market in a few hours today. i yield back my time. rep. calvert: the gentlelady yields back her time. the dean of the house, chairman rogers. rep. rogers: thank you. welcome, gentlemen, lady. let me ask you about the stunning success of the ukrainian drones of last week. are we seeing the ushering in of a new era of warfare? the use of drones from afar? after all, these drones were smuggled into russia, hidden for a great span of time, then activated from 2500 miles away. are we prepared, both defensively and often simply --

offensively, mr. secretary? sec. hegseth: i will answer that and then may be handed to the chairman. i would say, sir, it was a daring and very effective operation that we were not aware of in advance and reflects significant advancements in drone warfare, which we are tracking in real time inside ukraine and taking that feedback to help us better understand how we can utter produce more lethal drones but also advance our counter ua s systems, so we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack like that. the chairman and i got together right after seeing that and saying, what more can we do to ensure we are prepared in our country's defense against thing like that. gen. caine: mr. secretary, cumbersome and, thank you for the question. it goes to your more strategic way in the way wars are changing. the answer is likely yes.

mass numbers of rounds moving back and forth with precision and autonomy are all things that are advancing, and the technology trend, exponentially. one of the things i've talked to leaders in this committee about our buying capabilities along the technology curve, or ahead of it. i do think it was a bold move, and it represents a new and different way of fighting wars, as we have seen over the past you years in that particular fight, sir. rep. rogers: what do we knew to protect ourselves from a similar type raid by an adversary? sec. hegseth: sir, intelligence is critical. intelligence gives us every aspect of how we get ahead, get to the left of a problem like that, and certainly our department, in conjunction with inter-agency, are focused on that.

then it is rapidly fielding the commercially available technologies, in some cases, others proprietary, whether they are ew, whether they are microwave, whether they are kinetic, to defeat drones either individually or in swarms, in multiple locations against protecting our people, protecting our installations, protecting critical info structure, protecting our bombers. some of that speaks to golden dome and what we will do there, but you also have the particulars of the immediate. our forward ploy troops, are they properly covered by counter ua s systems? that is something we are looking at every single day. we live in a dynamic operating environment. the chairman knows this, we are focused on ensuring this is front and center, considering how essential this threat will be going forward. rep. rogers: these were low-cost, high-tech weapons, if you will.

and has been dominated by china. 90% of drones are produced by china, i am told. what does that tell us about what we need to do here at home? sec. hegseth: sir, first of all, making sure we are less reliant on -- chinese technology in any part of the supply chain, which is something we can speak to, because that has been an aggressive part of our effort here at dod. also recognizing it is not just china. iran also invests substantially in drone capabilities. and learning from partners on our side, like the ukrainians, in fielding that weekly. commercially available, a treatable, that we can produce at home, is important to us. rep. rogers: congratulations to all three of you, and we wish you well. i yield back. rep. calvert: real quickly, is the press story accurate that

40% of the long-range bombers from russia were destroyed in that attack? is that an accurate number? gen. caine: sir, i am not exactly sure what the percentage is, but i also know i may not say that in open session. i will take that and get back to you through appropriate channels. rep. calvert: thank you, gentlemen. ms. kapture. rep. kaptur: thank you. i come from a family of combat veterans, going back a long time. my comment is the use of certain words and what they imply. when i hear "warrior ethos" -- and i hear a lot from you, mr. secretary -- i'm concerned. all the soldiers in my family, all whom received medals for their service, call themselves soldiers. marines are trained to kill. in terms of domestic policing,

our police and national guard, at the state level, carefully used, but also our state police, are used in civil enforcement, and they are good. i do not need any reply, i just am concerned about what those words you often under actually -- often utter actually do in people's minds and change the language we have used since the founding of this republic. that is a concern of mine. i wanted to go to the general and chairman, if i could. we heard a lot this morning about defense industrial base. this is something i ran for office on a long time ago. we have not made significant progress as a country in this regard, and the places that made things, whether they were machine tools, whether it was composite materials, were left behind. it is one of the reasons for the division in our society.

