is there something we can do to make it hatch? >> with respect to the nor norweigans, they have been the larger supplier of gas over gas. they have the ability and nothing we have to do to capture the market. the other two points, echo what was said, we could be a lot more forthright and less tilt on encouraging unconventional and conventional gas development in europe. i've been to eight of the countries to teach safe practices to regulators there, and they don't have private ownership or access to infrastructure, and you have them undermining the development there. technical assistance, getting

comfortable, those are things we are doing, but we could do more of, and the second one, i think is the point that's important. the european story is we eliminated debt clauses, we're done. it's not the case. there's much more work that needs to be done, and i talked to my colleagues at the state department, encouraged them to put that at the top of the agenda. get that market unblocked, more connections between there, you don't strand gas. you get connections. you can move more gas around that continent faster than it takes to build a new terminal. you can use the ones that they've got. >> this 1 the next one here, and we have to bring it to a close. i have one or two comments and questions, and i'll turn it over for final remarks, but i want to thank you, all, for your patience, excellent testimony, and everything will be submitted to the record. i want to bring it back locally

to the u.s., particularly louisiana and the energy coast. designing an energy policy, which this committee is focused on, promoting america as an energy superpower will create thousands and thousands of jobs here at home and abroad and help promote democracy, one of the central principle principles ofe existence of our nation. we spent time talking about europe and the ukraine, but we have also started this hearing by talking about the 37,000 jobs in louisiana and texas and the gulf coast that can be created right now with the production and opening up of exports for liquidfide natural gas. very respectful, appropriate in the comments, i want to be the same. louisiana is the second larger

producer of gas in the country, off gore an on, but we're also the third largest consumer of gas. it's not in this senator's interest to promote a policy where the prices would skyrocket and put consumers at a disadvantage. we have industrial consumers, residential consumers, but the facts are, and i think the case has been made overwhelmingly by a variety of different reports that opening up markets increases domestic supply, not close it down, increase it, of gas and natural gas, and it also will help to create jobs at home and abroad, and the price, as you all said, louisiana -- the u.s., north dakota production, texas, oklahoma, colorado, will always have an advantage because we're the source of the product.

now, yes, does thought have to go into it? is it the silver bullet? no, but it's part of, i think, the equation of how to create jobs at home, promote america's strengths abroad. the three questions i have, and we're not going it take the time, but i'll ask you all to submit them in writing for the committee. one other thing that we export, and alaska's proud of this, louisiana and texas proud of it, is our technology. it's not just our gas and oil that we export, refined and crude, but our technology, and what could we do better as a country? we're going to do these answers in writing, to encourage technology, not just for the big oil companies that, of course, have their own ability to do that, but the thousands of small independent producers that sometime find it difficult to work overseas. how could we assist them to, you know, to promote and export technology, which is value added to american inventors, ect..

that's one question for the writing. the other is, we've talked a lot about america. i'd like to talk about north america. i'd like to talk about the power of canada, america, and mexico as a major energy producer and supplier, and what's recently happened is a game changer with the government of mexico moving for the first time to privatize their energy sector. they reduce corruption, open up the private market, and mexico is a really big place with a lot of big promise. it sits very close to us. i'd like our country to start thinking about mexico, and, of course, building the keystone pipeline, in my view, and using canada and mexico, the north american alliance of energy is a powerful, powerful tool, and, finally, i don't want to underestimate my colleague, senator barrasso says if we

streamline processes, yes. i'm for streamlines and i'm for expediting, but i hope critics of the administration focus on what can we do to help the ukraine minimize corruption? what can we do to, you know, enhance the $1billion that you said, mr. chow, was a drop in the bucket. submit what you think is significant investment to ukraine that sends the most positive small. while there's a lot of criticism from one side to the administration, i would also like to go on record saying, for my colleagues, and this is not senator mccows ky, but others on the republican side, put your money where your mouth is. you want to help? put the money towards ukraine and don't blame anybody else because permits are going slowly. i'll let you have the last word. >> thank you, madam chairman. this has been a great hearing. certainly, a great way to kick off your first full committee

hearing as chair on an issue that is clearly timely, and i think holds promise for america's position in the world as an energy leader, and, again, an opportunity for us as a nation to weemed influence in a positive way, and in a way you started off the questioning, talking about russia and energy blackmail. i don't think that the u.s. would ever assert they'd come at it from that kind of a dictatorial type of position, but one where we can help our friends and allies, enimraij in an environment where as we seek to increase production domestically, how that influences and positively impacts those around the globe,

all things being equal, you know, all are benefited by the u.s. and our increasing role and presence in the market. i wanted to ask one very, very quick question. this relates to the issue that senator barrasso brought up with the amendment he intended to advance in foreign relations. as you know, we have the ukraine legislation on the floor in front of us, and the push from senator barrasso and others to extend the fda fast tracking to nato and wto members, there has been the issue raised, a potential trade violations based on this expedited treatment to nato members and other specific countries like japan, and can anybody speak to that issue?

