Transcripts For CSPAN Defense Secretary Joint Chiefs Chair

democracy. >> testimony now from the defense secretary lot austin and chief of staff general mark on president biden's proposed 2023 proposed budget. >> ok, is that good? we will get rid of these mics if we have to. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> driving up fuel prices. the accountability of the budget proposed, in other words are you going to be able to afford what you think you can as wells as the ability to deliver further our troops in a timely matter our questions this committee is going to wrestle with. we cannot afford to waste money. once again, i want to thank the witnesses and the testimony they are about to give up. i look forward to hearing from you both. you can see senator shelby is still today so he is not going to be here. we will go right straight to you terry alston. -- secretary alston. >> good morning distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the chance to testify today as a part of fiscal year 2023. we are focused on three key priorities at the department of defense appeared defending our nation, taking care of our people. our budget seeds million dollars and more than $40 billion to maintain our dominance at sea, including buying a nine moore battleship . . our budget also funds the modularization of the nuclear triad to ensure that we maintain a safe, secure and effective strategic term. of course, none of these capabilities matter much without our people and their families. we are seeking your support for 4.6% pay raise for the military, for personnel and other benefits. we also plan to invest in outstanding and affordable childcare and the construction of on-base child development centers and insuring all of our families can always put good and healthy food on the table. we are deeply focused on the terrible problem of suicide in the u.s. military. we are increasing access to health care, expanding telehealth capacities in finding -- fighting stigmas against seeking coverage. with your support, i ordered the establishment of a independent committee to help us grapple with suicide to better understand it, to prevent it and to treat the unseen wounds that lead to appeared at the same time, we're working hard to implement the recommendations on sexual assault. we know we have a long way to go. our budget is to do just that. this is a leadership issue. you have my personal commitment to keep leaving. you also see how much our leadership matters when it comes to ukraine. just last week i can bank the first meeting as what is now the contact group on ukraine security. a group of defense leaders from around the world committed to supporting ukraine and for russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion. that gathering send a powerful signal that nations of goodwill are intensifying to effort to help ukraine better defend itself. with the help of congress, the united states has been 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 state blinken. even before putin started his war of choice, we provided ukraine with weapons and gear. since russia's invasion, the united states has committed $3.7 billion to ukraine. but the were exchanging in the coming weeks will be crucial. our goal is to give the ukrainians of the affability that they need most right now in the donbass. you know the president has nearly exhausted the drawn out authority that congress approved in march. last two key submitted to the u.s. supplemental request, which will help us able to meet ukraine's urgent requirement without interruption. we have pointed out, $16 billion in defense. 6 million dollars more for the ukraine security assistance initiative. another $5 billion for critical investments to help cover the operational need come operational costs of bolstering nato. i want to thank you for your strong leadership to our shared goal of helping ukraine defend itself and supporting nato. i hope the congress will quickly approve this supplemental. let me briefly mention a couple of other major adverse organizations we are focusing on. as you know the departments challenged remain scattering aggression and bullying from china. this budget addresses $6 billion and keeping with our new defense strategy, we are going to enhance our infrastructure, presence and readiness, including the missile defense of launch. at the same time, we must be repaired to threats that pay no heed to borders through pandemic to climate change. we must tackle the persistent threat posed by north korea, iran and global terrorist groups. i am glad that our budget six more than $130 billion for research development, testing and evaluation. the largest the department has ever made. this includes $1 billion for artificial intelligence, nearly $28 billion for space capabilities and another $11 billion to protect our networks and develop a cyber mission force. mr. chairman, this budget repaint the edge, but it does not take it for granted. with the help of this committee we will continue to defend this nation, take care of our people and support our allies and partners. