>> to be able to agree that you're not able to agree and yet not have it spill over on a political level is a sign of great success. there's a lot of work to be done. a lot of debate to be had yet, but again i think that really a major concern i had at the beginning of the year. the second point, unfortunately is not resolved and will not be for quite some time, but it is the broader question of korea japan relations. for this audience i don't need to go into the long litany of historical legacy issues of territorial disputes of issues

which are just not korea japan but be at raise a new in japan right now. all i need to say is that if you looking at this in the context of u.s.-japan relations, there are a few issues that are more disruptive than the unfortunate relationship between our two principal allies in the region, between korea and japan. with remarkable strong relationships with japan, and arand aremarkably strong alliane relationship between u.s. and south korea but a very weak third leg. that relationship and patriotic outburst on both sides has undermined to be very blunt our ability to respond effectively, the very real north korean threat. it has undermined our ability to coordinate both in terms of logistics, in terms of communicate should come in terms of strategy to that threat. it continues to undermine our ability to respond jointly to the challenges surrounding the rise of china in the region and

to many other territorial disputes. it undermines our ability to fulfill president vision for a broader role for the u.s. and korea not only in the region but as a whole. i highlight that as an ongoing area of concern to compliment president park geun-hye. she has i think very skillfully been allowed the government to respond to statements and actions taken in japan but just kept herself of a free. i think that's very fortunate. if you look at the last decade, the worst periods of korea and japan relations were when the president of korea felt obliged to respond to every low-level statement that came out of japan. what you need to do is preserve that space, and to think so far that has gone very well. the third point i want to address, and again, i will move quicker through these last three points is the obvious one. there's a whole panel after this

so won't go into great detail. but the tradition of the virgins for the last 15 years between the u.s. and the rok is how do we calibrate our response and north korea? this is extreme difficult as you might imagine. at the one level north korean threat is the fundamental rationale for our alliance, our alliance with the base in blood, born in a shared threat perception and north korea. over the last decade our respective threat perceptions have varied, depending on policy, sunshine policy, nuclear missile. we really had some difficult times coordinating that policy. i alluded to it in my opening remarks, i think this summit was particularly and notably successful in making sure that there was no daylight at all between the united states and south korea in response to recent north korean threats and actions. that again i think is an

accomplishment worth noting. fourth point is related to the third point in terms of that but it's something i thought this panel is titled challenge for the u.s. and rok and the fish. want to put out something that has come out of both to talk about and that is unification. 15 years ago everybody want to talk about unification to every conference was unification. after german experience, after when the policy shifted to peaceful coalition and objective was not unified in the short run but you unify the long run will talk about integration and eventually they became unification for peace. but in my mind there's no time more important for us to start focusing on this issue than right now. and without soling my reputation by protecting north korea's imminent demise, i might say that while i personally can see no clear and convincing evidence that instability in north korea, i am convinced that the north korean leadership can see

convincing and credible evidence in north korea and much of what we've seen for the last two months is a reaction to the. again will go into more and the question and answer period but ultimately i believe the role that the united states is perceived to be playing in the process of unification is the defining issue for the future of the u.s. presence on the peninsula and for the future of u.s.-korea alliance. and i think it's getting a short thrift right now because we don't want to talk about it leading and in the longworth that's the one issue where to focus on. finally, i'll wrap it up with my last one minute, the korea-u.s. free trade agreement i think it's been a tremendous success. where right now for a full into implementation phase. there are issues that have to be resolved going forward. i was just about to put on kind of a place marker and talk about what is the next step. it has been very helpful from the waning days during the entire five year term, now in

the first month of the park geun-hye administration to this issue has a common agenda for the united states and its ally where we will have reached what is truly a 21st century gold set a free trade agreement. i was appointed in my mind the logical next step is more proactive korea role in the tpb or transpacific partnership trade negotiation but korea has the gold set negotiation and the question is at what point korea will decide to join those negotiations and to become a more proactive partner in the united states and establishing the standards and norms on a regional basis. so i will end my remarks there. thank you very much. [applause] >> great. thank you very much. mr. kim. >> as i was, i worked

correspondent in washington, 1990 era, so it's been real for us to speaking english. sentimental city. my previous speakers so fluent, english is so well. i am in worst position speaking english what i have to say to you. understand my situation but as i was a journalist i start my segment with -- [inaudible]. arena president park and

president obama. they're celebrating alliance. i will let you know 60th anniversary in korean society, what the 60 anniversary comply. when someone was growing up and marked 60th birthday, and all the family gathering together and have, having like a great party for the person who 60 years old your nowadays, so many people go over 60 and 70, even approaching 80 now. [laughter] >> he is only 60. >> so in korean society, 60 anniversary and flies significance.

importance. the president last week with sobering 60th anniversary of alliance. it implies to the korean people that some very important change will take place, or some possible breakthrough might take place in the korean u.s. relations, or in south and north korean relations. they are looking for some possible change. of course, i never, as i'm not a fortuneteller i cannot say in advance what it would be like, but largely speaking, as a journalist i sense that

\60{l1}s{l0}\'60{l1}s{l0} anniversary implies that you 60th anniversary implies change, especially in relationship between south and north korea. it should, it should accept the change, in my view. let me say one thing again. as you know well, the united states is the more powerful country in the world. nobody would deny it. and korea, even though -- [inaudible] korea i might say, korea is the most successful country the united states has relationships with.

in other words, the best success country among nations that united states has supported. and then the two presidents were celebrating 60th anniversary last week. they saved one is the most powerful country in the world, the other one is most successful country in the world. and then the two leaders are getting together and announcing 60th anniversary of the alliance to the world. and as a journalist i expect from the change all take place this year because this is the

60th anniversary of the nation's alliance. whether i'm right or wrong it depends on the future situatio situations. as mentioned, the current situation between south and north koreas, no daylight, but i would like to say if -- [inaudible] the light will come soon. or as i remember, i can't remember, -- [inaudible]. anyway, in some sense one extreme of the thing lead to the other. there are many settings, sort of

economic. so when my view if we were celebrating the anniversary this year, we should also mark the great change the relationship between south and north korea. that's my feeling. so i want to look forward to some keys and change for the near future with north and south korean relationship. and then what should i do and what should american do? as i told you before i'm not a fortuneteller, but i look forward to some half or some --

that's why we were celebrating the 60th anniversary this year. am i right or wrong? thank you. [applause] >> mr. nam. >> yes. thank you very much. president park and mr. obama successfully formed -- now as mr. gordon already point out, i prepared a talk with you about the three points, three

problems, one is nuclear problem. second is, you know, just, yes. yes, -- [inaudible]. this kind of word is korean because i'm not, to me, to you i'm not a fluent english speaker but i can speak korean better than english. i am very sorry that i cannot say what i'm now thinking in my mind. [laughter] if you want reduce begin korea, then i can say statements like this. so i can say as mr. gordon and

mr. kim said, about anything i tried to impress my mind and my thoughts, my idea about the environment in the korean peninsula. first problem is just nuclear problem your now, korean government want to help -- [inaudible] nuclear waste. but i don't think why two countries have not more confidence about the nuclear. mr. gordon already points out -- i'm sorry. mr. flake, okay. now, that are to opinions i

think, but different opinion by more broad in the whitest -- the whitest between two countries. you know, south korean government want to have assistance, but if united states, the u.s. doesn't have the confidence about, you know, the korean government ideas. as mr. flake already pointed, you know, the two countries have different thoughts about the nuclear problem. but nowadays we can sort of put

aside differences by negotiations. i think as a way, whether united states, whether, you know, as the u.s. were concerned making a nuclear weapon, or -- properly used for development with korea. so this kind of problem to mr. chair, the ambassador, korean ambassador, whether it takes two more years to find out the appropriate way, you know, to narrow the gap of thought.