so i am very interested in knowing what, specifically, and in which accounts -- i hope you can get this back to us within a week and a half -- you are going to focus on in order to inject additional resources in the defense industrial base of this country. what will that look like? we are just successful now and helping steel to revive, and some of our composite metals. 40 years ago, i wrote a memo about strategic metals. no one at the defense department cared. i am interested in which accounts, if you can get back to me on that. and when you say defense industrial base, budget wise, in which accounts, what does that mean? i do not excite you to answer it now. can you tell me when you might get the information back to us? gen. caine: ma'am, you just said a week and half, so i know the awesome humans behind me are scribbling madly to get back to

that. can i make a quick comment? i happen to be a lucky guy who served in the private sector for a while, and i ran a machine shop in texas, along with a metal finishing business. when we talk about defense industrial base, i broadened that out to really the national industrial base. there are certain components made on the defense side, but as you articulate, ma'am, many others are made in the small machine shops around this entire nation. when i talk about mobilizing our nation, i talked about not just the defense industrial base. what do we have to do to create greater capacity all the way down the chain to create jobs at the local level for the people who build polity parts and deliver on time with a shorter leadtime? i have great empathy with what you are talking about, and we will get back to us and as we can. rep. kaptur: general and secretary, going back to the drone attack in ukraine, a

country that was invaded by the russian dictatorship starting in 2014 -- they have been in war for a decade, more than a decade. what they have done with drones is astounding. it will change warfare. one of my questions is what are you doing to establish relations with ukraine and not turn your back on them as an administration and help them win? help liberty win. this has implications way beyond the boundaries of ukraine. russia has 11 time zones. this is the most important test of liberty for our nato alliance in my lifetime, and we better help win. that involves moving forward faster on drone technology. i am very worried about our airbases, where we have secure assets. mr. secretary, can we defend them today, if they were to have a similar attack? sec. hegseth: we are certainly very focused on that, ma'am.

we are learning every day from ukraine. i think we would need to clarify what "win" means. this president is committed to peace, committed to stopping the killing. he was not in office when it started in 2014. there were no additional incursions during his term. then during the previous administration, vladimir putin saw fit to take ukraine. rep. kaptur: mr. secretary, did you just leave ukraine? sec. hegseth: i did not leave ukraine. rep. kaptur: have you visited ukraine? sec. hegseth: no, ma'am. rep. kaptur: my first trip there was 1973. i yield back. rep. calvert: mr. carter: -- mr. carter, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. carter: thank you for your service. i am fully supportive of the

modernization efforts and to combine the army's future command to become the transformational and training command. how are you both going to create a partnership between the assistant secretary of the army for acquisition, logistics, and technology and this new command, to ensure the acquisition authorities are modernized and synchronized to achieve the maximum late value in deterrence -- maximum value in deterrence? sec. hegseth: i will take that mab handed to you, mr. chairman, as well. we are very supportive and encouraged of the army's transformation initiative. general george has been critical to that. it has been a heck of a partnership and a willingness to get at the core issues facing today's army and ensuring it is reformed and modernized to meet

the threats of the future. one of those aspects is merging those commands. i can tell you, whether it is the warrior ethos or lethality, that is central to why we make decisions, ensuring we are not making decisions on behalf of your class or process but to ensure we are getting the most lethal aspects of what we do front and forward as quickly as possible, and that involves things like futures command and tradoc. when you merge those things, you have to make sure you are getting rid of things that are redundant and pushing forward things that matter the most. but i will defer to the chairman. rep. carter: i share that, completely, and i share this transformation. what do you see as the fundamental capabilities this command must develop to ensure we have the lethality and deterrence necessary to succeed? that is where the future is.

gen. caine: sir, i will first echo the secretary's respect and appreciation for secretary dri scoll and general george. they are a team, and that is always great to see, from a war fighter's perspective. when you have such a nested combat pair, if you will, that are driving at the same pair of objectives. there is clarity in the minds of both the secretary and the chief on the need for things like long-range fires in the pacific. in order to pay for those, they are making those difficult decisions down the army transformation initiative in order to pay for them. rep. carter: when we started talking about the futures command, one of the things i was hoping we would do is we would not get a project stacked up on somebody's desk, stacked that high, and when he got down on checking on that, oh, that goes

