downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime and anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> this is way more than that. >> comcast is creating wi-fi so students from low income families can get what they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, defense secretary lloyd austin and joint chief of staff chair mark milley testify on the president's 2023 budget request for the pentagon. they discussed the

situation in ukraine and keeping the mainland saved from potential threats. this is under two hours. >> i want to call this appropriations hearing together. hello. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we appreciate your willingness to be with us this morning. this hearing will focus on the president's budget request for fiscal year 2023. we would be remiss if we do not take this opportunity to receive an update. last week a $33 billion appropriation request for additional assistance in ukraine

, that includes $16.4 billion for the department of defense. i am interested in hearing to ensure [indiscernible] they are watching closely. [indiscernible] commitment to modernization and new technologies. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] some of these proposals are controversial. [indiscernible] -- and markets across the board, driving up fuel prices and creating uncertain markets. the affordability of the budget as proposed, are you going to afford what you think you can, as well as the ability of the industry to developer for our troops -- to deliver for our troops in a timely manner. we cannot afford to waste time or money to ensure we are

getting our troops what they need to do their jobs at the right time and write cost. i want to thank the witnesses and the testimony they are about to give. i look forward to hearing from you both. senator shelby is ill today. he will not be here. we will go right to you, secretary austin. sec. austin: good morning chairman tester, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the chance to testify today in support of the president's budget request for fiscal year 2023. mr. chairman, we are focused on three key priorities at the department of defense, defending our nation, taking care of our people and succeeding through teamwork. in our budget request, we meet our priorities. $56 billion for airpower platforms and systems. more than $40 million to maintain our dominance at sea, including nine more battle

forces ships. $14 million to support and modernize our combat forces on land. our budget also funds the modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad to ensure we maintain a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent. none of these capabilities matter much without our people and their families. we are seeking your support for 4.6% pay raise for military and civilian personnel and other special pay and benefits. we plan to invest in affordable childcare and ensuring all of our families can always put good and healthy food on the table. we are also deeply focused on the terrible problem of suicide in the u.s. military. we are increasing access to mental health care, expanding telehealth capacities, and finding prior oral against

seeking help. i established a committee to grapple with suicide to better understand it, to prevent it, and to treat the unseen wounds that lead to it. at the same time we are working hard to implement the recommendations of the independent review commission on sexual assault. we know we have a long way to go to rid ourselves of this scourge. our budget is $480 million to do that. this is a leadership issue, and you have my personal commitment to keep lead. you are saying how much our leadership matters when it comes to ukraine. last week i convened the first meeting of what is now the contact group on ukrainian security, a group of defense leaders from around the world committed to supporting ukraine after russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion. that gathering sent a powerful signal that nations of goodwill are intensifying their efforts to help ukraine better defend

itself. with the help of congress, the united states is able to deliver security assistance to ukraine with unprecedented speed and resolved. that has made a huge difference on the ground. president zelenskyy made that clear when i met him in kyiv along with secretary of state blinken a week ago. even before peyton started his war of choice, we provided ukraine with a billion dollars worth of weapons and gear to presidential drawdown authority. since russia's invasion, the united states has committed $3.7 billion to ukraine. the war is changing and the coming weeks will be crucial. our goal is to help get the ukrainians the capability that they need most right now in the donbas and the south. the president has nearly exhausted the drawdown authority that congress approved in march. last week he submitted to you a

$33 billion supplemental request which will help us continue to meet ukraine's urgent requirements without interruption. specifically we are requesting $16 billion for the department of defense, which includes $5 billion of additional drawdown authority, $6 billion more for the ukraine security a initiative, and another $5 billion for critical investments to help cover the operational need and costs of bolstering the eastern flank. thank you for your strong leadership to help ukraine defend itself, and supporting nato. i hope the congress will quickly approve this supplemental. let me briefly mention a couple of other major efforts the department is focused on. as you know, the department's challenge remains countering aggression and bullying from china. this project invest $6 billion

in the pacific deterrence initiative, and in keeping with our new national defense strategy, we will enhance our force posture, our infrastructure, our presence and readiness in the indo pacific, including missile defense with guam. at the same time we must be prepared for threats that pay no heed to borders from pandemics to climate change. we must tackle the persistent threats posed by north korea, iran, and global terrorist groups. i'm proud of our budget seeks more than 130 $1 million for research, development, testing and evaluation. the largest r&d request this department has ever made. this includes $1 billion for artificial intelligence, $250 million for 5g, $28 billion for space abilities, and another $11 million to protect our networks and develop a cyber mission force. mr. chairman, this budget

maintains our edge but it does not take that it's for granted. through the president's budget and the help of this committee, we will continue to defend this nation, take care of our people and support are allies and partners. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. sen. tester: general milley, you have the floor. gen. milley: chairman tester and members of the community, i think you. and i think senator shelby for his lifelong service in america's interest. i'm privileged, and with your help the best trained and most lethal and most capable military force in the world, alongside our allies and partners at any given time, approximately 400,000 of us are currently standing watch in 155 countries and conducting operations every day that keep americans safe.

currently, we are supporting our european allies in guarding natives eastern flank in the face of an unnecessary war of aggression by russia against ukraine and the assault on democratic order that prevented any war for the last 78 years since the end of world war ii. we are facing two global powers, china and russia, each with significant military capabilities. both intend to fundamentally change the current rules-based order. we are entering a world that is becoming more unstable, and the potential for conflict between great powers is increasing not decreasing. the united states military comprises one of the four key components of national power, diplomatic, economic, informational and military. in order to protect the homeland and sustain an open system, and

coordination with other elements of power, we develop a wide range of military options for the president as commander-in-chief, and for this congress to consider. as the u.s. military, we are prepared to deter and if necessary fight and win against anyone who seeks to attack the united states or our allies or national security office. the joint force appreciates the work our elected representatives do to ensure we have the resources needed to train, equip and manage a force to be ready. we thank the congress for increasing last year's fiscal level of literary spending, and we look forward to your support for this year's budget. the joint force will deliver modernization and readiness to our armed forces and security to the people of the united states at the budget request of $773 billion. this will enable the decisions, modernization of the joint force in order to set, meet the conditions of an operating

environment we expect to encounter from 2030 and beyond. the changing character of war we discussed many times in the past. we will work diligently to ensure the resources of the american people in trust to us are spent prudently in the best interest of the nation in alignment with the national defense strategy and the forthcoming national villa strategy, this budget delivers a capable joint force that will defend the nation while taking care of our people and working with our partners and allies. we are witnessing right now as we sit here the greatest threat to peace and security in europe and perhaps the world in my 42 years in uniform. the russian invasion of ukraine is threatening to undermine not only european peace and stability but global peace and stability that my parents and generations of americans fought so hard to defend. the islands in the pacific and the beaches of normandy bore witness to the incredible tragedy that befalls inanity the nation seek power with military

aggression across different borders. despite this horrific assault on the institution of freedom, it is starting to see the world rally and say never again to the specter of war in europe. your military stands ready to do whatever it is directed to to maintain peace and stability on the european continent, global stability and international order were all nations can prosper in peace. we are prepared and need to sustain our capabilities anywhere else in the globe, as well as with the asia-pacific against the pacing challenge the people's republic of china. in defense of our nation we maintain -- we must maintain in all the domains of war, space, cyber, land, sea and air. second-place has no room in the competition between us and our adversaries. the united states is at a very critical and historical flexion point. we need to pursue a clear eyed strategy of maintaining peace