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> i appreciate your secretary -- testament. >> thank you. i also want to thank senator who is not here today for his lifelong service lay americans interest. i'm here to represent the sailors, marines of the united states force. alongside our allies and partners at any given time, approximately 400,000 of us are currently standing and watching in countries and conducting investigations everyday to keep america safe. our european allies guarding nato's houston flank in the face of war of aggression by russia, gives the assault of the democratic institutions that have prevented for the last several years since the end of world war ii. we are now facing to programs -- problems. china and russia was significant capabilities who will intend to fundamentally change the current order. we are entering a world that is becoming more unstable and these potential of international conflict between ray powers is increasing, not decreasing. the united states military comprises one of the four key powers of diplomatic power. in order to protect the homeland and opened the national system. lead coordination with the elements of power, we constantly develop a wide range through president of commander in chief and for the congress to consider. as of the u.s. military, we are planning to fight and win against anyone. the drawing force appreciates the work that our representatives do. we think the congress for increasing last year's fiscal military spending. we look forward to this year's budget. the joint force will davila -- deliver readiness to the people of united states and the fy 2023 budget for the request of $773 billion. >> we will work diligently to ensure the resources of the american people and trust in us spent in the best interest of the nation. this budget delivers a capable drawing 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 in security in europe, perhaps the world in my 42 years in uniform. the russian invasion of ukraine is starting to undermine, not only european instability, but global peace and stability that might affect generations of americans we fought so hard to defend. despite this horrific assault on institutions of freedom, it is heartening to see the world rally and say never again, to specter the war in europe your your military stands ready and to do whatever is directed to maintain stability and peace in the european continent. we are also prepared any to sustain our capabilities anywhere else in the globe, as well as with being in the asian pacific against the challenges. in defense of our nation, we must maintain competitive overmatched in all of the domains of war, space fiber, -- space cyber, second-place has no room in the competition between us and our adversaries. the united states is at eight very critical point. we need to pursue a strategy in maintaining a piece of a strength relative to china and russia. this will require that we simultaneously maintain readiness and modernize the future. it is not one or the other. if we cannot do that, we are risking the security of future generations. i believe this budget is a major step in the right direction to security united states. i look forward to your questions. >> i want to thank you for your statements. thank you both for being here. before we get to questions, i want to allow the chairman appropriations to make an opening statement. >> thank you. >> i am glad to see both secretary alston and general milley, both of them are friends and i'm glad to see them here. russia's unprovoked unwarranted aggression in ukraine is the worst on the china's global place. all of our agencies have to come part of these issues and more. i think the president budget is not just of the current issues, but to anticipate nash. this budget is also the united states and its involvement in united states last year, as well as russia's unprovoked and senseless all out assault on ukraine. an ability to stand side-by-side with them. particularly, i appreciate your comments mr. secretary. as the chairman and vice chairman, this committee, i have asked your predecessors to explain the importance of a budget invested in our nations, but also our nations people. i do not think you can separate the two. the men and women of our armed services reflective across corporations built using the economy workforce, servicing rate and educational system. it makes our nation stronger and more successful. mr. chairman, thank you so much for giving me this time. mr. chairman: we wish you luck in getting a top line numbers. hopefully you can get to that number soon so we can get a budget out by september. sen. leahy: i will not be here next year. i know some who will. we will try to get a clean slate for the committee at noon on january 3. mr. chairman: i think we are all on board with that. senator collins, you may proceed with your questions. >> thank you. secretary alston, i have spoken to you privately about this, but you know how much i appreciate seeing you in secretary of state blinken working hand and h and, not only in the u.s., but in europe. your trip abroad including a very important one to ukraine. i think your partnership has been a driving or's. if you years ago, i wondered if the united states could give our nato allies, our other partners to join on the same page, two of you, president biden, you all worked very hard to do that. i think that is so important. secretary alston, do you agree that the investors -- investments we make the spending are all centered to our national security? >> either. -- i do. investments made by the legislature will power the comers to provide to their microelectronics industry in our country and bring on sure the development of national technology we have seen in the last two days how things have slowed down considerably in our country on just solar energy for one. the reliance on china and those countries think they can control. how important are the resources? obviously, we all agree on the defense research. non-research development, i am sure our nation security in foreign manufacturing? >> i think it is critical. before i answer in full, let me thank you for your many years of service to our nation for a department of defense. we are truly grateful for your leadership and it for defense. i believe your question is the important of nondefense related research to us. 