to you, and it goes to the bottom of another stack that highlight, and we get delayed and delayed and delayed in certain areas of bureaucracy. i think that is dangerous for our country as we look forward. that is why i asked the question. the department has historically required on outdated techniques in manufacturing, which may have been unchanged since the second world war. how is the department ensuring that investment in next-generation manufacturing, such as ai, machine learning capabilities, and enabling quality assurance, robotic driven though, assembly, and automated formation processes a

priority and tradition -- transition out research and develop people of producing these pathways? in other words, a modern way to turn out ammunition, in the simplest terms. sec. hegseth: we're robustly finding things like diu, like the office of strategic capital, to ensure that commercially available options, other companies are able to compete, that traditionally are not involved in procurement at the defense department. so that the valley of death is illuminated, and you are able to bring in actual competition and dynamic solutions. ammunition is a great example. it is many and -- it is very antiquated in many cases. you have to project out what you want to make, send that signal to industry, then allow innovators to enter that space,

so they can bring new technology and rapidly field those new technologies. otherwise, you're stuck doing it the same way you have always done it. gen. caine: sir, i was going to add something, but i will hold off if you will roll. rep. calvert: if you can get a response to the gentleman from texas on that. that is a concern for all of us. mr. cuellar, you are recognized. rep. cuellar: thank you for your service. i represent an area from san antonio all the way to the border. in san antonio, we have joint base san antonio, the largest joint base in the department of defense that contribute over 150 billion dollars to the texas economy. we support 266 mission partners. san antonio also has a second largest cyber footprint in the nation, hosting the 16th air force cyber, and of course, the

military facilities that are the best in the country also. along with that, going thousand -- going through laredo, the ninth largest port in the world. my question, mr. secretary, has to do with one of your plans and ask you to welcome you to san antonio and let the san antonio folks come in. it has to do with u.s. army north and u.s. army south gate i will not go through their missions, but what concerns us in san antonio, both the democrats and republican members of congress and senators, we are concerned, in setting up a western hemisphere command, which i think is a good idea, that you move it away from a place like san antonio, where we have the infrastructure, the personnel, the community partnerships to work with you on

this. i say this because i think your testimony has about 11,900 troops that are down there working with homeland, which i support. keep in mind what is happening with the cartels in mexico and other places. when you look at this western hemisphere command, that you do not move it 1500 miles away from the border, especially a place like san antonio. i think we have a few texans here who can talk about the rest of the state of texas, and some one to be texans also, can talk about the facilities we have peered i would ask you to, as you consider this, to take the western hemisphere command in san antonio. sec. hegseth: sir, count me amongst one of the wannabe texans. [laughter]

tennessee is close enough. rep. cuellar: and we got no state income tax. sec. hegseth: that's true k.i.a. appreciate the concern. it has come up multiple times in conversation with secretary driscoll and general george, with the recognition that as we are looking at commands, it is going to include some tough choices. some of that includes ranks and positioning, but you still will have, at some level, a south and north bifurcation. we are in an ongoing review of that on where that will shake out. i will assure you that they have been thoughtful about it and will continue to be. rep. cuellar: i understand that decisions have to be made. if we are doing so much

investment on the border, we already have the infrastructure down there in san antonio, and all the support from other military bases across the state of texas, and in partnership, i would ask you and the secretary so please, before you make a decision, go drink the water, go feel what we have in san antonio and the surrounding areas in texas, to consider that, instead of just making a decision by the paper on that. and certainly ask you to consider, also, the second largest footprint we have of cyber there in san antonio, and working with a top cyber university, utsa, and the military facilities we have, which are the best. certainly during the afghanistan and iraq war, that area was looked. before any decisions are made, consider making a trip to san

antonio and have your folks understand. i know some of your folks have been in texas before and would ask you to look at that. with that, mr. secretary and all of you, think you for your service. sec. hegseth: noted, sir, and thank you to your contributions to securing the border, which has been a huge priority for president trump. we will get 100% operational control, and it is things to support from folks like you. rep. calvert: thank you. mr. womack. rep. womack: thank you. secretary hegseth, general caine , thank you for your service to our nation. obviously, we face a number of challenges and threats across the globe in all domains. we have to ensure the joint force is ready to fight and win our nation's wars. let me begin with general caine. what risks to the recent force