and strength relative to china and russia. this requires that we simultaneously maintain readiness and modernize for the future. it is not one of the other. if we do not do that, we are risking the security of future generations. i believe this budget is a major step in the right direction in securing the united states. i look forward to your questions. sen. tester: i want to thank you for your statement. he forgot to questions, i want to allow the chairman of the appropriations to make an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. to use my duties to open the senate, i am glad to see both secretary austin and general milley, both who are friends, i am glad to see them here. i do not need to tell you this, the world is a lot different today than when the full

committee heard from you last year. russia's unprovoked and unwarranted aggression in ukraine which may become worse on may 8, continued instability in the middle east, and during pandemic -- enduring the pandemic, all of our agencies have to confront these issues and more. i think the president's budget, to anticipate what we have, but this budget is the first since united states ended its involvement in afghanistan last year, as well as the first with russia's unprovoked assault on ukraine. it reflects some of these changes with emphasis on building programs committee has funded to revitalize nato with

our partners, our ability to stand side-by-side with them. they are national guard is on deployment in europe as part of that now. -- the air national guard is on deployment in europe as part of that now. the military does not act in isolation for the rest of the government. as the chairman and vice chairman of this committee, i have asked your predecessors back to secretary mattis to explain the importance of a budget, and i do not think you can separate the two. the men and women of our armed services reflect the united states, the programs congress supports across each appropriations bill, the

economy, the citizenry, and educational system. it makes our nation stronger and more successful. mr. chairman, thank you for giving me this time. sen. tester: chairman leahy, we wish you luck in getting a topline number, and hopefully we can get that number soon to get a budget by the end of september. sen. leahy: i will not be here next year but i look at some who will, who will try to get a clean slate from the committee beginning at noon january 3. sen. tester: i think we are all on board. you may proceed with your questions. sen. leahy: thank you. secretary austin, i have spoken to you privately about this, but

you know how much i appreciate seeing you and secretary of state blinken working hand in hand not only here in the u.s. but on your trips abroad, including the very important one to ukraine. i think your partnership has been a driving force. a few years ago i wondered if the united states could get our nato allies and other partners to join on the same page. the two of you and president biden have worked very hard to do that, and i think that is so important. secretary austin, do you agree nondefense discretionary spending to ensure the fitness

and health of the future force are essential to our national security? sec. austin: i do, chairman. sen. leahy: we are on the cusp of negotiating a final comprehensive bill that is going to ignite us to compete with china. investments made by that legislation would empower the department of commerce to provide a jolt to the microelectronics industry in our country, to ensure our involvement of critical national security technologies. we have seen things that slowed down considerably in our country on solar energy, for one, because reliance on china and those countries they control. how important are the resources,

nondefense research? we agree on defense research about in non-defense research and development to ensure our national security, cybersecurity and economic independence of foreign manufacturing? sen. leahy: i think it is critical, chairman. before i answer in full, let me thank you for your many years of service to our nation on behalf of the department of defense we are truly grateful for your leadership and your support of defense. i believe your question was, how important is the investment in non-defense related research? i would say it is very important . over the years, we have benefited from a number of

developments that have taken place in the civil sector, and again, it is putting together a number of capabilities and building capacity in ways that have not been done before that creates tremendous opportunity for us. i think it is very important, to answer your question. sen. leahy: thank you. general milley, i looked at your written remarks, you discussed the importance of working with our allies and partners. i use this because the example could be for many states, but for the air national guard doing that in europe on deployment for the long time support of the program. our state recently added austria to our existing partnerships with nigeria and macedonia.

in light of russia's aggression in ukraine, the success we have had cementing our nato partnerships, can you speak to the relationships between state and national guards and our international partners? gen. milley: thank you for your half century of service, we deeply appreciate it, and we appreciate your leadership. with respect to the program, going big or small, allies and partners are in asymmetric advantage. neither china nor russia have anything close to the allies and partner network that the united states has. as an example of that, last week i was with the secretary of defense, and he called a meeting

, in six days 42 countries, ministers of defense in my counterpart all showed up to coordinate and synchronize support for the ongoing struggle in ukraine. russia has nothing comparable to that. have belarus in a couple of others, that is about it. allies and partners are critical . it is one of our asymmetric advantages. each one of our units has a state partnership program, taking ukraine for an example. in ukraine, california is aligned with them. those have been invaluable to maintain the connective tissue for our military. it is an important program and it has great strategic effect. sen. leahy: thank you. sen. collins:. thank you mr. chairman, thank you both for your service, and thank you's secretary austin for going to ukraine. i think that was extremely important.

mr. secretary, for the second year in a row, the administration has submitted a budget request that would resolve in a real reduction in defense spending when you take inflation into account. the 2018 bipartisan national defense strategy commission recommended an increase in the annual defense budget at a rate of 3%-5% above inflation, which we know is that a 40 year high today. given the aggressive rate at which china is modernizing its military, and the fact that everywhere we look we see a new threat, including the largest land war in europe since world war ii, i am very concerned that this budget would result in real cuts in defense spending at exactly the wrong time.

if you look at the services and the combatant commands, unfunded priorities list that they submitted, they amount to more than $21 billion. what are the areas in the budget where the department is accepting the most risk? sec. austin: thank you you, senator. we built this budget, $773 billion is a substantial budget. we built the budget based on our strategy, which we just released about the same time that we released the budget. we believe that it gives us the ability to go after those capabilities that support our war fighting concepts. in that strategy, china is listed as our pacing challenge, and russia is cited as an acute threat.

we believe we are going after the right things to ensure that we maintain a competitive edge going forward. when we built the budget, obviously you have to snap the chalk line at some point when you are building the budget, and at that point we factored in the appropriate inflation rate. of course, again, if we are unable to buy the things that we think are essential, we will come back to the president and ask for more assistance, but we believe there is significant capability in this budget. sen. collins: general milley, speaking of china, in your written testimony you noticed china intends to develop the military capabilities to seize taiwan by the year 2027. during that critical window, the navy's fleet would actually continue to shrink to 280 ships

by 2027 under the administration's budget request. that compares to a chinese fleet that the pentagon assesses would be as large as 420 ships by 2025, and 460 ships by 2030. i appreciate the point you made that many of our ships are more capable than china's, but as you and virtually everyone i have talked to in the navy has told me, quantity has a quality all of its own. we need to be urgently investing in our shipbuilding capacity and fleet, not going in the opposite direction. there is real risk in relying on capabilities that will not be ready until the 20 30's to deter or defeat a chinese threat that may materialize in the next five years.

from my perspective, our current ship loading trajectory is inconsistent with the navy's fleet, studies done by the prior administration and this administration. are you concerned that the strategy in this budget is inconsistent with the multiple assessments saying we need a larger fleet? gen. milley: thank you, senator. the united states is fundamentally a maritime nation, and we rely significantly on the sea lines communication, and we have made as a matter of policy commitment for over two and a half centuries, freedom of the seas and navigation and open investments around the world. that is fundamental as part of our dna. part and parcel is to have a capable fleet and not just in the pacific but throughout the globe.

