.

While we work to strengthen America's ability to produce more of what we need here at home and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, Congress should provide stability so producers can remain in business and continue producing the best food and fuel in the world. Today's threats extend well beyond weather and markets. Foreign adversaries, cyber threats, industry consolidation, arbitrary standards, and unfair trade practices impact farmers' ability to produce food, fiber, and fuel. Food security, energy security, and national security are connected. We also have an opportunity to strengthen both agriculture and energy security by permanently authorizing voluntary access to nationwide year-round sales of E15, giving consumers the option to choose a higher ethanol blend would increase domestic fuel production, expand markets for corn growers, reduce reliance on foreign energy sources, and provide families with lower-cost options at the pump.

Given the significant defense investments included in this supplemental, I also want to emphasize the importance of fully funding our national defense. We are living in one of the most complex and lethal threat environments since the Second World War. And the brave men and women who volunteer to defend this country deserve the leadership, training, and equipment, along with resources necessary to maintain America's military advantage. Protecting America's food supply, energy supply, and national defense are not separate priorities. They reinforce one another.

This supplemental provides needed assistance to help farm and ranch families endure today's economic challenges while Congress and the administration continue advancing long-term policies that strengthen American agriculture. I urge my colleagues to support this supplemental request to provide stability to our ag producers at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Budd. Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon to provide a voice for the people in western North Carolina. More than 21 months ago, Hurricane Helene unleashed an unprecedented amount of rainfall on the Blue Ridge Mountains, causing severe flooding and devastating landslides. The storm left behind tens of billions in damage.

In December 2024, Congress responded by approving a disaster supplemental that provided billions of dollars to Western North Carolina recovery. Additionally, North Carolina's state government stepped up by committing roughly $2.4 billion in state appropriations and redirecting more than $2 billion from state agencies for reconstruction. But the Blue Ridge Mountains' challenging terrain has made it uniquely difficult for federal programs to operate. Resulting in delays and inefficiencies. And there's still work to be done.

Too many projects in western North Carolina have stalled due to insufficient funding or because of financial shortfalls from expensive debris removal and rebuilding efforts. I greatly appreciate that President Trump and Secretary Mullin have empowered FEMA to more rapidly reimburse the state and local governments for public assistance projects. However, FEMA is only one part of the equation. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other federal agencies play a key role in disaster recovery, and much of the existing disaster funding for those agencies has already largely been allocated. When I visit western North Carolina, I see the impacts the delays in recovery have caused.

Debris still clogs the waterways. Facilities that provide drinking water and manage wastewater have yet to be rebuilt. Most concerning, some homeowners are paying mortgages on properties that are still unlivable or yet to be rebuilt. Towns have been forced to embrace expensive short-term stopgap solutions just to carry out their most basic functions for their residents. In the small town of Beach Mountain, there is no long-term water supply.

The dam and water treatment plant were heavily damaged, forcing the town out of compliance with state, state safety standards. And as a result, the state could be finding Beech Mountain $25,000 per day. Most repairs are needed so that the water treatment plant can function long term. If funded, this process will take at least a year and require significant diversion of utilities and/or daily water trucks just so hundreds of residents will have to have clean drinking water during construction. 3 Years is too long to wait after a disaster, and we can't delay any longer.

Tourism, the lifeblood of much of western North Carolina, has begun to rebound, but there's still far too many areas that are unable to accommodate the travelers they once welcomed. But I want to highlight a few examples of success stories to show how ample funding for the last disaster supplemental paired with exceptional planning and project execution, made an immediate impact on our mountain communities. Last July, portions of the Blue Ridge Parkway reopened after 57 landslides struck 200 miles of the parkway. This Memorial Day weekend, Lake Lure reopened the public— to the public after an incredible debris removal and refilling project. And I want to be clear, that I fully support President Trump's request to replenish our munitions stockpile and strengthen our military.

And I'm also appreciative of his efforts to provide economic assistance to farmers impacted by disasters and unfair trade practices. However, to address the long-term recovery needs of western North Carolina, more federal funds are needed. Every time I'm in western North Carolina, people ask me to make sure that they're not forgotten. This is Congress's chance to remind them that we're serious about helping them get back on their feet. I'm deeply grateful to the members of the committee for holding this hearing, and I look forward to continuing to work with you throughout this whole process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Budd. Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair Murray, members of the committee. Appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the people of California. And especially the survivors of last year's devastating fires in Los Angeles County.

And I want to acknowledge that some of them are here in the audience today advocating for relief, and I'm proud to work alongside them. As many of you recall, 18 months ago, 60,000 acres across Southern California burned. That's roughly 3.5 times the size of Manhattan. Over 16,000 homes, businesses, schools, and other structures were destroyed, and most devastatingly, 31 Californians lost their lives. To respond, more than 7,500 firefighters worked literally around the clock for more than 3 weeks to extinguish the fires.

And those firefighters weren't just from California. Many came from our neighboring states of Oregon, Washington, Arizona, some as far away as Utah, Texas, and Montana. Colleagues, because as Americans, that's what we do.

We help each other. We don't condition our response based on who a community voted for in the last election. When Americans need help, we help. Now, walking around the Palisades and the Altadena communities during the fires and after the fires, you couldn't help but being moved by the scale of the devastation, the images of nothing standing but a chimney amongst a pile of ash, cars literally melted into the streets or the drivers where they had been parked. In the wake of disasters like this, Congress has historically come together on a bipartisan basis to provide aid and long-term recovery funding to help communities recover and rebuild regardless of whether the disaster was in a state represented by Republicans or Democrats.

But instead of following that historical practice, this administration has left California waiting for more than a year and a half while asking Congress to fund hundreds of billion dollars for other purposes. I want to be crystal clear: no disaster-impacted community, regardless of where it is located, should ever be held hostage or treated as a bargaining chip for other political priorities. Californians in Altadena and the Palisades have now waited more than 18 months.

Yet long-term recovery funding is still absent from even the administration's request. Instead, it asks taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on a war that Congress has never authorized. A war that's raising gas prices, worsening supply chains, making our country less safe, and for which 17 service members have already paid the ultimate sacrifice, with many more seriously injured. Now, we know this committee can't address disaster relief without tying it to a laundry list of unrelated priorities, because it's done so many times before. Including as recently as December 2024, when the committee on a bipartisan basis passed more than $100 billion of relief.

There's no reason we can't do it again.

Congress, we must— excuse me, colleagues, we must reject the premise that it is okay to keep survivors waiting for help because the president, any president, decides they need something else from Congress to get it. To that end, I do want to thank my colleagues Senators Tillis, Schiff, and Curtis for joining me in sending a bipartisan letter to the committee just yesterday supporting long-term disaster recovery funding. Madam Chair, I'd like to enter this letter into the record at this time.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. I'm sorry, enter the letter to the record. Without objection. Thank you. It will be.

And I'll be wrapping up soon here. I also want to reiterate what I said earlier. We know the next disaster is coming. Anyone who stepped outside of Washington this last weekend or across at least a dozen states saw and breathed the very impacts of wildfires. And it may be Canada now, but it's going to be one of our states next.

As of last week, the federal government has already spent over $3.3 billion in wildfire suppression this fiscal year, even though the peak of fire season is August and September. That's still ahead of us. That should concern the committee. We cannot allow wildfire suppression funding to run out before the end of the fiscal year. So in addition to the long-term disaster recovery funding, I urge the committee to examine the need for emergency suppression funds as well.

And I would note that the fire FIX, which has provided a steady resource for fighting wildfires, will expire in fiscal year 2027. Congress needs to extend and increase that funding to ensure firefighters have all the resources they need to respond to the ever-growing threat of wildfires. I'll close by reiterating what I said at the outset. Disasters do not distinguish between red states and blue states, and when it comes to disaster aid, Neither should Congress. So thank you again for holding this hearing and allowing me to be a voice for my constituents and for disaster survivors across the country.

I look forward to working with this committee to ensure that everyone has the resources, support they need to recover and rebuild, regardless of which state they call home. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony of the entire panel as we consider the supplemental submitted by the administration. Your testimony is very helpful to us. Thank you.

I will now ask that our second panel of witnesses come forward.

Well, leave it to our military witness to be on time.

While we are waiting for our second panel to be seated, let me introduce them. We are joined today by the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Chief of Staff General Dan Cain. These administration officials represent the largest components of the administration's request, and we welcome them to the committee today. Secretary Hegseth, we will begin with your testimony. Please proceed.

Well, Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity. To testify on President Trump's supplemental funding request for the Department of War. As you know, we live in a dangerous world that requires bold and swift action. Hence this supplemental request for fiscal year 2026. This request is an urgent, necessary injection of resources to address the immediate needs of our department.

The supplemental funding request is not a substitute We are against this moral aggression. We are against these illegal wars. This is against Iranian people, 90 million people. We are crying for blood of 17 Americans and 14 Iranians. The witness will suspend until order is restored in the committee room.

I know that individuals feel very passionately, but we must have order in the hearing room. So that we can proceed. We're now going to move forward with our hearing, and Secretary Hagseth, please proceed. Thank you. The supplemental funding request is not a substitute for the president's full $1.5 trillion base budget request.

$1.5 Trillion—. Stop bombing our children in Iran and Palestine! This is illegal! Mr. Secretary, please suspend until order is restored in the hearing room. We will begin the timing clock since you've been interrupted twice.

Please proceed. $1.5 Trillion is what the president seeks and what we need to defend the country. The members of this committee understand better than most that long-term strategic dominance cannot be funded through one-off supplements.

We will have order in the hearing room.

Mr. Secretary, please proceed. Collectively, the budget proposals submitted under President Trump follow a simple logic.

I would ask that the Capitol Police, whose professionalism I admire, remove those who are seeking to disrupt the hearing.

Please proceed. President Trump's following a simple logic. The military requires a generational investment to deliver on peace through strength. We know the best way to create peace is to prepare for war, to deter it. And that's exactly what the Department of War is doing, building a force so capable that it would be absurd for anyone to challenge it.

As the direct result of neglected priorities and gross negligence that ignored threats left over from the previous administration, President Trump inherited a set of global and domestic crises. Deferred maintenance almost across the board. Instead of steering the ship through gathering storms, former leaders let our military languish through social experiments and globalist appeasement. Sheer weakness. Under President Trump, we have built a different type of department.

The Pentagon is no longer run by bureaucrats. Instead, it's led by combat-tested veterans and world-class business leaders who are running the department like a business, and tech titans who are bringing lethal innovation to the battlefield. We're also at a different moment, and we cannot afford inaction. If we don't make critical investments right now in tech, in compute, in AI, in autonomy, in space, our adversaries who are already making these types of investments could outpace us.

Without these funds, we face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to also simply pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption. This supplemental request serves two purposes: sustain our military readiness to meet this year's new demands and accelerate critical capabilities to replace and augment those we have used in contingencies. But make no mistake, this is not a one-for-one replacement. We are upgrading and we are modernizing across the force. On the readiness front, we requested $21 billion.

This will fund military pay, replace much of the equipment utilized during recent operations, sustain forward deployed forces, and grow personnel and strength while stabilizing mission-critical fuel shortfalls and supporting the National Guard. On the capability side, we requested $46 billion. These funds will expand production lines and accelerate delivery of high-demand munitions. We're talking about solid rocket motors, JDAMs, hypersonics, and counter-drone capabilities. Additionally, we will use this investment to secure digital and space dominance, including resilient satellite networks.

Department leadership recognizes that appropriating those funds is just the first step. Once funds are appropriated— or apportioned, excuse me— to the department, we need to promptly execute on them, and that's why we're requesting targeted legislative authorities like transfer authority to prioritize our greatest needs and opportunities, multiyear procurement for weapons systems, revolutionizing the speed and scale of munitions procurement, and New START authorities. Rest assured that every dollar appropriated to the Department of War will be focused on building the lethality of our joint force and reinforcing peace through strength. As I have said before, not fully funding this department, the Department of War, and we know what that means, that that means $1.5 trillion given the world that we live in and the disaster of what the Biden administration budgets gave us. Not funding this department at $1.5 trillion, I believe, is the greatest threat that our nation faces.

Either we invest in our warriors at this moment of step change on the battlefield and growing threats or this is all just talk. I look forward to working with this committee to secure those funds so that our warfighters can continue to do their work every day to keep our great republic safe. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Kane.

Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, distinguished members of this committee, I'm honored today to appear before you with Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rollins to testify on the Department of War's fiscal 2026 supplemental funding request. And I'll note, I fondly remember my time at USDA earlier in my career where I had the chance to serve there. I'm also joined today by my senior enlisted advisor, SEAC Dave Isom. As always, I'm deeply grateful for this committee's continued partnership and support for our common defense. I'd like to begin by expressing my deep condolences and that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the SEAC for the fallen from this past weekend and their families.

Today we remember First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, Sergeant Michael Swinton, and Private Isabel Gonzalez, and note that the names of our last fallen will be released when we can. I'm humbled daily by the profound commitment of the incredible 2.8 million Americans just like these names that I've just mentioned who make up our joint force and serve our nation every day. Also, on behalf of the joint force and the Joint Chiefs, I want to express my sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family of Senator Graham for their loss and all of you for the loss of your colleague. The joint force remains grateful for his 44 years of service, both in and out of uniform. There is no doubt he made a difference to the safety and security of our nation.

On July 22nd, 1940, General George C. Marshall said, and I quote, "For almost 20 years, we had all of the time and almost none of the money. Today we have all of the money and no time." His words resonate powerfully with me today as we find ourselves in a somewhat similar situation. I've come to you today to request the necessary funds while in the window of opportunity, while time is still on our side. The United States of America faces a global list of military challenges in the Middle East, in Europe, in the Pacific, both nuclear and non-nuclear challenges, and the continued threat of terrorism. We find ourselves living and leading in complex and dynamic times.

Our adversaries are aligning in their interests, creating simultaneous challenges across multiple domains. They are sharing intelligence, combat capabilities, and technology— technology that is accelerating the speed of war. It is an imperative that Americans understand that the character of war is changing. Advances in technology are fundamentally and irreversibly changing the way we fight, which necessitates capital to properly arm America's military. Rapid advancements in AI, autonomous systems, deliver critical technological advantages to our national defense and simultaneously introduce unprecedented strategic vulnerabilities and uncertainty across the world, to include right here at home.

The low barrier to entry created by affordable, ubiquitous unmanned systems means our adversaries, rogue actors, state and non-state actors, and violent extremist have access to disruptive and potentially lethal technologies at scale. We've seen this in Ukraine, and we must adopt elements of this fight for our future fights. Conflict is never confined neatly to the land, sea, or air domains. The modern battlefield stretches from the seabed up to cislunar space and beyond. Cyberspace and in the information domain, all at the same time.

Our nation must be prepared to fight and win across all of them, all the time, all at once. In addition, the light speed at which information travels now has compressed our leaders' decision space, taking what was once days or weeks in World War II down to milliseconds. Your joint force must be ready because the United States military is America's greatest insurance policy. And I acknowledge us— all of us find it difficult at times to pay for insurance before we need it, but we must have insurance before the storm comes. The Armed Forces of the United States of America serves as our nation's ultimate safeguard and our insurance policy to preserve, protect, and defend our national interests, security, and prosperity.