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. again, it is putting together a number of capabilities and the capacity in ways that have not been done for us. i think it is very important. sen. leahy: thank you for the kind comments. general milley, i looked at your remarks at discussing our allies and our partners. i use this because the example could be for many spades, but the vermont international, europe on deployment, a longtime supporter of the national state partnership program, our state recently added austria to its existing partnership to north macedonia. in light of russia's aggression in ukraine, can you speak to the relationship between state and national guards in our international? >> i want to echo his comments. thank you for your service. i know all of us in uniform appreciate your leadership. you know, we go from big and small. they are asymmetric events for the united states. neither china or russia have anything close to the allies or partners to the united states. just an example, last week i was with secretary defense alston. he called a meeting. in six days, 42 countries, administers up defense of showed up to carbonate -- court innate the support for the ongoing struggle of ukraine. russia has nothing comparable to that. china does not have a network around it. it is a critical component of the united states. it is one of the asymmetrical advances. all of the different states play a very important role in that. we will take ukraine for example, in ukraine, california is aligned with them along with others. those have been invaluable with our military. it is important program in a michael tactical level. it has a great way in teaching and effect. >> senator collins? >> thank you both for your service. thank you secretary alston for going to ukraine. i think that was an extremely important. mr. secretary, for the second year in the row, the administration has submitted a budget request that would resolve a real reduction in defense spending when you take inflation in account. the 20 18th bipartisan national defense strategy commission recommended an increase in the annual defense budget at a rate of two to 5% up above inflation, which we know is at 40 year highs are for today. given the aggressive rate at which china is modernizing its military, and the fact that everywhere we look we see new threats, 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 commands unfunded priorities list that they submitted, they amount to more than $21 billion. what is the areas in the budget that the department is accepting the most risk? >> thank you. we built this budget. first of all, that is a very substantial budget. we build a budget, as you know based on our strategy, which we just released about the same time we released the budget. the belief that it gives us the ability to go at the capabilities that support the concepts. within the strategy, china is listed as our pacing challenge. russia is cited as a acute threat. we believe that 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 two go in line at some point when you're building the budget. at that point with dr. in what is the important rate. again, if we are unable to have bodies of things that we think are essential, we will come back to the president and ask for more assistance. we believe that there is significant capability in this budget. >> speaking of china, you noticed that china tends to develop the military capabilities to seize taiwan by the year 2027. during that critical window, the navy 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 sss would be as large -- assesses would be large as 460 ships by 2030. i appreciate the point that you made that many are incapable than china. but as you and virtually everyone i ever talk 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 fleets, not going in the opposite direction. there is a real risk in relying in capabilities that will not be ready until the 2030, to deter or defeat a chinese threat they may materialize in the imminent five years. from my perspective, trajectory is inconsistent with the navy fleet architectural study, done by both the prior administrations and at this administration. are you concerned that the strategy that this budget is inconsistent with the multiple assessments that we need a larger fleet? gen. milley: thanks, senator. the united states has been for the birth of our nation. we have made a commitment for two in have centuries for freedom. that is part of data. it is to have a significant capable fleet, not just in the specific -- pacific. sure, it would always be nice to have more ships. the most important things is to have the ships that we do have, have them in a readiness status. have them in a very significant readiness status. that is important as well. i do not want to get hung up on the numbers china versus united states. the japanese maybe, other allies and partners that will probably work with the united states. that will make a significant difference. the other thing i would make relative taiwan, it is true that taiwan -- the chinese have set and objected to have his military prepared capability wise, it is not the same as they are actually going to invade. that is a very tall order and remains to be seen whether chinese will be able to execute them with chinese military whether they will have the capability or not. we have to keep that in mind as we go into the future. >> senator einstein? >> thank you. secretary alston and general milley, last year i asked about military weapons being lost and stolen. 