in terms of whether or not it presents a trade violation? >> i'm the lawyer. >> you need to step up, yeah. >> i confess to not being familiar with all the texts of the bill, but to the extent we have a trade agreement with a country, and we adopt a practice which excludes anybody that we have that kind of trade agreement with, we could be accused of discrime their practice and violation of it. i don't know when you look at which version of the bill, whether it covered everybody that we have a trade agreement with, but if it doesn't, then i think that's -- that's an issue. i would also worry a little bit that even if it covers every we have a trade agreement with, ukraine, i don't think, is a wto member, and they are not a nato member. they are? okay. i would worry, make sure we capture all the country that we want to help, and make sure they are not excluded as well. it's the challenge with

predicting winners. >> uh-huh. madam chairman, thank you, again, i think this has been very, very beneficial, very timely, and thanks to each and every one of the witnesses. your leadership as well. looking forward to working with you. >> thank you, meeting adjourned. >> i rise to express my robust concern about russia's actions and the continuing escalation of tensions in central and eastern

europe. even with ukrainian troops leaving crimea, russia continues to extort the ukraine. disenyouing an agreement on gas prices that was part of a bilateral agreement, allowing russia to lease the port for the fleet, and russia is now arguing that it no longer has to provide the discounted gas because it illegally seized the port, but it also must be paid back $11 # billion for prior discounts. at the same time, russia has amassed more than a hundred thousand troops at ukraine's border in addition to 23,000 troops in crimea making it clear the outright invasion of ukraine. putin is watching to see what we

will do, to see if we have the resolve to act or gets the green light to take the next step. i believe we need to act now. although i believe our response to an exsages of crmia should include the monetary reforms that passed in a bipartisan way out of the senate foreign relations committee and that obviously received a rather strong proceed churl vote yesterday in the senate, and i think it's critical to strengthen the assistance package for ukraine and strengthen u.s. global leadership, i recognize that our ability to be able to move this package with it at this point, is unlikely. the house leadership has proved itself entransitive on reform,

and we know why. trying to link support for imf reform on c4 # political committees that may have violated campaign finance law, may have individuals who illegally used them to influence federal elections is outrageous. i cannot believe that the house leadership will not put national security interests above a partisan political interest, but, obviously, politics do not stop at the water's edge on this issue, so while i'm not happy about it, i believe we need to move forward on a bill today that sends the necessary message of support to the ukraine and resolve to russia, but as we take that step, let's realize that it's the ims that is leading the effort to stabilize ukraine's fray jill economy.

congressional ratification of the 2010imf reforms would increase imf's emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60%, and provide an additional $6 billion for longer term support setting an important marker for other donors like the e.u. and the world bank. let's be clear about what keeping the. i mf provisions would have done. they strengthened at no cost to u.s. finances or influence. the united states retains the executive board seat, and the soul veto power at no net cost because the $63 billion increase in the u.s. quota is totally offset by an e equivalent decree to a separate energy facility; however, other countries would put in new money increasing the imf's lending power. the pact is, this would be a pure win for the united states. we would fully have paid for the

$315 billion impact of the bill with real cuts from funds that were underperforming are no longer needed. given they stabilized countries often an ingredient precedent for precluding future need for military action, relatively minor cost would have been paid back in times over, and we will have another crisis in the future 234 which they are critical whether they can be confused and solved. i repeat what i said before, this is not part of the issue. president's reagan, clean ton, and both president bushes back legislation to increase imf resources, and rapid reagan, called the fund, quote, the lynch pin of the international financial system, and in a

letter to the house and senate leadership last week, in which i asked unanimous consent to include in the record -- >> without objection. >> members of the brentwood committee, part of the entities that created international organizations like the imf that created global stoability note implementing -- this is a quote -- "implementing imf quota reports is leverage to continue to preserve our national security and economic interest abroad." let me tell you some of the folks that signed that letter, former secretary james baker, william cullen, steve hadley, tom ridge, condolence condoleeze

hamilton, paul o'neill, robert reuben, larry summers, john snow, henry paulson, this is a bipartson list of who is who in foreign policy all saying this that this is critical to do. let me be clear, they provided no added relief to the ukraine, so it's superb louse to the bill. that is false. the 2010imf reform strength pes the imf. that's why they were done. as it relates to the ukraine, by increasing ewe crepe's quota, the reforms increase available short term lending to $1 billion to 1.6 billion to longer term resources the imf leverages for the ukraine by up to $6 billion. if strengthens our ability to shape a support package. critics say imf reforms

undermine influence and increase russia's influence in the imf, and they are dead wrong again. we remain the large est shareholder after reform, guaranteed our board seat, and we'll continue as the only country, the only country with veto power over major imf decisions. meanwhile, the reforms to rationalize the voting structure of the imf to increase buy-ins of economies in a way that ensures continued u.s. leadership in a more relevant international institution. on the other side, it matters little to russia that already has a board seat. imf reform costs american taxpayers billions and puts them at risk. again, wrong. there is no cost to american taxpayers. the reforms included in the