so i hope, i hope we have two countries here that have possibility or a to narrow their opinion gap. so i hope in the near future two countries reached an agreement. so today, you know, erase, erase u.s. concern about the developing nuclear weapons, and korean thought, we can use the nuclear waste to use for the economic development. so second is self -- [inaudible]

what i mean is the two countries decide that korea combined air force command or the be terminated. either separate korean and u.s. in supporting role. now, you know it was already said north korea -- or japan and united states with their nuclear weapons. so these kind of conditions, this kind of administration could have -- [inaudible].

the reigning congressman kim jong-un in korea insist south korea should have nuclear weapons. in order to face -- if south korea has a nuclear weapon, then japan would not keep silent. now, our strategy is different. our mind is a little different. okay then, we're to keep silence

-- [inaudible] there are great reasons why famous people, famous person insists like that. i think it's this kind of sentiment or these kinds of thoughts is taking place opinion, public opinion. so, therefore, now let's think about the transition, transition of operational control of korean

force. yes, we would like to get position as an independent nation. it's a very logic. this is understandable by our people, but let's think another aspect. [inaudible] we are facing the reporting from north korea. now, fast forward, what if north

korea, we don't have, we have, we consider power our military force. what is north korea -- what i mean is we want to have confidence about our power. but we understand transition happen. can we have this kind of confidence? no. we don't have tertiary confidence another point, i would like to get, or i would like to insist the transition

should be -- we need more time to prepare. the transition should be delayed. the third one is, you know, northeastern asia. yes, i know very well that was not as much work as you assistant. there's no context. anyways, as they present their comments, i would like to have

such cooperative system in east asia. with all these problems i would like to ask about these problems to mr. gordon, mr. flake and mr. camp. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much your we've had a very comprehensive commentary on, not only president park's visit lastly, but also a whirlwind history lesson from dean goodman as well as some great insights from our other panelists. as it is clear from the speaker's comments, last week was a very successful summit, milestone marking the 60th anniversary of this alliance. and as gordon said, there's no

daylight on a lot of these issues between the two governments, including north korea and international cooperation. but it's clear from our panelists that there are challenges and there is more work to be done. ranging from the civil nuclear cooperation to the korea-japan relationship. and an opportunity not only to grow but to perhaps change, hopefully in a positive direction. so with that we open the floor to questions your we will take, have about 30 minutes for the topic for questions we'll take a couple of questions and then we'll allow the panelists to respond. so let's go right here, right here and right you. richard. thank you r your very nice presentation. i have two very short questions.

first one is basically, there are very few american premieres. i was wondering what would be their goal in the u.s. korean relationship and how korean government and the u.s. government deals with this population to increase cooperation between the two countries and improve relations with the two countries? keep in mind the recent trip by president park resulted in -- [inaudible] and i created some kind of negative feelings among korean-americans are they feel that koreans who korean-americans -- i was wondering if you could address that issue as well. second question deals directly with gordon's point about kicking the can down the road.

alleys not to agree. on the other hand, obama's administration knew. [inaudible]. they all knew the time schedule. based had to start the process meant two years earlier we wouldn't be in the situation where he had to kick the bucket -- >> don't kick the bucket. [laughter] >> sorry about that. but anyway, you wouldn't have to do the two-year delay. and i was wondering coming in the, what happened there and who failed, and why didn't we get that? >> right here. >> i'm wondering if there's an open or secret agreement with south korea that a unified korea will not have nuclear weapons, that it will not inherit the north's nuclear weapons.

and more importantly, if such an agreement exists, does china know about it? my thought here is that if a unified korea will not be a nuclear weapons power, it is that much less likely to intervene, to prop up the kim regime. >> okay, thank you. rob. >> rob warren. i would like to ask on then once, and that is the proposition that came out of the summit by south korea to organize a regional by law in northeast asia. what is the potential of that and what type of role, leadership role is south korea? and what would be the expectations?

>> okay, so we've got a broad range of questions, range from korean american community and the role to nuclear cooperation deal, to any kind of secret agreement on the future of these nuclear weapons to the regional dialogue issues. >> i am a retired reporter, so i don't have -- background, some secrets. but i think, i think -- my experience as a reporter there could be sometimes of agreemen agreements. it could be done by working groups. what does the secret agreement be?

>> on the question that was asked about korean-americans and what role that they might have, i think it's a tremendous advantage for the relationship that there are so many koreans, or korean-americans, some second generation from living in the united states to maintain the knowledge of korea and can facilitate and deepen the already deep relationship. and 25, almost 30 years since i started being dean of the school of international service, there were many korean-americans from a school that have gone to seoul to study. and initially they reported lots of derogatory comments by koreans about them being here. they don't report that anymore. i think, at least on their experience, there's a big change. and as mr. nam said, korea is viewed as one of if not the most successful countries in the world in terms of the progress made over the last 20 or 30 years. i travel around latin america.

i'm spending a lot of time in west asia now. people around the world are eager to relate to korea because of its success, and i think that this experience washes over for korean-americans and also for korea itself. so i think it's very, very good for the kind of progress that's been made. i think it also relates very strongly to an aspect of the recent summit that president park emphasized that we didn't talk about, which is economic relations. and she made a very strong pitch for more visas. shin president obama signed agreements about technology cooperation -- she and the president obama. there's already a strong economic relationship between korea and the united states, and it's not going to stop. it's going to get deeper. is going to be more trade. and that will be more important for both countries in the future. if it stops or if it slows down, we're both in trouble. secondly, i think mr. nam's point about 60 years, what is

the big change that's going to happen? i think there are two changes. one is in the economic relationship, the imbalance between korea and the united states in terms of leadership and training. korea is ahead of the united states in many areas. that's a huge change. and the second thing that a think we should look for after 60 years is another area that we didn't talk about and that is culture. korea as a world leader in culture. i travel to latin america. the most popular singer among 13 and 14 year old teenagers in lima peru is young so kim, the lead singer for girls generation. that's going to be very important as these young people grow up all around the world but i don't have to tell you about the contents success. we can laugh about this but

everyone on the plane, middle-aged japanese women who are there to see their soap opera heroes in seoul. the culture projection of korea is another huge change. so after 60 years while we might talk as we did so much about the security relations, and they're very important, the economic relations and the cultural relations are really really important. i think, mr. kim, you are very wise to what's happening after 60 years and i think these are big things. >> lou, i think you bring up a big point. we think to focus on the president of the entourage she traveled with was an impressive group of people. ceos of major corporations such as -- i think we kind of overlook that. but the fact that not only is there's political prowess but economic profit that came with it. and the cultural side. >> this gentleman asked me about

-- northeast asia. can i answer? >> please. >> now, around the gentleman's question from northeast asia from president park. i will tell you about what i think, south korean government has not concrete or detailed content. it's an announcement. so you know, there are many problems -- cooperative assistance. because you know, japan and china, north korea is three countries have a different interest relating to economic or political or environment.