it would be nice to have more ships, but the fact of the matter is the most important thing is to have the ships that we have in a readiness status, with the manning and training and equipment in a readiness status. that is important as well. i personally do not want to get hung up on a number of ships, it is true quantity has a quality of its own, but we have allies and partners in china does not. our other partners that would work with the united states, we exercised routinely with them, that would make a significant difference. relative to taiwan, it is true the chinese, president xi has set the objective to have his military prepared capability was. that is not to say he is going to invade. the capability to seize the island of taiwan is a tall order, and it remains to be seen if china will be able to execute that.

that is the target on the wall, 2027. we have to keep that in mind as we go into the future. >> senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: secretary austin and general milley, last year i asked about military weapons being lost and stolen, and i want to thank you for your prompt response on that issue. i have one more i would like to raise your awareness of food insecurity in the military to include active guard and reserve troops. the washington post has reported on this problem, and jimmy lutz at the strategic international studies has documented that service members face hunger at rates exceeding the general population. the adjutant general in california has likewise indicated that we have this problem in california. it is most pronounced amongst

junior enlisted personnel, especially those with children. do you agree we have this problem of food insecurity? what is its impact on our readiness? what do you believe the military will do about it? sen. tester: thank you, sounder -- sec. austin: thank you, senator, i do agree we have an issue with our lower ranking enlisted force . it is important to me, the health and welfare of our force and our troops and families, very important to me. you probably heard me talk about this before, and you heard me mention it in my opening statement that we want to make sure people can put food, good food and healthy food, on the table. that is why i asked you to support me in providing 4.6% pay

raise to the force. each of the services are making sure they are doing things to not only help their lower ranking enlisted force, but also making sure or teaching them learn how to manage finances and other things. this is the thing we are focused on at the department level, and i would say all of our services are focused on it as well. it is very important to us. gen. milley: senator, i would add taking care of our people is important to our chain of command, and of great interest to the congress. that payraise will go a long way to help. we acknowledge that is a real issue. the size and scale and scope, the secretary has people trying to determine what the parameters of that are, but it is real. no soldier or sailor or airmen or marines should struggle to feed their family.

good medical care, good education, putting food on the table is fundamental. 60% of our force is married, on average two children per, relatively young. we owe it to them to make sure they are taken care of, and we intend to do that. sen. feinstein: thank you. secretary austin, it was reported last month you spoke with your chinese counterpart for the first time since becoming secretary of defense. i would like to thank you and commend you for that, and i think it is very important to build trust and to solve problems. could you share with us what you learned from speaking with your chinese colleague, and where you believe this can go? sec. austin: senator, this is the first of what i hope will be many conversations. again, we both recognize the

importance of dialogue and maintaining open channels, and we both want to make sure we work together to promote security and stability in the region, and so i look forward to engaging in the future, the not too distant future. i'm sure i will see him at the shangri-la dialogue in june. sen. feinstein: thank you for that. i'm obviously a californian, and we believe we are in the century of the pacific. these things become very important to the safety and security of the entire west coast of this country. one last one, it is imperative that russia not be allowed to get away with aggression and land grabs.

it seems ukraine, with the support of the united states, is really showing considerable strength on the battlefield. i wanted to ask a quick question , if you can share with us what the endgame is, and what you hope to achieve? sec. austin: the endgame will be defined by the ukrainian government as it engages with russia. i will not try to define that for them. i will just say we are going to do everything within our power to make sure that we support ukraine to defend its sovereign territory. we hope at the end of this ukraine will be a sovereign state with a functioning government that can protect its territory. that is what we are focused on for now and going forward.

sen. tester: senator schatz. sen. schatz: thank you for your clarity and leadership on the future of fuel storage, and thank deputy secretary hicks. i know up and down the department and the department of the navy and the rest of the federal government was engaged, and this was a tough decision but the right decision. i think you know that not just from the standpoint of safe drinking water for the state of hawaii and the residents of hawaii and your service members, but right for national security. the bulk storage likely made sense in 1943 but does not make sense for how we operate in the indo pacific today. can you talk about why this is a better decision from a national security perspective? sec. austin: let me thank you

and the entire state delegation for what you did in exercising leadership on this important issue. we really appreciate it. you hit the nail on the head when you quoted me regarding the fact that this was conceived in the 1940's, and it served a specific purpose at that point in time. it does not necessarily support the way we operate today. we are much further forward in theater, we operate in a dispersed fashion. our logistical support ought to mirror that and enable our operations, and so we thought, i felt it was important to make sure we had our reserves positioned appropriately to support our operations going forward here. that is what drove my decision in conjunction with the fact

that i'm very concerned about the health and welfare of our troops, families and the people of hawaii as well. sen. schatz: thank you. we are in the implementation phase. the third party assessment wrapped up last week. it will take some time at the office of the secretary to come to final conclusions. i have a specific question pertinent to the defense appropriations subcommittee, you got the third party assessment coming in, now you are in process or in final phases, maybe the 10 yard line. we need a number if we are not going to miss a whole fiscal year worth of progress. i'm wondering where you are in that process, and how quickly you can turn that assessment into a requirement so we can consider it as a subcommittee. sec. austin: the navy is reviewing that report, all 880 pages of it.

that will inform their approach to recommending how we should go about de-fueling the facility. to your point, i'm waiting on the navy to come back with a specific plan for de-fueling. i expect to get that at the end of the month. sen. schatz: in time for us to consider a number? sec. austin: i certainly hope so, senator. sen. schatz: i want to use my final minute and a half for the service negotiations. posture plans for the indo pacific rely am part on access of micronesia, and palau, can you talk about these compact states? sec. austin: they are very important. we always aim to be the partner of choice, and i think our continued engagement with them will certainly result in

additional capability and capacity as we go forward. i think the commander is doing a great job in continued engagement, but our goal is to make sure we are the partner of choice. so far, i'm very encouraged by what we are saying. sen. schatz: you have the department of interior to the secretary of insular affairs and the department of state as lead negotiator but the dod is righ t there. although you are a silent partner in the nuts and bolts, you are the biggest deal in the negotiation. what i would like you to consider is appointing someone specific to be in the room for even the preliminary negotiations. state has the lead on this but having dod at the table makes an enormous difference for compact states in terms of conveying to these compact states how important they are to us.

sec. austin: as the chairman pointed out at the top of the meeting, secretary blinken and i are great partners, and i am sure this will be what he will want to see as well. we will continue to work with the entire inter-agency to make sure we are in the right place. sen. tester: senator boseman. sen. boozman: thank you mr. chair. thank you for all you do, both of your testimonies highlight the important of deterrence for aligning department policies to strengthen deterrence. the central part of this is bolstering our allies and partners to better deter our adversaries. general milley, as you mentioned in your testimony, you continue to strengthen relationships by building partner capabilities to deter our adversaries. recently, several european allies had the intent to

purchase the f 35 fighter jet with poland and germany be helpful to our national security and deterrence against russia in europe, and going further, given the current situation, your best military advice, do you believe we should be assisting our european allies and training so they can receive the f-35's as soon as possible? gen. milley: i do, the interoperability with our allies is important in the strength of the alliance is critical to the deterrence of any broader land conflict on the european continent. sen. boozman: the rapid mobilization of unit strength in times of crisis, as you know the army activated in march of this year as the conflict in ukraine escalated in an unplanned contingency. i was happy to learn these pre-position stocks allowed

armor brigade combat teams to deploy to eastern europe faster than russian forces advanced from belarus to kyiv. understanding pre-positioned stocks require military construction support, and being the ranking member on the military subcommittee, does the u.s. have pre-positioned stocks to respond to potential threats in the pacific from china outside of japan and south korea? are there plans to establish pre-positioned stocks? sec. austin: let me thank you for what you did several years ago to enable what you just described in europe. the european defense initiative really laid the groundwork for the preposition stocks and facilities that we use. as you will see in terms of what