senate ukraine bill preserve u.s. leadership, the veto position in the imf without increasing, without increasing our financial commitment to the imf. the imf is the most solvent financial institution in the world, and the risk of imf default is demin muse. we would have paid for all this budget impact, real cuts, as my colleague and ranking member on the committee, bob corker, asked, and we came together, and we figured it out. the appropriators determined underperforming funds, programs that would -- from which we could take these funds, and we ultimately came to a very successful conclusion. i regret that the failure to strengthen the imf to support the ukraine and other foreseen crisises around the world will endanger the system that we've so pain stakingly built, and it

shouldn't need arguing that fragmentation of global economic governance is not in our national interest. the fact is, mr. president, imf reform combine with the aid package for ukraine sends a clear and unambiguous message to the world that crimea will not send, but understand the institution our our political realities, so i came to the floor to ask that we came together to at least send our message of support to the ukraine and another message to putin. we should act today. we cannot and should not stand for the violations of international norms, perpetrated on crimea by russia. the world is watching. the world's superpower cannot be seen as incapable of rising to russia's challenge. that is the responsibility

before the senate today, but for those who criticized the imf reform and because the house leadership doesn't want to per sue it, because of extraneous matters having to deal with politics and not policy, willing to risk national security issues, you're going to get your way today. i would hope that, therefore, the rest of the package, which provides a loan guarantee to the ukraine of a billion dollars, that provides sanctions against the russian regime and others who corrupted the previous ukrainian government and who have violated its territorial integrity, the assistance to ensure that democratic elections can be held this may in the ukraine, the greater defense cooperation with the ukraine, all other elements of the legislation should have universal support, and we should do it today in order to ensure that we send a clear,

unambiguous message as a hundred thousand russian troops are on the eastern front of the ukraine. that is, i believe, a critical moment for us to answer affirmatively. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor an observe the absence of a quorum.

>> this is a land maneuver under the coordination of the fifth corp. u.s. 7th army with many training purposes, but an additional purposes could be to display nato's might before the communists. this exercise is divided into two opposing forces called black and green. in this exercise, both sides have the american built 280 millimeter atomic cannon. the atomic cannon has never been fired in europe. what you will see here is a similar -- simulated atomic explosion, but the atomic cannon can be fired in europe. the guns are ready. the men are ready. should they attack any one of the 14 nations, atomic guns will fire. from the u.s. army's "the big picture series" nato

maneuvers aimed at detouring soviet aggression in europe this weekend on america history tv real america, sunday at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the top u.s. commander in south korea said that sanctions are not enough to persuade north korea to denuclearize. other topics at the hearing included china ease military and u.s. military strategic shift and focus to asia. it begins with committee chairman carl levin.

>> we received testimony on the forces in the asian pacific region, and on behalf of the committee, i want to welcome adam sam locklear and general of the commander u.s. forces korea, united nations command, and combined forces command and korea. gentlemen, the committee appreciates your long years of faithful service and the many sacrifices that you and the families that you are a part of

made for our nation. we greatly appreciate the service of the men and women, military and civilian, who serve with you in your commands. please convey to them our admiration and our appreciation for their selfless sacrifice and dedication. last year, general thurman was unable to testify at the hearing because of the heightened testimony on the korean peninsula. we are glad that you are able to make it this year. today's hearing is particularly timely as north korea is engaged in saber rattling and dangerous rocket and missile launches including the one just a few weeks ago. kim jung un's regime has so far followed the same destructive policies as its predecessors, pursuing its nuclear weapons in ballistic missile programs with callous disregard for people in

its own region. china, despite its long standing relationship with north korea has joined in united nations' condemnation of north korean regime's dangerous behavior and supported new sanctions. we look forward to hearing the general's views on the recent developments on the korean peninsula, an additional step that might be taken to promote stability and peace. at the time of increasing fiscal austerity within the department of defense, china has announced that it is increasing its official military budget for 2014 to almost 132 billion, which is a 12% increase over last year. making that country's military spending the second largest in the world after the united states. china's pursuit of new military capabilities raises concerns about its intentions, particularly in the context of the country's increasing

willingness to assert its controversial claims of sovereignty in the south china and east china seas. china's by ledge rains and unwillingness to create a mare tame code of conduct with asian asian neighbors raises doubts about its representations that china is interested in a peaceful rise. we were dismayed by china's unilateral declaration of an air identification zone last year that did not follow proper consultations with its neighboring countries, and that includes the air space over the islands, which are administered by japan. in addition, china's lack of regard for the intellectual property rights of the united states and other nations is a significant problem for the global community. china is the leading source of counterfeit parts in military systems and in the commercial sector. in addition, china appears to

have engaged in a massive campaign to steal technology and other vital business information from american industry and from our government. china's apparent willingness to exploit cyberspace to conduct corporate espionage and steal trade and proprietary information from u.s. companies should drive our government and businesses to come together to advance our own cybersecurity. we also have grave concerns that china's cyberactivities, particularly those targeting private companies that sport mobilization and deployment, could be used to degrade our ability to respond during a contingency. our committee will soon release a report on cyber intrusions affecting u.s. transportation command contracts. the administration continues to rebalance towards the asia pacific to meet these challenges. substantial realignments of u.s.

