Senator Warren on Military Contractors Cheating People and Kelly Questions Army Head

Senator Warren on Military Contractors Cheating People and Kelly Questions Army Head

Listen:

• mediaBrew Media Player: ( 12 Min. mp3)
• Default Device Player: ( 12 Min. mp3)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We need a military right to repair law. Got an example today, and that is Blackhawk helicopters.

There’s a tiny knob that pilots need to scroll through for information, and every month about four of them break. The Army could replace them for about 15 bucks, but because the Army does not have right to repair, the whole helicopter goes offline, and the contractor charges $47,000 to replace the entire screen. Let that sink in.

$15 or $47,000. Now, Secretary Driscoll, you and other military leaders have repeatedly said that Congress needs to pass the right to repair law, and last year, both the House and the Senate passed reforms, but the big defense contractors, lobbyists, killed it behind closed doors. So let’s talk out in the open about what those lobbyists are claiming.

Let’s just get it out here. Number one, they say contractors can’t hand over their intellectual property and data because the Army would steal it. Secretary Driscoll, what do you say to big contractors that claim the Army can’t be trusted with sensitive data? Senator, I would say one of the more preposterous things I’ve heard in the last 18 months.

But you have heard it. I have heard it often, is that we, the United States Army, would take this data and do something nefarious at worst, or at perhaps best, from a moral perspective, we would haphazardly handle it. The United States Army and the Pentagon in particular are exceptionally good at handling sensitive data, and we have incredible processes in place, I would say more so than any other organization.

So my reply is, and has always been, we don’t want to take any data. We just want to purchase it. Okay.

So let’s do another one. Big contractors claim that DOD doesn’t need right to repair reforms because you already have all of the authority you need to access technical data for repairs. Now, it turns out, when you look at that existing legal authority, it explicitly says that technical data, quote, does not include computer software.

Secretary Driscoll, it’s 2026. Most weapons run on software. If the Army can’t use software to repair its own equipment and weapons, is that a problem for readiness? Unequivocally, yes.

So in fact, for example, the Army is already unable to repair the Avenger air defense system because it doesn’t have the software it needs. So right to repair must include software. Let’s do one more.

Big contractors have floated the idea of, quote, data as a service, which is really just code for pay per view. It means that the department is, quote, metered and billed every single time they access materials. And it’s pretty easy to see how costs would add up in those circumstances, since one contractor is already charging the Air Force $900 a page for upgrades to its maintenance manuals.

Secretary Driscoll, aside from the cost of pay per view, what happens if the Army is trying to repair a piece of broken equipment in a remote area and has to keep messaging the contractor to get access to the manual? Senator, this is what happens frequently, whether the specifics are true today or it’s directionally true. Directionally, our soldiers struggle mightily to keep a lot of our equipment online. And this is not in a moment of conflict.

That could be the decisive point between us being successful somewhere 6,000 miles away in the Indian Pacific or failing our mission if we can’t repair our own equipment. Yeah. You know, it is a reminder, we’ve got to have this access.

And I just want to say this business of data as a service is just one more attempt to try to gouge American taxpayers and put our service members at risk. Last question, Secretary Driscoll. Does the Army need Congress to pass right to repair reforms in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act? Or should we let the big contractors kill it once again behind closed doors? What do you think here? This one is known as low and slow over the plate.

Yes. This is one of the most important things. And I don’t say this to be over the top.

I’m not intending to play into the set of questions. We, the United States Army, and we, the broader military, must maintain the right to be able to take advantage of all of the new tools. Because if we don’t, our adversaries will.

And we will be put at a meaningfully worse position. Yeah. Well, I very much appreciate the job you’re trying to do.

General, I’m sorry I didn’t get to ask you the same set of questions. But I got a tough chairman who shuts me down when I go over. She’s 15 seconds over and I’m pretty hot about it.

Exactly. I can tell. But I really do appreciate all you’re trying to do.