so it's very, i think it is very, very difficult to achieve alliance goals which president park for the united states in u.s. congress. so i think it have its own world, but -- [inaudible] influence on that area. so i would just have to say even we don't have, we can't accept the announcement, but i think right now it has -- [inaudible] >> let me respond to a couple of the questions beginning with the question of whose fault was it that we didn't get the deals. it is true, we've known about for 30 years in terms of the deadline and they shouldn't have been a surprise. to be really candid, the bok administration spent all their administration try for something

really grateful for. i think the u.s. is grateful for and i think the businessman is grateful for. we know very well the last of his imagination was very much lyndoch a notion had the political pushes some of this incident as again the primary reason. so again it's unfair to the pocket administration to assume that within two months they could resolve the. there is something more substantive and want to respond over to what mr. nam was saying. i don't see this as so much a question of confidence or a lack of u.s. conference in south korea. that's not the issue. in fact, the u.s. opposition has nothing to do with korea. it's a question of precedence, not confidence. so the question is, if south korea can do it then why not iran or everybody else, right? this is a question of a global regime and global priorities that are butting up against south korea's kind of personal aspirations. that is difficult. personally i would like us not take us down the road to you

maybe five or 10 years until we see the outcome of this joint u.s.-rok study on it. because again, many people don't realize this but the united states does not reprocess for our nuclear energy program, our commercial nuclear energy program. we don't do it to we find it inefficient, uneconomical and dangers. we have not done it since 1979. and so we're not exactly being hypocritical in this regard. i would add one other point here. mr. nam was mentioning when he was talking about the transfer touch of a prominent south korean politician who is calling for the reintroduction of use tactical nukes or for south korea to go nuclear, and in response to the there was an asean survey which showed 60% of south koreans favor south korea going nuclear. that is a very useful pole and statement in negotiating with

the chinese over north korea. that allows us to say to the chinese, look, because you're not reigning in south korea, they may go nuclear. i would suggest it is not very helpful when you're trying to negotiate a nuclear cooperation agreement when 60% of your publics as we want to go nuclear. [laughter] the timing was not right. does that make sense? let me eluded just a couple other things very quickly. the question of wartime operational control. many of you know this was an issue that was pushed on the very nationalistic way, couched in terms of south korea taking back sovereignty from the americans. and they were very surprised to find under secretary rumsfeld they were pushing on an open door and the american said sure, yours, take it, 2009 come you got it. they were shocked by it and to those negotiations to push back the 2012. than as a favor president obama's it will push about to 2015. at this point i've not make

anybody other than retired generals or in the public sector the things we should look at -- pushback for the it talk to the -- people within the military itself but if you talk to the dod, defenses thousand here and the administered difference in south korea they're working is very carefully. have a solid plan. there are ways that will make sure we reserve the best of what we had and go forward. if there was another couple months like we've had for the last two months for fundamental change on the security dependence, that may cause us to we shift our timing. but as of right now i think korea is remarkably capable in moving forward and wants to move forward if you talk to them and you talk to the ministry of defense at that point. the final point of mention is on the question of this broader northeast asia proposal and i couldn't agree with mr. nam more. it's an interesting idea to a potential but it's clearly where the u.s. would like to go in terms of regional stuff but as of now, the slogan in search of

substance. it's not there yet. i would just take an opportunity to throw a reference to my earlier remarks, it is also a proposal that is impossible to create korea-japan relationships. you cannot have a meaningful northeast asian proactive initiative while korea-japan relations are not good. >> thank you. i think gordon answered my question, which is going to be looking at the importance of the 123 agreement, how do we accommodate our role in terms of proliferation and are concerned about its economic interest. [inaudible]

>> right here. >> mike from executive intelligence review. while it's been very positive as you said, there was one moment that came out afterwards, which objected quite strongly to the implication in the press conference between president obama and president park, that korea was part of or in some way associated with the anti-ballistic missile system policy of the united states. and my understanding, the foreign ministry not only objects that we have our own, but also that clearly that the u.s. system is viewed as a threat to china, not just in north korea. and that president park or

perhaps the defense ministry said where far more concerned with -- which is a very interesting statement. so i wonder if both one of the americans are one of the koreans could give me your view of that whole issue. >> thank you. i would like to go on terms of economic relationship, put the issue in broader content. the restructure of both economic powers. [inaudible] 75% of u.s. exports,

95% of chinese exports. today, china is 80% larger than us. this is big, really big for south korea. as far as an investor was country to negotiate a free trade agreement with china. so my question is in his quite rapidly changing set of economic interests, what's in store for changes for economic strategy by the government in particular, the economic strategy between china and south korea? >> okay, we have three great good question. one about nuclear cooperation, one about abm, and the bouncing of the china korea relations. the dynamics in the region.

>> as to what a likely combination is going forward, that's a very good question and one i don't have a clear answer to. the way i would rephrase that question is, whose side is time on? if you look at the u.s. position, you look at south korea's position. so if we decide to delay the agreement for five years or 10 years, looking back, which side will think i wish we had struck a deal in 2013. if you're south korea right now, as time goes on it the u.s. nuclear renaissance fizzles, tied to japan, we don't do much, we become increasingly breast -- less relevant in the field, it gained greater access to uranium and other materials, that's not coming from the u.s., south korea will have a much stronger nuclear negotiating leverage and they won't need as. they did not renew the agreement and go ahead and put on their own. on a more positive light, if our

joint study bears fruit we could be jointly developing the small modular reactors that would actually use this type of fuel and we might work together. where we stand right now is finished, it's hard to make our judgments on either side and this is what i think neither side has been willing to go to the mat on this because we just don't quite know, if that makes sense but again, as i mentioned the u.s. doesn't reprocess. the south korean case are recrossing right now isn't quite there yet because the reality is publicly south korea's complaint we are a small country, we have no more space, we can't put the fuel and this we must do this. the reality is even if they decided to successfully do pyro processing in 20 or 30 years, it would be 20 or 30 years before something came up and that would only take care of maybe 10-20% of the spent fuel rods. so it's not a solution to the problem that it is being sold as a solution to.

so there's something that is there. there. we just don't have enough data. restraint to work together. i agree with the other panelists, we are allies. we should build work on this. i wasn't going to but when i said it was assigned strengthening. and not have that shape us politically but it hasn't spilled over in terms of nasty battles. we're working on it. that's what comes down to you right now. the abm treaty is a very good question, and it is a troubling area that leads to a more sensitive, broader challenge we've had over the last several decades with south korea. it is tied to the economic question. as china grows and economic significance and importance and its role in korea grows, and korea is going to be increasingly wary in purchasing in activities that are perceived to be, rightly or wrongly, anti-chinese, hence korea is out of the tpp yet partner because

of the procession and likewise korea very much is very supportive of the u.s. i think almost across the board in terms of, you know, missile defense, or in terms of the function. what they are wary of is the political ramifications of participating in something that is perceived to be anti-chinese. so this is a case where they're trying to maintain strong alliance relations with the united states and cooperate, and at the same time not anger their largest trade partner. that's a type of tension i think we need to anticipate going forward. >> okay, in this place i would like the delegates from the united states and korea worked together. i take your examples of when people -- [inaudible].

it is shaped like a triangle. [inaudible] there's no problematic way -- [inaudible] now the problem, nuclear waste, this kind of, you know, the elements. second this abm. this is delicate problem. experts are worried about that. korea -- this kind of problem --

[inaudible] so i think, you know, the abm system problem, should be very cautious and thought of mind. that's all. >> ernie's ocean about changing economic relations and the rise of china i think when they went to remember, the rise of china vis-à-vis the united states isn't the only thing to there's also the european union. an economy of some measures is larger than the united states. and what does the rise of china me? doesn't mean the united states and the european union are less powerful than they were before? i would argue no. there's a book that is just come out about the nature of power in the world, and the argument is that there's more power of able today than it ever was before, it is going to be more power in the future.