military forces in south korea and japan are ongoing, as are initiatives to increase u.s. presence in southeast asia, especially in singapore in the philippines. the u.s. relationship with australia is as strong as ever. it's evidenced by the continued plans for successive rotations of submarines to australia. with the success of the planned alignment, the governor approved the landfill permit for the replacement facility last year. nonetheless, i believe that moving forward with the construction of infrastructure facilities on guam have to await the impact statement and final record of the decision. once those actions are completed, and we have been provided the final master plans including cost estimates and a time schedule, we would be

better able to judge the feasibility of the plan, so i support the restationing of marines to guam and hawaii, it needs to be done in a fiscally and operationally sound manner. we must consider all challenges and initiatives in asia pacific against the backdrop of our bucket constraints, and budget reductions on your ability to meet your mission requirements. again, we very much appreciate both joining us this morning. we look forward to your testimony on these and other topics. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. provocative actions, military exercises, nuclear and missile tests, and the development of a

road mobile missile system. china declares unilateral air defense identification zones making moves to block aid ships and claim sovereignty over fast track south china sea. despite the danger, the massive cuts to the security budget, we're making the jobs of admiral and general more difficult. while the budget rose 12%, sex tear hagel tells the commands, quote, american dominance in the seas, in the sighs, in space is no longer taken for granted. that's the first time, in my life, we heard something like that. our domain dominance eroded due to diversion of resources from the defense to the president's domestic agenda over the last five years, and that has consequences in our society. less dominant forces make it

difficult for the men and women to handle crisis, and as we see around the world today, less capable u.s. military makes it more likely that crisis will erupt. those who advocate drastically talk retreat from the international engagement, the security of the home lafned at risk. more aggressive adversaries and capable united states and military forces are recipe for disaster. the dismantling of the security over five years led to the growth of extremists in syria, iraq, iran, putin's an exasian of crimea, and has inviolated increased chinese belig rains in the east and south china south china seas. the strategy of rebalance implies resources. that's not true. it's just not happening. i have specific questions to ask about that. i look forward to the

assessment, and perceived in the i'm concerned the retreating ties of the u.s. leadership and defense capability encourage him to be more aggressive. general, we need to hear from you as to how this ties up ships and cancels ground training and impacts the combat capability. i don't know a time in my life this happened, and i remember all so well when it all started. it all started, and we don't like to talk about it or not, back when the $800 billion -- people talk about entitlements now, but this was not entitlement. this was nondefers discretionary spending that took place, and now we're paying for it and have been for five years. it's a crisis we're in. ewe are the right ones to be there to try to meet the crisis, and i appreciate the fact you

are willing to do that. >> thank you very much. admiral? >> senator, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and for two years, i had the privilege of leading the exceptional men and women, throughout the united states specific command. they are not only skilled professionals dedicated to the defense of our great nation, but within pacific command, they serve as superb ambassadors that represent the values and strength that make the nation great. we continue to work to ensure they are well trained, well equipped, well led to meet the challenges we are facing in the 21st century. i want to publicly thank them and families for their sacrifices. when i spoke to you last year, i highlighted my concern for several issues that could

challenge the security environment across the pacific command area of responsibility, the indo-asian pacific. they include potential for significant hhdr, or human humanitarian assistance in disaster events. there's territorial disputes, growing challenges to the freedom of action and shared doe nans of sea, air, space, and cyberspace. growing regional transnational threats and the significant challenges associated with china's emergence of the global economic power and regional military power. in the past year, we have been witness to all of these challenges. our forces have been very busy securing the peace and defending u.s. interest throughout over half the globe. we have done our very best to remain ready to respond to crisis and contingency. although, we have assumed

greater risk. we maintained focus on key aspects of the rebalance to the asian pacific. strengthening our alliances and partnerships, improving posture and presence, developing the con cements and capabilities required by today's and tomorrow's security environment. we have done this against the backdrop of continued physical and resource uncertainty and the result of the diminishing readiness and availability of the joint force. i'd like to thank the committee for your cometted interest and support, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. admiral. general? >> testifying, the united states forces korea, and on behalf the service members, civilians, contractors, and their families who serve their great nation in korea, thank you for your support. after six months in command, i'm