To uphold this responsibility, we require predictable and consistent funding. This will allow us to partner effectively with our defense and national industrial bases, building on acquisition reforms that guarantee our warfighters receive capabilities at scale before they are required in conflict or combat. I'm struck by this season of American history we find ourselves in, and I continue to ask myself, If not now, then when? And if not us in this room and the rest of the Congress and the nation, then who? I acknowledge the environment we all serve in, but always remember that we are all Americans with deep and abiding love of our nation and our military service members and their families.

I've come today to ask for your help and your support. America's armed forces need $1.5 trillion to meet the military challenges of the future. This supplemental is a part of that, and to be allowed to use this capital to pay for military personnel operations and maintenance expenses and accelerate investments on critical technologies, as the Secretary just mentioned, it is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we're out of time. In closing, I ask all of us to remember our deployed service members around the world right now. Especially our Army teammates who remain deployed after losing their friends and teammates this past weekend.

And I again ask all of us here in the Senate and across the American people to never forget our fallen and their families who continue to show us what courage, tenacity, grit, and commitment to the nation looks like. Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, General. Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Collins, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Let me begin with the bottom line up front. The United States Department of Agriculture is joining today the United States Department of War in a fight for America and for American flourishing. After all, defending America's ability to feed and fuel and clothe herself is defending America, full stop. This can be easily forgotten.

For centuries, we built farms and ranches and transportation that fed not only America but the world too. For a long time, that prosperity made America strong and made America safe. But across the past 100 years, and especially across the last administration. We took that source of strength in war and peace, our farms and our ranches and the communities that surrounded them, and we hollowed them out. We made them weak and we put them on the precipice of decline and extinction.

We sent our food production overseas. In fact, 2023 was for the first time a significant net importer of our food for America. And in so doing, we replaced American production with massive amounts of imports. We allowed and even encouraged the consolidation of agriculture, seed production, processing, fertilizer, and beyond into massive industries at scale. Today, nearly 85% of our meatpacking capacity is controlled by just 4 companies, including 2 that are foreign-owned.

Additionally, our largest pork company in America is owned by a China company, or China. 4 Fertilizers in America now represent— 4 fertilizer companies now represent 78% of the production versus just a couple of decades ago that was in the dozens. And 2 seed companies now produce more than 50% of the seed for America. These are national security implications When President Trump returned to office, America's farm economy faced one of the most difficult economic environments in decades. Between 2020 and 2025, the cost of seed rose 19%.

Crop protection rose 30%. Fertilizer rose over 50%. Fuel and oils rose nearly 33%. Electricity, 36%. And repair and maintenance, 27%.

As these costs climbed, commodity prices plummeted. Farm income fell by more than $90 billion from 2023 to 2024, representing one of the largest single-year declines in history. At the same time, producers saw not one new trade deal across the world, resulting in an unprecedented $50 billion agricultural trade deficit. American farmers deserve better, and our national security now demands it. As long as we are beholden to foreign and even hostile countries for our food and our fuel, our freedom is in jeopardy.

Since my first day at USDA, we have been committed to addressing this crisis head-on. In addition to implementing the historic Working Families Tax Cuts, thanks to so many in this room who worked so hard, Moving $40 billion in disaster and economic assistance to producers across the country, securing 19 new trade deals, and decreasing that $50 billion agricultural trade deficit in one year by 42%. This year, our corn exports are expected to be at a record-breaking 35%, ethanol up 11%, dairy up 15%, and tree nuts up 11%. We are making progress, but we have a ways to go. Administrator Zeldin has secured the strongest renewable fuel standard volumes in history, and the president continues to support year-round E15 for our domestic markets.

We have led robust responses to animal health threats including HPAI and the new world screwworm and have reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens and partnered with producers to strengthen the domestic demand for American agriculture. These are lasting reforms and will change the trajectory of American agriculture for the future. The trade agreements will take time to fully execute and generate even more exports. The biofuel investments take time to increase the demand for American crops, although we're already seeing a 10% increase since just an announcement a month ago. And of course, onshoring facilities like fertilizer will continue to take some time to build out.

But we are confident that the direction of American agriculture is changing for the better. But many producers continue to face economic pressure as we build that economic infrastructure out. Specialty crop growers across the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Florida suffered devastating freeze losses this past winter. Producers across the Plains continue recovering from catastrophic wildfire. And events occurring while many operations are still working to catch up financially.

That is why our proposed, uh, proposal includes $10 billion in temporary economic assistance for 2026 row crop and specialty crop producers, and also includes $1.1 billion to help producers recover from catastrophic freeze losses suffered this past winter. Congress has taken similar action over many decades, and we're so grateful for that, but including most recently 2023 and 2024, with economic aid and disaster relief aid for the hurricane seasons. I wanna be 100% clear as I close. For the sake of American national security, American existence, and the American future, we must in the long run end this system that has grown up like a weed and strangled the American farmland and food production. Farmers want to farm for their products, not for a government check.

They want to be free from dependency and free to innovate. We know what happens when they are able to do that. They build and feed the greatest republic in the history of man. But when they aren't, well, we know the danger that we are in today. But that's why this supplemental is so important.

It provides a bridge and extends a hand to Americans who need it. It buys the nation the security that we need, and it buys us time to deconstruct and then reconstruct a new system, putting our farmers and ranchers first and to restore the system that originally made America great. For our farmers, the defense of American freedom continues. They only ask to be free to fight. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. We will now begin with questions for our witnesses. As you can see, we have a very full attendance of committee members today, so I would ask that all of our colleagues to please keep track of the clock and stay within the allotted 5-minute question time. With that, let me begin. Secretary Hicks said General Kane— members on both sides of the aisle have questions about the authorization strategy, objectives, and conduct of operations in the Middle East.

Regardless of our differing views, the fact remains that there are must-pay bills and urgent requirements facing the department that affect the ability of our military to deter and defend against potential aggression worldwide. Portions of the supplemental request go toward paying these bills and are necessary to restore readiness, repair or replace battle damage to aircraft, ships or bases, and address urgent munitions challenges. I understand and am told that some military services face near-term solvency challenges. What will be the impact on our troops if additional funding is not provided? Are there military exercises, for example, that are at risk of cancellation?

What message would we be sending to the world? Secretary Hagseth, either you or Senator— or General Kane.

Chairwoman, I very much appreciate that question, and it's, uh, because it, it's connected to the real-world realities of this budget cycle. Uh, there is training, uh, training right now and training in the future that would have to be curtailed if we do not get our budget needs met, and met, uh, urgently. And yes, some of that has to do with the current budget cycle and how things, how things come together, but we are a department that for 4 years met funding shortfalls under the previous administration. It was not a priority to fund the Department of Defense under, under Joe Biden. It also took the munitions and a lot of the— there were 5 supplementals out of this committee that took munitions one for one and sent them to Ukraine and had tried to replace them with the same bureaucratic process that was too slow and didn't replace them in real time.

And then there were threats that were ignored around the world. So you're looking at a lot of negligence. And a lot of deferred maintenance that this department is having to catch up on. And so that's why I call this a generational investment. It truly is.

This is $1.5 trillion budget with this supplemental being part of it is how we catch up and get ahead and ensure in the process we're putting soldiers and sailors and airmen first, Marines first, Guardians, that their pay increases, that the end strength increases that have gone up because recruiting is at historic levels. Are fully funded. So rather than trying to play catch-up and make sure we're not losing training, we should be ahead of that curve, and that's where we think $1.5 trillion can get us. Thank you. Senator Kaine— Senator, I keep calling you Senator— General Kaine, I'm going to ask you to respond for the record because in my remaining time I do want to ask Secretary Rollins a question.

Secretary Rollins, as we heard from previous panel. Our country has many outstanding recovery needs from disasters and other related weather-related events over the past 2 years. As this chart shows, and this is a chart from your department, many have unmet weather-related agricultural losses. In Maine, many of our producers are struggling amid a combination of market— volatility and disaster conditions last year, which exclud— included excessive rainfall in the spring, followed by a severe drought. They need relief.

Yet the administration's supplemental request does not include funding to address these recovery needs. It does have $1.1 billion to help Florida agricultural producers rebound from a severe freeze this past winter, but nothing for prior disasters in other states. Can you explain USA— USDA's thinking behind focusing your request just on the 2026 freeze rather than on the 2025 disaster declarations that you made?

Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. Uh, the— obviously the, the discussions that went on over at OMB and with our teams continue, but what I will say is we are obviously 100% in support of any sort of disaster relief program for our farmers, whether it's hurricane, uh, tornado, drought, freeze, etc. So look forward to working with you on that and specifically understanding the larger context here that there's a lot of farmers, a lot of producers who are really hurting, not just in Florida and not just from the freeze. So it's important that we work together to solve for that. Thank you.

Senator Murray. Thank you, Chair Collins. Secretary Hagseth, your department received $150 billion last year in the Republicans' big, beautiful bill. It also received a record $839 billion for fiscal year 2026. More money than you asked for last year.

Combined, that is a $1 trillion budget for the year. And as I already mentioned, your department has yet to spend half of the reconciliation funds. And despite that, you are here today asking for tens of billions of dollars more for things that you've already asked for in your FY27 request or that have nothing to do with Iran. This administration has tried to sell this as an emergency request, but it may be better understood as an attempt to skirt the normal appropriations process. Here are just a few of the things requested in this Iran supplemental: $800 million for the National Guard to patrol D.C. even longer, over $1 billion for the Army to patrol the southern border, which is DHS's job, $900 million to support the administration's illegal boat strikes in the Caribbean, over $18 billion for munitions, which you've already requested in your FY27 budget request, and $1.7 billion to pay for your decision to recruit more people than the services need, which was not contemplated by the FY26 funding bill Congress recently passed.

Now, you've already submitted a reprogramming request on this that our subcommittee is considering now, which really underscores the point I made in my opening remarks that the problem is not a lack of money, but poor planning. So I'll be blunt. The, the truth is your request does not make a lot of sense. So let me ask you a simple question: why exactly are billions of dollars more for the National Guard and this administration's illegal strikes in the Caribbean urgently needed for the Iran war?

Well, Senator, I wouldn't, uh, of course agree with your characterization, but why this kind of spending is needed is because of the gross negligence and neglect of the Biden administration inside our department. Ran it like a bureaucracy, uh, abandoned, uh, our, our strength posture around the world. So we're having to reestablish deterrence. Uh, just to— you mentioned the end strength numbers, and I will acknowledge that, uh, we are ahead of schedule on end strength in recruiting. 8,000 In the Navy, 6,000 in the Army, 4,000 in the Air Force, because under President Trump there's been record and historic over 30-year recruiting records inside our department since he won the election because the American people didn't want to sign up for what Joe Biden was providing our military.

And they want to sign up for what President Trump is doing in his leadership. And so those are good problems to have that we need to fund and a reflection of momentum. And this budget will allow us to continue the kind of momentum that gets us ahead. My point is that a lot of this request does not feel like an emergency. And let me move on.

Secretary Hagelseth, Like most Americans, I've had a lot of trouble following this administration's contradictory statements about the war. On April 8th, you said, and I quote, "Their missile program is functionally destroyed, launchers, production facilities, and existing stockpiles depleted and decimated and almost completely ineffective." Mr. Secretary, Iran has been firing at US military bases in the region and ships for the last week. How is it possible if their capabilities were, quote, functionally destroyed 3 months earlier, as she claimed, for them to be doing this now? Well, Senator, Iran is at the weakest point militarily it has ever been in, uh, in the past decade, certainly maybe in 47 years, as they've gathered effectively a terror army. And that terror army was built to try to create conventional capabilities to defend against a pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Which meant thousands of ballistic missiles, many of which we have destroyed, others of which they have put inside facilities and hidden in underground facilities. That's what terror regimes would do. So I acknowledge they still have capabilities, no doubt, but the amount of damage that we've done to them over the course of these series of operations has put them in the worst place they've ever been. Okay, well, let me move on. On May 5th, you claimed that Iran doesn't control the strait, and you said that there was a quote, powerful red, white, and blue dome over the strait.

If that was true, how did Iran shrink ship traffic in the strait to a trickle again last week? We pushed almost, I believe, between 400 and 500 million barrels of oil under the nose of Iran over the course of Project Freedom, which went underground, which I acknowledged after we did so covertly because it was more effective to do so quietly than to do so publicly. So we've been in control of moving traffic through there for quite some time. But will they retain the ability to recklessly shoot at commercial shipping? And that's what happened.

We had a ceasefire and then they shot at commercial shipping recklessly. Well, you also said at that same press conference, and I'm going to quote you, you urged Iran to, quote, let innocent ships pass freely. These international waters belong to all nations, not to Iran to tax toll or control. Last week, President Trump said the U.S. would charge a 20% toll. To each ship to pass through the state.

So based on your opposition to tolls, did you talk the president out of that idea, or did someone else?

Iran's not charging tolls, and they're shooting at ships right now. But Trump said that he wanted to charge a 20% toll. We have a blockade right now of all Iranian ships and Iranian ports, and it's, it's effective. My time is out.

Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all for being here. Challenging, challenging times. I think we all recognize that. Secretary Hegseth, I want to ask, just specific to Iran authorization, the administration has made the case that the action in Iran falls under the president's Article II authorities.

And we can have disagreement, reasonable people can disagree about the boundaries of the presidential war powers, and have for a long period of time. But I look at the War Powers Resolution and it's not ambiguous. It requires the president to terminate hostilities within 60 days absent congressional authorization. So hostilities began February 28th. May 1st, Congress was informed that hostilities had ended, but yet despite the fact that hostilities had ended, we were still seeing sailors being fired upon, still activity.

Then in June, an MOU is signed to preserve the ceasefire while negotiations continue. That MOU has now collapsed, and we are seeing the resumed attacks in the Straits of Hormuz. On July 10th, the administration sends Congress a new war powers notification, effectively starting— restarting, excuse me, the 60-day clock again. So I'm concerned about this sequence because you have a situation where the claim essentially allows the president to extinguish the war powers clock just at the moment that it becomes legally inconvenient through declaration of temporary ceasefire, then it's reset. Avoiding the congressional authorization that the Constitution requires and the War Powers intends.

So we had an opportunity in previous probations hearing for me to ask if you felt the administration had all the authority that it needed. You indicated at that time that no, additional authority was not needed. Are you, are you still, is the administration still taking that position? About needing no authorization from Congress at this time. Senator, I know there's a long, long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly as a department take the— share the position of the White House that we have all the authorities necessary at this moment.

So let me just kind of do a follow-on. In the Clinton administration, this is 1999, there was an operation that was launched, Operation Allied Force, NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia, there was not a prior congressional authorization that was sought. President Clinton notified Congress under the War Powers Resolution and then sent— subsequent to that, sent Congress an emergency supplemental funding request. It was about $6 billion to cover the cost of Kosovo operations. Congress then passed a supplemental package that covered the president's request plus additional military funding.