structure changes or proposals in the army and marine corps present to the joint force, given your global force integration responsibility? can you speak to that? gen. caine: yes, sir, and i will be mindful of the environment we are in and speak broadly. thank you for the question. we are having to make some difficult choices to prevent some of the combat capability that we have now to the combat capability we need in the future. both services come alongside the department of the navy and the department of the army, are making those changes in order to provide us with the combat capability and capacity we need at scale to create the dilemmas that we have to deliver for the joint force and our adversaries. at this point, we are doing the right of it -- right pivots to

make sure we have the right depth we need. rep. womack: secretary hegseth, both of you understand the unique value proposition that the national guard provides the joint force, having served. and, gosh, for a long time, it was just me an hal rogers up here as the guard dies, so it is good to have some company. as we are looking to be efficient with federal dollars, i always kind of believe that the guard and the reserve component structure in general brought what i called value to the force. i realize it's probably not at the same level of proficiency that the active-duty counterparts might have, but they bring value to the force. and we need to surge responsibly and quickly, the guard and reserve are certainly at the ready to do that. my question is pretty simple. can you both commit to ensuring

that the national guard component is resourced and equipped properly not only to meet today's operational demands but those in the future? and i ask this question having had experience, back in the day when the national guard was more or less a reserve force, and it was only after 9/11 that we began to use the national guard in a truly operational form. i thought it did a lot of great things for the guard. i thought a brought value to the force. i worry, sometimes, that we may, you know, pivot back to the time when the national guard is relegated to more of a reserve structure rather than able to surge with our forces in a moment's need and be able to deliver combat capability and combat service support capability when needed. can you speak to that, secretary ? sec. hegseth: sir, i think it is an excellent point.

the national guard and reserve bring great value, not to mention the civilian skills, the additive civilian skills they bring. completely recognize the shift that happened after 9/11. i was part of that, as were many people in the guard, our generation. i think we are entering another phase, especially under president trump and his focus on the homeland, where the national guard and reserves, critical component of how we -- what we need in the active already, vis-à-vis the national guard, will not be ear infection of what we need or do not need. it will be a rightsizing of where that particular application would be best used. the national guard is a huge component of how we see the future, sir. rep. womack: general caine. gen. caine: the policymakers tell us what size our force will be. what i will commit to you -- by

the way, thank you both for your service in the guard, as a fellow guardsman. you are legendary in those hallways. what i will commit to you is i will make sure the voice of the guard is heard at the policy level, pursuant to my job as chairman. rep. womack: high-yield, mr. chairman. rep. calvert: i think the gentlemen. mr. case. rep. case: thank you, chair. mr. secretary, at the shangri-la dialogue in your speech of may 31, you stated, i quote, here in the indo pacific, our futures are bound together. the prosperity and security of the indo pacific are linked to those of your people. you went on to talk about the benefits of the "peace and stability" that comes with a strong and lasting american presence in the into pacific. do you believe the only way to contribute to peace and stability in the indo pacific

comes through military strength alone? sec. hegseth: sir, certainly not only through military strength alone, although military strength is the business we are in. there is the philippines, japan, australia. if the application of american strength is not america alone, it is by, with, and three partners who share mutual objectives. we are very invested in military to military. rep. case:, so you, ask the secretary of defense, believe we need to take a broader approach then simply our military. is that correct? sec. hegseth: sir, that is not my job. my job is the military application. others will determine the broader spectrum of that, but it is always useful to have other applications of power as well. rep. case: but how others actually do that does impact our job -- your job and running our military. your mil-to-mil relationships, that i agree are important, will

all be impacted by our nonmilitary projection of power, influence, and assistance throughout the indo pacific. is that correct? sec. hegseth: i would say, for my two recent visits to that region, meeting with many of those ministers of defense multiple times, their focus is what capabilities can we share together, interoperability and capabilities that establish deterrence. the most important message america can still send is hard power capabilities. what can we project, where can we project it? as the chairman said, what dilemmas can we create? that is the business we are in. so we work with those partners that share common goals, and our militaries are working better together than they ever have. rep. case: i appreciate your focus on the military side. but i am asking you to think and comment more broadly on our big picture perch to the world.