confident that the combined and joint forces in the united states are capable and ready to detour, if necessary, respond to threats and actions. we know how real a north korean threat is as four years ago tomorrow, north korea fired a torpedo sinking a south korean ship killing 46 sailors. that terrible day is a constant reminder that standing at freedom's frontier with our korean ally, we can want allow ourselves to become come place sent against an unpredictable toe tail tearian regime. the regime remains dangerous and has the capability, especially with an ever-increasing threat to attack south korea with little to no warning. there's the fourth largest military in the world with over 70% of the ground forces deployed along the dmz. long range auxiliary strikes targets in the seoul metro pal

tan with millions live. violations multiple security resolutions, north creigh continues to develop arms and long range missiles, and additionally, they are investing in cyber warfare capabilities. north korea brings risk to the world's greatest or fastest growing economic region which is responsible for 25% of the world's gdp and home to the largest trading partners. against this real threat, our nation is committed to the security of south korea and national interests. our presence and support of our troops give meaning to the commitment. we are a key component of the nation's rebalancing of the asian-pacific region, and together, the alliance's commitment enables prosperity, now and in the future. in the spirit of the commitment, we work closely with the military to develop capabilities and combine c44i systems and alliance counter defense strategy and procurement of

precision guided missions, ballistic defense systems, and isr platforms. readiness is my top overarching priority. to ensure that we are focused on the right things at the right time, i developed five priorities. first, sustain and strengthen the alliance. second, maintain the arms to detour and defeat aggression and be ready to fight tonight. third, transform the alliance. fourth, sustain force and family readiness. fifth, enhance the unccscufk team. a central part of this is a command climate that focuses on leader and the led together. at the core of mission success is a close rope we share. we benefit from an important history forged on many battlefields, shared sacrifices, and democratic principles. over the past 60 years, we built

one of the longest standing alliances in modern history. we'll continue to develop a posture so pyongyang never misinterprets our doubts our capability to respond as an alliance. i'm proud of the families serving the republic of korea. i appreciate your continued support for them and for our crucial alliance. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, general. let's try seven minutes for the first round. the air identification zone and aids in the east china sea encompassing midly raised attentions, and now while the declaration of that identification zone is not

affected u.s. military operations in the area, there is a concern that china is attempting to change the status quo in the east china and south china seas. i'm thinking these incrementdal steps to a sort of territorial claim. admiral, let me ask this question. as china declaration of the io debilityification zone change status quo between china and japan with regard to the claims? >> >> pr moi observation, first it had not, as you correctly stated, it's not changed our operations at all, and we don't recognize it or comply with it. i have not seen any change in the activities of our allies, japanese self-defense force as they area, based on the

proclamation by the chinese. >> what's your assessment of antiaccess and area denial capabilities? what are the implications of such capabilities on the ability of other nations including the united states to move freely in the international waters of the western pacific? >> we've known for some time that the pla have been pursuing technologies and capabilities that allow them to control access in the areas around their borders, particularly in the sea space, and those technologies, specifically, i believe, are directed at what they perceive as potential u.s. vulnerabilities as we maintain our forces forward. we have, for many years, built

our security environment on aircraft carriers, forward bases, with our allies, rely heavily on cyber and on space capabilities because we operate a long distance from home, rely on a long line of lo gist ticks support necessary to be in that far forward and to maintain a peaceful security environment. i would say that the a2ad capabilities observed are will be per sued by the pla go after directly or indirectly as perceived add as a result necialts, and whether they ever intend to use them in the, with us or against us or against an ally, the concern is that these acknowledges will proliferate and further complicate the global security environment.

>> what's your assessment of cyber activities directed towards the united states? what can you tell us about the use of cyberspace to target u.s. defense contractors? >> well, in the summer, there's a lot of bad actors. it's not just china, but specifically, since we look at this, we've known for some time that there has been space sponsored activity to try to look at and to try to get into defense contractors and work that backwards to try to either develop an advantaged or to better understand any as a rule -- as a-- vulnerabilities we have. we are watching this cafefully, and we are becoming more and more aware of activityings such as this on a global scale, and i believe that the steps we're taking to build cyber forces that are capable to build on

what i believe is our advantage in cyberspace, and i believe we have a considerable advantage comparedded to the rest of the main actors in the world, and that our advantage is only going to increase as we putt these capabilities in place. >> okay. let me switch topics to the replacement facility, the frf, and there's now been some progress in that area. do you believe that ten years is a reasonable time line for the construction of that facility, and do you believe that the government of japan and the marine core are committed to adequately maintaining the current air station until the frf is completed? >> well, the facility that will

ultimately replace it, we're happy with the decision that was made by the signing of the landfill permit, another step forward in making this realize. by all estimates, i have seen ten years is a reasonable moment of time, could be done faster, and there are those who would like it done faster, particularly within the japanese government. i believe that currently funding is in place to ensure it remains a safe anded adequately operated, and i can assure you it would be a priority. we don't want to see that facility degrade to the point it puts our operations at risk. >> thank you. general, let me ask you about this same issue, north korea. are the cheese chinese, in your