and so i would argue, i agree at this point the united states continues to have the power it had before, and even more power and china is also increasing the but also in tunisia is increasing in power. look at its political records. india is increasing. turkey is increasing. brazil is increasing. there is, as ernie said, a radical restructuring of economic relations in the world, and it's moving us away from a bipolar or a tripartite multipolar world in which you'll be a lot more opportunities, a lot more room for one station start to falter like japan did and slow down the global economic project. others might able to pick things the. hopefully we won't get into some kind of a trade war where we fall into some global economic negative situation like has

happened a number of times in the past, but i think ernie is very right to point out that there is a radical global restructuring that i think is very important, it is not a zero-sum game. it's a multiple some, it's a positive sum game. instead of two or three hours, there's at least seven or eight auburn in the world, and more in the years to come. >> great. it's 3:30, and please help me thank our guests for the real rich and fruitful discussion today. thank you very much. [applause] >> i understand there's some refreshments. [inaudible conversations]

>> on c-span2, air force secretary michael donnelly on the 2014th air force budget and sexual assault in a military. then live at 10 a.m. eastern the senate returns to work on a bill dealing with water infrastructure projects. >> today the senate judiciary committee continues its markup of immigration legislation. members will continue work on amendments starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> today, a group of house republicans led by representative steve king will hold a news briefing to announce theitheir opposition to the immigration bill being worked on by the senate judiciary committee. you can watch that live starting at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs.

weekdays feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy defense. and every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> president obama held meetings monday with british prime minister david cameron followed by a joint news conference. during the news conference he took questions about the ongoing benghazi investigation. you can see the entire event in time at our website, c-span.org. >> with respect to benghazi, we've now seen this argument that's been made by some folks primarily up on capitol hill for months now.

and i've just got to say, here's what we know. americans died in benghazi. what we also note is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected. the day after it happened, i acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism. and what i pledged to the american people was that we would find out what happened, we would make sure that it did not happen again, and we would make sure that we hold accountable those who have perpetrated this terrible crime. and that's exactly what we've been trying to do. and over the last several months there was a review board headed by two distinguished americans, mike mullin and tom pickering, who investigated every element

of this. and what they discovered was some pretty harsh judgment and terms of how we had worked to protect consulates and embassies around the world. they gave us a whole series of recommendations. does recommendations are being implemented as we speak. the whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. what we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were here it happened at the same time as we've seen attacks on u.s. embassies in cairo as a consequence of this film. and nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.

and e-mails that you allude to were provided by s. to congressional committees. they review them several months ago, concluded that, in fact, there was nothing a foul in terms of the process that we had used. and suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. there's no there there. keep in mind, by the way, the so-called talking points that were prepared for susan rice five, six days after the event occurred pretty much matched the assessments that i was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. and keep in mind that two to three days after susan rice

appeared on the sunday shows, using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, i sent up ahead of our national counterterrorism center, matt olson, up to capitol hill and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of libya had been involved in it. so if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd things that three days later we end up putting out all the information that, in fact, has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by emis libya.

who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tip things down for three days? so the whole thing defies logic. and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations. we've had folks will challenge hillary clinton's integrity, susan rice is integrity, mike mullin and tom pickering's integrity. it's a given that mine gets challenged by the same folks. they have used it for fund-raising. and, frankly, you know, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this doesn't happen again, i am happy to get their advice and information and counsel. but the fact of the matter is these four americans, as i said right when it happened, where people i sent into the field,

and i've been very clear about taking responsibility for the fact that we were not able to prevent their deaths. and we're doing everything we can to make sure we prevent it, in part because the are still diplomats around the world who are in very dangerous, difficult situations. and we don't have time to be playing these kinds of political games here in washington. we should be focused on what are we doing to protect them. ..

>> and so we, we dishonor them when, you know, we turn things like this into a political circus. what happened was tragic, it was carried out by extremists inside of libya. we are out there trying to hunt down the folks who carried this out, and we are trying to to make sure we fix the system so that it doesn't happen again. >> today the senate judiciary committee continues its markup of immigration legislation. members will continue work on amendments starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> today a group of house republicans led by representative steve king will hold a news briefing to announce their opposition to the immigration bill being worked on by the senate judiciary committee at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> air force officials expressed concern about recent statistics on sexual assaults in the military. air force secretary michael donley and chief of staff general mark welsh testified before a house appropriations subcommittee looking at the president's air force budget request for 2014. this is about two hours. >> this morning our hearing is with the united states air force, the secretary of the air force and the chief of the air force. of course, the topic is the fiscal year 2014 budget and your -- [inaudible] for fiscal year 2014. air force is the only service to receive a base budget increase in the fy-2014, but much of this increase is devoted to an attempt to maintain readiness with the threat of continued

sequestration. in the meantime, the air force is aging and shrinking and has modernizing needs across the fleet, and we're anxious to hear how the air force will meet this challenge. this will be secretary donley's final appearance before this subcommittee, and mr. secretary, since you announced that you would be stepping down from this important post in june, i would say on behalf of the committee we have appreciated your service and your years of testimony before the committee, and thank you for being here today and thank you for all of your service. 35 years working in one part of the national defense is a pretty important challenge and a pretty important accomplishment, so thank you for that, sir. general welsh is making his second appearance before the subcommittee, but this is his first budget and posture

hearing. general welsh comes before us as a 1976 air force academy graduate with over 36 years of military service. he became the chief of staff of the air force last august having previously served as commander of u.s. air forces in europe. thank you for appearing before us today. your statements will be entered into the record, and you will present those statements any way that you wish. before i turn to mr. visclosky, i must advise those, the members and the witnesses, there will be a series of votes at about 10:30. so we are trying to structure the hearing so that part of us will be able to go make the votes while the others remain to continue the hearing, and then when those return, the rest of us will go. having said that, i really do

turn any opening statement over to mr. visclosky. >> chairman, thank you very much, and as in the past, appreciate you having the hearing, gentlemen, for your service, particularly mr. secretary. anticipating your retirement from your office, and i'll look forward to your testimony. thank you very much. >> there are several concerns that we have. one of the major issues is some of the unfortunate stories that we're getting on sexual harassment and sexual abuse if the air force -- in the air force. and we will be pursuing that today, this morning. but something that caught my attention was a story in "the washington post", and the headline said, "air force sidelines 17 icbm launch

officers; commander cites, quote, rot, unquote, within the system." that headline alone is really worrisome. so i'm hoping that you would discuss in some detail to tell us just what's going on here. and i know that mr. frelinghuysen has some serious interest in this issue as well. so i think what we'll do at this point, mr. secretary, we're anxious to hear your statement. your entire statement will be place inside the record. you present it to us any way you like. be. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and if i could indulge the committee, i will read the statement, and both general welsh and i are prepared to address the two issues that you raised among others this morning. mr. chairman, mr. visclosky, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here

representing our active duty guard, reserve and civilian airmen, and i am honored to be here with my teammate and partner in this work, our 20th chief of staff and a great air force leader, general mark welsh. for fiscal year '14, the air force is requesting $114.1 billion in our baseline budget. as with all budgets, our fy-14 request represents a snapshot in time. our best analysis of our force needs based on available information. and especially given the budget turmoil over the past year, if i could indulge the committee, this morning's discussion on the fy-14 budget needs to begin with where we stand this year in fy-13. first, i'd like to highlight that throughout the current budget turmoil our air force priorities remainal lined with the january 2012 defense strategic guidance. this includes supporting

combatant commanders in the current fight if afghanistan, maintaining a strong and stable presence in the pacific and korea, supporting nuclear and regional deterrence, counterterror and other operations. there is demand for air power, and your airmen are busy around the world. today more than 35,000 airmen are deployed, more than 57,000 airmen arationed overseas -- are stationed overseas and more than 132,000 are providing support every day. and as the fiscal constraints get tighter, we immediate to tighten our alignment with the new strategy, strengthen our commitment to joint and interdependent solutions to the nation's military challenges. you've heard many times that the implications of sequestration are dire, and they are. that's why the president has put forward a balanced deficit reduction proposal that would allow congress to repeal sequestration in fy-13 and beyond. while the department is working