we are investing in with the pacific deterrent initiative, we are investing in infrastructure and a number of other things to ensure we have capability further forward in the theater. that is our goal to make sure we have that ability in the indo pacific to a greater degree in the future. sen. boozman: to follow up on that, our missile stockpiles are being stretched thin after years of increased demand resulting from efforts to bolster our ukrainian defense. i think you are stretching that very thin. i'm hearing from industry some of the challenges with increasing production rates while shortening lead times. how critical is it to maintain the stockpiles, and in what ways can the committee support the industry to help ramp-up production efforts to meet demand and replenish our stockpiles? sec. austin: it is very critical

to make sure we maintain what we consider to be minimum required stock levels. you can rest assured i will not allow us to go below that in critical munitions. we have met with industry, you saw us do this early on, and encouraged them to work with us to open up production lines to increase their production, and they are doing that. they are leaning forward. in some cases it is more difficult than others but industry has been very supportive. we will continue to work with them and identify things we need , if, from you, to this point i think we are in good shape. sen. boozman: thank you mr.

chairman. sen. baldwin: secretary austin, welcome. a healthy defense industrial base is a critical element for our national security, and president biden issued an executive order in january of 2021 to strengthen american requirements for all federal programs. in july, proposed rulemaking increased content requirement from 55% to 60% with a phased-in increase to 75%. this is a move i strongly support. however, i know from the experience with the navy's new frigate, that if we require 100% american made within a reasonable timeline, industry can step up and deliver. with the frigate, this resulted in the on shoring of new u.s.

manufacturing. do you support replicating this success for other defense programs with the goal of hitting 100% american made, so long as the department has reasonable timelines and reasonable waivers at their disposal? sec. austin: i absolutely support making sure where we can , we invest in america. that we make sure we have the supply lines available to do the things that you just described. you are right, the president has an initiative that he launched a while back, and dod is a strong partner in that initiative to ensure we strengthen our supply lines, that we make sure that we have the critical materials available to build the types of munitions and platforms that we

think we will need going forward. yes, i support that. sen. baldwin: thank you. general milley, i understand you had a version of this question asked already, so i want to take it in a little different direction. ukraine has far exceeded most expectations over two months into this recent phase of putin 's war. i support providing the ukrainians with the capabilities they need to defend their sovereignty. i hope we can quickly pass a ukraine supplemental that fulfills president biden's request. it is clear this conflict may extend for some time. as you talk with your ukrainian counterparts, i know you have been asked what a realistic end state is for ukraine. i would like to ask what does a realistic literary success and

end state look like for the united states? and how will our security assistance need to change at this new phase to support those goals? gen. milley: thanks, senator. the end state is determined by the president and secretary blinken, maintain the cohesion of nato. make sure ukraine ends up with its integrity intact. no kinetic war between nato, the united states and russia, no action with our military forces specifically, and support that ukrainian people with what they need to defend themselves. that is what we are trying to do. it is all about the rules-based international order has been grossly violated by russia within illegal action across a sovereign border. we have had a set of

institutions in place for 78 years to prevent that thing from happening. that is what is at stake. it is beyond ukraine is what is at stake. sen. baldwin: thank you. secretary austin, on this topic, some analysts believe the more we assist ukraine in degrading putin's military, the more likely he will be to escalate to new levels, possibly with chemical, biological or even technical nuclear weapons. can you clarify how this might change the calculus that general milley was just outlining in terms of u.s. forces from the military? sec. austin: there are a number of things that mr. putin could do. you can make the case he has

already escalated in terms of the types of things we see him doing in attacking civilians, destroying cities, towns and villages. indiscriminate targeting. certainly, he has a number of things he could do. he could escalate by conducting a cyber event. there has been a lot of talk about the possible employment of chem-bio. if he employs a chemical or biological weapon, he will see a reaction from the international community, because that is a serious step. of course, president biden has been clear about his views on this. it is possible that he could do that. i certainly hope that he chooses not to do that.

i think the international response will be significant. he could end this war today. this is a war of choice. he could choose to stop fighting and withdraw his horses from ukraine. -- withdraw his forces from ukraine. i would hope mr. putin would decide to do something different going forward. sen. baldwin:, should putin continue to escalate, is that your expectation the administration would come to congress requesting an authorization for use of military force? sec. austin: that is a policy decision that my boss will make. i will not get in front of my boss. sen. tester: senator blunt. sen. blunt: thank you, chairman. thanks to both of you for your current and long service to the country. i am deeply appreciative as we all are. secretary austin, mckenzie had a

report last year that indicated from 2000-2021 the defense cost index, the inflation index ran 20 points ahead of the other cpi during that time. do you think this budget will reflect in terms of replenishing our stock and getting ready for the future? it is about a 5% increase in inflationary economy. we may not be holding our own, let although moving forward. sec. austin: before i answer that, let me thank you for your service. tremendous service to our country and the senate, thanks for your support of the military.

as i said earlier, when we drafted this budget, we built the budget based on our strategy. at that point, you have to make assumptions about levels of inflation. we use the appropriate number, what we believe to be the appropriate number. things have changed now, so there is a difference. sen. blunt: that is helpful. we will discuss that more with secretaries as they come in. it is helpful. it is helpful to know that is where you are now. a number of things have changed, one is we have to provide her ukrainian friends with a lot more things to fight with. does this budget at this point anticipate replacing -- replacing the javelins were stinger missiles that we have

that we will give to them? sec. austin: it is a substantial budget in my view. it allows us to go after the things that we need to have to support our war fighting concepts. china is listed as our basic challenge, russia is listed as an acute threat. the supplemental missiles you provided us at this point have been very helpful going after the kinds of things that you mentioned. again, this next supplemental that the president has asked for your support on will enable us to do what you just described, replenish stocks and also continue to support ukraine. the supplemental funds are really focused on that. sen. blunt: to pursue that a little more, i think we have roughly provided 5000 javelins

and 1400 stingers. the javelins, that is about a third of our stock oil already provided. stingers is about 25% of our stockpile. is it possible to replace a third of our stockpile within a year? sec. austin: it is not only possible, but we will do that. we will never go below our minimum requirement for our stockpiles. we will always maintain the capability to defend this country and support our interests. this will help us to not only replenish our stockpiles but replace some of the capability we asked our partners and allies to provide. some of the eastern flank countries early on provided stingers, and other countries provided javelins upon our request. sen. blunt: i know we want to work with you on that.