judgment, unwilling or unable to exert pressure on the north koreans to agree to preconditions to restart the six party talks? >> chairman, based on those i talked to in the region to include south koreans in their contacts, i believe we've seen some result of china's pressure on north korea in the mutessed rhetoric of un. in the past several months, particularly after the assassination of his uncle, so i believe they can put some pressure, and we probably have seen a result of some of that; however, i think there's much more that they could do as most of north korea's banking and commercial comes through china, and to this point, they've been unwilling to take more steps as

far as i can tell. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this morning, in the stars and stripes this morning, there was a good article, and i ask now it's made a part of the record. it talks about what's happening to our capabilities in that area. admiral, you're quoted here saying the resource is currently at your disposal are insufficient to meet operational requirements, and i appreciate that statement. admiral, it's my understanding that 50% of our navy's 300 ship were expected to be in the pacific theater initially; is that right? >> well, we've had about 50% for historically for a number of years, and -- >> okay. it didn't take a long answer here. as part of the reambulance now, they talk about they would expect that to go up so it's around 180 rather than 150.

this is the point i'm trying to get. because of what's happening now in sequestering coming, it would be 60% of the a smaller number of coming out with the same number of ships available in that theater of 150. you follow me here? >> i follow you, yes, sir. >> what lookout our partners there? our allies? japan, korea, and australia? do they -- do you think they understand that while they were expecting that we would have 150 # ships and ends up being increasing to 180 and ends up being 150, is this something they understand? they will appreciate? do they believe that we have problems that we have? >> i can't speak how they feel about it, but my guess, my expectation is that they are watchful how it plays out in the

long run. >> well, you know, we've said our friends won't trust us and enemies will not fear us. this is in the middle east, and i'm beginning to think we'll have the same situation in that theater also. admiral, the chinese ballistic missile capable submarines that can hit the united states from the east asian waters begin patrols this year in the chinese defense budget expected to grow by 12 #%. i'm remembering the days back in the 1990s when we were cutting down our military by 40% at that time, china was increasing by around 200%. that was over that decade in the 1990s. i'm seeing some of the same thing happens here. the priorities of our country against priorities of china. always concern about china, in their capabilities, and when the secretary hagen, appreciated the

statement, american dominance on the seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted. does that concern you as much as it concerns me, admiral? >> well, i think in the context of globally chinese military and growth of the military is in the a competitor with u.s. security for a number of decades, depend how fast they spend and what they invest in. the biggest concern is regionally, where they have the ability to influence the outcome of events around some of our, many of the partners and allies, by defense capabilities they are pursuing. >> yeah, and the quotes i read this morning from the stars and stripes, is that an actual quote? >> i have not read the article, but i believe the -- the way you quote it is accurate.

>> well, judging from our discussions in the office, i think it is an accurate quote, and i think people need to talk about it. general, we are looking now at a new kim jung, and you and i talked in the office, my concern has been because of the -- that he's less predictable than his predecessor, would you agree with that? >> yes, senator, i would. >> and do you think by being less predictable that translates into a greater threat? >> yes, senator, i do. >> you know, i agree with that. you can't tell sometimes we talk about the days of the cold war, two superpowers, both of us were predictable, and the less plea of predictable, the greatest thet is to us, particularly now with the drawdowns we suffer and the limited capabilities we're giving you to do a job. with this person there, i'm -- in your opinion, are sanctions,

diplomatic pressure, appeasement with the shipments of food and oil that's been our policy tools likely to halt north korea's proliferation of nuclear weapons? >> senator, i think it's an appropriate step in terms of the sanctions, continued sanctions, but i don't believe that present, there's enough to con shrines them to denuclearize. >> i don't think so either. i agree with your statement; however, again, getting back to the un predictability, i don't think he's detoured by that type of action. we talked in the office about io problem. i think the forces on the peninsula that would be needed to fight immediately are combat ready. my concern is the follow-on forces. i want you to share with us whether you are concerned about that today as i am. >> senators, as you stated,

forces on theater are budgeted, and we have -- >> a follow-on force. >> that's correct, sir. and i am concerned about the readiness of the follow-on forces in our theater given the indications and warnings, the nature of this theater, and the threat that we face i rely on rapid and ready forces to fry into the peninsula in crisis. >> well, it's because throughout your career, you've been able to rely on that, and you're not now. do you agree with general amos when he said, we'll have fewer forces arriving less trained arriving later to the fight delaying the buildup of combat power, allowing the enemy more time to build defenses, and likely prolong operations all together. 24 is a formula for more american casualties, do you

agree with that? >> yes, i do, senator, yes. >> i do too, thank you. mr. ? >> thank you, senator donnelly. >> admiral, thank you for the service. what is the status of the hypersonic weapons projects in >> well, they have demonstrated the technology in tests that we they were visible to the word earlier this year. how fast they put that in operational capability is unknown. it could take several years to do that. >> do you think they currently have the ability to strike u.s. assets in the continental u.s.? >> say that again, sir. >> do you think through the hypersonic weapons project, you mentioned it taking several years to get it done, do you think they presently have the

ability to strike the continental u.s.? >> well, i think they have the ability to look at, understand, through imraj ri, everything else, have views of the united states. whether or not they have -- ultimately what they do with hypersonic capability as it relates to their long range deterrent, i don't know. >> how do you characterize china's attempts to decimate technology to iran and north korea? full speed ahead, or what would you say? >> well, in the case of north korea, which the general and i spent a lot of time looking at, to some, you know, perspective, the north korea is an ally of china, an they are closely aligned from a military perspective and have been if a number of years.