full out to adapt to these new realities, it was not possible given the necessary timelines to turn around a new fy-14 budget based on new assumptions derived from march 1st's sequestration and from the final defense appropriations act which was also approved in march, nearly six months into the fiscal year. we need to stipulate up front that our fy-14 budget request does not provide funding to recover from the damage done by even a partial year of fy-13 sequestration. much less the full um pacts that would -- impacts that would hit the air force if the president's proposal to replace she questions ration for fy-13 and beyond is not enacted. this morning i'll summarize the state of our air force in three broad characters. first, force structure -- that is the size and the composition of the force -- readiness, training, the preparedness of

our airmen and their equipment, and modernization. the replacement of aging aircraft and infrastructure and our investment in future capabilities. first, force structure. last year in our efforts to meet the requirements of the first half of the budget control act amounting to $487 billion in reductions over ten years, the air force's fy-13 budget proposed a number of force structure changes including aircraft transfers, retirements and changes in unit missions. they were the subject of much controversy in our reserve components, with the state generals and congressional delegations. thanks to the work of this committee and others, we were able to fashion a prom poise which was -- compromise which was approved. this year i can report that the fy-14 budget proposes no major changes in force structure. as compared to force levels enacted in the fy-13 ndaa, our

'14 budget proposal would reduce active duty end strength by 1860, reduce air force reserve end strength by 480 and the air national guard by 300. we retain c-130 and global hawk block 30 force structure as directed through fy-14. our nuclear forces remain at current levels pending future decisions on the implementation of the new s.t.a.r.t. agreement, and we're on track to achieve 65 medium altitude combat air patrols with our remotely-piloted aircraft fleet. we'll focus in fy-14 on implementing the retirement, transfers and mission changes outlined in the fy-13 ndaa, and we've provided two reports to congress outlining implementation plans for each effective unit and location. looking, it's never been more important for our air force to maximize the strength of our total force, our active guard

and reserve components are increasingly integrated, conducting a full range of missions together as a total force. and we must continue to insure that our active reserve component mix correctly balances the strengths of each component, meets our strategic requirements and fiscal demands. we've made progress over the past year in our intergovernmental relationships working with dod and the council of governors to formalize a consultative process between dod and the states to provide more transparency in planning and programming. within the our force working with our guard and reserve leaders, we have established a total force task force to provide strategic options on the appropriate mix of total force capabilities and to inform our strategic planning for fiscal year '15 and beyond. this task force will also serve as a resource to the congressionally-directed

national commission on the force structure of the air force which held its first meeting last week. in summary, our proposed force structure is relatively stable for now, but beyond fy-14 is dependent on decisions yet to be made, and especially on achieving a balanced approach to deficit reduction to avoid further sequestration. turning to readiness, while the air force has met the demands of a high operational tempo in support of today's fight, it has taken a toll on our weapons systems and people. unit readiness has declined significantly from 2003 onward, and despite significant investments in the past few yearses, only half our combat air forces have met acceptable standards of readiness. with the rebalance to the craze-pacific and our continued presence in the middle east and africa, we expect the demand for air force capabilities will remain constant, perhaps even increase over the next decade.

we must be improve air force readiness to prevent a hollow force. with respect to fy-13, the joint chiefs of taffe and air force leaders have already recounted the readiness impacts we anticipated this year as a result of sequestration. passage of the final fy-13 continuing resolution which included defense appropriations was helpful to dod overall but did not improve the active air force's operation and maintenance budget. it left shortages in overseas contingency operations accounts and did not mitigate the impacts of sequestration which have required approximately 10 billion in reductions to be taken in the last seven months of fy-13. anticipationing this challenge, we took steps to cut back normal operations including a civilian hiring freeze for permanent, temporary and term vacancies, canceling nonmission-critical

travel and conferences, reducing major command and combatant command o&m budgets by 10% and deferring nonemergency facilities modernization projects. however, these steps alone are not sufficient to absorb the full impacts of sequestration without affecting readiness. collectively, the sequestering reductions and readiness impacts are now being felt across the air force. currently, nine combat-coded fighter units and three combat-coded bomber units are stood down and have ceased frying operations -- flying operations. seven units are flying at basic mission capable levels and will only return to combat mission ready status if funding becomes available. flying hour reductions will halt training for the rest of the year in many units and will take up to six months to restore pilot proto efficiency. pro efficiency. other impacts include weapons

systems sustainment that will delay necessary maintenance, increase costs and take two to three years to recover from repair backlogs. and there is the potential furlough of our valued civilian work force, significantly reducing civilian pay, potentially devastating morale and slowing productivity. our main objective in the fy-14 budget mirrors our objective for three years running, to slow and reverse the erosion of air force readiness. to that end, our fy-14 budget request is aimed at setting the air force back on the course toward full spectrum readiness. the budget request prioritizes funding for 1.2 million flying hours, an increase of 40,000 hours over last year, to insure pilot proficiency and continue new pilot production. it funds training ranges to enhance flying training effectiveness and to restore deteriorating infrastructure. it adds 1.5 billion across the

future years' defense plan to weapon systems sustainment to keep our aircraft and space systems ready. unfortunately, fy-13 sequestration now jeopardizes the gains we had hoped to achieve next year. even assuming this budget is approved as proposed, and even if the congress acted sometime this summer to repeal and replace sequestration for fy-13, we would almost certainly begin fy-14 carrying forward a significantly degraded readiness posture from this year. the air force is working on an fy-13 programming request to address some of the worst effects of sequestration. however, the transfer authority available to dod is not sufficient to address all our known shortfalls, and even if such transfer authority were available, we do not have sufficient internal resources to

pay for these shortfalls without digging far too deeply into modernization programs. and there may not be sufficient time left in fy-13 to repair the damage now immediately ahead. to sum up the readiness situation, we've been consuming air force readiness for zell years. -- several years. we'll continue to focus our resources available to meet combatant commander requirements but with the steep and late fy-13 budget reductions brought on by sequestration, the readiness hole we have been trying to climb out of just got deep. deeper. the full readiness and budgetary implications of this situation could not be accounted for in the fy-14 budget request and are still under review, and we'll continue to work with dod leadership and congress to fashion a practical way forward. finally, mod be earnization. as i've previously testified, this challenge facing the air force is pervasive, and if

unaddressed, will seriously undermine our ability to accomplish the in missions this nation asks us to undertake. the average age of our fighter force structure is now 23 years. rescue helicopters, 22 years. training aircraft, 25 years. bombers, 36 years. and tankers, nearly 50 years. satellites for missile warning, navigation, secure communications and other needs are also aging, and replacements must be built and launched on a schedule consistent with the life expectancy of current constellations. our most significant air force priorities remain on track in fy-14. the fifth generation f-35 joint strike fighter, the long-range strike family of systems including the bomber. the continued modernization of existing fleets like the b-2, the f-22, the f-15, f-16 and

c-17 to keep them operationally effective and to extend their service lives is also key. we request funding for preferred munitions as well as critical space be satellite assets such as the global positioning system, aehf and sibers satellite programs. and we intend to maintain our science and technology funding in order to stay on the cutting edge of technological innovation and sustain our air power advantage. we often face major challenges with major acquisition programs but have recently achieved some success using block-byes and more efficient procurement strategies to drive down the costs. 2.5 billion. be in the fy-14 request, it includes the first year of a multiyear procurement for the c-130j which is expected to save over 500 million over the next