this administration, for example, proposed to reduce the state department by a $.3 billion, the economic support fund, the assistance for eurasia. this administration has, illegally, sought to destroy the u.s. agency for international development and reduce it down close to zero through its budget request. this administration proposed to reduce international narcotics control and law enforcement effort by $1.2 billion. this administration has proposed to eliminate the millennium challenge corporation -- not eliminate it or reduce it by $1 billion, a significant reduction pair one of our possible agencies that assists us with meeting the needs of the indo pacific in the ever shorter area, and i think you would agree are key should you countries, such as indonesia, such as the philippines, such as the solomon islands. this administration has proposed

to reduce international contributions by 83%. this administration is not following through on commitments we made to the freely associated states, all of which are strategically critical to this country, to expand veterans services in those three countries, palau, the federated states of micronesia, and the marshall islands. this administration appears to be slow walking the resurgence and expansion of the peace corps throughout the indo pacific. do you think that will affect your job, in the military space, with your relationships with those countries? sec. hegseth: no, sir. i would add to that list the limitation of most usaid programs, which i do not hear anything about, because a lot of them were wasteful and look at you mentioned international organizations, the reduction. again, i hear nothing about that.

those organizations are not serving u.s. interests. they are not serving u.s. in -- interests. i do not hear from them. these were not part of their calculus. >> if you talk to anyone of those countries, they will tell you they are deeply concerned and it will influence our presence and our contribution to your stated goal of peace and stability. gen. caine: -- sec. hegseth: i think they respect us on the ground. >> i have two questions. the first one, you mentioned recruitment at the beginning. during the last four years, we got used to the new reality. all of a sudden, that reality has changed. if you could comment on why that reality has changed, i think a lot of us know, but if you could

talk to us a little bit about this new reality, which you do not hear much about about how that has changed dramatically. that is question number one. question number two, south, was moved from panama to south florida. there is a lot of reasons for that move. close proximity from others like the special operations, joint task force guantanamo, the u.s. coast guard, the busiest district in the entire country, but also because in south florida, you have this multicultural, multilingual community, and as you know, self -- they deal with it is not just cost savings. i believe that continues to be the case and nothing has changed.

if anything, the western hemisphere has got a lot more dangerous and we obviously have russian and chinese influence. i am grateful, mr. secretary. i do not know what you had to do with that, of the president's change in attitude of no longer appeasing enemies in the united -- of the united states in the southern hemisphere, whether it is venezuela or cuba. but there goes the importance of having southcom where it is. it was a decision made, it was the right decision and has proven to be the right decision. two questions, i would love to hear it. sec. hegseth: thank you for the question. what changed is president trump was elected and inaugurated in january. i first called it the trump bump. but that is not enough. it is a tsunami of support

amongst young americans who want to serve under a president who they know has their back. who will fund them properly. who will not use them unnecessarily, and will make sure they are part of deterrence in the country with a focus first and foremost on the homeland and making sure our allies carrying the burden. you have a historic surge in the army, navy, you name it. the president says a new spirit and he is right and you can feel it in the ranks. you talk to men and women on the border and they believe what they are doing in securing that southern border. you talk to them across the world, and they are enthused about this new administration and their leadership. it is president trump, sir. as far as southcom, it is president trumps focus on our hemisphere, it is the recognition of securing american

interests and also pushing back chinese-maligned influence. china is a great example that, but across central and south america. southcom is right where it is. we are grateful for the great work they do. >> i am a little confused. are you telling me the folks that are now voting with their commitment to the country are not upset that they are not able to use different pronouns? [laughter] is not -- sec. hegseth: if they wanted to get a woke indoctrination, they can just go to college. instead, they join the military. we focus on the basics. we know men are men and women are women. standards will be high. and we are giving -- getting rid of the distractions, ideologies, and politicalization in our ranks so that soldiers, men and

women, can do their jobs on behalf of the nation. i think that is all the american people, all the people who want to serve, want, is that clarity and that support and president trump is giving it to them. rep. diaz-balart: i would add that i think having you there is making it clear what that attitude is. to me, it is really refreshing. i yield back. >> thank you for being here. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article from the new york times entitled, "china's chokehold threatens the military." this article that i just referenced outlines how the department of defense paid an australian firm 10 times more than it paid an american firm to ensure the full ecosystem of