i know there's been progress made as far as the chinese supporting the sanctions. i can't tell you how much they abide by that, but my sense is that there has been a close relationship on military capability and military equipment for some time, and probably will continue. >> how would you see that, the pace of chinese cyber attacks this year coming up on 2014? you know, the first quarter so far, the rest of the year? we saw an extraordinary amount in 2013, and how would you compare the volume? first, the volume, and then next would be the quality or targets involved. >> i think after remade it public there was knowledge of what was happening from the factions in china, there was,

for some period of time, there was a decrease, i understand, but there's still a lot of cyber attacks that occur, as i said earlier, not just from china, but other places in the world, and those number of attacks as cyber all becomes more complicated, are on the rise. >> general, what is your estimate of north korea's efforts in cyber attacks? >> north korea, with other needs, invest in cyber capability. presently, at this time, they've been known to use cyber capability. here a year ago, they had, we believe north korea had the impact in south korea's media banking institutions. presently, it's disruption of services, disruption of website capability, but it's -- but they are focused on it, and their

capabilities are gaining. >> general, again, on another issue, can you provide us with just a current status of the relocation of the camp humphriess? >> yes, sir. our relocation has begun, as you know, and we are moving forces according to the land partnership plan from the north that we call area 1, north of seoul, and also from the sung area, predominantly, and they are moving two hubs. ..

>> this last week, we had a seminary to gain information from private industry essen capability to provide policy of humphrey. a recent survey to see what the capacity to build with you. >> in regards to counterfeit parts, so much is going on with china. have you seen any indication that they are trying to address that problem or trying to identify help us attract these

counterfeit parts? >> i have not. >> general, in regards to the north korean union, do you believe that kim jong-un is controlling the military and the country or an affront to their military? >> i believe that kim jong-un is clearly in charge. he has appointed himself as the supreme leader for the constitution and the absence that he has taken with respect to the change particularly in the military in terms of leadership is very clear and i do believe that he is in charge. in regards to that same topic, how much influence do the chinese have on him? if they push, does he follow their lead? or is it still his call at the end of the day?

>> senator, i believe that they have the capacity to influence him. they have shown it in small ways. but from what i have seen he is also an independent actor and will continue to go his own way. i believe that it's frustrating china as well from others who have been there. >> thank you both for your service, my time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your answer to senator inhofe's question about your ability to carry out the responsibilities, as you say. the air force under your command is operationally ready, but we have seen more and more indications of fewer and fewer units of the united states army that are operationally ready. and that must be a great concern for you in case of the unthinkable and that is an

upgrading of conflict. >> yes, sir, that is correct. on the korean peninsula, there is a high-intensity combat with time and space factors that create a top problem for us. so the delivery on a timeline is important. >> avenel locklear, would you agree that china's effort are under way to change the balance of power in at least the western pacific? >> yes, i would agree. >> and that may be carried out in an incremental fashion such as the requirement over the east china sea. in other words, incremental steps that probably would not

sound too many alarm bells. what do you think their strategy is to assert their influence and dominance in that part of the world. >> yes, sir. there maritime strategy is pretty clear. they don't hide it from anyone. and they have certainly tailor their defense spending heavily in the maritime domain. and i think that they are current and they believe in their strategy. >> the fact that there has not been that we see expectations of the and fortunately cultivate, it has not become a reality that must we some factor in their impressions. >> well, i think that, first of

all, in the long run a relationship between the u.s., china, it is in the best interest of everyone. they watch very carefully. we have guaranteed the security there for many years that help them as well. so they are very much interested in our alliances in the status of those alliances and forces that we have there in the capability of those forces. so yes, it does matter to them. >> and the announcement of 12 and 2% increase in defense spending by china certainly is a contrast in our defense spending and traditionally much of their increases in defense spending have not been transparent. is that correct?

>> i believe that there are more expenditures than what they report annually. >> what is your likelihood in your view in the difficult western of a confrontation between china and japan over this? >> well, i like to stay away from hypotheticals. >> yes, i know you do. i know you don't want to answer that. but certainly many of their actions have been very provocative. would you agree with that? >> i would agree that the actions have been provocative and did many cases the attempt to change the status quo. >> does the combat shift me your operational violence?

