Opening Statement (As Prepared)
Click here to stream the hearing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Chairman DesJarlais. I also want to welcome our witnesses and thank you for your continued service to our country during this difficult time with a new war every few weeks. Before we begin, I wanted to take a moment to welcome Admiral Correll, Dr. Kadlec and Mr. Berkowitz to the subcommittee as this is their first hearing with us. The policy and programmatic issues in front of us are some of the most consequential that we face as a nation, and we must continue to work together not only to ensure the Department is a good steward of the taxpayer’s money, but also because the world we will leave our children depends on it. I also would like to thank General Guillot as this will be his last posture hearing in front of this subcommittee. I have always appreciated your thoughtful and measured approach as the head of NORTHCOM and NORAD, and your leadership there will be missed.
The responsibilities of this committee, encompassing our space, missile defenses, and nuclear forces, form the foundation of security in America, so the issues before us should be debated rigorously—and honestly. On that count, I’m going to blunt, speaking not just as a senior member of this committee but as a four-tour veteran of a misguided war in the Middle East. We simply cannot ignore the fact that, as we sit here today, America is more at risk than we were before the Iran War began, both in the Middle East and at home. We should all hope for a miracle, but miracles are not strategies, and it’s very difficult to see our way forward.
Since taking office 14 months ago, the “President of Peace” has attacked 7 countries, and through these conflicts of choice, has expended scarce munitions and emboldened both China and Russia. He has sought regime change in both Venezuela and Iran and failed twice. Maduro’s regime is now headed by his Vice President. In Iran, we’ve succeeded in replacing an 86-year-old in failing health with his son in his fifties—and in case you wondered whether he was more or less hardline, we killed his wife and his son. It’s hard to imagine a better way to turn the pro-American Iranian people against us than raining down bombs from the sky and killing at least 187 innocent civilians, most of them little schoolgirls, but Trump found one: doing it with the Israelis. And now, implausibly, with the Strait of Hormuz closed and oil prices skyrocketing, Trump is actually losing the war. He has kicked a hornet’s nest and gotten his Florsheim-shoed foot stuck in it.
Russia is happily helping Iran target American troops. Some Democrats criticized Trump for enforcing oil sanctions on the high seas. I did not; I said it was long overdue, especially against Russia’s so-called “dark fleet.” But now, as if to thank the Russians for targeting Americans, Trump is rewarding Putin by lifting the oil sanctions and giving him more money to fight Ukraine and build out his nuclear arsenal. I can’t imagine what our troops who risked their lives to board these ships a few weeks ago are thinking now—except that I can imagine what they’re thinking, because I lived through similar hair-brained decisions in Iraq. The President is now appealing to both China and Russia for help—that’s how bad it is.
You can’t make this up, and yet it’s no fairy tale. The cost is paid in the lives of brave young Americans, willing to serve as the president was not, as well as by children and innocent civilians.
Against this backdrop of self-inflicted geopolitical idiocy, the mission we are discussing in this hearing is increasingly important. It represents the backstop against our worst day, even as the threat is growing in scope, importance, and urgency. The Chinese Communist Party’s ICBM fleet continues to exceed U.S. intelligence estimates, and they have deployed several hypersonic weapons that can carry nuclear weapons. Russia has developed a treaty-violating, space-based nuclear weapon that would destroy nearly all the satellites we rely on for GPS and communications every day. And, again, as a reminder, we’re lifting sanctions on Russia, the only country with the capability to destroy the United States.
Last year, I spoke at a defense conference about how dangerous the president’s “Golden Dome” idea is for strategic deterrence, instigating an arms race where our adversaries develop weapons to get around it. When I came off the stage, my team told me that the senior Republican speaking after me had just had his staff ask ChatGPT why Golden Dome is good.
Again, you can’t make this up. I don’t know if ChatGPT has come up with a better answer yet or not, but I do know that the Russians are developing multiple weapon systems to attack the U.S. that will not be defended by Golden Dome, years before we will ever see anything fielded. Never before has Congress spent so much money on something so ineffective, with no strategy whatsoever, though I guess the Iran War could give Golden Dome a run for that record.
Now, for the first time since the Cold War, we are living in a world with no agreement to constrain nuclear weapons—and that is to our disadvantage because, to be clear, our adversaries have, and are building, more than we are. Is that “the art of the deal?”
With everything going wrong in the Middle East, it’s easy to lose focus on America’s strategic defense, but it remains the bedrock of our national security and must remain a top priority. Even the right weapons with the wrong policy can be de-stabilizing, weakening our national security. We need strength, not chaos. We need weapons to deter our enemies, not recruit more. We need defenses that work to defend the country, not bankrupt us. We need leaders focused on reducing the need for nuclear weapons, not stoking an arms race for even more.
I look forward to working closely with the members of this subcommittee and our witnesses to make America stronger and more secure. We often say that our nuclear arsenal must be safe, secure, and reliable. Our country should be the same.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.