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 guards and reserved troops. the washington post has reported on this problem and jamie lutz at the center for strategic and international studies have also documented that service members face hunger at rates exceeding the general population. the journal in california has likewise indicated that we have this problem in california. it is most pronounced among junior and -- enlisted personnel, especially those with children. here's the question, do you agree that we have this problem of food insecurity, what is its impact on our readiness, and what do you believe the military will do about it? sec. austin: yes, i do agree that we have an issue with -- as he pointed out with our lower ranking enlisted force. it is important to me, the health and welfare of our force, troops and families, very important to me. you have probably heard me talk about this before. you heard me mention it in my opening statement that we want to make sure that people can put food, good food, healthy food on the table. that is why i asked you to support me in providing a 4.6% pay raise to the force. each of these services are making sure that they are doing things, not only help our lower -- lower listed force, but also making sure that they are teaching them how to, helping them learn how to manage finances and other things. this is the thing we are focused on at the department level third i will say that all of our services are focused on it as well heard it is very important to us. >> taking care of our people is important for our entire chain of command. i know it is a great interest to the congress. that great pay raise will go a long way to help. we do acknowledge that is a real issue. the secretary has got some folks out there to determine what the parameters of that are, but it is real. no soldiers should struggle to feed their family. good medical care, good education, safe and secure environment, it is fundamental. 60% of our force is married. on average, children. relatively younger. we owe it to them. if they are going to put their life on the line, we owe it to them. >> thank you. secretary alston, it was ported that you spoke to your -- reported that he spoke to your chinese counterpart. i would like to thank you and commend you for that. i think it is 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 that this could go? >> this is -- this is the first of what i hope would be many conversations. again, we both recognized the importance of dialogue and maintaining open channels. we both want to make sure that we work together to promote security and stability in the region. i look forward to, again, engaging in the future, if not, the distance future coming up in june. >> thank you for that. i am obviously a californian. 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 mail out to get away with russian and land grabs. it seems that ukraine, with the support of the united states is 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? >> 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 that, we're going to do everything, continue to do everything within our power to make sure that we support ukraine in its effort to defend its sovereign territory. we help at the end of this, that ukraine will be a sovereign state with a functioning government that could protect its territory. that is what we are focused on for now and going forward. >> my time is up. thank you, chairman. >> thank you both for being here. secretary austin, i want to thank you for your clarity and leadership on the question of the future of the red hill storage facility. i also want to thank deputy secretary hicks. i know up and down the department at the navy and the rest of the federal government was simply engaged. this was a tough decision, but it was a right decision. i think you know that, not just from the point of safe drinking water for the state of hawaii and the residents of hawaii and your service members, but that it wasn't right for national security in your own were essentiallyin your own words, cy located bulk fuel storage of this magnitude likely made sense in 1943, but doesn't 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? >> well, senator, let me thank you and the entire state delegation, for what you did your 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 this was was -- that this was conceived in the 1940's, and it served a specific purpose at that point in time. it doesn't necessarily support the way that we operate today. we're much further forward in theater. we operate in a dispersed fashion. you know, our logistical support ought to mirror that, ought to enable our operations. and so, i thought, i felt that it was important to make sure that there are reserves position appropriately to support our operations going forward here. and that's what drove my decision in conjunction with the fact that you know, i'm very concerned about the health and welfare of our troops, our families and the people of hawaii, as well. >> thank you. as you know, we're in the implementation phase of the decision that you came to the third party assessment wrapped up last week. i know it's going to take some time at the office of the secretary and the cape to kind of come to some final conclusions. i have a very specific question pertinent to the defense appropriations subcommittee, which is that you got the third party assessment coming in now -- you're in process, sort of final phases maybe, you know, 10 yard line. but we need a number, if we're going to not miss a whole fiscal year's worth of progress. and so, i'm wondering where you are in that process and how quickly you can turn that third party assessment into a requirement, so that we can consider it as a subcommittee. >> well, thanks senator, the navy's reviewing that report, all 880 pages of it, and that will inform their approach to recommending how we should go about defueling the the -- about defueling the facility. so to your point, i'm waiting on the navy to come back with this specific plan for defueling, and i expect to get that at the end of the month. >> okay, so in time for us to consider a number. >> i certainly hope so. senator. >> okay, thank you. i want to use my final minute and a half for for the compact of free association negotiations. the admiral actually knows posture plans for the indo pacific at least in part on maintaining access to compact states of micronesia, the marshall islands and palau. can you talk about the importance of these compact states to dod's mission in the pacific? >> they're very important. we 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. so i think the combatant