00:00 I recognize this gentleman from California, Mr. Girmendi.
00:04 Thank you.
00:06 My colleague from Connecticut talked about cutting the sub.
00:10 We make choices here, as you do at the Department of Defense
00:14 also.
00:16 Mr. Secretary, on December 9, 2022,
00:20 you gave a speech where you said,
00:22 nuclear deterrence isn't just a numbers game,
00:26 and that thinking can spur an arms race.
00:30 You stressed the importance of working
00:31 to reduce the global role of nuclear weapons, which
00:35 we just heard from our colleague,
00:38 and I happen to agree.
00:40 For years, I've questioned the viability and the premise
00:44 of the Sentinel program.
00:46 In December, the Department of Defense
00:48 announced that the ever-escalating cost
00:51 of the Sentinel program now estimated
00:54 that at least $137 billion had breached the critical non
01:01 precarity limit, and that by law,
01:06 the program must be terminated unless you, Mr. Secretary,
01:11 certify that the program is, one,
01:14 essential to national security, two,
01:17 that there are no alternatives to the program, three,
01:21 that the new cost estimates are reasonable, and four,
01:25 that the program is a higher priority than programs whose
01:32 funding must be reduced.
01:37 Am I correct in saying that you are aware of your task that
01:40 lies ahead?
01:42 I am, sir.
01:44 I'm pleased to hear that, because even
01:47 without the required analysis by law, that the Sentinel program,
01:54 far too many Pentagon leaders have said, and I quote,
02:00 "The Sentinel will be funded.
02:03 We'll make the trades."
02:06 Mr. Secretary, can you assure us that you
02:10 will require that a truly fulsome and critical analysis
02:15 of the Sentinel program will be made,
02:18 and that the alternatives-- for example, a submarine--
02:23 will not be funded so that the Sentinel program can go ahead?
02:28 I can assure you that we will conduct a thorough analysis
02:35 in accordance with the Non-Mercury Act
02:38 responsibilities and the responsibilities
02:40 that you've outlined as well.
02:45 Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
02:46 I believe you have until sometime in July
02:49 to make that decision.
02:51 And along the course of early May or late May,
02:57 you will, General Brown, provide to the committees
03:02 the analysis required by law.
03:04 Is that correct?
03:05 We will.
03:08 We'll support the timeline to enable the Secretary
03:11 to make his determination.
03:15 In your opening remarks, General Brown,
03:17 you said that, quote, "Our investment
03:19 in nuclear capabilities reflects a judicious balance
03:23 between advancing cutting-edge technologies
03:28 and phasing out legacy capabilities.
03:33 Fourth grade math would indicate that at $700 million
03:37 a copy, $137 billion can buy you somewhere more than 120
03:44 B-21 bombers complete with an ISRO,
03:49 or perhaps seven Columbia-class submarines for $137 billion."
03:59 Choices to be made here.
04:04 Is an attack submarine important?
04:08 Is an additional 120 or so B-21 bombers complete with an LSRO
04:18 important, more important than a Sentinel?
04:24 Can the Minuteman III be life extended?
04:28 And by the way, committee members,
04:29 why do we consistently write into the NDAA
04:33 that there must be 400 ICBMs?
04:38 There's been no analysis to indicate that.
04:41 And has the Joint Requirements Office Oversight Council
04:47 actually revisited the military requirements necessary
04:52 for the nuclear enterprise?
04:53 Has that been done, General Brown?
04:54 That is part of their task, is to continue not just
05:00 on the nuclear portfolio, but across all of our portfolios
05:02 for our current warfighters.
05:05 I await that analysis.
Comments