HARD CHOICES OR BAD CHOICES?: Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley defended the Biden administration's $715 billion defense budget to Congress on Thursday and the many financial trade-offs the blueprint makes. In their first appearance on Capitol Hill since the budget release, the pair took heat from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the flat trajectory of defense spending, plans to mothball older weapons, how best to spend money meant for deterring China, and Navy discussions on defunding a planned nuclear-tipped cruise missile. Here are some highlights: Budget topline: As expected, Republicans criticized President Joe Biden's largely flat defense budget topline. SASC ranking GOP member Jim Inhofe has been cheerleading for a more dramatic boost for months. The Oklahoma Republican said he's concerned deterrence against China could fail under a lower level of defense spending and "the cost will be much higher than any investment we could make today to prevent it." "We’re not making hard choices,” he said. “We’re making bad and short-sighted choices." Austin and Milley argued throughout the hearing that, despite acknowledging tough choices and assuming some risks, the topline will ultimately buy the U.S. a solid national defense. "In every single budget I've seen, we're always making hard choices," Milley told senators. "But in my professional opinion, a $715 billion budget, as long as we are disciplined in its application and we adhere to the priorities that we've established, will provide for the defense of the United States." 'Platform-centric': Democrats and Republicans raked the Pentagon's $5.1 billion request for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, arguing the proposal is out of step with the capabilities outlined by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command this year. SASC Chair Jack Reed complained the Pentagon's proposal was too focused on hardware that could be funded elsewhere in the budget and indicated lawmakers will significantly rewrite the account, which was meant to beef up U.S. presence and deter China in the region. "I am concerned that the department’s budget request takes a heavily platform-centric approach to PDI, and I look forward to working collaboratively with DoD leadership to more appropriately align resources in the DoD budget with our intent for PDI," Reed said. Still, Austin argued the Pentagon's funding decisions matched Congress' intent and touted the emphasis on deterring China in the broader budget, but added he'll work with lawmakers on a path forward. Not consulted: The pair also told the panel that they weren't consulted on an internal Navy memo proposing to defund a future nuclear-tipped cruise missile and said that decision should not be made outside of an upcoming formal weapons review. When questioned by Sen. Deb Fischer about the directive, both Austin and Milley said they had not seen the memo. Austin said it "has to be pre-decisional" because the Pentagon has not yet begun a review of its nuclear posture. He agreed with Fischer that issuing such a directive without consulting department leaders, combatant commanders or other agencies is "not the right way to make decisions about nuclear policy." Read the Pro transcript of the hearing. Related: Austin, Milley defend weapons cuts in Biden’s defense budget, via Defense News. Also: Cotton, Pentagon chief tangle over diversity training in military, via The Hill. HOUSE TEES UP AUMF VOTE: The House will vote on legislation when it returns to Washington next week to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced. The repeal, offered by Rep. Barbara Lee, has gained bipartisan traction and is seen by advocates as a needed war powers house cleaning ahead of a much more arduous effort to rewrite the 2001 AUMF. "Congress enacted this authorization nineteen years ago for an action against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is not needed for any current operations, including in Iraq," Hoyer wrote in a June forecast for the House. "Repeal of this unnecessary authority is long overdue." DEFENSE AS INFRASTRUCTURE, PT. 2: Thirteen House lawmakers fired off a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging the inclusion of money to modernize defense industrial base facilities — such as depot, arsenals and shipyards — as well as defense labs and test ranges and facilities in an infrastructure package. The bipartisan group is pitching the rehab of aging defense facilities as key to both the health of the defense industrial base and meeting future national security needs. "While the Biden Infrastructure proposal did not include any request for funding of these facilities, we strongly believe that the quality of these facilities is critical to the broader Biden Administration goals of addressing long-standing maintenance backlogs and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of materials," they wrote. The letter was spearheaded by Reps. Cheri Bustos and Blake Moore, who co-chair the House Military Depot and Industrial Facilities Caucus. Several senior House Armed Services members also signed on, including Reps. Anthony Brown, Mike Turner, Vicky Hartzler, Doug Lamborn and Joe Wilson. The effort was first reported by your Morning D correspondent as part of the burgeoning effort to fund defense projects in an eventual infrastructure package. | 