commander is doing a great job in terms of continued engagement. but again, our goal is to make sure that we are the partner of choice. and so far, i'm very encouraged by what we're seeing. >> just a bit about the interagency process here. you know, you have the department of interior through the office of through the secretary for insular affairs and then you have the department of state has sort of lead negotiator. but dod is right there and to a certain extent, although you're a silent partner in terms of the nuts and bolts of the negotiation, you're the biggest deal in the negotiations. so what i'd like you to consider is appointing someone specifically to be in the room for even the preliminary negotiations. again, states got a 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. >> well, as chairman pointed out at the top of the meeting here, secretary blinken and i are great partners, and certainly, i'm sure that this will be what he will want to see as well. and we will continue to work with the entire inter agency to make sure that we're in the right place here. >> thank you. >> senator boseman. >> thank you, mr. chair, thank you all so much for all that you do. and for you being here today, both of your testimonies highlight the importance of integrated deterrence for aligning department policies, resources, and activities to strengthen deterrence an -- to strengthen deterrence. an essential part of this is bolstering of our allies and partners to better deter our adversaries. general milley, as you mentioned in your testimony, the u.s. must continue to strengthen our relationships by building our partners capabilities to deter our adversaries. recently, several european allies have studied their intent to purchase the f-35 fighter jet. would poland, finland, and germany having f-35s will be helpful to our national security and deterrence against russia and europe and going further. given the current situation in your best military advice, do you believe we should be assisting our european allies in training so they can receive the f-35 as soon as possible? >> i do, and i think first of all, it's an excellent capability. secondly, i think the interoperability with our allies is important, and i think the strength of the alliance is critical to the deterrence of any broader land conflict on the european continent. >> thank you, sir. prepositioned stocks are essential for the rapid mobilization equipping of units during time of crisis. as you know, the army activate -- the army activated its prepositioned stocks in march of this year. as the conflict in ukraine escalated for the first. in an unplanned contingency. i was happy to learn that these pre positioned stocks allow an armored brigade combat team to deploy from the u.s. to eastern europe faster than russian forces advanced from belarus to kyiv. understanding that preposition stocks require military construction support and being the ranking member on the military construction subcommittee, does the u.s. have preposition stocks to respond to potential threats in the pacific from china outside of japan and south korea? are there any plans to establish prepositioned stocks? >> yes, sir. well, first of all, let me thank you for what you did several years ago, to enable what you just described in europe. they're the european defense initiative. really laid the groundwork for the preposition stocks and and -- the preposition stocks and some of the facilities that we use there. as you will see, in terms of what we're investing in with the pacific deterrent initiative, we are investing in infrastructure and a number of other things to ensure that we have capability further forward in the theater. so that's our goal, to make sure that, you know, we have that ability in the indo pacific to a greater degree in the future. >> well, to follow up on that, our missile stockpiles are being stretched thin after years of producing a minimrate of sustainment increased, demanding resulting from the u.s.'s current efforts to bolster our ukrainian defense. i think you're stretching that very, very thin. i'm hearing from industry some of the challenges they faced with trying to increase production rates, while shortening lead times. how critical is it, to maintain these stockpiles, and in what ways can the committee support? support the industry to help ramp up production efforts to meet demand and replenish our stockpiles. >> it's very critical to make sure that we maintain what we consider to be our minimum required stockage levels, and you can rest assured that i will not allow us to go below that in critical munitions. we have met with industry. i think you saw us do this fairly early on, and encouraged them to work with us to begin to open up production lines to increase their production and they are doing that. they're leaning forward in some cases a little bit more difficult to do than others. but industry has been very supportive, and so we'll continue to work with them, will continue to identify things that we need from you, if that need arises. but to this point i think we're in pretty good shape and industry is responding. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you guys. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, secretary austin, welcome. a healthy defense industrial base is a critical element for our national security. and president biden issued an executive order on january in -- issued an executive order in january of 2021 to strengthen buy america requirements for all federal programs. in july, notice of proposed rulemaking increased the domestic 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 actually resulted in the on shoring of new u.s. manufacturing. so, 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? >> i absolutely support making sure that, where we can, we invest in america, that we make sure that we have the supply lines available to do the things that you just described. and so, you're right, the president has an initiative that he launched a a while back and d -- and dod is a is a strong partner in that in that initiative to ensure that we strengthen our supply lines, that we we make sure that that we have the critical materials available to build and the types of munitions and platforms that we think we'll need going forward. so yes, i support that. >> thank you. general milley, i understand you had a version of this question asked already, so i'm gonna try to take it in a little bit different direction. but ukraine has far exceeded most expectations over two months into this most recent phase of putin's war. i support providing the ukrainians with the capabilities that they need to defend their sovereignty, and hope that we can quickly pass a ukraine supplemental that fulfills president biden's request. it's clear that this conflict may extend for some time, as you talk with ukrainian counterparts, i know you've been asked what a realistic end state is for ukraine. i'd like to ask a little differently, is what it does a -- ask a little differently, what does a realistic military success or end state look like for the united states? and how will our security assistance need to change at this new phase in order to support those goals? >> the end state has been articulated by the president and secretary defense secretary blinken several different times. and what it is is maintained the -- is maintain the cohesion of nato. make sure that ukraine at the end of the day, ends up as a free sovereign nation with the territorial integrity intact. no kinetic war between nato and the united states and russia. so no action between our military forces specifically and continue to support the ukrainian people with what they need to defend themselves. so that's what we're trying to do. and we need to, at the end of the day, you know, what's it all about? it's all about the rules based international order has been grossly violated by russia with an illegal aggressive action by military forces across the sovereign border. we have had an institution set of institutions in place for 78 consecutive years to prevent that very thing from happening and that's what's at stake. it's beyond ukraine, is what's at stake, and our intent is to maintain and uphold the rules based international order by achieving those specific objectives the president's given us. >> thank you. so, secretary austin, on this topic, some analysts believe that 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 tactical nuclear weapons. can you clarify, how this might change the calculus that general milley was just outlining? in terms of use of force from the u.s. military? >> yeah, there are a number of things that that mr. putin could do. you could make the case, by the way, senator, that he's already escalated, in terms of the types of things that we see him doing in attacking civilians, destroying cities, towns and villages, indiscriminate targeting. certainly, he has a number of things that he could do. he could, you know, escalate by conducting a cyber event or, you know, there's been a lot of talk about the possible employment of chembio. of course, if he employs a chemical biological weapon, i think he will see a reaction from the international community. and because that's a pretty serious step. and of course, you know, president biden has been clear about, you know, his views on this. so it's possible that he could do that, i certainly hope that that he chooses to not do that. again, i think the international response will be significant. but, you know, senator, he could end this war today. this is a war of choice. he could choose to stop fighting and withdraw his forces from ukraine. and again, this is the decision of one man. and so, i would hope that mr. putin would decide to do something different going forward. >> yes. and i just want to close with, should putin continue to escalate, is it your expectation that the administration would come to congress requesting an authorization for use of military force? >> that's a policy decision, and that my boss will make, and and so i won't get in front of my boss. >> senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. and thanks to both of you for your current and your long service to the country. i'm deeply appreciative, as i'm sure we all are. secretary austin, i think mackenzie had a report out last year that indicated that from 2000 to 2021, the defense of cost index -- the inflation index ran about 20 points ahead of the other of the cpi. during that period of time. do you think this budget will reflect the world we're in now, in terms of replenishing our stock and getting ready for the future? it's about a 5% increase in a n inflationary economy. it seems to me we may not be holding our own, let alone moving forward here. >> well, thanks, senator. before i answer that question, let me thank you for your service, and, you know, a tremendous service to our country and and to the senate. -- country and to the senate. and thanks for your support of the military on behalf of the entire department of defense. as i said earlier, when we crafted this budget, we built the budget based upon our strategy. and at that point, you have to make assumptions about the levels of inflation, and so, we use the appropriate number. what we believe to be the appropriate number at that time, and things have changed now. so there is a difference. >> well, that's helpful, and i'm sure we're gonna be discussing that more with secretaries as they come in. so it's helpful, and i missed your observation about that and i think it's helpful to know that that's where you are now. you know, a number of things have changed, and one is we have intended to provide our ukrainian friends with a lot more things to fight with. does this budget at this point anticipate replacing of the javelins or the stinger missiles