But Congress never passed a standalone authorization for use of military force in Kosovo. When the war powers clock was set to run out then in May of 1999, the Clinton Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion holding that the supplemental appropriation itself, passed without any authorizing language, satisfied the War Powers Resolution requirement. So is the department looking to that or intending to rely on that same reasoning, that funding alone can substitute for explicit congressional authorization? Senator, I, I would, uh, I would have to defer to our, to our legal department, and we'll get back to you with our views on that. But as of right now, We think standalone Article II authorities exist for us to conduct this operation on behalf of the defense of the American people, that the president has those authorities.

And seeking this funding is important in pursuit of that and our $1.5 trillion budget. But I wouldn't connect the two without consulting with our legal folks first. In my remaining time, let me turn to you, Secretary Rollins. I appreciate that you have acknowledged that fishermen are farmers of the sea. I don't know whether you are aware whether any fishermen will be eligible for any of the supplemental funding.

They too have faced many of the same challenges that our farmers have with high fuel costs, the impact from tariffs, disasters that we have seen. In the 15 seconds remaining, any help for our fishermen? Well, I remember having the conversation with you when we were going through the process, and my commitment to you and to Senator Collins Collins and some of our others on the— across the aisle, was that it's time for USDA to recognize our fishermen as part of our farmers of the sea. That's never happened before. We now have an office at USDA focused on fishermen.

And so I think as you all move forward with the supplemental, the conversation— obviously up to you all what that looks like— but very supportive of treating our, our fishermen similarly to the rest of our farmers. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Senator Durbin.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you to help me reconcile some numbers. It's my understanding that this whole supplemental funding request is $87.6 billion, and most of the funding, $67 billion, is for the Department of Defense. Yet we are told the Department of Defense still has $75 billion in obligated funding from last year's reconciliation package. Is that true?

Roughly correct numbers, yes. So you've left some change on the dresser before you, uh, prepared to come for this hearing. What's going to happen to that $75 billion? Well, that $75 is— there's plans and designs on that part of the rebuild of our military which had to be undertaken. And so one big beautiful bill gave us specific avenues, but I'd have to get you the exact numbers of what that is left to be allocated.

Does it have to do with the war in Iran? No, this is rebuilding our military from what was not funded in the past under the Biden administration. So that's— these are— this is from 2026, one big beautiful bill which helped move the president's priorities like Golden Dome for America, move away from all the woke priorities of what the Biden administration was pursuing, give us a chance to start cutting these deals on munitions, all the things that we— the president wanted us to focus on shipbuilding, hypersonics. I mean, the Biden administration ignored hypersonics. They just decided to pretend like that technology didn't exist and we shouldn't invest in it.

There are things— I don't know what Lloyd Austin did for 4 years. I really don't. The amount of neglect, the amount of stale thinking and bureaucracy was staggering when we took over. So one big beautiful bill gave us a chance to get caught up. For a minute, Mr. Secretary, it's my turn to ask questions.

I've been listening patiently while you made your presentation. You estimated at one point that the cost of the war in Iran was $29 billion, but then added a caveat that there was a replacement of munitions, for example. Do you have a new estimate about what the war has cost us so far in this, the 5th month of the 1st year of this war in Iran? Uh, Senator, the estimate we have as of today is $37.5 $37.5 billion. And is the current activity, which we have been told about, the exchange of fire back and forth in Iran, an indication that that number is going to go up in the months ahead?

Some of that number captures additional O&M, mil pay, and other that would be anticipated through the fiscal year. So some of that anticipates what costs would be going out in the future as well. So the new number you've given me is what? $37.5 Billion. And that represents the cost of the war through what period of time?

Through now for certain aspects of it, but also mil pay, O&M, other anticipated costs through September 30th. Senator. General Cain, let me ask you a question. I joined a group of senators, some are here, Senator Rounds, Senator Coons, Senator Shaheen, and met with President Zelensky in Türkiye during the NATO summit. He was very explicit in terms of what he needed to win.

He feels the momentum in Ukraine is moving to his side, that he is putting a foot forward instead of back. Is that your feeling?

Sir, I think the pressure that Ukraine is putting on Russia is substantive at this point. Do you acknowledge his request that we help them with air defenses as a high priority? Sir, I know he's made the request. Whether or not that moves forward is always a debate at our civilian leadership, but I'm aware of that request. Are you aware of the fact that we appropriated and the president signed into law $400 billion of supplemental funding for Ukraine, including money for air defenses?

I am, sir. Are you also aware the administration has informed us that that money will not be available in many aspects until the next president is in office? Sir, I'm not aware of that. My understanding, my understanding was that that capital had been allocated, but I'll have to defer to my civilian leadership. I'm sorry to tell you, the pay plan tells us to be prepared to spend that money in fiscal year '29.

The new president, whoever it may be, will make that decision. If you're talking about air defenses and the momentum on the side of Zelensky, what impact will it have if we cannot fund this for 3 years? Sir, I, I want to highlight that the incredible work that the Ukraine industrial base is doing is they scale their own capabilities. It ranges from their surface-to-air capabilities to their air-to-air capabilities. I'll note that recently we had the first air-to-air kill where Ukrainian F-16 shot down a Russian fighter, so I think their ability to scale their layered defense has come along a long way over the past couple years with the help and assistance of many.

General, thank you for your service to the country, and I'm sorry for our losses. I believe 17 servicemen have given their lives in Iran so far, and hundreds, hundreds have been injured. We should acknowledge that fact. And let me also say, we're at a moment in history where we can win the war in Ukraine. That victory would be critically important for those people who have fought for more than 4 years against the odds and proven they can put Putin back on his heels.

But instead of finding the money that they need now for air defenses, we're putting more money into this exchange with Iran, a war of choice which we never should have entered. Thank you, General. Senator Moran. Chairman Collins, thank you very much. Let me first begin with just a statement to you, Secretary Rollins.

Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary Rounds, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your attention to disaster assistance, hugely significant and important in many states represented here, but across the country. And it is as challenging circumstances as I've seen farmers in, in my time in representing them in the United States Congress. And I appreciate my colleague Senator Rounds for making that case today. I appreciate the efforts by Senator Bozeman, the chairman of the Ag Committee, and Senator Rounds and his vice chairman Shaheen for their efforts here on this committee for that effort.

Secretary Haigseth, let me ask you about your recent visit to the 101st Airborne Division. You saw the MV-75 Cheyenne. You saw it firsthand and heard from soldiers, as I understand it, about the next-generation capabilities how they will transform the way we fight.

The Cheyenne has broken through, and it appears to me, in the acquisition bureaucracy to deliver a capability for our warfighting much faster than it otherwise would have happened. As you look across acquisition, I mean, we're here talking about appropriations, but the ultimate success we'll have in defending our country is putting that money to work as quickly as possible. So as you look at acquisition, what would you tell me we learned from the Cheyenne? Is it a model how the department can— it intends to field the next generation of capacity going forward? What does the program need from this committee to meet both the schedule and the necessity of its capabilities?

Senator, I appreciate the question. I think it's in part one of the untold stories of our department is, is how we've try to revolutionize the speed and scale of new acquisitions and procurement. Some of it through munitions and ensuring that companies pay for building their own factories and their own assembly lines so that we're saving billions and billions as taxpayers while companies invest. And when you invest in something with your own money, you want to see it succeed ahead of schedule and on time. Also opening the aperture so it's not just the prime contractors that are competing, but new entrants who make, uh, high-cost and low-cost capabilities.

I think in particular on the Cheyenne and, you know, the Black Hawk and the replacement, the gap that some have identified could exist based on the hesitation on speed and replacement is— exists because of an austerity mindset, again, that goes back to the Biden administration of divest to invest. And so you end up divesting in certain systems like the Black Hawk before the next one is online, creating gaps for actual operators. And what we're funding in this supplemental and across this budget is the ability to do both. Make sure the systems we rely on on the battlefield right now are delivered and that newer entrants that we're gonna need for long-range fight to deliver, uh, you know, it, it, to be more survivable in contested environments, which you're talking about, when I had a chance to see it, the, the soldiers were proud to be in it because they felt like it would give them greater advantage in the future. We need to accelerate the timelines of those and deliver them even more quickly.

And when you allow new entrants with all the right incentives, those things happen. And it's happening in that— will that take place? And I think you may have just said this, but will that will take place in this circumstance of the Cheyenne? I believe in, in this administration, because of the policies of this administration, it is likely to do so. Just like the B-21, just like the F-47, just like so many other of our exquisite munitions that otherwise would have taken years and years to even get into development.

We're moving those things left by, in some cases, years so that we get them in the hands of warfighters who would need them right now and not held up in bureaucracy in this town. Thank you, sir. Let me turn to you, General Cain. The department is requesting significant supplemental to address the ongoing operational demands. Our adversaries are watching how we resource this moment.

Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, are all increasingly coordinating their activities and intelligence.

In your judgment, do you believe our adversaries view this moment as an opportunity to exploit U.S. commitments elsewhere, and how does this supplemental ensure our deterrence posture and our commitments to allies remain credible in every theater all at once? Well, sir, thanks for the question. In my job, it's to look across the globe and look at the range of trade-offs out there. We are the strongest military in the world. Our adversaries still fear America's ability to project power at the time and place of our choosing.

There is no doubt that they are aligning, as I've said before, and I think this supplemental and whatever funding structure the Congress working with the executive branch decides to structure and give us the capital, we'll use that capital to ensure that we sustain You're assuring us that this supplemental and further efforts will reduce the risks to our nation and its national security issues? Yes, sir, I view this, and I've spoken to some of you on the phone leading up to this, I view this as future investments to buy down risk, similar to what I said Marshall thought through in those heady days in 1940, where the need to invest capital early to deliver scale is an opportunity that I hope we don't miss, Senator. General, thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. Senator Reid.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary Rohns, I just want to reiterate a point that Senator Padilla made. We have $10 billion in this request for Midwestern farmers who are suffering because of the interruption of fuel and fertilizers because of the President Trump's war, unauthorized war. Yet many states, blue states particularly, have submitted requests. Rhode Island has one.

February, we had the worst snowstorm in our recent history, and we've been denied by the president. In fact, if you look at the numbers, 20% of blue states seem to get approved and about 80% of red states. I'm making a point, not asking a question. This is unfair. Thank you.

Secretary Hegseth, on February 28th, when you initiated this war without authorization from Congress, the Straits of Hormuz was open and providing vital fuel supplies for the whole world. Now they're closed, effectively impacting globally the price of oil and the economies of the the whole world. But the Department of Defense has been planning for potential operations against Iran for many, many years, and one of their obvious assumptions was that the three or four moves could be close. Uh, were you unaware of that?

Uh, Senator, you are correct. Uh, nobody plans more and looks at more contingencies than our department, and so of course, undertaking a historic effort like this of this scope and scale, of course the Strait of Hormuz was front and center in every single aspect of that. Hence why one of our key objectives to begin with was to sink the entirety of Iran's Navy, which its conventional Navy was sunk. Now, you can't get rid of every single fast boat and every single machine gun on a fast boat or every single coastal cruise missile. So we acknowledge that if the state decided to become a terror state shooting at commercial shipping, that would be an ongoing and contested part of the battle, to include their willingness to mine international waters.

So you have a complete— one side weaponized the strait and we've been fighting back. You have been completely aware that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed, and obviously sinking their ships has not affected their ability to effectively close the straits. Did you— we had US boats that surrendered to Iranian ships under the Biden administration. So their navy was effective in executing raids in the past. Listen, we're talking about a war you started.

Not a situation in which oil was flowing freely. There was no conflict. We weren't losing personnel as a result of Iranian actions. So, uh, your fallback to the Biden administration is just a very, very, uh, obvious, uh, excuse for what I think is probably, as you described so often, gross negligence. You did not fully inform the president that you would be in a situation where the Strait of Hormuz could be effectively closed, oil prices could surge, and effectively the Iranians could maintain their ability to strike back as they are right now.

They just killed some of our servicemen last weekend. This battlefield and all the dynamics of it, of which the chairman and I are responsible for ensuring the president understands every branch and sequel of what could happen, and we did. The fact that those contingencies all were part of the possibility, and we understood that, is all the more reason why President Trump deserves the kind of praise he should get for undertaking this effort, having the courage to ensure that crazy Islamists can't have a nuclear weapon to hold us at issue. And he's been willing to stay committed to that regardless of the challenges. Excuse me, so he should be praised, he should be praised for starting a war without authority, creating a situation in which the world economy is suffering tremendously.

We have to have extra money for our farmers, and we have no outcome, at least no realistic outcome in sight yet. Let me switch to General Cain. General Cain, these airstrikes have not yet deterred and defeated the Iranians. Do you think airstrikes alone will do that?

Sir, I think academically, as you look across the totality of history, air power's got limits, and we always have to be mindful of those. I think where America's area of exclusivity is, is when we bring the totality of the diplomatic, informational, economic, and pair that with the military, and there's a lot of that work going on. Well, the military, the next step would be escalation by ground combat. Do you anticipate that escalation? Sir, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypotheticals.

What I can tell you is we always develop an unbelievable amount of options and the associated risks, and then my main job is to always ensure that leaders understand those options and the risks. Now, if you employ ground troops to seize objectives, which prin— I would assume would be the first stage, are you prepared for an extended guerrilla war, which would likely happen in that area? Sir, with all due respect, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypothetical situations on whatever decisions the president may or may not take in the future. Have you advised the president that a ground combat would be very expensive in the lives of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and also could probably lead to an extended unconventional war in that area? I don't see the Iranians sort of throwing their hands up saying, you know, welcome to Iran.

Senator, I always advise the president on a range of military options and all of the risks that are contained within that. But I have to keep my military advice to the president private, sir. But— well, thank you. Thank you, sir. Senator Hoeven.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Rollins, I want to thank Mr. President, President Trump, I want to thank you for including Farm Bridge Assistance in this supplemental request. I know I've worked very hard to get it included. I know you have worked very hard to get it included. And I want to thank you and your whole department for your work on it and for this vital support of our farmers and ranchers.

What I want to ask you about, though, is actually crop insurance. The number one risk management tool that our farmers have is crop insurance. The buy-up option is critically important. It covers 67 million acres, 67 million acres of farmland in this country. It, uh, it was decommissioned and we need to get reinstated.

Again, you and I both worked very hard on this. Please update me on where we are in terms of getting that buy-up option for crop insurance reinstated. We are 100% supportive of that and are moving forward to execute that buy-up option. Thank you for your leadership on that, Senator. Thank you for your support.

Also, Secretary— Assistant Secretary Fortas for his support. It's very impactful, very important, and will make a big difference for our farmers right now. So thank you for that. Thank you, Secretary Hegseth.

Are Russia and China helping Iran, and if so, how?