general milley, let me get one more question. i know you are a great student of warfare, and we have learned a lot in the last three months of assumptions prior to what happened in ukraine, and what we have seen happen. in terms of effectiveness of force, or the weapons that are the most effective we are seeing in that theater of war, does this budget yet reflect what you think the next budget should probably reflect in terms of our transition to be sure we are keeping up with the lessons we are learning for modern warfare? gen. milley: it does, it moves us in the right direction for sure. this has the most research and development of any budget in history. it is a significant movement into the future. as we look at what is happening in ukraine, or in mosul, syria, what we are saying is

fundamental change in the character of war. one of those changes is highly dense urban area combat. so the battle of kyiv. you see that ubiquitous use of munitions, drones and unmanned aerial vehicles. you see the effective use of air defense systems, sams that denied the russians the airspace. the most effective weapon has been antitank weapons. many countries are providing rpg's, a wide variety of antitank weapons. the combination of that has led the russians do not achieve the success is they thought they would have. this budget takes that into it takes into account. beyond that, this budget is investigating artificial intelligence, robotics, which is we are not seeing in the battlefield. but we do expect those to be very significant players in a

future battle 20, 30 years from now. those are going to be dominant technologies of that time. in this budget takes us on that path. >> thank you chairman. quick senator murphy. >> thank you to both of you for being here today. secretary, i want to commend the work that you have done so far to get ukraine the equipment and support that they need so far to fight back against russia's unforgivable attack on their country. and at the same time i'm glad we are starting to provide more capable assistance, and i and -- i urge you to increase the assistance and provide necessary training to ukrainian forces so they have everything they need. i have heard repeatedly from people on the front lines and those involved in the logistic systems in ukraine about equipment that we deliver not reaching front-line units that most need the weapons and ammunition some body armor. there seems to be a number of logistical and institutional issues, including some diversion

and hoarding, which are standing in the way. so i wanted to ask you today, what is your assessment of those issues, and how are you working with ukraine to make distribution of international assistance more transparent and effective so the units on the front lines actually get the equipment that they need? >> thank you, senator. this is something that is very important to us in the department and to me and general milley specifically. to me and general milley specifically. we talk to our counterparts on a weekly basis. and without fail, this is a question that i ask about. we don't have people on the ground to be able to provide accurate feedback or how this equipment is moving and whether or not it is getting to where it's needed most. but the report that we get back from the senior that we get back from senior leadership is routinely getting to where it it is needed to go. i won't stop, i will continue to engage in make sure that we emphasize that it's important

that all of the stuff we are giving themto the right place. so that they can be successful. in addition to that, when i engaged the senior leadership in kyiv last week, i emphasized the importance of accountability as well. and they acknowledge that this is something that is important and something they are focused on. again, without people on the ground to be able to confirm or deny, it is very difficult to do at this point. >> ok, i appreciate that. turning to home, secretary austin, in january, i and many of my colleagues sent you a letter regarding dod oversight of privatized housing after belford beatty communities pled guilty to defrauding the government. the department's response provided few meaningful answers on how oversight is going to improve. that relates to change. on top of that,, just a few days ago, the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations released a report showing after the period covered by the doj

investigation, balfour beatty continued to feel to remediate mold, failed to make critical repairs and falsified information in the database deals uses to calculate their incentive fee. that is really outrageous and really completely unacceptable. in my home city of washington, balfour beatty continues to obstruct building sufficient housing at fairchild and along with the shortage of housing in the community, where bh fails to keep up with right prices, that means that military families are left without housing. some have been stuck living out of rvs for months now. and at joint base lewis mccord, dozens of families have sued lincoln military housing over really to probable living conditions. our service members should have access to the best or at least decent housing, not the worst. we all want to fix this as soon as possible. this budget requests almost 168

million dollars for military housing privatization support, that is $45 million more than last year. can you tell me first, what are military families getting out of this funding increase? and secondly, what is your assessment of the private housing companies' compliance since the plea agreement? will you hold them accountable for such horrendous, abusive conduct? >> to your last question first, yes, i will hold them accountable. and i expect the service secretaries to hold them accountable. the health and welfare of our troops, our families is very important to us. we put a great deal of emphasis on this. but obviously, this is something that we can never take our eyes off of. and we are not there yet. we put more resources into the budget so that we can provide more and higher quality housing.

but we are going to have to hold the contractors accountable. and we intend to do that. i intend to do that. >> what are the military families getting out of the funding increase that is being requested? >> it is spread out over a number of different projects. but it will be more and better housing. so higher quality housing. >> ok, well, we have been told this for a long time and we are still seeing these deplorable conditions, and the ongoing substandard housing, and the challenges that our families are having. so this needs a lot of work and oversight. we have got to stay up on top of it. i want to know that you are going to be doing that. >> i will. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator moran. >> thank you both for your service to our nation. you both mentioned our adversaries are rapidly

developing hypersonic missiles. as hypersonics become more commonplace, it seems we can't rely upon nuclear deterrence alone to prevent hypersonic attacks. once hypersonic interceptors are developed, how do we plan on deploying these defensive capabilities around the globe to make certain that our deployed troops are sufficiently protected from the attack? and what shifts do you expect to see in the missile and interceptor investment in future years? as the u.s. competes with china. >> well, hypersonics is born to us. and in this budget, i think you have seen that we are investing some $7.2 billion dollars in long-range fires. $4.7 billion of that is focused on hypersonics. so we continue to develop capability for ourselves, but what is important is that we need to consider the mix -- the range of capabilities, the mix

of capabilities that we are going to bring on board to support our work fighting concepts. so hypersonics is an important capability, but there are other things that add to this equation as well. in terms of defending ourselves, this is a priority for me. as soon as i came on board, -- we came on board, i test my stuff to make sure that we pull the right elements together to make sure that we were pressing forward rapidly to increase our efforts in developing our defenses against the hypersonic threat. you have seen us engage industry on this issue. we will continue to press. but we've made some progress. but we have a ways to go yet. >> what concerns do you have about the hypersonic's weapons workforce? what do we need to do to be training and preparing ourselves? what kind of investment in our workforce is necessary? in our private sector workforce. >> well, certainly, we have

engaged the industry and asked them to pick up the pace. in terms of what they need specifically, in their workforce, elements, that is something we have not discussed. but again, i think the issue to this point has been we have not pushed to the degree that we can push, and we have not invested to the degree that we can invest. and so, we invested in this last year. we invested in this this year. and we are to continue to press. >> thank you. let me shift the natures of my question. i had the opportunity to review and sit down with staff from the inspector general's office, to discuss their november 21 report, evaluating the department's implementation of suicide prevention, resources

for transitioning members. we know from our work on the veterans' committee that the most vulnerable time for many members of our military is as they are leaving active duty in becoming veterans. that inspector general's report demonstrates a lack of compliance with executive order 13822, regarding mental health screenings and the warm handoff to mental health care for transitioning service members. it continues to be troubling to me that this does not seem to receive the attention that it deserves within our military community. can you share with me either one of you what progress the department is making and implementing the inspector general's recommendations from that november 21 report? >> what i can tell you, senator, is that -- and you have heard me say this a number of times -- that this is important to me and

important to our department. this is where we have invested in suicide prevention. in mental health. in a major way this year. we have invested in it last year as well. but this year, we are investing $1.4 billion in mental health efforts. we continue to engage with our counterparts in the v.a. to ensure that we can as much as possible close the gap as troops transition from active duty to leaving the service or going in any direction. i have also set up an independent review committee. to address this issue and give us further insights and mental health issues and also prevention of suicide. so we're investing in this in a major way. >> i intend to pursue this

further in ndaa, and i look forward to your cooperation as we figure out what language and instructions might be valuable to the department, to see the gap that you just described disclosed. >> thank you. i just want to add to senator moran's question on the transition. we have work to do. i know you guys are not necessarily in the position to deal with pushing people out, you want to keep them in, but it is apparent that this is a pretty massive problem, and it is both active military mva. so i want to thank senator moran for that line of questioning. senator durbin. >> thank you for being here. thank you for what you're doing today and your years of service to our country. those of us who've been in the business of military politics are considered to be wise forecasters of what's going to

happen. sometimes we are and sometimes we are not. but i can recall the early briefing on what we might expect in ukraine, one russian troops were all boys at the border. if i remember correctly, the prediction was that the city of kyiv would fall in a matter of days. and that major parts of ukraine would fall to the russians as well. and they would find the maintenance border and "conquered territory" would be externally difficult and they would face a resistance for a long period of time. i remember that prediction as we all watched reality unfold. pf today thank goodness is still not in the hands of the russians. those under attack i'm sure and most of ukraine has not been conquered by russia, thank goodness. and they are apparently having a difficult time hanging onto what they currently have. and they are fighting to extend their reach every day. and i just wonder, we can assess it in many different ways.