five years. we'll need more successes like these in the future because there is still significant pressure on our mod be earnization programs -- modernization programs. last year in programming the air force share of 487 billion in defense reductions over ten years, the cancellation or delay of modernization programs accounted for 65% of total air force reductions across the -- [inaudible] this year each program was reduced by more than 7% in sequestration. in the immediate years ahead, major programs like the f-35, the kc-46 and the bomber are scheduled to grow as the overall dod budget declines. and some longstanding needs such as a new trainer aircraft and a replacement for the eaj stars remain unfunded. looking ahead, if there continues to be resistance to force structure changes, to base closures or con constraining

growth in compensation and given our focus on improving readiness, it's very likely that outyear reductions in the budget control act will require further disproportionate cuts to our modernization programs. as advanced technologies continue to proliferate around the globe, these cutbacks in this modernization would put at risk the air force capabilities this nation will need in the decade ahead. the decisions are ahead of us are extraordinarily difficult, but congress has the power to help the air force and the department of defense maneuver through these unparalleled budget challenges. in recent years congress has placed limits on the air force's efforts to take tough but urgently-needed actions to balance our readiness, mod be earnization is and force structure and has rejected some of dod's proposals to help slow the growth in military compensation. as our dod leaders have testified, these congressional actions, if sustained, will add

billions to our costs over the next five years. we hope that in view of the serious economic problems facing the nation, congress will allow us to implement these and other important changes. mr. chairman, it's now more critical than ever that we get your support on reductions in base infrastructure. the air force executed brac 2005 on time and under budget. and those adjustments today are generating savings estimated at $1 billion per year. we're looking at european basing requirements with our dod partners, and we're ready to begin next steps in the continental u.s. we estimate more than 20% of our basing infrastructure is excess to need. brac authority is a tool that we urgently need to allow dod to divest infrastructure and refocus infrastructure to meet other needs including readiness, modernization and taking care of our people.

in the area of compensation, we are committed -- as you are -- to taking care of our airmen. but the impact of increasing personnel costs continues to be a serious concern and can no longer be ignored. therefore, we support dod's efforts the slow the growth of personnel costs. we support the modest 1% pay raise in the tricare fee and pharmacy co-pay changes included in the fy-14 budget proposal. while these are some of the broad outlines of our budget, there's clearly more work to do as we assess the implications of sequestration in fy-13 and beyond. we will need your help to make necessary adjustments in our force structure, to keep us ready and to avoid a hollow force and to equip this air force with the modern capabilities it needs for the future. but perhaps one of the most helpful things congress can do is to return to regular order

and approve the annual defense authorization appropriation measures in a timely way. throughout history our nation has effectively dealt with both strategic and fiscal challenges, but our recent track record of repeated delay and uncertainty, continuing resolutions that disrupt programs and budget planning and mid year cuts that impair readiness and threaten civilian furloughs must not become the new normal. we sincerely appreciate the ongoing commitment of this committee and its professional staff to return to regular order. today's world a dangerous place, and it's counterproductive to generate problems of our own making while so many other serious threats beyond our control demand attention. together we must do better for our men and women in uniform and their families, our civilian work force and our national securi american people have the world's best

airmen and the world's finest air force. your air force leadership team remains committed to getting the most capability possible from whatever level of resources you provide. we remain grateful for the support this committee unfailingly provides to our air force and to the men and women of our armed forces. we are prepared to address the two issues that you raised, mr. chairman. i'll turn it over to my colleague, the chief, to get us started in that direction, and we stand ready to assist in any way we can, and we look forward to addressing your questions. thank you. >> well, mr. secretary, thank you very much. and we now, general welsh, we'd be very happy to take your statement at this time. >> thank you, chairman. chairman young, ranking member visclosky, members of the committee, it is truly a privilege to be here, it always will be. mr. chairman, i will enter most of my comments in the record, if that's okay with you, sir. >> it is, sir. >> there are two things i would like to address at the front end, though, if i may.

it won't take long, but this is important. the first is a decidedly negative note. both secretary donley and i were appalled, i believe is the right word, at the sexual battery allegations against the keefe of our response branch -- chief of our response branch that were laid last weekend. this officer works in an office responsible for the programs, procedures and policies in this area. the charges, if true, are incomprehensible. as the secretary and i have said over and over and over again, sexual assault prevention and response efforts are critically important to the united states air force and to our people, and this is another shocking reminder that we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do, and i'd be happy to answer any specific questions you have about that during this session. we remain committed to supporting victims, and consistent with due process, holding those that commit this horrible crime accountable for their actions. we will continue to strive to foster work environments that are safe and respectful, we'll develop leaders of character who demonstrate operational

effectiveness, innovation and the selfless, caring approach required to lead america's sons and daughters. and we'll continue to do everything in our power to care for airmen and their families while balancing the resources required to do that with the understanding that our primary job is to fight and win the nation's wars. now, no part of that primary job is more important than the nuclear enterprise. in march of this year, the 91st missile wing underwent inspection. you referred to it in the article from "the washington post" this morning. that inspection was conducted by inspectors, it encompassed 22 areas of performance. of those 32 airs, 22 areas, it was rated excellent in 14, sphiex in 7, or marginal in 3. that one area rated marginal was missile crew operations. it is unusual for a missile wing to be graded marginal in that area. it does not happen very often. now, to be clear, marginal is passing. it meets the minimum standards for getting the job done. but it is not the level they

would expect from their crew performance. the wing commander and the be group commander at mynot immediately started an investigation into what had caused the performance by their crew members. they expanded it to the entire operational crew force of the wing, and they conducted a comprehensive top-to-bottom assessment of training, performance on routine testing simulations, etc., etc., and when they were complete, they found 17 members of that wing not from one unit, but spread across the wing, who they felt were not demonstrating the proper attitude and effort to stay completely up to speed on everything necessary to be perfect in the nuclear operations business. and so they took those 17 crew members, and they've reentered them into a training program which will take about 60 days to complete. those 17 crew members constitute about 10% of that missile wing. so in my view, here is what happened. we had an inspection process that is robust, the inspections

are very difficult, and an indication from this inspection was that there was something for the wing commander to pay attention to. he paid great attention to it, and with great diligence tried to figure out what the problem was and what the right solution would be. in my view, he did exactly what i would expect from a commander in this mission area. of he did it before there was a mission impact. this wing met all standards in the inspection that was conducted. he did it even though he knew it would draw negative attention to his command, and in doing so he reinforced the pride of the great, great missile crews who came through that mow coscope -- microscope for reinspection with flying colors, and he set very clear expectation for the 17 who did not and now must reearn the privilege of serving as a crew member. i'm confident they'll do exactly that. i'm proud of the wing commander at mynot. i think he did the right thing. mr. chairman, my job is to help secretary donley field the most capable and credible air force

possible. i believe our budget request before you moves us in that direction. it does improve readiness, helps to limit force structure costs, and it protects vital modernization. and finally, i am really privileged to be here sitting next to secretary mike donley who for five years now has led our air force with great dignity and with respect for all airmen. he and i would be happy to answer your questions about this budget submission. >> general, i think we share that last comment grow just made. i think -- you just made. i think we all share that. but thank you very much for the very positive statement that you just presented to the committee. and one of the reasons that i mentioned in my opening comments, i think mr. frelinghuysen, i'm going to yield to him because i believe he has some pretty serious follow-ups on that issue. >> first of all, i join the chairman and all the committee members in thanking you for your service and for the men and women that you represent, that are on duty each and every day.