Well, Senator, as the Chairman alluded to, there's definitely adversary alignment, uh, attempts to do so, uh, and there are many ways that we deter that, some of which are— and, and the depth and extent of it ought to remain classified, and it should, but there are ways in which both of those countries are limiting at different levels, enabling some of the things Iran is doing.

Yes. General Keane, would you like to add? Sir, I'd rather not opine on the specifics because that would divulge what we know, and I never want the adversary to know what I know. I just want to know it. And hopefully we'll get a chance to do that.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir, happy to, happy to do that in Skif, sir. This, so this relates both to the funding but also again to how we achieve our objectives with Iran. Starting with you, Secretary, can we get to the point, and we're seeing continued, I think, improvement and progress on this, but essentially where we can work, and hopefully our allies will, they need to step in there with us, but where we get to the point where we can operate in the Strait of Hormuz, but keep Iran blockaded. We're continuing to get better at that, but that's how we keep— they'll never do anything that they say they're going to do.

They've proven that over and over. We have to keep the pressure on. But if we can do that effectively, we keep the pressure on and achieve our objectives. Tell us where we are in getting that accomplished. Senator, I think that's a really good point.

That's effectively what we did to create the pressure that led to the circumstances of the MOU, which was a— we're running that, running a route where ships— and we did it covertly in cooperation with Gulf countries and others who were willing to take some of the risk with our protection and then maintain the blockade. So effectively, oil is coming in and out, oil prices are coming down, but our blockade is staying and the pressure is mounting on Iran. That's something we have done and can continue to do. We moved into an MOU where Iran said we won't shoot at shipping, and then they turned— the IRGC turned around and decided to start shooting at commercial shipping again. At which point the president, I mean, as he should, cannot tolerate that.

And so we respond, as he said 10 times, you shoot at ships, we're going to shoot at you overwhelmingly, which we have been doing now for, I believe it's a 10th consecutive evening. So consequences come with the willingness to shoot at commercial shipping. Our blockade has been reimposed and is effectively impenetrable. We've seized a ship inside the Arabian Gulf as well. So there's a lot of different angles to it, a lot of levers we can pull, and ultimately a lot of the strikes that Admiral Cooper and CENTCOM have been undertaking are taking Iran's ability to see and sense away in the Strait of Hormuz, which has tactical benefits for us.

And that's what this funding is about. This funding is about making sure that we and our allies can operate in the Strait of Hormuz, which helps bring down energy prices for every single American consumer. And that we force Iran to meet our objectives. Isn't that what this package is all about? This is a peace through strength package.

That's what $1.5 trillion has always been about, a generational investment at a, as the chairman alluded to, a step change moment. We need to be able to do it at speed, at scale, with autonomy, with AI, with exquisite high cost and low cost to be ahead and get, stay ahead so that you're not just able to do what we need to do in the Strait of Hormuz, but deter adversaries like Russia and China from getting involved in future contingencies. And just, General Keane, for any follow-up that you would like on that issue. Sir, I wouldn't have anything to add. Okay, again, thank you, and thank you to all of our men and women in uniform.

We appreciate them so much. Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Hegseth, since you last testified before this committee, we finally received the spend plan for the $400 million FY '26 appropriation for Ukraine security assistance. This funding was passed back in January, and now there are only 3 months left in this fiscal year.

And while I appreciate that we now see what most of the funding is intended for, I just heard from the CEO of one of the manufacturers of the defense articles that are contained in the spend plan, that they not only haven't received funding, but they haven't even seen a contract. So when are we gonna see a contract for those defense articles that are contained in the spend plan for Iraq? Or I'm sorry, for Ukraine. For Ukraine. Uh, uh, Senator, I'll have to get back to you on the specifics of the timeline of that.

I'll talk to our policy shop as well as the EUCOM commander to determine where that Well, you've told this committee that you've barely spent half of the $150 billion in reconciliation funding, and if you still have $75 billion available, why are you asking the American people to absorb the cost of a war they don't support instead of asking for transfer authority for unspent reconciliation funding, especially if you can't even get $400 million in Ukraine funding out the door?

As I mentioned earlier, Senator, that money from the one big beautiful bill is otherwise allocated to the rebuilding of our military with priorities of the president like Golden Dome for America and hypersonics and other munitions investments that we made up front as we tried to adjust the Biden budget into an America First budget. And so reallocating that away from those priorities is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Those are allocated to rebuild. But my point is, if you can't spend it on a timeline that makes sense. Why do you need to come back and ask for more money?

Wouldn't it be better to spend money that you already have? And one of the things I noted was, or at least I think that this supplemental doesn't include funding to repair damage to our bases or to our military infrastructure in the region. And I have not heard that we've gotten the full extent of any of those damage estimates. So should we expect another request? To address that military construction costs?

And at what point do you stop asking Americans to foot the bill for a war they don't support on top of an inflated budget request and billions in reconciliation funds that you still haven't spent? Well, Senator, I obviously don't agree with your characterization of that. I appreciate that, but you didn't ask— but I want you to answer my question. I know you don't agree with my characterization. I don't agree with yours either.

Well, I— one of the reasons I take issue with that characterization is something that Senator Durbin said when he talked about Ukraine and he talked about winning. And I appreciate as much as anybody winning a war, but I sit in front of a committee that wants to talk about winning a war that's been going on for 4 years and talks about strategic defeat of a conflict that's been going on for 4 months to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. I want— I would hope for some perspective in this town of the historic nature of what President Trump is undertaking. Do you want radical Islamists to have nuclear bombs and scare down the world? I don't want to hear a speech because I have limited time.

I don't understand. So if you can't answer my question, then I will move on to my next question. Secretary Rollins, the timber industry has also been hard hit, as you know, by trade wars, by drought, by wildfires, by other natural disasters that are increasingly common. In New Hampshire, which is the second most heavily forested state in the nation, one of the things that we really need is, you know, because we've had this conversation, is a research program and Forest Service staffing on the ground in a variety of ways, but particularly at Bartlett Experimental Forest. These small investments in research and staffing and sound management help make the forest economies healthier and more competitive.

I very much appreciate your having staff visit Bartlett last week with my staff and with staff from the governor's office, but can you commit to restoring staffing at Bartlett and to keeping the facilities there open now that you've seen the critical nature of that research?

Why don't I follow up with you? I have not gotten a report from their visit, so I would like to do that first. But obviously you and I have been in a continuing conversation about that. The good news, there's no doubt our timber industry is in distress and has been for a long time. The fact that we import 90% or something from other countries of our lumber needs is crazy.

We're changing that. But the good news, we had more board feet sold last year than any time in 30 years. This year we're going to exceed exceed that target again. So we're making the right moves on this, but there's no doubt that research is important to that, as we've discussed. And I'll follow up with our team and then we'll, we'll reconnect.

Thank you, I appreciate that. As you pointed out, research is critical to ensuring that the timber economy continues to be successful. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kennedy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here today. General, in the war between Russia and Ukraine, who do we want to win?

Sir, I want— I want Ukraine to win. Is Russia America's friend? I'm sorry, sir. I couldn't quite hear your question. Russia, America's friend?

I think that depends on your definition of friend. I think it's a complicated relationship.

But no, I don't think they're our friends.

Thank you.

If we could cut off Russia's cash flow, which depends substantially on its sale of oil? Would that help Ukraine win? So I think militarily, any time you can restrict resources and cash flows against an adversary, that's a good thing. I have so much respect for you. Yes, sir.

But I have so little time. Yes, sir. I'll try to be brief. Give me succinct answers. Yes, sir.

It would assist. But help, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Okay. If we could stop people, entities, and countries from buying Russia's oil, that would help cut off its cash flow, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. We have a bill to do that, as I'm sure you're aware.

We have the votes today to pass it overwhelmingly.

I have also have enormous respect and admiration for our Majority Leader, Senator Thune. But I hope everybody on this panel will today contact Senator Thune and ask him to bring that bill to the floor.

We should vote on it at a minimum of next week.

Some of my colleagues, General, want America to just stop in Iran. End the blockade. Bring all of our warriors home.

What would be the consequences of that in your estimation?

Sir, I think termination criteria is always a political decision. However, I assess that Iran will continue to be a challenge moving forward, so we have to be thoughtful about that. Will they put tolls on the strait? I don't know, sir. That's a decision that's a hypothetical and will depend on what happens in negotiations.

It's not hypothetical. We got a blockade to stop them. We do, sir. That's putting economic pressure on them. I'm not asking you for— I'm not trying to get you in trouble.

I know your advice to the president is, is, is private, but this is serious as 4 heart attacks and a stroke.

Now, what happens if we come home and end the blockade? To the world. Sir, Iran has the potential to continue to be a threat, and we will need to prepare militarily. Will they call for strike? Sir, that's a hypothetical question, and I don't know the answer to that.

Oh, it's not hypothetical. You come— we come home, it's not going to be hypothetical. You know that, General, and I do too. And, and I I appreciate your discretion, but we're down to it. We need some hard answers and some straight talk.

What will happen, Pete?

Senator, I would, I would agree with the chairman, but the likely outcome is they would try to impose their will on the waterways in ways that, that would they— the world would not like. Call it a toll, call it a fee, call it an exchange, call it control. They would do something that They would try to hold it at issue. Yes, sir. Would they try to commence development again of a nuclear warhead?

Part of the reason President Trump had to have the courage to do what he did after Midnight Hammer is that they didn't give up their ambitions even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated. So this is a regime hell-bent on nuclear ambitions, and President Trump will go after it. We need straight answers.

Do we have the ability to destroy whatever is underneath Pickaxe Mountain?

A lot of— Senator, a lot of our capabilities are classified, but if anybody in the world can reach anything on this, on God's given— God's green earth, it's the United States military, the most powerful military in the world. It's all about options and trade-offs. All right, I'm going to take a little extra time because others got it, Madam Chair. I won't abuse it. Secretary, are shrimpers farmers?

Absolutely, yes. They're farmers of the sea. Oyster harvesters farmers? Yes. In this USDA, yes.

Having to compete with other countries who grow oysters and shrimp in a ditch and shoot them full of antibiotics? 100%, Yes. And if you eat too much of that foreign as foreign shrimp and oysters, you'll grow an extra ear, won't you? I'm not sure about that, but I know it is not good. And I also know we import 90% of our shrimp.

Why are we inspecting the shrimp and the oysters from abroad? Well, it goes much larger than that. Why are we importing so much from abroad, which goes to the president's trade agenda? I'm in big trouble. Yes, you are.

Guys, look, we need straight answers now. We're down to it.

Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair and Secretary Rollins. I appreciate your partnership on addressing several issues in Oregon, and I sent you information about a couple others and you responded. Appreciate it. We'll follow up on the research service, we'll follow up on the concern about in-kind contributions serving as a match, but I particularly need your help on the fire funding.

And I know you've indicated how, how important that is. Where we stand now is that the Senate seems hamstrung, that they're seeking to have OMB give them a number on that. Various sources say the number is probably about $5 billion. I don't really care if it's $4.5 or $5 or $5.5. The point is that folks here, senators are asking for a number from OMB in order to go forward.

And when we're looking at the fires right now in my home state, the epicenter of the highest risk in the country, so can we get your help to get that number, move this process? Yes, absolutely. It is of paramount importance, especially in the middle of fire season right now. Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you.

And Chairman Kaine, the I think there was a sense that the president expressed at the start of the war that the US military power was overwhelming and would likely produce unconditional surrender quickly by Iran. And that obviously hasn't happened. Was it your opinion as well? Did you feel like our military force could produce an unconditional surrender in quick order? Sir, I won't, uh, I, with due respect, I won't share my private advice to the president.

What I will assure you and the American people is I always speak truth to power and offer an accurate assessment of what my assessment is of both our readiness, the plans and activities that might be undertaken, the associated risks, and the secondary and tertiary considerations that go with those opinions or options. Thank you. So you feel like the various risks that Iran would close— could possibly close the strait, despite the destruction of their navy, that the possibility of assassinating their political leaders and their military leaders could produce a strengthened hardline and weaken the reformers, that Iran would have the ability to sustain its ability to attack sites throughout the Middle East, that the initial requirements of the war could surely deplete our basically high-end standoff munitions, that this could affect our, our relations with our allies, all those were factors well considered in this decision to go to war? Sir, as I said, I won't opine on or share my private advice to the president. Yeah, I'm not asking about your vice president, I'm asking you, did you understand these issues or have these become revelations as the war's unfolded?

Sir, my job is to understand all of the considerations that go into the carefully considered use of military power. Let me ask you this then. Yes, sir. I understand why you don't want to respond, but these are, these are all massive risks that seem to be poorly weighed in the, in the beginning of this misadventure. Uh, currently there are reports that we have hit the Banji desalination plant that provides water to about 20 villages or about 10,000 people, and we also damaged the desalination plant at Keshem Island.

Uh, were these deliberate targets by the United States? Sir, I'm not aware of those as being particular targets, nor am I aware of those reports, and I'll have to go back and get back to you on that. If you could, I'd appreciate that. You are aware that infrastructure that civilians rely on to survive is not generally considered legitimate military targets? Sir, as you know, we have a robust process which considers a target that goes through a system that looks at a variety of considerations to include what you're alluding to around both purely civilian or dual-use targets.

I have trust and confidence in CENTCOM that they're looking at the range of those things on a— it sounds like you are assuring us that we will, the United States, not target, even in retaliatory sense, uh, infrastructure that is generally considered to be primarily for civilian survival? Sir, as I mentioned, we have a robust process, and, uh, you know, we have the most professional military force. It'd just be nice to have you say yes, because this is international law. Yes, you understand the international law? I do, sir.

I've got a lot of lawyers that help me understand. Thank you. Yes, sir. And you'll— will you get back to us on that question of whether we targeted the desalination plants? And if so, why?

My time's up, but I do want to express encouragement to look at what the negotiators have put forward, or advisers, as to whether a 10-day break could facilitate returning to dialogue that might find a path forward. Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank all three of you for being here today. I am going to direct my first question to Secretary Rollins, and again, I want to commend you publicly for the outstanding job you're doing at USDA. You know, this is my world as former Ag Commissioner.

I hear from a lot of producers in Mississippi, and they are so I am so pleased with your performance, and that is just truly genuine right there. But I'm pleased to see the administration's supplemental request as for ag producers, because before I comment on that, I just want the entire committee and administration to take note of the tremendous timber losses as well in places like Mississippi due to winter storms and the tornadoes we've had there. It is significant, and I certainly look forward to to working with you with the concerns of the timber sector. Regarding this supplemental, you know, our row crop producers, as you've mentioned in your opening remarks, they are truly in a serious situation. I've talked to multi-generation farmers back home who are the best of the best that did not even plant this year because they could not make the numbers work.

And producers in Mississippi and nationwide, you know, we continue to face these economic conditions. They're not going away anytime immediately or soon, but we've seen the commodity prices drop and the input costs just go through the roof. If we want the next generation to stay on the land, Congress, we're going to have to take this opportunity to provide this critical market assistance for our farmers and enact policies that build structural demands for commodities like the Buy American Cotton Act, that year-round E-15, all of which would make the paths better, more favorable for these producers going forward. But I appreciate the administration's effort to this date, including the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program that was so valuable, implementation of the updated farm safety net with Working Families Tax Cut Act, and now the supplemental request before Congress. But will you speak to why it's critical for Congress to act swiftly to pass this supplemental and the need for us to pass legislation that drives the demand for farmers' products?