but certainly, the courage and resilience of the ukrainian people first and foremost is the reason for what we see, at least i think so. and i wonder what we've learned about russia's military strength and what we anticipated they would deliver in the field and what they actually delivered. i know it's been asked earlier by senator baldwin, but a declaration of war -- what would that mean in terms of putin's capabilities and extending his military region ukraine -- his military reach and ukraine? -- in ukraine? >> i'll answer first and if you want the chairman to respond as well, we would offer that. we have learned a lot about russia's leadership at the lower levels, which i think have been very key in their efforts here. they have modern equipment. they have lots of it.

they have a doctrine that really wasn't followed. so as we saw things unfold on the ground, we saw them not be able to support themselves logistically, we saw them make some bad assumptions at the very beginning of this. we saw them failed to integrate aerial fires with their ground maneuver. and just a number of missteps. and i attribute a lot of that in lack of leadership at the lower level. and we saw a russia push its senior officers forward as a result of that. in many of those were killed from being forward on the battlefield. we will see some of the same mistakes, some of the same weaknesses, as they prosecute the fight in the donbas and in the southern part of the country. but they will learn from the

lessons, they will learn from what they did in the early stages of the site. we will see them improve their logistical efforts and we will see them improve their massing of fires and that sort of business, but some things, they won't be able to correct. >> so we have learned a lot about their leadership at the lower level and their level of training. >> i'd like general miller to respond. there was a suggestion that if declaration of war took place, something would happen automatically under russian law of conscription, and that suggests to me as a civilian that a lot of untrained men in this circumstance might be called into training and exercises that they are not prepared for. they haven't been conditioned for. that doesn't seem like it would be an immediate boost to the referent. >> that's exactly right. he would be able to mobilize more people, but to adequately

train those people to be more effective than what we have seen on the battlefield thus far, that is questionable. >> general milley, if you'd respond to that question i asked earlier, and if you'd also add to your comments since i'm running out of time, i have a particular concern about poland and the baltics. they worry every step of the way of extension of russian aggression into their region. i hope you will address that in your comments. >> just very briefly, senator, declaration of war does have some implications inside russian society legally. it would allow them to mobilize additional forces. but again, training etc., how long it would take for them to get to the front. in terms of the lessons learned, leadership is clearly key from zelenskyy down to the lowest private. and as napoleon taught us a long time ago, moralistic physical as three us to one, so they are capable -- that is probably the most important difference between the russians and ukrainians, the leadership throughout the levels. in addition to that it's what

the western nations taught their leaders about mission command -- the ukrainians are practicing a decentralized intent-based set of tactics, the russians are practicing a top-down and very top-heavy directive in nature sort of set of orders coming from the top. which is not necessarily the best thing to do in a dynamic battlefield. the second thing is the effective use of antitank weapons. has been phenomenal on the part of the ukrainians. third is the denial of the airspace. superiority to the russians by the ukrainians and the effective use of air defense ground systems. terrain has played to the ukrainian favorite. intelligence is really important. ukrainians have an intelligence system, being the people. the russians have walked into an area that is clearly unwelcome to them. there's a significant amount

of intelligence flowing to ukraine from the u.s.. all of that in combination with many more things are some of the early lessons learned but have made a difference, that you have seen. in terms of predictions those quarterly assessments and war is a dynamic interaction between competing will. in early february and in january a lot of things happened on the battlefield and preparation prior to the invasion on the 24th. not the least of which is an intelligence flowing from the u.s. that made a significant difference in outcomes. >> moment and -- >> poland and the baltics. poland is clearly, these are only to article five allies, as you know, the u.s., under the direction of the president secretary of defense, we went ahead and directed u.s. troops to write -- u.s. troops, so right now you have u.s. troops in estonia, lithuania, poland, romania, hungary, the entire belt has u.s troops in there.

that was done immediately in order to reinforce the nato article five deterrence posture of the u.s. and to assure our allies that they are not going to be left alone. so that is a critical component is the president has said many times, members of congress have said many times, article five matters, it is the senate right aside -- a senate ratified treaty and the u.s. will protect every inch of nato territory. >> senator graham. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for coming. general austin, this budget request -- is it a 4% increase? >> yes. from last year's. >> ok, what is the inflation rate? >> current inflation rate is well above that. >> so this budget doesn't keep up with inflation. number one. percentage of gdp spent on defense. what poor percentage does this budget represent? >> i think it's 3.1%. >>.

ok. -- >> okay. how many times have we been below 3% since world war ii? >> i don't know, senator. >> well, you need to look it up, 1940, 1999. 2000, 2001. in the 10-year window, the fiscal year defense plan in year 10, 2032, what percentage of gdp will be spent on defense? ? in the 10 year window -- >> in the 10 year window? >> yet. fy 32. the trajectory on where will we be in fy32. >> we should be a bit above where we are right now. >> now we are at 2.4% of the numbers i have been given a right. over time, we spend less historically than we've ever spent. and given the 10 years that i'm looking at, i don't see a real peace dividends out there. how many current battle for

strips to we have in the navy? >> we have 296. we have 11 aircraft carriers. how many ships does china have? >> i think the latest number was around 400. >> 355, they're going to 422 by -- well, for 60 by the end of 2030. where will we be in terms of ships by the end of 2032? u.s ships. it's 280. so the bottom line is, we're on the wrong path here from my humble opinion. we're spending below inflation. the chinese are increasing their navy by 2032. we'll have 280 ships below what we have today. gdp spent on defense will the at 244% -- at 2.4%. i don't know what kind of world

we are looking at out there but you are seeing a different world than i am. i hope we in a bipartisan way can correct this. because i think in really anyways this is dangerous. afghanistan. general milley. i think you and secretary austin said last year that we could expect in the next two to three years threats of the american homeland emerge from afghanistan. is that still accurate? >> i still believe that to be a correct assessment. >> has it moved one way or the other? >> we are seeing initial indications as you have seen in the media as well and you are privy to some of the intelligence -- isis and other groups are trying to put themselves back together, they have not succeeded yet and they have not presented a threat to the u.s. homeland. what we are watching that very closely. if they raise their head and do present a threat, then we'll take appropriate action. >> is our capability to monitor afghanistan sufficient?

