Opening Statements

Strategic Forces (STR) Subcommittee Chairman Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) delivered the following opening statement at a hearing on the FY27 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy Defense Activities.

Chairman DesJarlais' Statement as Prepared for Delivery:

The subcommittee meets today to review the Department’s fiscal year 2027 budget request for nuclear forces and atomic energy defense activities. 

Thank you for being with us today.
 
I want to begin by noting that this hearing will be Admiral Wolfe’s final appearance in uniform before the Strategic Forces subcommittee. After nearly four decades of service to the nation, including eight years as the Director of SSP, he will be retiring later this year. Admiral Wolfe has testified before this subcommittee every year since 2019, and this panel has benefited greatly from his wisdom and counsel.
 
Thank you Admiral, and we wish you all the best in a well-earned retirement.
 
Overall, the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2027 reflects a strong commitment to sustaining and modernizing our nuclear deterrent.
 
In particular, I want to highlight the significant increase it proposes for NNSA’s weapons activities. For many years, NNSA budgets have failed to reflect the true needs of modernizing our stockpile and rebuilding the production infrastructure our nation largely abandoned at the end of the Cold War. I appreciate the serious commitment this budget signals to addressing that challenge and ensuring our nuclear deterrent is supported by both cutting-edge scientific tools and responsive production capabilities.
 
With respect to the Department’s budget request, I was happy to see support for the execution of nuclear modernization programs, but I continue to question whether we are doing enough – and moving quickly enough – to adjust to the dynamic nuclear threat landscape. While there has been greater recognition that the 2010 modernization plan is necessary but not sufficient to meet the changing security environment, our posture and programs remain largely unaltered, aside from the addition of SLCM-N.
 
Before concluding, I also want to thank General White for organizing the trip we took last month to see the 91^st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base.
 
This was an invaluable experience, seeing up-close what it means to operate a weapons system deployed in the 1970s with facilities built in the 1960s. Neither the Minuteman missile nor the infrastructure around it was designed to last this long. The fact that the system remains effective today is down to the amazing effort and endurance of those we met – the young missileers, maintainers, and defenders – who work tirelessly, each day, to ensure the most responsive leg of our nuclear triad continues performing its mission and deterring our adversaries.
 
Their success at keeping a 55 year-old ICBM system alive is impressive, but I think what we’re asking of them is unfair.
 
We owe them a better product. We must replace Minuteman with Sentinel, and we must ensure that program delivers a solution that takes care of our operators and maintainers – not one that relies on their dedication and perseverance to function. Their mission is challenging enough as it is.
 
General White, I know you take the same view and appreciate the importance of not lowering the acquisition costs by shifting the burden onto the operational and sustainment communities. It’s the right approach, and we need to stick to it.