rare earth production. the largest u.s. railroad producer has invested $1 billion of its own capital since 2020 and employs more than 800 americans. yet it was undercut by an australian firm that never even broke ground. in the u.s. mp materials is ready to install their processing equipment and help the u.s. combat china's export controls. i want to know that china produces the entire world supply of this obscure rare earth metal that is used almost entirely in military applications because of this use in heat resistant magnets. my question is in accordance with the administration's america first agenda. do you agree subsidies should first support u.s. companies already investing, hiring, and paying taxes, and can i have

your support ensuring the department critical and mineral policies align with the school? sec. hegseth: it is an excellent question and something we are very focused on. we are ensuring sourcing of critical minerals are sourced reliably in america first, and if not, then amongst allies. i will not reveal or talk about more than that in a setting like this. we have capabilities, but at the same time, we have to aggressively work, and mp materials is a great example of a place, and you know this, china undercuts the market and we have to account for that. rep. lee: so the answer is yes, i have your support.

thank you. i want to turn now to the collaborative aircraft -- combat aircraft. i represent las vegas, nevada, so we are excited the department will base the cca pro unit at the air force base, which is the center of excellence in aircraft systems. i want to make sure that the department has the resources they need to make this program a success. last year, the air force had to shift $383 million to the cca program, placing it up by 60%. can you ensure -- assure me that the budget request will fully fund the cca this year? sec. hegseth: it does fully fund the cca and we believe in the collaborative -- the idea that you project power more robustly through semiautonomous systems that amplify our lethal effects.

rep. lee:rep. lee: so yes. great. can you give me -- are we on track for the flight, when will it be, and finally, when do you anticipate the production decision this fiscal year? what quantity of aircraft will we procure, how many vendors will you award, and what factors are you considering. sec. hegseth: you are talking about the cca still? my understanding is later this year -- i do not know the exact date. >> we can get back to you on the specific data. for the budget request, $884 million for the collaborative aircraft. rep. lee: thank you. how much time do i have left? can you outline what is planned for increment 2, what type of

capabilities can we expect and what timeline and milestones? sec. hegseth: we will get back to you on that. rep. lee: thank you, i yield. >> one of the only critical mineral mines only left in the united states in california. i am hoping that changes soon. mr. elzie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sergeant. thank you for all your years in service. you have been serving the country since ronald reagan in 1988. you leave behind a distinguished career in uniform in service to your country. you have served as the senior enlisted advisor to now the chairman of the joint chief. what is most missed, if you did not know this about him, in 2010, he received a bronze star for running past several hundred yards of minefields to pick up a

marine. you will be missed. you are the pride of louisville, kentucky. i would like to say on behalf of this committee and our nation that we are grateful. [applause] secretary hegseth, i am glad you are here. thank you for sharing your valuable time with us today. you bring a nontraditional perspective to your tenure as chairman, having been a guardsman and an entrepreneur. thank you for saying yes once again when called to serve. two bronze stars, you did not get that by sitting behind a desk. you helped the plan to bring down scuds in 2003. thank you for your service mr. secretary. i want to thank you for your leadership. you have created a sense of urgency the general refers to in

his testimony and back to the issue of what we are not talking about today, it is recruitment. this all volunteer force of ours, parents and their children who want to serve our country are now no longer afraid to sign up, for fear of them being misused or not having their merit being awarded appropriately. thank you. you have also highlighted our services in that cabinet. we serve at west point naval academy. thank you. solutions and acquisition and on reducing the inflation that we have seen in the numbers of flags and general officers. i think we can make the pentagon a triangle pretty quick. there are more navy admirals in the systems command them they are in the fleet. not enough at the waterfront -- waterfront or flightline. i want to turn to the plans of a six generation fighter. it is stated the 47 will continue to ensure dominance for

decades. i am a supporter of not only 47 but what ever it is going to turn out to be. i want to make sure that everyone is listening, our navy and combatant commanders need the navy's six generation fighter, relying only on the air force's six generation fighter does not solve our challenge because whether they are coming from guam, the missiles are already guided. it is a non-moving target. an aircraft carrier moves its dmp every 30 seconds. we either want to win or we do not and i know we want to. we have to do it with this. a three-year delay is effectively a cancellation and a win for china, and they are watching. they are conducting unrestricted warfare against us right now. if you read the 36 guidelines from the sixth century and they talk about how do you defeat an enemy, you defeat them at home

with fennel -- fentanyl by taking out our military members before they can even join. they are being successful conducting warfare. they are showing us our six generation aircraft right now. at least three we are working on. we net -- we cannot give this to them and say it is ok for the navy but not the air force. we must have both. several well respected leaders shared with us the importance of having six generation fighters, -- i am not going to put you on the spot, but i want to make it clear if you like to address it, you may, and i am just putting it that it is that important to me. what troubles me about the pentagon right now is one of my favorite movies is office space. do you remember milton? he sure made a lot of trouble for everybody.