>> i think we have room to improve. >> our isr presence in afghanistan i think you'll be shocked to know what it is and where it's headed. to both of you, you advocated for troops to remain in afghanistan, is that correct? >> it is the president's decision, but that was a position of both of you, correct? >> correct. but i support the president. >> but the recommendation you gave want to be clear was it would be better off to have a residual force. is that accurate? the record's replete with the fact that it was and i just want to compliment you here that i thought that was the right decision. that pulling everybody out of afghanistan was a mistake. do you believe that our withdrawal from afghanistan was a -- from afghanistan made it more likely that putin would invade ukraine? >> i think that president putin

made his decision to invade ukraine long before we pulled out of afghanistan. >> why didn't he do it before? >> i think he was preparing to force. last year he ran a very large exercise. and in getting the force ready. >> why did they invade crimea when they did? >> in 2014? >> yeah. >> i can't answer that question right now. >> i've got a theory here, that, with all due respect, that afghanistan sent the worst possible signal to our adversaries and our allies. president biden and secretary blinken have said they have no regrets regarding our withdrawal from afghanistan. secretary austin, do you have any regrets? >> senator, as i said, i support the president's decision. >> what about you, general milley? >> i deeply regret the loss of 13 -- 11 marines and one

sailor. >> i regret the loss of everybody we have lost over there and all the wounded, but do you have any regrets in terms of our national security that may be we made the wrong decision? >> senator, i'm a soldier, and i execute the decisions that i'm told to make. and i don't think at this point it is helpful for me to express regret or not. >> fair enough. i want to work with you both. chairman durbin's been great on ukraine. we want to do more, not less, we want to send a signal we are in it to win it. i appreciate the robust response. it is getting better every day. thank you both. in terms of the budget, the budget before us is an adequate -- inadequate to the threats we face and over time is a disaster and i would like to fix it. thank you. >> senator hoeven. question for both of you. what weapons systems does ukraine need? made the most and need the

soonest, that they don't have? >> what they've asked for senator is long fire capability and we are providing that as you have seen with most recently 9155 systems. >> and they're able to capable of using them or do they need to be trained? >> they are using them now as we speak. we took a number of troops out. we trained them up very quickly on 155's. but then back into action. they are employing those weapons systems now. you have the ammunition. that we are providing them. end other countries are providing on 155 capability as well. they have also asked for armor capability, tanks and armored vehicles. countries in the region are providing that. as we have witnessed, in our meeting that we held in ram

stein a week ago, countries like canada and germany are stepping up, providing armored vehicle capability. their capability overall is increasing. they put the stuff that we have provided to very good use. in addition to the uav's that we are also providing. >> i talk to my counterpart literally every other day and we worked very very hard to get him what he thinks he needs. long-range fires, specifically canon artillery. the old soviet model 152 artillery. ammunition became a problem, so we are moving to we need to standard. the united states and many of our allies are partners are providing him with multiple battalions, with the 155 cannon, and the ammunition to go with it, the entire package for effective use of fire. that is the most important thing right now in the current fight. secondly is to continue to

sustain them on anti-tank weapons. anti-aircraft weapons, ground-based. either sams and or man pads, those are probably the top three. there's a whole laundry list below that. but those are the top four. >> looking at what the ukrainians have done to the russian tanks with our javelins, do we have something that is going to ensure that the tanks we provide are able to defeat that same type of shoulder-mounted threat and truly be effective? >> the tanks that have been provided to them have been tanks that they are accustomed to using and that they have the maintenance capabilities to to -- the maintenance capabilities to maintain. we have seen tanks, a number of tanks being provided by

countries like poland and others in the neighborhood. and again, russians don't have something that approaches the javelin. >> next question. have we fully utilized the funds that we have already provided, such that you need this, and when do you need this supplemental, and have we really focused on the lethal aid versus getting other things and is $33 billion of a mental? >> have absolutely focused on lethal aid senator and we are at the very end of our drawdown capability here. we are very quickly going to run out of funds. >> do you have anything to add to that, general? >> no. i think it is clear to me that the money congress provided is overwhelmingly in support of lethal aid. there's no question about it, it is almost all lethal aid actually. >> i'm switching gears here,

are you both fully committed to upgrading, updating, and modernizing our nuclear triad and is the funding in this budget adequate to do that? >> $34 billion allocated to that effort in this budget. yes, senator, i am absolutely fully committed to modernizing the triad. >> 100%. it is a number one priority in this budget. it will have to be sustained over time in future budgets. we need to reinvest and recapitalize it. number one. >> thank you. final question. are you familiar with sky range, for developing the sky range system to test hypersonics. do you support it? including using the global hawks point on purpose. >> i am familiar with it. i do support it. again, the air force will

continue to work to make sure the right capabilities are in place to support that effort. >> same. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> senator murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your leadership. we appreciate it at all times, but certainly at these very difficult and challenging times. i want to follow on the comments about hypersonics. we are in a unique position as you know in alaska and providing the only location of supporting both short and long-range hypersonic weapons testing within the country just because of where we are with the unique geographic location. nobody in the way down there for the most part. and i know that this is something that general milley, that you have spoken a lot about, with regards to china's

hypersonic weapons testing ability. just very briefly, whether or not you are looking at the illusions for this in terms of opportunity for testing. >> yes. >> in conjunction with our spaceport. >> the short answer is yes. hypersonics are an important weapon in an entire array of weapons and systems. as you know the russians have already fired hypersonic weapons in ukraine. but the key to it is, it is very fast. and there is no effective defensive weapon against it, per se, to shoot it down, so the key is to shoot the archer, not the arrow. and to get the system at its launch sites. the other key is not only the integrated air missile ballistic defense system, but also the tactics of the units. units are going to have to be

smaller, faster, more hidden in the sense of not quite totally invisible. we need to be very difficult to find on a battlefield. invisible to the extent that it's possible. smaller and general -- in general. and speed will matter on future battlefields because so far, what we see with hypersonics as they are very effective against fixed targets and much more difficult against moving targets. >> let me ask about the javelins. i was just speaking about that with senator hogan. we have been working with a constituent of mine. he's an army special forces vent. -- forces vet. he's been in ukraine training ground forces for the past couple of months. he has facilitated several requirements letters from the ukrainian ministry of defense verifying the need for javelin training kits, including that of

ukrainian defense intelligence. i understand these documents have been pushed to your office. obviously, the javelins have the ability to significantly help ukrainian forces. but what we're hearing is that the new ukrainian troops are not provided adequate training to operate these 200,000 dollar weapons systems -- looking at an article that came out a week ago now with regards to the training aspect of it. so the question to you is whether or not they have enough of the javelins that they need, but what are we doing to help facilitate the training, so they can most effectively deploy these weapons? and what his deal detailing the -- and what is dod telling the ukrainian ministry of defense and response of their ask for more trainers?

how are we doing on that side? >> i would highlight that we have taken, at this point, several hundred troops out of ukraine, trained them in other countries on artillery, operation and other things. have been reintroduced into the fight. so training is something that we are doing. but the issue is that, in my engagements with the minister of defense, and i think also with the chief of defense and the chairman, the issue of training on javelins has never come up. but if they raise that issue certainly, we stand ready to train them, if it is a requirement, and since you brought it up, no doubt it is. we will go back and check with them again. the people they need to train, we stand ready to train them. and we are pushing training kits into the country as well. >> i will be happy to follow-up and provide you with the

information we have on this. thank you for that. this does not require a response, but with regards to arctic operations, you'd be disappointed if i didn't raise it with you, but i am thankful that you have stressed the importance of supporting arctic operations, the training, the equipment of our joint forces in the region. i know you've got good progress that we have made with regards to the touch stephen's securities -- -- in alaska. -- the arctic security studies center in alaska. you were tasked with an arctic security assessment. so there's a lot coming this way. i understand there's a report coming up. we will look forward to reviewing that. and being there to support you and all those efforts. truly appreciate the heightened level of engagement in this very important part of our response ability. >> thank you, senator murkowski.