Yes, thank you, Senator, for your kind words. A couple of really important points. Number one, As we work to open the markets around the world, and we're seeing, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, just extraordinary numbers. That $50 billion agricultural deficit we inherited a year and a half ago is now down into the $20-ish billion. We expect it to go down significantly this year.

Again, the highest price we've seen in over a year in corn is today, and soybeans is today, etc. Your point, Senator, about opening up the domestic markets is really important, whether that's E15, renewable fuel standards. Obviously the RVOs came out, which is a reason for the drive up, uh, in some of our row crop prices in the last month, which is really important. But also, as I mentioned, bringing the cost of inputs down. We are expanding fertilizer, the largest ammonia plant.

We're gonna break ground in Louisiana in 2 weeks, reshoring, bringing back to America real fertilizer production. And then also the long term, we, we gotta figure out how we are, We are doing these supplementals and these bridge payments, which we have to do for these farmers to survive, but what we're seeing is just survival, and we're seeing a lot of the input companies—equipment, seed, fertilizer—make record profit. So we've got to be able to dig into that as well. But as of today, ensuring that we can keep these farmers farming while we're opening the markets, while we're bringing down the cost of inputs, is paramount for a secure America, and that's why this is so important today. Thank you very, very much for that.

And Secretary Hagseth, thank you for being here and the amazing job that you're doing. I have the utmost respect for you, your team, and what you're accomplishing. But I as well am committed to ensuring that our warfighters have all the tools necessary to accomplish the mission in Iran and whatever else that they need to defend our nation's interest. The supplemental request is in line with that goal. And I'd like to shift my conversation right now quickly to shipbuilding, which is extremely important to the state of Mississippi and our country's ability to protect itself.

The president's FY 2027 budget requests funding for one DDG-51, while Navy leaders have said their goal remains to build two destroyers a year. And at the same time, the department is exploring options for using allied shipyards and overseas fabrication in future naval construction. Which raises questions about the long-term role of the American naval industrial base or shifting work away from domestic shipbuilders. Shipyards like Ingalls in Mississippi, which I would love to invite you down to there. It is amazing.

And the thousands of suppliers and small businesses they support, they need the confidence that the work will be there so they can invest in new facilities, hire and train skilled workers, and expand capacity that we will need in the future. Will you help or talk to us about the department's short and long-term shipbuilding plan and how it gives industry the confidence to invest? You just made the case for this generational investment. Because of the underinvestment, Senator, in shipbuilding in the previous administration, just static, flat, bureaucratic, slow, we're having to revitalize that industry. And One DDG is a reflection of a backlog in capability.

Capability. So as we ramp on more capacity, those numbers of DDGs, the workhorse of our Navy, will go up as we grow that force. The senator's time has expired. Thank you, Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Murray.

Thank you, Secretary Hegseth, Secretary Rollins, General Caine, for your service. I want to start with the things I know we agree on. We agree that we should honor our fallen, that we should stop and remember them, and console and comfort their families. That we should be mindful of the hundreds of Americans who have been wounded and injured in this war in Iran. General Cain, your observations about how our adversaries are aligning more and more closely.

Technology is accelerating and cheap and lethal and easily accessible drones pose greater and greater risks to our troops, our homeland, and our security. And Secretary Hagseth, that we need to protect our troops wherever our president directs them. That we need to protect our partners and allies, and that the dangerous radical Iranian regime should never possess a nuclear weapon. I think we agree on all of these core basic points. Where I think we may disagree is on this supplemental and on the strategic choices made to achieve some of these core goals.

We're 143 days into a war with Iran, a war of choice that we started with Israel but did not include, consult, or incorporate our core allies, our NATO allies, our regional allies, the American people, and Congress. And the reason to consult and include our allies and Congress and the American people is so that when the costs and the length of a war extend beyond what we'd initially imagined, the American people and their representatives in Congress understand that sacrifice and can continue to support it. I think your first strategic mistake was to not consult the American people in Congress and make a clear case for the reasons behind this war. There have been many, lots offered, and I think our military has executed on the core missions: attack ballistic missile sites, sink the blue-water navy, attack their proxies, constrain their capacity. But I frankly think it was entirely foreseeable that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, would use cheap, lethal, widely available Shahed drones that they've led the world in manufacturing to attack our bases, our troops, our partners and allies, and impose real costs.

Higher costs in fertilizer, in fuel, higher costs for the world, and tragically, increasingly higher human costs for us and for our troops. So, two questions, two general lines of questioning, if I could. Mr. Secretary, your question says, without these supplemental funds, we will face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to pay our service members and sustain global operations without disruption. You've been asked repeatedly, there's $75 billion appropriated but unobligated. Can we really not avoid critical short-term shortfalls?

What does that mean about the budget management within the department in terms of unexpected and, um, un-budgeted wars? Uh, first, Operation Southern Spear, and then Operation Epic Fury.

I would just note, uh, I was sort of updated, 95% of that One Big Beautiful Bill funding will be allocated by the end of September in accordance with congressional intent. So these are things we are— we, we said we would spend, and we told you we would spend them on, and we plan to spend them on those things by the end of September. So this is a new request based on new realities of a world we face, stepping up to meet that moment. I forgive you, Mr. Secretary, but that's news to me that that $75 billion will be out the door, appropriated— sorry, allocated and spent by September. And I was simply questioning how we have ships running out of fuel in the open seas and planes being grounded and— I didn't say ships were running out of fuel in open seas or planes were grounded.

I'm saying we're having to make tradeoffs. But temporary ship maintenance accounts Everything our troops need on the battlefield, they're, they're getting in spades and beyond. Uh, it's ultimately looking into the future. Can we invest above and beyond that, the types of munitions fast enough as we upgrade and modernize our, our force? That's what's at issue here in this $1.5 trillion, this supplemental, and any other additional funding that comes.

Two quite different things. A $1.5 trillion base budget request and a now, um, $76 billion supplemental. And I was simply going to point to a Department of Homeland Security is sitting on nearly $100 billion in unobligated funds. You haven't requested reimbursement for the millions of, frankly, billions of dollars the department has spent on law enforcement. Second, we requested reimbursement and are getting a substantial reimbursement from DHS.

That's good news, and that's news to me. And frankly, as we reflect on the service and sacrifice of those who put their lives on the line of this war, One of the things I've raised over and over and over is the ways in which this administration has dragged its feet on partnering with Ukraine in order to deploy the best-in-class sensors, detectors, and counter-drone systems to protect everything from Dover Air Force Base to our bases in the region, to our troops, to our partners. I want to see you focus on accelerating the defense of our troops and our nation. Focus on accelerating the defense of our troops and this region, and a strategy that has a real chance at succeeding at the goals that we agree on. Because the strategy followed, I think, has no credible likelihood of success.

Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate all of you being here today. Um, so since the beginning of the, um, Putin's aggression into Ukraine. This body has passed 5 supplemental bills funding different portions of that war.

You mentioned in your opening, Mr. Secretary, about not getting those munitions that had come through this body quick enough to Ukraine and also being able to replenish those here at home. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Because I remember the previous administration dragging its feet after this body gave them directive as to what to do. So can you shed a little bit more light as to what you were talking about in your opening? Well, thank you for that question.

I— sometimes we forget recent history, which, which under the Biden administration, there were 5 supplemental requests for Ukraine, uh, which almost every member of this body voted for to to send rapidly in a bipartisan fashion for something that this committee and the administration deemed to be urgent. Uh, we— President Trump may take a different view, but that was the view of the Biden administration. And real quick, wouldn't you say it would be urgent to make sure that our men and women in uniform right now have everything that they need? I would argue providing for American men and women as opposed to Ukrainian men and women is a higher priority for the United States Senate. So 5 supplementals that went to Ukraine, as good as that cause may be, Why is that righteous to do, but funding troops in harm's way right now, uh, given the threat and what they're undertaking?

This is a partisan exercise, and it's hypocrisy. And I appreciate you pointing it out. Real quick, um, uh, Madam Secretary, question for you. When the Russia-Ukraine war started, we saw obviously costs go up around the world, in particular in that region. We know that supplying of fertilizer, you know, was tremendous.

We also know Ukraine was top 5 when it came to wheat and corn and other things that we utilize, you know, across the globe. It's my recollection that fertilizer went up about 55%. Obviously, if we were able to create stability there in the region and have peace, it would follow that then prices would likely go down over time. Within the agriculture world as well. Is that, is that fair?

Yes, that's correct. Okay. And when we're looking at the Ukraine and Russia war and trying to end Putin's aggression, trying to bring peace, General Cain, if we were to cut off the funding that Russia was getting, would it follow that that would be a driver that could possibly lead Putin to the table. Sarah, yes, and their economy is struggling now. Thank you.

And we also know, I saw reports this weekend that it is said that possibly Russia and China, which I know you can't comment on right now, but are actually helping Iran, whether it is targeting our troops, funding, and other mechanisms. So it's a thing that we could all agree that ending that would be helpful. I want to just echo Senator Kennedy's comments that I think the sooner we can get this bill on the floor and passed, um, it would be, it'd be huge with regards to Russian sanctions. Um, also want to just talk briefly about the dysfunction of this body. So my question is for you, Mr. Secretary, and you, General Kane.

I would have to think that our adversaries, and I believe that we need to fully fund our military, making sure that our warfighter is the best ready, trained, and equipped across the planet. I think we have an obligation and a duty to not only meet the needs of the moment, but to also look at what's to come and be preparing for that. You talked about an insurance policy. You talk about what we need to do. Then now is the time to do those things.

But I would have to think that the dysfunction of this body, whether it's the full shutdown, a partial shutdown, a partial shutdown, not being able to pass NDAA, not being able to pass FISA, I would have to think that our adversaries Look at that, and it gives them a little bit more, uh, credence as to what they're doing abroad. Can either one of you comment on that? Thank you, Senator. That's why I have said, and I will continue to say, that the inability to properly fund this department, the department of war, is probably the single greatest threat our nation faces. Whether or not we will make a generational investment in not just winning the wars currently, but deterring the wars of the future, given the step change in technology of this moment and the underfunding of the previous administration.

You meant— you didn't mention continued resolutions, which is a whole nother way our department has foolishly budgeted. So I appreciate you highlighting that. It's very true. Yeah. And General Cain, question for you.

Obviously, a shutdown is just— is a terrible thing for the Department of War and the men and women that you oversee. But I would assume that a CR is not much better. Can you comment on the effects of that, ma'am. The department's done a lot of work to bind together founders, funders, and fighters as we look to the challenges that we face in the future, and a CR would hurt badly the effort to properly arm the joint force. I hope we can work together to do the right thing.

Thanks. The people are depending on it. Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Secretaries and General, for being here.

I want to start By paying my respects to First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan of Ewa Beach, Hawai'i, who was among those killed in Jordan this weekend while serving our country. His courage, selfless dedication, and unwavering commitment to duty reflect the very best of our armed forces. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, his loved ones, his fellow service members, and remain forever grateful for his sacrifice.

Secretary, about 190,000 people in the state of Hawaii, believe it or not, voted for Donald John Trump, and I know a lot of them, and I represent all of them. And one of the reasons that they were enthusiastic about Donald Trump and you, Mr. Secretary, was they, they thought that we were going to have a new foreign policy, and that I think, I'm paraphrasing, but I think you characterized yourself as a reformed neocon or some such thing, and people were pretty thrilled about the idea that we were going to, that America First in their mind meant that we were gonna not do this kind of adventurism. And so, I don't want you to answer me, I want you to answer them, and I wanna walk through the sort of stated objectives of this war at the outset. Regime change. We now have a younger and more radical regime.

Depleting, eliminating their conventional missile capability. It's true that we've depleted their conventional missile capability. It's also true that anything the Department of War sets out to do, it usually succeeds at. So the question is not, do we kick ass? It's when do we decide to use kinetic engagement to extend our power across the globe?

And it's clear that Iran still retains enough conventional missile capability to attack our bases and our interests in the region. Now, it's true that the Blue Water Navy is destroyed. It's also true, and you know this, that the IRGC has something that you may not call a navy, but it's got capabilities to, to touch us with drones and missiles and lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, preventing their nuclear capability. It's also true that if you bomb the crap out of a place, they're going to have less capabilities by the end of it. But it's also true that we have not eliminated their nuclear capability and whatever duration we've set them back, actually pales in comparison to the— and I'll say it— the Obama nuclear deal, which we did without having to put our people in harm's way.

And then the last objective, which has become a new objective, is open up the Strait of Hormuz. But the Strait of Hormuz was open before this war started. And so you tell my constituents why this war is going so well.

Uh, I think you did accurately portray me as a reformed neocon, and members of our generation in Iraq and Afghanistan watched administrations on both sides try to project some remaking of a society in the image of America that spent thousands of lives. I mean, in Iraq, um, you know, 15— I don't know the exact number, but tens of thousands between Iraq and Afghanistan, men and women lost. President Trump said we're not fighting stupid wars like that again. And he hasn't. That's why we haven't been trying to remake Iranian society, but simply in a realist, America-first way, ensure they never have a path to a nuclear bomb, full stop.

And he has said as a candidate, and he said as a private citizen, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon because radical Islamists with nuclear weapons will wield it over our head in perpetuity. Secretary— So President Trump ran on fighting wars differently, and we're doing so overwhelmingly. And he was very clear as a candidate that Iran can never have a nuclear capability. So I think he's directly on par with exactly what you said. Let me get a question back in here.

I think we're understanding the limits of air power here, because we're basically at a stalemate. Someone says the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and we say, well, we've got a naval blockade. And we're just going to see who blinks first. And the truth is, in order to sort of change the balance here, change the equation here, some kind of escalation would have to be considered. And if you're taking that off the table, then we are in a holding pattern.

And I go back to the original 5 objectives, and none of them have been met. Some of them have changed, but none of them have been met. And with gas at now $4.02, with the Brent crude hit $90 today, up from $60, $1.70 2 weeks ago, gas up about a buck nationwide, about $1.50 in the state of Hawaii. People want to know, why are we even doing this?

Senator Fischer, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Hagseth, I appreciated your perspective on the focus on the 4-year war in comparison to a 4-month war with a nuclear adversary. And I thought it was very well said. Thank you.

If we, if we want to support Ukraine going forward, I think the best way to do that is to dramatically increase munition production. And we need more interceptors. We have to be able to move forward. So So do our allies and our friends. And let me emphasize that this supplemental does that.

This is what we're talking about here today. It's one of the things that we're talking about. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, one of my priorities for over 5 years now has been on munition production. General Cain, what happens if Congress doesn't fund this $21 billion request for additional munitions? Well, ma'am, there's, there's been a lot of work done by the department to partner with the private sector.