i think we have a lot of them in our systems commands in the pentagon, telling you you cannot do something when you can. they need to go. let's get rid of milton and invest. i would like to thank the chairman for his investment in the bill. thank you. we appreciate it. >> mr. marelli, you are recognized. rep. morelli: i am grateful. i do not want to pile on. i am brand-new to the subcommittee. in the same way we would not go into battle without knowing the number of troops, equipment supplies, it is really almost impossible for the committee to do its job without details from the president and the department on a budget request.

i wonder whether or not we get a commitment from all of you to come back before the committee when the president's budget request is delivered so you can answer in detail about it. sec. hegseth: i will certainly make sure you get those details, congressman. >> getting the details is important but being able to answer the questions i think would be helpful. i would ask you to consider coming back before the committee when the budget request is submitted to us so we can get your sense of the various items in it. i want to go back to a topic i think was raised which is ukraine, and i appreciate your comment that when you refer to partners on our side like ukraine, i'm glad to consider them partners on our side. last week, a contact group met

in brussels. i do not believe you appeared even remotely come but that was a meeting in which allies correlated billions in aid to the ukraine. we are talking about funding right now without a budget and without a plan for u.s. support in what i consider a -- the most serious conflict in a generation. can you give us a presidential drawdown january 20? do you know how much has been delivered? the presidential authority that was given through january 20 when the new administration took over. >> [inaudible] rep. morelle: do you have a sense of how much has actually been delivered? >> i do not have an exact

number. we are actively monitoring. [inaudible] thank you. -- rep. morelle: thank you. >> it is a reduction in this budget. this administration takes a very different view of that conflict. we believe and negotiate a peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties in the nation's interests, especially with all the competing interests around the globe. i do not think a repeat victory is well-defined or the path to it. as a result, a path to peace is something president trump is very invested in. >> i think i would define victory as making sure incursions by the russian federation into ukraine, a

sovereign nation, would be a victory, but i will leave that aside. just touch briefly on the limited time i have. the president announced a golden dome. i know that what has been talked about, we understand reconciliation requires a $25 billion down payment. we have not received much in clarity around the specifics. can you tell me what the $25 billion will be used for? sec. hegseth: there are many specifics that are not fitting for this setting. we are happy to get you at the appropriate level, the specifics. what we have done is built out the entire understanding of what the architecture looks like, including existing capabilities that can correct -- be rapid. we need this now, not conceptually in the future.

we had sdi under ronald reagan, conceptual, inconstant -- the american people deserve that kind of protection. multiple layers from multiple different types of threats coordinated with sensors on the ground and in space at other layers. we have got one of our best space force generals fully focused on that project who has a background in understanding those types of architectures. we have pulled the program up to the office of secretary of defense. >> can you tell me what the request will be for the golden dome? >> you can get back to us on that. we would appreciate that. mr. fleishman, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome secretary hegseth, this is mcdonald, thank you. let me just say this.

the world is a dangerous place, the nation is a dangerous place. a heartfelt thank you to each and every one of you for stepping up and doing an exemplary job. thank you so much. as most of you know, i represent the third district of tennessee, the oak ridge reservation, birthplace of the manhattan project. i am the chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, which has the nsa deeply involved in the recapitalization and monetization of our nation's nuclear deterrent. it will come as no surprise i have concerns about our progress and posture. our progress is a concern because we are recapitalizing the entire nuclear deterrent all at once. meanwhile, russia has capitalized the triad and china is rapidly expanding its numbers and fielding a triad.

there is also north korea and the looming prospect of nuclear iran. as we focus on the post posture, there is concern about nuclear weapons. creates a deeply worrying gap first, secretary hegseth. given this, what is your outlook on the permanent -- current pace and scope and what are your ideas to fill this nonstrategic gap in the pacific? are there any ways congress can support the efforts to meet these increasingly tight deadlines? thank you. >> the chairman and i have taken up almost all the oxygen from mcdonald here.