for my part and mr. visclosky, and ms.cap to have's not here yet, we're interested, obviously, in the reliability of our nuclear stockpile. that's sort of what we do on the nuclear energy and water committee. you two gentlemen are responsible for the delivery. and so when we hear this article or read this article in "the washington post," and its certainly made its rounds, and i respect the fact that you you've addressed it, this isn't the first time there have been inspection problems at mynot, isn't that true? i've served on this committee with mr. young. there were several issues related back in 2007. weren't some of these same issues occurring back then? >> there were, but i would say the inspection process that the chief described for you has gotten more difficult and much

more focused over the last five years. >> with all due respect, you know, if this were the nuclear navy, somebody would be cashiered out. so i understand that 10% -- is it 10% of of the officers assigned to these missile launch sites? what's happened to them? >> they have gone -- >> have they been decertified? how did they get into this position to begin with? >> they passed training. they went through all the necessary training to become qualified, but in the view of the commander, they needed to go back for additional refresher training. so they were, they were decertified, taken off line -- >> what does that mean exactly? >> it means that the commander no longer has confidence that they are -- >> but didn't, wouldn't the commander have known this last year? i mean, is this, isn't a review on an annual basis at these missile sites? >> sir, they have multiple inspections that occur on repeating cycles.

mynot has had multiple inspections since 2007, many inspections. >> so have all of those -- >> yes, sir. >> -- inspections been passed with flying colors? >> yes, sir. and this inspection was passed. they did not fail -- >> but you, it's passed, but you must have some degree of unhappiness if you stripped 17 people who were responsible for this work, were they stripped of their authorities or not? is. >> they are not allowed to serve as missile combat crew members, yes, sir. >> there must be some reason for it. >> the commander is concerned that they are not taking the job seriously enough. the missile force at mynot is a very young force. our missile force in general in the air force is a very young force. he was concerned mostly about an attitude, or an unwillingness or a lack of understanding of how hard you need to work. >> well, that's -- >> to stay up to speed. >> respectfully, general, at's what we heard in 2007 before this committee. inherent in the job here is

you've got a young work force, and we obviously love the air force, but in reality there are obviously other jobs in the air force that are perhaps more attractive than being down underground, taking on this responsibility 24 hours a day, isn't that true? isn't that one of the issues here? >> congressman, i don't know what the issue is for these 17 individuals. all i can tell you is that is exactly what the wing commander's trying to prevent from being a problem. >> well, a view, and we discussed it a couple of years ago that these are somewhat, these are critical. because you are the critical part of the nuclear deterrent that some of these jobs in the air force are sort of viewed as sort of a dead end job. they're not as attractive as other jobs in the air force. could you argue with that point? >> i do, because i think that the pride that goes with this

work, the level of national importance that goes with this work, the high standards that are set for this work reflect a real commitment to the best standards of excellence and performance in our air force. >> i understand, i understand that. but this didn't happen overnight. is there something inherently in this work force because of its youth that there hasn't been enough direction from above as to how important this mission is? >> sir, this mission -- >> god forbid we should ever have to use icbms or use the bombers that might deliver nuclear weapons, but is there something inherent in the work force there where now we're going to get a substantial wake-up call? >> no, sir, i -- as the chief outlined, the unit has gone through a number of inspections in the last five years and has passed at much higher levels of

competence than they've generated in this most recent inspection. but they are getting tested and retested on a recurring basis. and not only in this job in the nuclear enterprise, but across our air force our airmen are held to high standards, and they are tested and inspected to insure their, the quality of their work meets our expectations. >> i'm sure the quality of the work is excellent across the air force. but in this particular area there's been some inherent problems which haven't, apparently, been -- that have resurfaced from 2007. we had the same conversation back in this committee several years ago. >> i think it was a very different conversation back in that period, and i think there's been substantial progress made in the last five years in tightening up and putting additional focus on this. and as the chief outlined, this

is exactly what we want commanders to be doing. >> well, it shouldn't perhaps have happened in the first place, but we're glad that somebody noticed it, and they didn't match your expect teations -- expectations. i appreciate your responses. quite honestly, mr. chairman, i think this is an area where the ig needs to take a look. yield back, thank you. >> mr. frelinghuysen, thank you. if i could follow up on that, the question in my mind right now in view of this conversation, this so-called rot, is it strictly a people issue, or does it go to the equipment, to the state of the weapon, the state of the delivery capability? or is that all intact 100%? or does the rot extend to that? i think it's important that we know exactly. besides the people problem, what about the technology? what about the hardware? >> chairman, the rot that was

referred to in the e-mail by the deputy group commander is a term that i think he and everyone else regret. he was talking about this attitude among a few of the crew members that he had heard about who he didn't think were committed enough to staying fully aware of all the responsibilities of their job all the time and getting better continuous hi in the performance of their --ly in continuously in the importance of their mission. they didn't have the drive he expected to see from his missile crew members. that's what he was referring to. nothing else. congressman, by the way, we share a concern about the crew force feeling that they are important. my first visits in this job were to the missile fields, to the missile wings to talk to them about how important this is, about how valued they should feel. anything we can do to continue that and make sure we don't see issues arise is something we should be doing every day. >> will the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> i understand these young crews are down there, basically,

alone. do they have adult supervision down there? or does the supervision come from -- >> sir -- >> -- a commander above? are they literally down there alone or not? >> the crew members areonuld noe not adults. >> they are adul but i'm just saying to you, commander? >> -- responsibility in their hands. >> you make a point in your statement about command and control. it appears that there's not as much command oversight as there should be. >> sir, the interconnectivity of the nuclear command and control system provides an awful lot of checks and balances -- >> but obviously not in those underground locations. some of those underground locations. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. well, just one final comment on that. this, this deterrent capability that we have had since, basically, since the end of world war ii has been important to the curt of this country -- security of this country. if there are any flaws in that system, we've got to ferret them

out and make sure that they're fixed. anyway, thank you for your responses on that really important subject. i yield now to mr. moran. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the topic that mr. frelinghuysen rightfully raised that got to the personnel, the one you raised, mr. chairman, again rightfully on sexual assault, i know, are going to be revisited. mr. mcclelland, it's fair to say, is loaded for bear on those issues. so i'm going to address another couple issues. and i have to explain that a my staff person who's a graduate of usc has respectfully requested that since secretary donley also is a usc trojan, that i only direct my abusive questions at general welsh. so, you know, it's not the way things are done, but with -- are

supposed to be done, but that's what we will do. so, general welsh, in fy-12 this committee provided funds to purchase the three remaining global hawk block 30 aircraft. but the air force never obligated those dollars. ignored the intent of the subcommittee. and so in this current fiscal year this subcommittee directed you to purchase the three aircraft, and yet you've decided to shrug your shoulders and not to do so. the, we just got a report that required you to do on this program, and despite repeated claims when you've come before this subcommittee, the report shows that the committee was right, and you were wrong with,

frankly. the u2 piloted aircraft is more expensive to operate than the global hawk. now, the, you know, the flying costs per hour are approximately the same, but the global hawk is much cheaper to operate overall because you need fewer aircraft. the u2, as you know, has a pilot, and i suspect that's the real eshoo here, the pilot -- issue here, even though the u2 has been around longer even than some of the members of this subcommittee have been alive. so the -- now, even when you reduce the range that you required by two-thirds, we still find that there is an advantage to the global hawk. and now, i'm going to anticipate

what you're going to tell us, that the u2 has more sensors than the global hawk. so i'm going to also put on the table here that the fact is that the sensors could be, while you say it would cost half a billion dollars, the contractor has offered to do et for the air force for a fixed price of 75 million to put the u2 sensors and the optical block camera onto the global hawk. and yet the air force hasn't responded. now, i've got pages of data here comparing the two programs, and they're pretty conclusive that the committee was right and that the air force continues to insist on an aircraft that is largely outdated. but be i suspect it's pause it's piloted -- because it is piloted

and there is an understandable bias. but this committee not only, one, expects you to do what is instructed, but, two, to take advantage of the progress of technology so that we have the largest range of isf possible, and we can most effectively present this information to the people in the field. so i've given you a few minutes to construct your response, general. do you want to do so? >> thank you, congressman. let me maybe try and keep this in order. the cost is based on our concept of operations for the platforms. i believe the cost is about the same. we put the u2 much closer to where the actual refueling or the isr track is going to be located. if you use that model, the u2 costs less than the global hawk which typically is more centrally located and has a longer way to travel. therefore, the longer flights

cost more money. but cost is a trade in our, in my mind. cost is not the factor. the sensors, the company's proposal replaces seven sons on -- sensors on six aircraft. we are looking at 18. it takes the sensors off the u2s which means we can't use the u2s anymore. product quality is a real issue for our combatant commanders. some of the intelligence arena, some of the collection arenas are not as good on the global hawk as the u2, and every one of our managers in our combatant commands will tell you that. we have talked to knot run gum monoabout in the past, they understand our concern. they would prefer a u2 product over the global hawk. the central ranges are longer as well which is beneficial particularly when you're doing indications in the warning and near a border that you can't cross to overflight target areas. ..