I'll acknowledge some of the efforts that the private sector is doing to utilize their own capital to facilitate factories. If we don't, um, as a team, uh, figure out how to properly fund, uh, the department, then, uh, you know, we're not going to get the munitions, and there's going to be a lack of shared risk between the federal government and the private sector, and I think we're at a point in time in our history where we need to partner, we need to find an ability to share risk, we need to be better sellers and buyers on both sides in order to make sure that the young all-volunteer force has the weapons that they need before they are asked to go do something. What you're saying is we need to be prepared as a country. Yes, ma'am, and I hope, as I said in my opening statement, that we will find a way to make sure that we seize this moment in this time in history to ensure that we've got the right mix of munitions—high, low scale, autonomous. What's, what's your plan B if the supplemental doesn't pass?

What's plan B, ma'am? We, we will always figure things out. We will always have contingencies. We will always determine a way to create multiple simultaneous dilemmas for around the world in order to create time for us to do the work that the Congress and the department needs to do together. As you've heard me say a number of times in our posture hearings on armed services and also in classified briefings, we don't have a lot of time, do we, sir?

No, ma'am. That's why I said, if not now, then when? And if not us, then who? And I truly believe we're at one of those moments in history where we have a choice to make. Just given what I see on the next couple ridgelines, and I encourage us to move forward.

Thank you. Mr. Secretary, how would this request scale munitions production and be able to accelerate our delivery times? In the past, previous administrations would sort of send the same amount of dollars into trying to encourage companies to build another factory and add an additional shift. What this munition request does is fulfills deals that our department have cut with these companies. First, multi-year procurement where these, these companies that make SM-3s or Patriots or THAADs or Tomahawks—.

Priority for, uh, our NDAA a couple years ago. Absolutely. And you have provided that authority, multi-year procurement. And now those companies are spending $4 billion, $5 billion, $3 billion on building their own new factories. That then produce 2x, 3x, or 4x the amount of munitions than they did in the past, and they paid for it.

So actually, in this budget, which is $21 billion, as you mentioned, it saves $18 billion over the FYDIP on munitions because we're buying munitions at today's cost and not at 5 or 7 years from now when we will also get them. I hate to interrupt, but we're running out of time. We also have the— the request includes $4.1 billion for our space-based capabilities, and that includes the AMTI and our Space Data Network capabilities. And these really underpin the long-range kill chains and allow our warfighters to detect and also then to attract— to track the airborne threats. So, Mr. Secretary, what's the risk to the joint force if we delay these programs until FY28 or beyond?

Senator, not being able to see, not being able to sense before an adversary is able to engage one of our capabilities, and which means falling behind in the domain of space, which means falling behind at every other domain. Great, thank you. And General Cain, do you have anything to add on that about why Congress can't wait? I think you make such an excellent case on that. No, ma'am, I'll stick with the words that I, that I offered.

Secretary Rollins, thank you for your focus on year-round sale of E15, for taking care of the horrible disasters we've had in Nebraska. We appreciate you coming out, and I have a couple things more, of course, that I want to bring to your attention. But thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Van Hollen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Rollins, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland is one of the crown jewels of agricultural research in the United States. And my question is simple: can we find some time to get together in the coming weeks to discuss the situation there? Absolutely, yes. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Yes. Let me, let me turn to the Iran war. We recently lost 3 American heroes. That brings the death toll for American soldiers to 18. One is still missing.

Hundreds have been injured. That's on top of the civilian death toll throughout the region that now stands at several thousand, including the over 150 people killed in the bombing of an elementary school in Minab in Iran. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Gas prices today in the United States again spiked above $4 a gallon. And that will also continue to push up costs for groceries and other things that families buy.

Secretary Heckscher, you said in your opening statement, the best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war. And I agree with you about deterrence. I would also submit that the best way to ensure peace is not to start wars, because wars are a lot easier to start than they are to end. General Kane, I heard your testimony saying Iran will continue to be a challenge, and I think it's pretty clear that that is in fact the case. And General, in order for you to develop a military strategy to accomplish a particular objective, you obviously need to know what those objectives are, right?

Yes, sir, it all starts with what is the political objective, and from that we derive military objectives that support whatever that end state is. And as you say, that is a political objective. Yes, sir. So, Mr. Secretary, you've talked a lot about winning. You talked about winning in your testimony today, you've talked about winning throughout the Iran War, and we all like winning, But I think the American people deserve a definition of what it means to win in Iran, because this war has dragged out for a lot longer than certainly the President of the United States indicated.

Indeed, the President said on March 24th, and I'm quoting, "We've won this war." This war has been won. Do you know what the president meant by that back in March? Well, Senator, I would just note that militarily, I mean, Iran has been completely overmatched and crushed from the beginning. Militarily, their capabilities are nowhere near ours. I would take issue with your characterization that we didn't start— that we started this war.

Iran started this war 47 years ago, and they've killed thousands of Americans and recruiting our brothers on the battlefield in Iraq. Iran has been targeting us for a long time. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, we didn't start it, they did. Let me just ask you this, since you said that what the President meant by his statement on March 24th, I think, that we had sort of defeated Iran militarily. But that is not the entire objective of this war.

I don't think there was ever a question about whether the United States, with its its superior military could destroy a lot of Iranian assets, military assets or other assets. That was never a question. But when most people think of winning the war, they think that that means the war is going to come to an end because we've won. And the President said back in March that we'd won. So I guess my question to you is, How are we going to define winning?

I hear back in March you said about the Iranians, and I quote, "Whether they will have a ceremony in Tehran Square and surrender, that's up to them." So my question is, Secretary, reopening the Strait of Hormuz is necessary in order for us to win, right? That's just a simple yes or no question. You asked me what the overall our overarching objective is, and I would say ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon. That's been clear from the president from day one. That's why Midnight Hammer was undertaken to obliterate their nuclear sites.

That's why we're watching their nuclear sites. That's why that was a part of negotiations, ensuring that the next generation of Americans don't have to deal with an Iran that wields a nuclear weapon. Since that's what you're leading with, Mr. Secretary, let me just say this. You said after Midnight Hammer, and I'm quoting, our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, unquote. Clearly, that is not the case based on your testimony today.

It's also a fact that the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in front of the Intelligence Committee that it was our assessment that Iran did not intend to restart its nuclear program. The President of the United States just about a week ago said Iran has committed not to develop a nuclear weapon, which of course is a commitment they've made for many years. We need to force that. That's what we are doing under the JCPOA. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Rounds.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had the opportunity to serve as governor of South Dakota for 8 years. During that time, we deployed over 5,000 young men and women into harm's way. National Guard members from South Dakota. I attended their departure ceremonies. I attended their welcome home ceremonies, and I attended 31 funerals.

One of the main reasons that I decided to come to Washington was because I never wanted to see young men and women going into harm's way again if they didn't have the best leadership, the best training, and the best equipment possible.

Now, this body, the Senate, with regard to the Iranian war, to date this body has chosen not to impose war power limitations on the president, nor have we pushed for the withdrawal of forces from the theater. I think the decision to take out Iran's nuclear program and their missile production capacity was the right one, and it should have been done a long time ago. But when the president did that, We also assumed that there would be risk involved. And when you put young men and women in harm's way, you want to do everything you can to make sure that you get in, you get the job done, and you get out. I think that's what we talk about.

Now today, it has been since February that we now have the Iranians that are shooting back. We haven't finished the job. I think the question that the American people have is when the difficult decision comes, because I don't think diplomacy is necessarily working, and I think most people would say we've got more issues in front of us before this is complete.

For General Kaine, when the time comes and the president is asking for the decisions about the options available to him, to appropriately end this war favorable to the United States and to take care of this problem permanently. Are you prepared to provide him with the appropriate options that he is going to have to make a decision to choose from? Sir, I always provide the president with appropriate options and risks that he can choose from. And those options that he will have to choose from will cost money. And that's our role here, because if we don't do it right, young men and women die.

Yes. Question to you, sir, is this: you've offered a supplemental request, and I recognize that it's part of a $1.5 trillion overall, but is this enough money to get the job done, or is this going to just get us far enough until we've got to come back in here? And in the meantime, we may very well not have these young men and women out of harm's way yet. That's my question. Sir, I want to first start with recognizing your 31 fallen from home and mourn their, their losses.

We carefully consider the use of military force every single day, and the most important thing that I do is make sure that the President and the other leaders understand the risks and carefully consider the Dover test, a place you've been many times., and that is, are we willing to go to Dover, as we will tomorrow, to bring back the fallen? I can't answer the question on what it will cost because the enemy has a vote. What I'll commit to you is this plays out, we'll make sure that the Congress is informed, but because I'm not quite sure how this is going to play out yet, it would be unwise for me to comment on what a future cost may or may not be depending on what they choose. In general, you will provide a plan to Congress at whatever the appropriate classification level is on what resources are required to execute what the president's intent will be to successfully end this conflict? Sir, I will, I will always make sure that, as we have, to— that we're moving data as appropriate to Congress.

Yes, sir. Let me come back in just in terms follow up on this a little bit. Uh, some have criticized Operation Epic Fury for expending many of our munition stockpiles. Were our munitions, the inventories of those munitions, and the capacity of our munitions industrial base sufficient for great power competition with near-peer adversaries like China prior to Operation Epic Fury? Secretary Hagel.

Senator, as I laid out, because the previous administration's short funding shortfalls, munitions transferred to Ukraine and not replaced, and then ignoring threats, it built a lot of risk that required— that requires this kind of investment. So you look at the $67 billion alongside the remainder for $1.5, that's the kind of generational investment that not just matches peer adversaries near, but far surpasses them, which I think is your expectation. Having been to those ceremonies, which is mine, having been to them and going to them, is that we give everything possible to the warfighter that they deserve. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. General Cain, our military is the best in the world. And so I don't think any of us should be surprised with the technical execution of its attacks on the Iranian regime's forces. They've been flawless.

I— what I don't want us to confuse is flawless technical execution with long-term strategic success. And I think one objective that is relatively modest, because it puts us back to where we were when we started this, but nonetheless is incredibly important as a critical objective, is that I want to see the strait open again. And I want to see it open where shippers can transit that strait without being extorted by Iran. And I would love to see that before our commercial and other oil reserves are exhausted because of the impacts that that will then have on the pocketbooks of American families. Is that a reasonable objective?

And is it one that you share? Sir, I'll defer on the military objectives to the political leaders who set them. What I can tell you is U.S. Central Command is working hard to ensure that Iran cannot terrorize the southern flank down there, and they're doing so every single day and night. And you and the rest of the Senate would be proud of the actions and activities for the forces that are down there. The character of war is changing, though, like I said in my opening statement.

And so there's a variety of mix of munitions that are down there coming at the, uh, the commercial traffic. But I would like to be clear and unambiguous with you and the rest of the Senate and the Iranian forces: they have a choice to make and they should knock it off. I have no doubt I would be incredibly proud of the actions of our service members in this conflict, and I hope we can achieve that kind of strategic objection on the timeline that, that obviously avoids the worst impacts of the limitations of commercial oil supplies right now. Secretary Rollins, I want to shift gears. One of the things that you mentioned in your opening statement that we appear to agree on is that there is simply too much consolidation in a number of agricultural sectors.

You mentioned fertilizer and seeds, but in particular, I want to talk about the meatpacking industry because in a previous Trump administration bailout, about $90 million went to the corrupt Brazilian meatpacker JBS. I think that Congress really intended those funds to go to American ranchers. So I want to ask you, what are you going to do this time around to ensure that the proposed relief dollars that we're talking about today, uh, that those funds go to American producers instead of to the very foreign corporations who have created the business model where ranchers bear the risk and meatpackers reap the profits. Well, that's right. And we're obviously at a 75-year herd low.

Uh, there are a lot of reasons for that, but, um, working to solve for that. Number one, the Department of Justice is investigating right now significantly the four, but especially the foreign-owned. Number 2, USDA is investing significant funds in deconsolidating packing and supporting mid-sized and smaller packers around the country. I know that wasn't your question, but just to answer the bigger question, which is a really important one. But from my perspective, what the Trump USDA 2.0 has been hyper-focused on small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers.

We have worked really hard on the $40 billion that has already moved to through to make sure that that goes to where it is intended, which is not multinational foreign agricultural corporations. I, um, I very much support the efforts of the Department of Justice. I, I think there is a very important antitrust case to be made here. At the same time, I've watched as your department has rescinded 3 important rules that were put in place to protect farmers and ranchers from unfair practices by the large meatpackers. Those rules were supported by the American Farm Bureau and the National Farmers Union.

Explain that discrepancy to me. Which rules? I'm not tracking. The Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Rule, the Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments Rule, and the Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems Rules. The Packers and Stockyards, I think, is what you're talking about.

So we are executing an additional review on that. I think that the point is very well made that sometimes that inures to the benefit of the larger corporations. As I have begun to make a larger case and a more vigorous case in the importance of deconsolidation, we'll be taking a second look at that. And I would love your input. And I would very much support deconsolidation.

Thank you. Senator Houston. Thank you, Chair Collins. Thank you all for being here today. In my brief time in the Senate, I've learned that we're really good at embracing our oversight role, but oftentimes there are many people who don't want to do their jobs in terms of funding the government on time and actually doing the work that we're supposed to do as appropriators.

And I'm not for blank checks, believe everybody should be accountable, but I also believe we should do our job. And now we have a supplemental funding request that we're discussing today. We're waiting on getting an NDAA done. Uh, I— despite the chair's best efforts to facilitate forward an appropriations process, there's a question of whether that will get done on time, uh, in September. And My question, start with you, Secretary Hegseth, just to talk a little bit about what the consequences of failure, what this really means to not do this on time, because I've talked to defense contractors.

I, as a former executive, a member of an executive branch, I know that the legislative branch often thinks, well, no matter when we get this done, we just wave a magic wand, we pass the bill, and it all magically happens, but that's not how it happens. It takes time for people to— businesses out there who you're going to rely on to build these weapon systems who don't know if they're going to get paid. They can't plan, they can't, they can't staff up, they can't order the equipment, they can't do any of these things unless they know that the money is actually coming. So what are the consequences of not just doing this but doing it on time in a timely manner? Senator, thank you.

I think the consequences of dysfunction in funding this Department put at risk a— I think a first time in 25, 30-year reform effort to change how we do business as a department. We're going to war with the Pentagon bureaucracy because the bureaucracy existed to defend just a few systems and processes and companies. We need all of American industry coming into our department. And if you talk to industry, they've never seen anything like what our Deputy Secretary and our department are doing right now to run fast at speed., but it counts on this body and others funding this department in a way that can fulfill the deals that we're cutting that saves the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars and gets weapons to warfighters years and years faster than we ever have in the past. So without the funding, we put at issue all those deals, all the reforms, all the ways in which we're changing our department to move at the speed of business.