i will take my questions i'm now. we have been at this for about one hour, 37 minutes, but it's a big budget and it is worth every question to be asked. and i just want to start by thanking you guys for what you are doing. the truth is, $773 billion, you are going to have people come in saying it is too much, you are going to have people saying it is too little. as you have pointed out, he had to snap a shock line somewhere, that is a good analogy. i just appreciate the work that you have done, because anybody can pick holes in it. anybody can. and to talk about where we are going to be in the next decade, 10 years from now, is pretty interesting. because you have to have people around you nimble enough to know whether we are going to need chips or tanks, or if it's going to be fought in outer space or it's going to be in the cyber realm, whatever it is going to be fought. the truces, if you screw up, we

are going to have opinions and beat the crab out of you. so you've got to do what's best for the country and the people who are in it. talking about the area of decommissioning, divesting, it is always a challenge. you've always got people in the senate that don't want to see certain things go away. but i want to talk about a proposal to get rid of ships that quite frankly we just put into service. some of them are not even totally put into service yet. the combat ships. how much confidence do you have in the analysis that these things just are not fit for the fight? >> i'm very >> i'm very confident, chairman. i think you hit the nail on the head. we are looking through the acquired capabilities relevant in the future fight and survivable. the earlier variant of the ship

that you mentioned did not live up to expectations. it's very expensive, so we made the decision that it would be better to decommission those ships and invest those resources and acquiring capabilities that are more agile and more relevant to the future fight, more survivable. >> though ships have been on the books -- like i said, i think there's still some in process, but they were designed 20 years ago, 15 years ago? >> 20 years ago. >> about 20 years ago and it's already changed in 20 years. pretty dramatically, i might add. i want to talk about accountability. there has been 3.7 billion dollars spent on the supplemental so far, that's a

lot of money. there's another 16.4 projected to go out. you had said with earlier questions that you are reasonably confident that the weaponry is getting to the ukrainians. i get it, you don't have people on the ground there to be able to monitor everything. but the question is is that, are we making sure that, number one, none of these weapons are falling into the wrong hands. is there anyway that you could do that? number two, are we making sure that the taxpayer dollars that are being spent are actually making a difference? and i'm talking a significant difference. >> i think they are making a difference, chairman. just look at the battlefield today versus what we were looking at a couple of weeks ago. we see that the russians -- the

ukrainians have defeated the russians around kyiv and they moved back. they are focused on the south and east now. and we expect that to be a bit of a different flavor of fight that employs more long-range fires, a bit more maneuver in the ukrainians have asked for wet they believe is relevant in that fight, and the department and the joint staff under the chairman's leadership really a to get the capabilities to them as quickly as possible. and we've engaged other countries to do the same, to provide additional capability. in terms of accountability, we have to depend on the ukrainians at this point to do the right thing and make sure that they are prudent, careful about how they issue these weapons out and

account for these weapons. i engaged a very senior leadership on the country and the issue and they assure me at something that's important that they will continue to focus on. >> for resupply, there is a lot of stories about core production line and the fact that we have supply chain issues when it comes to replacing everything that we are shipping into ukraine, and our allies are shipping into ukraine. you said you thought -- and don't let me put words in your mouth, that the weaponry could be replaced within the next year within this budget. >> all of it won't be replaced within a year it. we will see production lines operate at different speeds just based upon what they are. we were optimistic about the javelin industry being able to increase the production rate and a very meaningful way. in there are decisions to be

made going forward. but in every case, the industry has leaned into this, and is willing to work with us to increase production. >> the dollars in this budget accomplish getting the production alliance up and it accomplishes getting what we need to replace those being utilized. >> in the supplemental that we have asked you for. >> in the opening statements, and this is for you, general milley, ask for 130 billion in r&d spending is 12 building up -- 12 billion over the previous year. procurement conversely is flat at 144 billion. for years r&d has been using proto technologies like ai, like hypersonic's. they are important if we are

going to compete particularly with china. so, when will they become real programs? my concern is that we are prototyping everything to death and it never gets to the field. is this a concern you have? , number one, general, and number two, can you give me expectations on when we might see this stuff come to reality? >> i think the time window, and i agree with your comment about predicting 10, 15 years of it, but we do know the broad outlines, or at least we think we know the broad outlines for the future operating environment in this changing character of war. these programs will need to be online, fielded in the hands of the force, in the hands of the joint force inside of 10 years if we will have an opportunity

to be superior to our adversaries, specifically china. the programs i'm specifically talking about is artificial intelligence, robotics, there are a wide variety of these coming online. in addition, it's more than the technologies. the joint or park concept, we have to get on the street. we have to make sure our talent management are all adjusted. we've got to ship the military from its current state that we are in, we have to buy a future, make predictions as risky as that can be, as to what warfare will look like in the 20 30's in 20 40's, and we've got to move this organization in that direction. if we fail to do that, we will be condemning generations to be on the losing side of a war. we can do it, we were capable of doing it in the budget puts us on the path. >> that's good to know, that's good enough. one last question and then i will let you guys go, mr.

secretary, the 2022 national defense strategy does continue to highlight china as the most consequential and strategic competitor. as the russian invasion of ukraine causing you to rethink the priorities laid out, and will that have budget implications if the answer is yes? >> it is not, chairman. if you look at the strategy, you see we characterize russia as an acute threat. in the capabilities that we are going after to support our competition with china are very, very relevant to what we are seeing, and potentially will have to do in an extreme case with respect to russia. and, we are part of the strongest the lines in the world with nato. it's not only our capability relevant, but it's also the

capability of all of our allies. so, what we are going after is relevant to both areas of competition. >> thank you both. i just want to acknowledge that senator shelby's statement will be a part of the record in let him know that we missed him here today and we look forward for him to return very, very soon. everybody has theories, everybody has 2020 hindsight. and i could tell you, just as a statement, for the record, some can say that the pullout of afghanistan was a mistake. i think it was a decision that had to be made that, quite frankly, could be questioned either way. if we left troops there with questions, if we pulled out troops to be questioned. to say that putin invaded ukraine because of the the

pullout of afghanistan is the most bizarre thing. it was his theory, so i have mine. i think the reason putin invaded ukraine is because president trump empowered him to do such. i don't expect a response from you guys on that, but this is absolutely ridiculous. i one appreciate your guys's testimony. senators may submit additional written questions, and we asked that you respond to them in a reasonable amount of time, in other words, as quick as you can. this defense subcommittee will reconvene on tuesday, may 10 at 10:00 a.m. to hear from secretary of the army and the army chief of staff. this committee stands and recess. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> now available in the c-span shop, c-span's 22 any to congressional directory. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments, contact information for state governors on the biden administration cap. order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smartphone. every c-span shop help support c-span's nonprofit operation.

>> here's a look at our live programming on wednesday. c-span starts with the senate judiciary committee who looks at credit and debit card transactions. homeland security secretary testifies on president biden's 2023 budget request for his department. on c-span two, the senate continues work on a bill to improve u.s. competitiveness with china and producing semiconductor chips. and if you need to step away from your television during our live coverage, follow along with our free mobile video app, c-span now. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcasts, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 19 six four civil rights act, the

presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want to report a number of people that sign kennedy the day he died. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise you i won't go anywhere, i will stay behind these black dates. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app. go where you get your podcasts. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect to program. bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.