>> twenty-four hours a day, 1200 nautical mile range to only 400 for the u2. and its operational costs are 19% lower than the u2. and a global process is declining with the u2 costs are increasing. we will repeat that. i'm not going to get repetitive in the hearing, but i do think that it is an issue that needs continue to be addressed because the committee as a consensus that we need to be consistent with the authorizing committee. just one other area.

this aoi this system with the f-35, i'm told that we need to pay for seven contractors for, per squadron. and that's not affordable. can you share with us why you feel that, that that's absolute necessary to have the seven contractors with each f-35 squadron for this information system? >> sir, i don't have a specific data on contractor support for ails at each location but i was happy to get the 40 for the record. ails is a very important part of the program. and it's going to be used across the services and its international partners as well.

it is a big program and has lots of management. we're working on trying to get the costs down on that program. by itself it would be in a cap one program, it's quite significant. so we are working to get the cost down and ails, and to work out smart logistics and support strategies regard dod and international partners. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. granger? >> thank you. unsought i was late and you may have covered some of what i am asking you about in opening remarks. of course it concerns -- a report that said 26,000 people in the armed services were sexually assaulted in one year. and the head of your department, what are you going to do?

what you are doing isn't working. no doubt about it, it isn't working. so what are you going to do? what's your plan? i want another study, another report. are you just going to let the congress change your rules? which we are certainly willing to do. >> this is a concern to all of us. all the services, including the air force have been very focused on improving both the climate and the environment in which our airmen live and work. >> mahan directs you? but it's not working. >> mahan, we understand exact -- >> we do more of the same? >> we need to find the game changers in this work. we are working the climate. we're working deterrence. we are doing prevention. we are training investigators, we are training lawyers to be more effective in covering this problem, and working with

victims so that they will come forward so that they will get support through a prosecutorial process, which legal process, which can be lengthy and frustrating, and even traumatic to the victims. we've established a victims council program to help work support that -- >> that's all after the event assaulted. >> it is. we are working every part of this, and we just have not yet found the game changers. >> sexual assault on women's? >> bam? >> our most assaults having to do with women's? >> i think most of the victims are women, yes, but not all. >> maybe want to put a woman in charge of it. >> right now the officer responsible for sexual assault prevention and response in the air force is not the lieutenant colonel who is being characterized that way. he is in charge of a four-person branch in that office. air force wants her funeral is

the officer who i consider the lead for this effort. >> i'm just saying, the congress will take action. it may or may not work but we are so fed up with this, and it is, when we talk about protecting our military and we are not protecting the women who are serving in the military. stopping from what's happening. that's all what i have to say what i see. what your doing is more of the same will get the same results. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you all for being here today. i wanted to ask you a little bit about our space launch capabilities, when you represent a state like florida as mr. young and i do, you learn the impact space has on everyday life, and to serve on the subcommittee and to learn about space having an impact on just about every aspect on national

security. and right now most of the states launch capabilities are provided by one particular alliance, and they do that in and actually, in almost a near-perfect record. but it's a very expensive. one of the reasons it is expensive is because you have demanded a zero risk situation, which is i think appropriate. but we do have cost analysis. you always find if you want zero risk, then exponentially the cost is going to increase. i think would be important for the subcommittee to understand about that, about why we have that zero risk demand and, therefore, the expensive part. and then also it's my understanding, you tend to open up the launch capabilities to other certified interest. i think that's a good idea as long as they have the proven reliability. so maybe you could talk a little biabt your plans to do that and how you're going to make

sure that they, who is doing it now and how you're going to decide at the end to give more than one that's capable, how we go about deciding who's going to provide which launch capability? >> happy to address that. this is i think a good news story for our space operators and for the taxpayers. and it's really a product about three years of work. first let me address what you describe as our primary force. this is a big deal because space launch is about 40% of the cost of our space enterprise. we have high standards here because we're putting billion dollar satellites into orbit for, $109 plus satellite in orbit and this is the most dangerous part of the nation. it is access and launch to space. so that's what it is so

important to us. on the dl the site, we have done extensive cost work. we've entered into deep discussion with ual which is the manufacturer. and we've arrived at a block by decision that allows us to by 36 core over five years at a reduced cost to the government. so using a block by approach we are reducing the cost of the elv. at the same time working with the national conference office and nasa, we have put together a program for certifying new entrants, new companies that want to get certified for national security space launch. and working with nasa, we have published the new criterion, i think it was in november of 2011, which outlines what companies need to do to demonstrate proficiency and reliability in space launch.

we've also to support that work, we've isolated i think two payloads, maybe more but i can crack that for the record at some point. we've identified payload that will be available to those new entrants to help them demonstrate their proficiency and reliability for access to space. when they get certified, and we think the first company or companies will likely get certified in the fy '15 time frame, we have space launch slots for which both ual and a new entrants will compete. so we believe there's a competitive environment that starts in about fy '15 that will help drive down costs further. so i think, i think we're the good strategy, both on the elv said and the new entrants site. we've gotten good results already. we anticipate even better

results going forward. >> this is a critical capability i think for the future, and so if there are things we can help, we would like to beware of that. thank you very much. >> mr. calvert. >> thank you, mr. chairman. going back to north dakota for a moment, just for the record, what proportion of the top 10% of the air force academy graduates are assigned for that specialty? do you know that never? >> i don't know the -- let me clarify the question. top 10% of air force academy graduate, how many of those are assigned? i don't know the answer. >> image of the for the record? >> yes, sir. >> thanks. what's the military process for officers? >> we've actually change the process recently. we used to combine them. the intent and the past was to

try and provide a more diverse set of options for people who come into either career field over time. they're related, these a lot of the same warning systems et cetera. they are interconnected in a meaningful way. what we found recently that was we needed a little more expertise at the mid-and senior levels. we're also starting people to lead in developing expertise in the space career field. so typical officer would go to missile assignment first and coming to space career field and then be catching up with their peers. so we split the two career field so that will have a permissive force that is kind of going back to the past. and they will have broadened opportunities but they will growth in the missile career field. >> what percentage throughout the air force our officers working that specialty, dm and i didn't? >> i don't know the exact percentage but there's about 40,000 people working in the nuclear business overall for us. the author part of that is a pretty small percentage. >> do you know the numbers of?

>> i do not know that. this is about 5% of total air force research is in the nuclear enterprise. >> one thing want to talk about his unmanned aircraft systems. i think it's been talked about i think mr. moran has mentioned it, the air force was slow in catching that technology as the unmanned vehicles came aboard. i know that today certainly were trying to catch up. now we have this proliferation of unmanned aircraft systems throughout the dod that air force doesn't necessarily control, the army or other agencies. but getting to the reapers for a second, air force has requested funds to purchase 12 m-9 reapers, in fy '14 and i'm glad