we have not delivered a budget and we do not have details. she and her team have done a fantastic job to deliver what we feel very confidently is a robust -- thank you for what you are doing and all the focus on that that has come through. the nuclear triad, -- we are taking a very hard look at that while taking -- for the most part has been a success story, but needs to be continually monitored. investing in that capability, considering the advantages we have on the submarine side. we are fully funding, even more so, that capitalization and

monetization, and we have to considering what our adversaries are up to. >> thank. >> i echo the secretaries comments. for me, it centers around four c's. change to get effort factor -- faster. we need to buy better contracts and greater capacity. no ads other than that. >> if i may, you feel reasonably comfortable with the way we are monitor night -- monitor rising? sec. hegseth: i am not comfortable with the way it has been happening. so we are getting at dynamic ways to address that, different alternatives. very focused. what do we fund, how do we fund it?

the way we have approached it so far has gotten us nowhere fast. >>. you are welcome to visit any time. thank you and i yield back. >> thanks to the witnesses for being here. >> ok, private. go ahead. [laughter] >> the clock is still moving. i want to express my severe concern with the deployment of the national guard in los angeles without consultation of the state of california. there are photographs that have shown these troops sleeping on the floor and have not provided fuel, food or water. why were we unprepared to provide basic necessities such as food and water. >> commanders are very well prepared. they responded incredibly rapidly to a situation.

we have made sure from the top down as the secretary of defense who has been in a unit holding riot shields -- the white house during the chaos of the summer of 2020, i know what it is like to immediately be redeployed in a situation like that. we are ensuring they are housed, fed, in real time, from my office because i care that much about the california guard, the marines, and the men and women. it is true every day. that is a disingenuous attack that misrepresents how much we care about our troops. i will not dictate -- not take the fact that we don't care about the troops. nobody cares more than this secretary. >> how long will the deployment last? sec. hegseth: we stated very publicly it will be 60 days because we want to make sure writers, looters, know that we are not going anywhere. we are here to maintain the

peace in los angeles, which gavin newsom won't do. >> what is the cost for the marines to l.a. and where is the funding coming from? if you want to wait until i finish, updates, housing, and barracks. >> the insinuation that we are pulling money from housing and barracks is disingenuous and correct -- incorrect. >> the current estimated cost is $130 million. travel, housing, food, etc. >> where is it coming from? that is the cost, but where it does it come from? >> their own accounts. >> what is the justification for using the military for civilian law enforcement purposes in l.a.? where are you sending war fighters to iraq with civilians? >> every american citizen

deserves to be living in a community that is safe. ice agents need to be able to do their job -- of their job. they are being attacked for doing their job, deporting illegal criminals. that should happen in any city. if they are attacked, that is lawless and president trump believes in law and order. he has had authority -- mobilizing troops under u.s. code protect federal agents doing their job which is exactly what we are doing and we are proud to do it. >> to the u.s. code 12 406, there is a legal basis the president used, it cites three examples and circumstances for the guard. invasion by a foreign nation, dangerous rebellion where the president is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the united states. which authority is triggered here to justify the use? sec. hegseth: i don't know. you just read it yourself and

people can listen themselves, but it sounds like all of them to me. millions of illegals, waving flags from foreign countries and insult it -- assaulting police officers, that is a problem. the governor of california he is unable to execute the laws of the united states. the governor of the california has failed to protect the people so president trump has said he will protect our agents and guards and marines. >> the orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states. sec. hegseth: you and i both know president trump has all the authorities necessary and is >> joint c-span today. the historic date when the

continental congress established the continental army and laid the foundation for the military force. this june 14 witness the evolution from the revolutionary war until today with soldiers in period and modern uniforms marching along constitution avenue near the national mall. the parade will showcase aerial flyovers and a timeline of u.s. army history. the celebration continues with a ceremonial enlistment and reenlistment event featuring president trump, parachute jumps by the golden parachute jumps featuring the golden knigts, today at six clock p.m. on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. . . welcome back we are joined now by charles bowery. he is executive director of the u.s. army center of the military. to discuss the