that we have given our will give -- or will give to them? >> it is a substantial budget, in my view, senator. and it allows us to go after the things that we need to have to support our warfighting concepts that are outlined in our strategy here. again, china is listed as our pacing challenge. russia is listed as an acute threat. the supplementals that you provided us to this point have been very helpful, in going after the kinds of things that that you mentioned. and again, this next supplemental that the president has asked for your support on, it will enable us to do to do what you just described, replenish stocks and and also continue to support ukraine. but the supplemental funds are really focused on that. >> well, to pursue that just a little bit more, i think we've we've roughly provided roughly 5000 javelins and 1400 stingers. the javelins, that's about a third of our stockpile already provided. and the stinger is about 25% of our stockpile. is it possible to replace a third of our stockpile? or, let's say, 50%, before we're done here within within a year? >> it certainly is. it's not only possible, but we will do that. we will never go below our minimum requirement, for our stockpiles. so we will always maintain the capability to to defend this country and support our interests. but this will help us to not only replenish our stockpiles, but also replace some of the capability that we have asked our partners and allies to provide some of the eastern flank countries early on, they provided stingers and other countries provide provided javelins, upon our request. so that will help us do that. >> well, i know we'll want to work with you on that. general milley, let me get in one more question here. i know you're a great student of warfare, and my guess is we've all learned a lot in the last three months of assumptions, prior to what's happened in ukraine, and what we've seen happen in terms of effectiveness of force or the weapons that are most effective. that 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're keeping up with the lessons we're learning from modern warfare. >> it does, it moves us in the right direction. for sure. this has got the most research and development of any budget in nda history, actually. and it's a very significant movement into the future. as we look at what's happening in ukraine or for example, in in mosul or syria, what we're seeing is some fundamental change in the character of war that is going to lead into the future. one of those changes is highly dense urban area combat. you saw, for example, the russian failure there, you're seeing the ubiquitous use of precision munitions. you're seeing the use of drones, for example, and unmanned aerial vehicles. you're seeing the very effective use of air defense systems, both sam's and manpads to deny the russians the airspace and the most effective weapon they've used so far has been antitank weapons. and of course, javelin is what we have. but many of the countries are providing all kinds of in laws and carl gustav's and rpgs a -- and rpgs, a wide variety of anti tank weapons. so the combination of all of that together has led the russians to not achieve the successes that they thought they would have and those have direct application. and i think this budget takes an account. but beyond that, this budget also is investing in artificial intelligence, robotics, most of which we're not really seeing in the current battlefield, but we do expect those to be very, very significant players in a future battle. you know, 20, 30 years from now, something like that. those are gonna be dominant technologies at that time. and this budget takes us on that path. >> thank you. >> thank you. chairman senator murray. >> i want to commend the work you have done so far to give ukraine the equipment and support they need to fight back against russia's unforgivable attack on their country. at the same time, i am glad we are starting to provide more capable systems and i really urge you to increase those deliveries and provide all the necessary training so ukrainian forces do have everything they need. i have heard repeatedly from people on the front lines and those involved in the logistics system in ukraine about equipment that we delivered not reaching front-line units, that most need the weapons and ammunition and body armor. there seems to be a number of logistical and institutional issues, including some diversion and hoarding, which are standing in the way. 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 they need? >> well, thank you, senator. this is something that is very important to us at the department and 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 leadership routinely is that it's getting to where it needs to go. but i won't stop you but i will continue to engage and make sure that we emphasize that it's important that all the stuff we are giving them gets to 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] leak from the supreme court could mean for the justices. next ukrainian investor to the west talks about the current state of the war waged by russia. also check but victory for ukraine looks like and thanks a journalist for their coverage of the war. this is just over an hour. [background noises] are right, so are we ready? c-span cameras are here. good afternoon i'm the washington bureau chief of t

Related Keywords

Taiwan , Japan , Afghanistan , United States , Iran , Alaska , Vermont , Washington , Belarus , Donbass , Ukraine General , Ukraine , China , California , Austria , Syria , Togo , Russia , Germany , Estonia , Palau , Hungary , Ramstein , Baden Wüberg , Finland , North Korea , Houston , Texas , Kyiv , Kyyiv , Misto , Micronesia , Lithuania , Poland , Romania , Hawaii , America , Ukrainians , Chinese , Californian , Russian , Ukrainian , Soviet , Russians , Japanese , American , Balfour Beatty , Indo Pacific , September Sen , Lewis Mccord ,