So it, it's not just dollars and cents, it's demand, it's predictability, it's is showing industry we will meet you at this moment, and if we can't get past our dysfunction to fund the warfighter, we put a lot of that at issue. General Kane, same question from a military point of view, not knowing if, when the funding's going to come, and us not doing our job on time, what are the consequences to the warfighter? Sir, I'll just add to the Secretary's comments, you know, it'll manifest itself in a range of ways, readiness, capability, munitions, training, cyber, unmanned autonomy. I— this is why I'm really asking for the Congress's help here, for us to look forward at the next couple ridgelines and to be thoughtful about the moves that we make here. And I understand the environment that we're operating in right now, but whatever structure the legislature and the executive branch determine.

We need predictable, predictable capital, my investor hat on from my previous life, so that we can go out and procure the capabilities that we need before we need them. And those things are changing, you know, the advancement of small drones and things like that. We're going to have to make sure that we stay very close with the Congress— so that as technology develops at a speed that we haven't seen before, that we're staying very close and partnering with the Congress to enable us to adaptively use that capital with the appropriators' buy-in so that we're arming the force properly. Well, I can tell you in interacting with the people who are— that want to build these new generation of weapon systems, because I think you would agree that we've learned a lot from Ukraine, we've learned a lot from this conflict about how we were underprepared from the standpoint and from a defense standpoint and that we have to continue to modernize our system, the weapons systems. I think it's very important that we not only do our job, but we do it on time because— Yes, for sure.

—You cannot run a Department of Defense, run businesses who are supplying these things without knowing if you're actually going to get funded. 'Cause she— whole supply chain, the workforce, everything gets held up when we don't get our jobs done on time. Yes, sir. I used to, I used to work in the private sector for a company who was headquartered in Pickle, Ohio, and those leaders told me your entire job, Dan Cain, is to deliver quality parts, or in this case, weapons on time with shorter lead times and lower costs. And part of why I'm so passionate about this is because I see how this this capital, if the Congress chooses to give it to us, will manifest itself in real combat capability, lethality, and survivability for our joint force.

Thank you, and thank you, Secretary Rollins, for coming to Ohio meeting with all of our ag leaders. It was great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Gillibrand.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary Hegseth, um, you're requesting billions of dollars in supplemental funding for a war that you said would last for weeks,— and that the president has no plan or ability to end. At the same time, this still unauthorized and extremely unpopular war has caused gas, diesel, fertilizer, and other essentials that New Yorkers and our farmers need across the country has become much more expensive. So how do I go back to New York And what would you say to them who are seeing their healthcare bills rise because massive cuts to Medicaid? They've seen their grocery and gas bills rise.

And this unpopular and unauthorized war abroad is a higher priority to this administration than their ability to feed their families and provide healthcare to their loved ones who are sick.

Well, Senator, you're talking about political tradeoffs, and our job is to deliver for the United States military and the president of the United States. And we look at the cost of a nuclear Iran, and we want to prevent that for future generations. And that requires funding and supplementals and this budget and next-generation capabilities. And that's why we're here today to request some of that, to ensure we can ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear—. So you're essentially saying you're asking for literally $1.5 trillion for a war that President Trump said he already won.

You're asking for $1.5 trillion, unlimited money for bombs, but insufficient money in the American— for the American people, for their healthcare, their food, their housing, and our farmers. Secretary Rollins, who we have cut SNAP program. We are not funding the losses from, uh, emergencies that have happened in blue states. Particularly when we have a cross— That's not true. That's not true.

False. You're not funding it. But back to you, Secretary Hagseth. And I would like to respond to the fertilizer and the gas. Have you had a chance?

Secretary Hagseth, there's no reason to be rude. You are asking for unlimited money for bombs when people can't feed their families. And I don't know how this administration intends to defend those decisions to the American people. Not unlimited bombs, Senator. I'm asking for the right bombs at the right time to ensure we can deter our adversaries into the future.

And that's why this is a generational investment. And it was the previous administration that didn't fund this department. They didn't fund it. The reason why they are so upset with you and this administration is because the words you have used in the past don't add up. About Iran specifically, you said that we had obliterated, quote unquote, Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.

The president made the same claim. Yet 8 months later, in February of 2026, The president launched an act of war claiming Iran was within 2 weeks of having a weapon. So when you say 2 very different things, the American people don't know who to believe or what to believe. They just know they can't afford their healthcare, they can't afford their food, they can't afford housing, and our farmers are continuing to suffer. So which is true?

Was it obliterated or wasn't it? What's the status? The nuclear sites under midnight hammer were obliterated, but Iranians foolishly continued to attempt to pursue nuclear capabilities, which is why we destroyed their defense industrial base and so many of the other capabilities to ensure they can't get to a nuclear weapon. See, we're staying laser-focused on the objective and you're trying to make campaign commercials. No, we're not.

And that's fine. So listen to this. You also say that you made the missile program, quote, destroyed and made combat ineffective, quote, Iran's entire ballistic missile production capacity. Every company that builds every component of those missiles has been functionally defeated and destroyed. And that the missile program existing stockpiles were depleted and decimated, almost completely ineffective.

So why are there missiles left to hit Jordan and, and result in the loss of life of our brave men and women? As we stated from the beginning, the Iranian defense industrial base is effectively gone, but they do have underground facilities, facilities, because they're the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and they've spent 47 years trying to hide their missiles under mountains, just like they're— thank you. Just like their nuclear capabilities, because they would like to get nuclear weapons to wield it against us. There's no what stage of the war to believe, because it's either over or it's not over. It's within 2 weeks or it's not 2 weeks.

We have no missiles or we have missiles. And that consternation is why so many New Yorkers are perplexed, stressed out, and find this war to be incredibly unpopular, because they don't understand the choices that the president's making. They don't agree with those choices. Secretary Rollins, so you have cut over 160,000 New Yorkers have been kicked off SNAP. What do you have against hardworking New Yorkers, children who need SNAP, and seniors who need SNAP?

Well, first of all, diesel is down under Biden versus today, $5.81 versus $4.80. Gas is down from Biden today from $4.84 to $3.86 today. Fertilizer is down 56% from Biden highs. Prices are higher than when you took office. Well, all of those prices are higher than when you took office.

So you are not— that is not true. That is not true, Senator. And let me tell you what New York is stressed out about is the fact that your state is taking prime farmland and turning it into solar farms. That is absolutely inexcusable for you to say. I have visited the New York farms 2 times.

2 Times in upstate New York. Time has expired. Thank you, Senator Bozeman.

Thank you, Madam Chair, very much, and thank all of you all for your service to our country and our national security. And I think it's easy for the public to understand how you, Mr. Hagseth, are, you know, your contribution in the position you're in, in general, kind of the position you're in, but some don't understand the position that our Secretary of Agriculture is in. I gave a presentation a couple of years ago when Senator Rubio, then Senator Rubio, was over here in the middle of it. I was talking about agriculture. He punched me and said, John, always tell them that food security is national security.

Now Senator Cotton, who's head of the Intelligence Committee now, has taken his place. He's doing the same thing. So again, what we're talking about today is very, very important to our country.

Right now we're in a generational crisis. Our banks, our economists tell us that if we don't start doing things differently— and the good news is that the administration is doing things differently— is doing things differently, we're going to lose 20, 25% of our farmers in the next 2 or 3 years. I visit almost daily with farmers about the difficult farm economy, wildfires, flooding, all the things we've talked about today. My only concern is, is that the supplemental is very much appreciated. After hearing the testimony today and the concerns, we might need to look at bumping that up a little bit.

But again, that's— we'll discuss that later.

The supplemental, though, the supplemental assistance is important in keeping our farmers going, but it's not the answer. Will you just reiterate again what we're trying to do? We're trying to give farmers a bump, an edge to keep going until the programs that we're putting in place now kick in. You mentioned fertilizer, you mentioned E-15, you mentioned value-adding our products. Both overseas, finding new markets.

Can you talk a little bit about that, the importance of not only the supplemental, but again, what we're doing in conjunction with that so we won't have supplementals in the future? That's exactly right. The effort to bring the cost of inputs down is real. Fertilizer, seed, labor, interest rates, etc. Number one.

And if we can just get inputs back down to where they were in Trump One, We're going to have a remarkable recovery in farm country. But then you add that to the 19 new trade deals, more coming online every day, the record-breaking exports that we're going to see in a lot of our row crops, but also in dairy and tree nuts and others. That's going to be a game changer. Then you look at expanding the domestic market as you talk about whether E15, obviously all of the biofuels. We've already seen corn and wheat hit record highs, or the highest number for the year after announcing the new renewable fuel standard.

So we're seeing some pretty incredible movement in the right direction. Then you marry that to all of your work under the Working Families Tax Cut Act, the new reference prices that under the last administration couldn't get a farm bill. You all did that with the president's leadership. The first time we're going to increase reference prices in more than a decade, combined with a $250 billion investment in rural America The largest investment in rural America in American history. This Congress did that with the White House's leadership.

All of that together is going to change the trajectory for the long term of farming and ranching in America. But to get to that point, that's why this supplemental is so very, very important. Madam Secretary, I have a letter from Farm Bureau that I want to put into the record that just outlines requesting relief to sustain America's farmers and ranchers. Secretary Hagseth, General Kane, one of the things that we're concerned about is that in the military construction aspect of things, we're really not asking for that in the supplemental. I know that the the success of Operation Epic Fury, particularly for our missile interceptors and short-range aircraft.

Really, basing was a large part of that. Can you tell us how we can help you again try and plus up our military construction in some way so that we're not going to be faced with this in the future, you know, trying to double up? Senator, I think by Congress finding the ability to meet up to close to, or the totality of, $1.5 trillion means we're not making the kind of trade-offs this department has made now for decades. Those are the types of things— construction, maintenance— that fall off when trade-offs occur, and so you dig the hole even deeper. And what this budget does, it first of all fully funds the UPLIS, which is the unfunded priority list of PACOM, a priority theater, and then it gets at every single substandard barrack that we have across the department.

So we're funding the military construction in a way that we've never done before to get out of the hole that we've had for a while. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Bozeman. To the very patient Senator Baldwin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Vice Chair, and thank you for appearing before our committee today. Um, to many I represent and to me, this supplemental request is another example of this administration's misplaced priorities. Instead of spending tens of billion dollars more for this president's war of choice in Iran that both houses of Congress, I may add, have voted to end absent explicit authorization by Congress. We should be focusing on the needs of American families. We could invest this money to accelerate new cures and treatments for cancer and Alzheimer's.

We could use it to help more families with rising home energy costs. We could use this funding to help more families afford quality childcare. We could use this funding to help more kids get free school lunch. We could use this funding to restore healthcare for working families. We could use this funding to support our public schools and special education.

This is a war of choice, and every dollar spent on this war is a dollar not spent helping families afford housing, healthcare, groceries, childcare at home, investing in the opportunities for the American people.

First, I want to express my condolences and my respect for the 17 American service members killed in this war since February, including 3 over the past few days. Their lives are the price this country has paid for this war. The deadliest day for U.S. forces was on March 1st, when an Iranian drone struck an Army facility at Port Shuaybah, Kuwait, killing 6 soldiers and injuring more than 30 others, including soldiers from Wisconsin.

Soldiers from the unit stationed at Port Shuwaiba told reporters that the facility did not have adequate air defense capabilities. These soldiers and their families believe they were sent into harm's way without the defenses they needed. Secretary Hagseth, what would you say to those soldiers and their families? First of all, that we honor and recognize their sacrifice and what they've given. I've been in touch with at least one of those families on a regular basis and understand the, the pain of losing a loved one is unfathomable, which is why we greeted them at Dover and we'll greet those again tomorrow.

I would say in talking to Admiral Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, before all of this was undertaken, maximizing defensive capabilities mostly by moving moving as many people as possible off the X, which we did in historic fashion, moving almost 90% of Americans in theaters off of where they could be a target, first of all. Bunkers that they would move into early morning. So I will quote this. We had— for Shoaibah— Ultimately— I will quote from the Washington Post article of July 12th. Shoaibah— this is a quote— Shoaibah did not have any of the systems that would take down the one-way attack Shahed drones.

Initial security assessments found that the base was not adequately protected, end quote. Soldiers at Port Shuaiba have also been quoted in news reports saying that requests for additional medical and drone defense systems were denied prior to the conflict with Iran beginning. Why were those requests denied, Secretary Hagseth? I would, I would confer with Admiral Cooper, but there were It's not a single drone or defense request denied at any level that I'm aware of. We did everything we could to move heaven and earth in every single location to protect every single American in the past week.

Again, Secretary Esper, an article from July 12th Washington Post also quoted a soldier saying that the unit's request for an Eagles drone defense system was denied because of lack of assets. That's an end quote. Um, US Army Central has conducted an investigation into that attack. Do you commit to releasing the findings of that investigation publicly? Yes or no?

Um, we'll get you the status of that. I would argue if it was a, if it was a resource constraint, that's precisely why we're having this hearing today, to speed up systems to the battlefield, to warfighters as fast as humanly possible. It's been too slow in the past. It needs to be faster. The reforms we're undertaking to do that investigation publicly, yes or no?

I will, I will work with that group trooper to make sure it's handled properly. Yes, Senator. Thank you. Uh, Secretary Hagseth, I traveled to Walter Reed Military Hospital and met with soldiers who were injured in that attack. What they told me confirmed what other soldiers have said publicly, that most of these soldiers injured in the attack did not receive proper medical care in Kuwait, in Germany, or during their initial days back in the US.

The US military has been fighting wars in the Middle East for 25 years. Why was proper medical care not immediately available to these injured soldiers, and why were they not immediately screened for traumatic brain injuries? I, I'm not taking issue with the characterization of individual soldiers, but I would argue that Every effort was made to provide every level of medical care possible, understanding how CENTCOM operates. The Senator's time has expired, and there is a vote on. Senator Capito.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your service. I want to begin because the last time that I saw you, Secretary Hadseth and General Kane, was at the Pentagon when you honored Andrew Wolf, who was attacked in here in D.C. In November, and then the honor that you have given to Sarah Backstrom and her family who lost her life that day as well.

I think that— I know that you've been in constant contact with Andrew and his family, and you also know that the great faith that they have in the Lord above is what's really brought them to the point where they are now. So let's keep them all in his prayer. I am interested in Senator Baldwin's question because I do have a soldier from West Virginia who is making a very similar complaint, so whatever follow-up we can do, I would like to do that. I'd also like to recognize the 3 most recent service members that we lost because we talk about them as service members and soldiers, but I haven't heard them say their name, and they're so young. First Lieutenant Tyler James Freehan, Private Isabella Gonzalez, and Sergeant Michael Swinton.

You will be I guess, greeting their families and unfortunately their caskets as they come forward tomorrow. So my question is, we've heard a lot about why we shouldn't be voting for this supplemental, or questions as to is that really necessary, or what. I guess my question, General Cain, is what's the consequence of not passing this supplemental? Where do you see that hitting us most deeply? Yes, ma'am, it, it will manifest itself in a few different places.