We need to help you out with getting right to repair through this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

Secretary Hegseth, safe to say that our weapons, like SM-3s, Tomahawks, Patriot missiles, have capabilities that are unmatched. That’s why they cost a lot, take a long time to produce. Your budget requests $31.8 billion to expand production capacity for critical missile stockpiles.

Is that correct? 31.8? I’m looking at $53 billion for munitions acceleration over 14 critical munitions of which the ones you listed are a part. So I believe more than that. Yes, sir.

More than $20 billion more. So we’ve been working together to grow the industrial base because we’re all worried about how our stockpiles would hold up in a conflict against China. Since the start of this war, you’ve made it a point to highlight the number of strikes the U.S. military is carrying out, citing that more than 13,000 targets had been struck as of April 8th.

On March 2nd, this was a massive, overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare, striking more than 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours. On March 10th, you said, yet again, our most intense day of strikes inside of Iran. On April 6th, you said, and this is another quote, the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation.

Your department has released video after video of things blowing up. None of us doubt the strength of the U.S. military and their ability to do hard things. I understand that better than anybody.

The questions we should be asking and answering are, what does this cost us and what does it achieve for the American people? Many of these strikes use our best weapons, and we’re using a lot of them and a lot of interceptors. Open source reporting has estimated that the military has used an outrageous number of Patriots. I’m not even going to say the numbers, but a lot of Patriots, a lot of Thought Rounds, JASM-ER, Tomahawks, very expensive, exquisite.

We can’t make these munitions overnight, and it’s clear from your budget requests that you know that. Can you tell us how many years specifically is it going to take to replace these systems? Senator, thank you for the question. I would defer to the Comptroller on the amount, because I think it’s a lot higher than 53.

If you look at long-range fires, JASMs, LRASMs, Tomahawks, we’re looking at 238. We’re looking at $40 billion for hypersonic. So I actually think it’s closer to $330 billion in munitions.

How many years to replenish? That’s the question. I think that’s exactly the right question too, Senator, because the time frame we were existing under was unacceptable. What this budget does, months and years, fast.

We’re building new plants in real time. Just to replace what we have expended. I said months.

Then you said years. It depends on the weapons system, but two to three, four X of what we have today. So yes, we’re dealing with a reality under the previous administration of what they sent to Ukraine and they allocated elsewhere.

So we fired years worth of munitions. It is clear that these are being expended to try to achieve some objectives. That was the plan.

But Mr. Secretary, this war is stuck. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Iranian regime is in place.

The nuclear material is still in their hands. Americans are being crushed by higher costs and it’s not clear to them at all what the goal of this war is. So I’ve got about a minute and I want to go to another topic.

I saw your hearing yesterday and I’m going to give you one more chance to address a question here. It’s my understanding that the definition of no quarter is that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees will be executed. Is that your understanding of the definition? Well, the only entity that would kill detainees or target civilians is the Iranians and they’re the ones being crushed.

It’s the Iranian military and their military capability. The question is, I disagree completely with your articulation. No, do you understand the definition that I just read you because that’s the definition from your department’s law of war manual? Is that your understanding? And I’m going to just get to the point here.

We fight to win and we follow the law, Senator. So your quote was, we will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. And yesterday you did not clarify whether you stand by this statement.

So I’m going to give you another opportunity to clarify if that is what you meant. Do you stand by that statement you made on March 13th? We have untied the hands of our warfighters. We fight to win and we follow the law.

Okay. So you’re not clarifying. So you stand by that statement.

So you’re the Secretary of Defense. The things you say matter and your response here right now makes it clear to the American people exactly why you are not right for this job. It makes it clear to our enemies, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Sheehy has left the room, but it’s been whispered to me that I just referred to him in the last exchanges, Senator Schmidt.

I don’t know if he considered that a compliment or an insult, but I would do correct that for the record. Senator Slotkin, I think you are next. Thank you.

Even better, start a monthly contribution today.