Kaine on U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hurst, I want you to just confirm something for me about the president's submitted budget. $1.5 trillion is about a 40%-plus increase from FY26. Am I right that not a penny of that is to go to a pay raise for the 800,000 civilians who work for the Department of Defense? We have 4.2% of civilian salary set aside for bonuses to make sure we can recognize high performers in the civilian workforce.

But you have guaranteed pay raises for the active duty in the Guard and Reserve component, but no guaranteed raises for-- There guaranteed raises for the military. But in the last year, this Department has given out more civilian bonuses-- Well, if we're going to increase the defense budget by that much, I would hope the committee would take a look at this. Chairman Caine-- man, I like the sound of that, Chairman Caine. General Caine, I want to ask you a question about Southern Spear. It's an operational question. I know from your background that you carefully act to keep military actions within the rules of war. What legal justification could there possibly that would allow the US military to strike boats in international waters and kill the occupants of those boats without a showing of evidence that there's narcotics on those boats? Well, sir, our job is to show the range of options, the associated risks, and then take those execution orders, transmit them down to the COCOMs on legally appropriate and legally backstopped actions.

Could you give me a legal justification that would authorize--

I don't have-- --striking boats that do not have evidence that they're carrying narcotics? I apologize, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I don't have a copy of the order issued to SOUTHCOM with me today. It's classified in its own right, which clearly articulates, based on a variety of criteria, what constitutes a valid military and legally valid target in that theater. And I know-- I just want to say, I know and trust that our commanders at echelon are rigorously following that legal opinion and those legal boundaries upon which we've been issued those orders. And General Caine, I would encourage again, my colleagues, I am at a disadvantage. I've seen the legal opinion, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. I've seen the targeting criteria, but I can't talk about them because they're classified. I've seen the secret list of DTOs against whom we have declared war that even they haven't been informed of, but I can't talk about it because it's classified. But I would urge all of my colleagues to go to the skiff and read the targeting criteria and get briefed about it, and then also look at all of the files of all the strikes that have taken place. I've done that with the first 46 strikes or so. And I think there's a profound mismatch between what is occurring and the underlying assumptions in the legal opinion. And I would just encourage my colleagues to dig into this. To Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, the War Powers Resolution specifies that a war initiated by a president without congressional approval must be concluded within 60 days. It can be extended by an additional 30 days if, quote, "the president determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity, respecting the safety of the US Armed Forces, requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces." We're right at the 60-day deadline. Is the president intending to either seek congressional authorization for the war in Iran or send us the legally acquired certification that he needs an additional 30 days to remove US forces from the war? Just briefly, on the previous question, we do know that these are designated terrorist organizations, so we treat them like the al-Qaeda of our hemisphere. Just as a note.

But that was not the question I asked.

There's more to that question. I just think it's important for the public to understand that. There's no willy-nilly targeting of drug boats. We know exactly who these people are affiliated with. I was asking about what's on the boats. On Iran, ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire. So, that's our understanding, just so you know. OK. Well, I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow. And it's going to pose a really important legal question for the administration there. We have serious constitutional concerns, and we don't want to layer those with additional statutory concerns. I yield back, Mr. Chair.