Most significantly, it'll be in military personnel-related matters. We'll figure out how to pay soldiers and sailors, but that, that would be a strain. Operations and maintenance costs, and then the ability for the department to take some of this capital and wisely invest it in future combat capability in things like AI, UAS, counter-UAS, hypersonics, and space. So not only would it hit us today, but it could hit us tomorrow as well? Yes, ma'am.

I've actually viewed this, um, as, as forward-looking as we look at the future picture and the various risks that we're facing. The supplemental and, and the budget, frankly, help to ensure that we are properly arming the Joint Force for the myriad potential contingencies that we face in the future. Thank you. So as we look at one of the, I think, best successes under your all's leadership at the Department of War has been the fulfillment of the recruitment in every branch. I remember last year, I think, or maybe the year before, only the Marines could brag that they had made their records, and now I think that many, many, the other branches are far exceeding what has previously been done.

So that tells me that American young men and women want to serve their country. They want to be safe. They want to do the right thing. So how does not funding them, and if they think that their salaries may be short or we're going to have a continuing resolution or we're going to shut down the government, how can this chill what has been one of the greatest successes, I think, in terms of not just today's force, but the force of the future? And Mr. Secretary, I'll ask you to answer that question.

Well, in a, in a brass tacks sense, this $1.5 trillion budget in its totality sees a 7% pay raise for junior enlisted, 6% for your NCOs and junior officers, and 5% for senior officers. So it's significant reflection of the value we place on top of the other increases that, that Congress has provided them. If we were to have to And we're going to do right by the troops. We're going to make sure they get paid, but it's going to put strains on training and readiness and all the other aspects of O&M over time, which makes its way down to the unit level. I, you know, when you're saying we're focused on training and readiness and lethality, but we have to cut back on training because Congress can't get the money we need to the department, that's discouraging at every single level.

And when young men and women join this War Department, We want them moving immediately into the training pipeline at the highest possible level with the best possible equipment, and they've seen that thus far, and that's led to historic recruiting momentum. We need to keep that momentum going. Yeah, and I would say that it could have the reverse effect if this is troubled waters here and lack of confidence, which we see on the other side of the aisle there, and questions that I think, um, wouldn't be asked if it were not of a political nature. We're going to chill our recruiting efforts here for our young people as they look forward to serving their country and becoming that patriot they want to be. You're right.

Or return to the valley under the Biden administration, where not only did they not meet the goals, but they had to lower the goals and then didn't meet the lowered goals. And then now we're— we don't have the readiness we need as a force. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Secretary of Agriculture.

I'll get to you another time. Thank you. Senator Murphy. Thank you all for being here today. Secretary Hegseth, the American people either didn't want this war from the start or were deeply skeptical of this war because they have seen this country make the same mistake over and over again in wars in the Middle East, and that is to create either unrealistic or open-ended objectives.

You said in March that the United States was, quote, on plan to defeat destroy and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capabilities at a pace that would— that we have— the world has never seen before. Obviously, as we've discussed here today, that objective has not been achieved and is not going to be achieved. Iran is adept, more adept than even at the start of the war, at hiding their capabilities or repairing after damage we have done. There's an open report that when it comes to their missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, 30 of 33 are still operational. I wouldn't believe all the open reports, Senator.

But I've also heard you say in this hearing that the objectives now seem to be more limited than they were at the outset of the war, that this is about reopening the strait and this is about dismantling their nuclear capability. And the president, of course, has said himself that he thinks Iran has a right to a missile program. So my question is pretty simple: is it correct that it is no longer a war objective to destroy all of their military capacities? This is what the president has said. Have our goals been simplified to reopening the strait and to getting into a negotiation over a nuclear program?

Now, I I don't think you have a realistic plan to do either of those things, but I think it's important for us to know what we're funding. Are the objectives much more limited today than they were when you made that statement in March? So I think the objectives have been consistent and clear from the beginning, and I would compare— I would contrast it to North Korea, where a conventional buildup was used to hide a nuclear capability that eventually evolved to a point where it couldn't be contested. And what Iran continued to do, even after Midnight Hammer was try to build that conventional capability to dare anyone to stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons. So getting after their conventional capabilities, missile launchers, defense industrial base, their navy, was all part of it ensuring they can't blackmail us into pursuing a nuclear capability.

Laser-focused on Iran will never have a nuclear capability. That's the promise the president has made and that he will keep in every way. I think it's important. It is still a war objective. Either through military action or through a diplomatic agreement to destroy and disable all of Iran's meaningful military capacities, including their missile program.

As far as all, when we talked about that from the podium for— at the outset of this, we were talking about their defense industrial base. And if you look at the metrics of their ability to make more, that it's been overwhelmingly destroyed. Not everything. But overwhelmingly— now, do they have missiles in underground bunkers because they're a terror state? Sure they do, and we've acknowledged that from the beginning.

But their capacity is less today than it's ever been. They obviously have significant capacity to effectively disrupt the entirety of the Middle East and oil flows out of the Middle East, and that's not going to change. Let me ask you one more question. This is a request for supplemental funding because you don't have the funding in your base budget to do what you need to do, which makes questions about the base budget relevant. There's been a lot of attention, Mr. Secretary, on the modernization of a luxury jet that was gifted to the president by the government of Qatar.

Reports suggest that maybe as much as $1 billion in your base funding, an extraordinary amount of money, has been used for an upgrade, and the plane is back in the shop for a second upgrade. As far as I can tell, never before has an administration not made public the amount of money for an upgrade or a construction contract on a presidential airplane. Obviously, we don't need or want to disclose the details of that upgrade, but never before have you withheld from Congress and the public the total amount of money. I think there are two really important questions here. One, will you make public the amount of money that you are spending to upgrade this plane?

And two, can you commit to this Congress and this committee that the president isn't going to take this plane with him when he leaves office. The only thing more insulting to the taxpayers of spending money on a jet they don't need would be for the president to take it with him, to take it out of our military inventory when he leaves office. The Air Force has done an incredible job making that a capable jet that ultimately— but its capabilities and investment are are classified and shouldn't be talked about in public. So I'm asking, considering security, will you disclose the amount of money publicly? Uh, I would imagine as part of the regular budget process, that's something that we would look at.

And will you commit that the president will not— Well, you have to look at the classification level of certain things that are not devolved for reasons of national security. Will you commit that the president will not take this jet with him out of federal inventory when he leaves office? It's— that's not a decision for necessarily me to make. And ultimately, we're grateful to have it in the fleet for the Air Force to protect the president of the United States. That's a deeply satisfying answer to the American public.

Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Folks, welcome to the hearing today. I apologize.

Is Senator Ossoff still here? I'm sorry. I didn't— I went out of order. Senator Ossoff. I'll yield my time to Senator Ossoff.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for your testimony. And General Cain, let me just begin by expressing on behalf of all Georgians our immense gratitude and admiration for the service members who are making tremendous sacrifices and conducting themselves with extraordinary selflessness and professionalism on behalf of the United States, uh, and our state's unified condolences and grief for the families of the 4 killed in action, uh, and our hope for a swift recovery for the, the nearly 100 wounded over the last 2 weeks. And thank you to you for your service to the nation. Um, Mr. Hegseth, you're requesting roughly $68 billion for the department through this supplemental, correct?

67, Yes. And yesterday your department stated publicly, quote, U.S. forces struck Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran's ability to continue attacking commercial vessels. That was a press release from your department. Is that a broadly accurate characterization of of ongoing operations. That sounds broadly accurate, yes.

On day 14 of this conflict, Mr. Secretary, day 14, nearly 5 months ago, you stated that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective. That was on day 14 of the war. Was that an accurate statement?

They didn't have a navy any longer. It's completely sunk. Their missiles were buried underneath A lot of their underground facilities and their defense industrial base has been almost completely destroyed. So as far as a military assessment of Iran's capabilities, it doesn't— didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination absolute zero, but their capabilities are at the lowest level they've been for a very long time. Mr. Secretary, you stated on day 14 of this conflict, in the second week of the conflict, you stated that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective.

Was that an accurate statement? Yes or no? Iran's ability to challenge the United States of America at the level at which we're capable of— That's not what I asked you, Mr. Secretary. You said on day 14 Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective. Yes or no?

Was that an accurate statement? What the American military has done to the Iranian military is a historic military achievement that has In that context, 3 weeks later you declared victory. That was now nearly 4 months ago, 3 weeks after you'd already said Iran's military was destroyed and combat ineffective. You said, quote, "Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory." You said Iran's military had been rendered, quote, "combat ineffective for years to come." and you stated we had, quote, achieved every single objective. Were those accurate statements?

Uh, it certainly was on behalf of the men and women in uniform a historic military victory over Iran. Had Iran's military been rendered, quote, combat ineffective for years to come? They had 160 naval vessels. You need to answer questions, Mr. Secretary. You said 4 months ago— —defense industrial base.

So describe to me a country that doesn't have an Air Force, a Navy, or a defense industrial base, and I will describe to you a company— that country that does not have an effective military. It can lob missiles. Mr. Secretary, you stated 4 months ago that Iran's military had been rendered, quote, "combat ineffective for years to come." Has Iran's military been, for the last 4 months, combat ineffective? It's been set back not just years, but likely decades. You stated we have— you stated —doesn't mean it doesn't have capabilities.

Mr. Secretary, you stated we had, quote, achieved every single objective. Was that an accurate statement 4 months ago? The main objective of this was to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Their main sites were obliterated. We're watching over them and we're holding that issue.

If they don't give them up at the table, there's other ways we can take them away. Early in the conflict— Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Mr. Secretary, early in the conflict, day 3, you you said one of those core objectives was to, quote, destroy the missile threat, and as you restated on day 5, to, quote, obliterate Iran's missiles and drones. Those were clearly and repeatedly stated core objectives of the campaign, which 4 months ago you declared had been completed victoriously with every single objective achieved. Were those objectives achieved 4 months ago?

No one ever stated that every single missile was gone. Ultimately, Combat ineffective means they're not able to dig them out of their UGFs and shoot at us. Had the missile threat— It doesn't mean they don't have underground facilities where they put missiles in them and hold on to them because they're the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. So we never expected they would stop having capabilities to shoot. The question is at scale against opponent like the United States of America, which went toe to toe with them and Iran couldn't— You stated on March 8th, day 9 of the war, on 60 Minutes, you assured the American people of Iranian surrender.

Does that remain your prediction?

Ultimately, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon to threaten the United States of America. That has been the objective and it remains so. So just to review, you will not answer whether your statement made on the 14th day of the war that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and made combat ineffective was a truthful statement to the American people as you sit here and ask for tens of billions more for the country. Senator's time has expired. Had a historic and effective military campaign against the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Won't answer the question. Senator Peters is recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses here today. I want to begin by first echoing my colleagues' comments that we've heard throughout the hearing here and join them in mourning the loss of American service members who were killed in action these last few days. My thoughts are with their families, with a service member who remains missing, and with all those injured during the strikes. And I will continue to pray for their families. Secretary Hegseth, over the course of the war with Iran, I have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the administration's lack of a winning strategy and repeated contradictions about the state of the war.

It frankly doesn't help that you and your president continues to mislead the American people. You and the president have repeatedly said that the war, as we've heard over and over again, is almost over or already won. In fact, the president alone has said the war is almost over more than 30 times. On March 1st, the president said, we'll be done in 4 or 5 weeks. On March 9th, he said the war was very complete.

On April 8th, he declared total and complete victory, 100%, no question about it. On the same day, you declared Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield, a capital V military victory by any measure. And yet today, July 21st, we have soldiers whose remains are sadly going to be returned to their deeply grieving families tomorrow. Clearly, the war is not over yet. After months of conflict, our strategy to win remains unclear.

I have long said the United States has the strongest military in history in the world, and I have no doubt that our brave service members can execute any mission and prevail in any battle. But without a clear winning strategy, we're at risk of being in another forever war that'll put our service members in continued harm's way and continue to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Secretary Hagel, despite your failure to win this war, you are back now before Congress asking for almost $70 billion in additional funding. You're asking the American people for a blank check because once again, the Trump administration's efforts have been an utter and complete failure to win this war to this point. So my question for you, sir, is how is your strategy different than what we've seen in the past?

So far, we have not seen a strategy that's been successful. You mentioned nuclear material as the primary goal of the war. It still exists. We haven't dealt with that issue yet. You talk about the destruction of missiles, and yet the missiles that we saw hit recent targets are actually somehow more lethal, more deadly, more maneuverable than what we have seen in the past.

So they're obviously improving their munitions. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed, reminding everybody it was open before the war. Prices were lower for everybody until the war, and it still remains closed. And of course, tragically, people, service members, our warfighters who we care deeply about, are still dying. So what's different?

Mr. Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth. I think your characterization of this incredible effort as a failure is reckless, and I think it's irresponsible, and I think it smears the sacrifice of the troops that are out there making on behalf of the American people to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Shame on you and others who call this a quagmire and a failure, and then you want to turn around and say you support the warfighter. Either you do or you don't. Is the nuclear material still there?

I can get you a ticket out to CENTCOM and talk to what those Americans are what they're doing and how committed they are to this effort and how they want to ensure that Iran never threatens their families with a nuclear weapon. It is that— that's the kind of intensity that our warfighters have about making sure that Iran isn't capable of doing that. Secretary Hagel, if you listen to my comments, you would have heard me say how amazing our warfighters are. I heard failure. I heard exactly what you said.

I will tell you how I used the word failure. Because I used the word failure to their leaders. You, sir, are the failure. Not the men and women who are on that front line, not the men and women who hold up their honor with distinction. But if there's a lack of a winning strategy, they're in harm's way.

Their leaders have failed them. And that's what's happening. We have political leadership. You, you don't have a strategy. You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war.

Win the war. The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership. When will you show leadership? When will you show some leadership and stand up to your fellow fellow Democrats who won't fund the troops, who stand and play partisan politics. Why you don't give us the money?

You want to stand up here and talk about the troops? You won't show any political courage to actually fund our department because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome and can't actually commit to anything meaningful. So I put this on you, Senator. Secretary Hagel, if you have trillions, you have over $1 trillion. You're asking for $1.5 trillion.

It's not a question of money. It's a question of leadership. And understanding what it takes to actually win. Political cowardice of Democrats who won't fund the troops. Senator's time has expired.

This will conclude our hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for being present and the committee for what has certainly been a vigorous discussion. For any senators who wish to submit additional questions for the record, those questions will be due in 7 days on Tuesday, July 28th, by 5 p.m.

I'm going to ask the rink— the vice chair— if she has any final comments. I do, very quickly. And thank you, Chair Collins. This was really an important discussion about the state of this tragic and disastrous war and how we should be spending Americans' tax dollars on families instead of this president's war of choice. Unfortunately, this hearing has done exceptionally little to justify the president's request or to instill confidence that this administration has an exit plan or a strategy to end the war.

This war has cost us a lot. The last thing we should be doing is rubber stamping another $70 billion to help Trump keep it going. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, Vice Chair Murray, I'm compelled to respond to your comments by pointing out that it is the duty of this committee to have a hearing when we have this kind of supplemental request. And I do appreciate— I think that your comments was not appropriate.

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.