>> as you know it has a long history as to why we built it for that reason and it has speed and it was designed to operate with changeable payloads and a small crew and designed to be deployed and rotated. so the operational concept is yes, it does. but it only needs a portion what the requirements are. >> is a lesson the recent reduction in the plans for acquisition? >> i think that if you talk about a need that is the size of 325 ships, which is what would be an assessment that some have made that is necessary for global environment of having 50 or 55 makes a lot of sense because there's a lot of places in the world where you can use them.

but if you're talking about a budget and this includes the lcs and what it can do. >> gentlemen, what do we make of all of these recent firings of the short range missiles out to sea by the north koreans. >> well, i think that kim jong-un had several reasons for this firings over time since the 21st of february. i think first of all there is an amazing cycle and this has been very different than in the past. the remainder were demonstrations for his regime and people of capability and the other was for us and the

alliance in terms of capability to do that with very little warning. >> warnings that they have been testing rather formidably. >> yes, it consisted of this and what they also tested experimentally as well. >> how capable is that? >> that is a capable system. it is one that can provide a good ammunition in rapid fire. >> i think the witnesses and thank you for your service. >> senator reid? >> thank you, gentlemen, for your service. as well, the chinese strategy. can you describe it in your ability to project that.

>> especially if we are designed to keep someone else out to have this kind of influence. however, we are being more global outreach and we have seen successful operations there are a number of ships and airplanes that are in support of the lost malaysian airliner. and the security interest loco

and they will need bigger assets to ensure that their security is maintained. >> old ballistic missiles have wings and they can attack. they have russian submarines. and i even noticed some of a surge in terms of the marine capabilities ahead of their services. >> certainly they have a credible summary force today. >> we have a modernized force but i'm not sure of the exact number but probably exceeds the 70, which is a lot of submarines for the regional powers. >> and they might represent the most desiccated technological

platforms that the chinese have. in terms of the seaborne platforms. >> i would say that they are on par and they do have good sophistication in the ships and their air defense systems are very capable. certainly they have some credible missile technology that is among the best in the world. >> how would you evaluate the readiness of the republic of korea forces to fight in joint effort with u.s. forces on the ground under your command? >> i rate them highly. there are modern forces that are well-trained. a conscript army that they have good training for their soldiers as they come and i have been out there with all of their services. and they work well together.

>> so what is their reasoning, his official or unofficial? >> no, i don't know, sir. >> so you don't have any formal or informal contact? >> negative. >> what is your intel coming from with the diplomatic community as to what the attitude is with the north korean regime? >> yes, sir. also from the u.n. command that i have as well.

>> they were surprised by the execution and they are attempting to ensure it that in the regime it does not create instability on their border. >> can you comment about the capability to conduct these operations in the pacific? >> yes, senator, we have had a good return that to the asia

pacific, particularly back as the at least once down in afghanistan. >> under my command i have five groups and four in san diego and one in hawaii. i'm sorry, one in japan. but the reality is that to get marines around effectively they require the big amphibious ships and also the require of the connectors. >> it is the enabler that makes that happen.

>> the plan and base relocation in korea, tele about the number of troops that you're looking to house their and whether or not families will be accompanying the soldiers. >> in terms of the 29,000 in tht area in terms of the family him it would be about the supportive families in that area.

about 2700. >> many will be deployed without their families? >> that is correct. >> i think with current housing it is an adequate. >> that would be away primarily due to the construction and there is a three month lag on

that. >> we are facing real budget problems. there's just no doubt about it. the latest projections from our own congressional budget office indicate that in five years that the interest was the talk about the defense budget and it will be paying $880 billion however, colleagues, there are no further cuts on the future.

>> there are 94 billion and the peak was 530. we are down $35 billion business from where we wore at her peak and that remains flat for two years and then begins to grow at the rate of about $13 billion per year. than we do not have the money to

our fundamental threat that is impacting the american stat. ann that we have a little combat ship. one of the things that we are worried about with regard to china is that they have a sophisticated subscription on the submarine capability and nuclear capability. >> a week where we need to be in terms of technology to identify

that submarine activity. >> i would say that my assessment across the joint force is that we are where we need to be in the places and we understand where those are. >> this ship has and is designed to be capable. >> that's correct but i believe that that is put into place.

>> i know that is hard to believe, but it seems to be about accurate. >> we actually got that quote from the admiral, wayne meyer, who is instructing me one day from the time we think about this and he is going to take 17 years by the time the bureaucracy works itself out. >> when i was on the subcommittee when i came here seven years ago the clock was proposing and now it is becoming

a fabulous ship and has great potential as you indicated earlier and you want to see them develop at the speed that they are. and we have my concern about our allies in the pacific and we have strength of the chinese nuclear capability and our allies depend on the nuclear umbrella and i believe as we discussed any kind of nuclear treaty we can't just consider russia but also considering a rising nuclear capability.

>> i know that this has come up before with the mythic and advances we have china's first sea-based return by the end of 2014 and we have this in a critical way as we have discussed. >> are you confident that the proposed enhancements are what we need to meet the submarine

force in the century? >> certainly we need to sustain the size of our summary force. >> we still maintain a significant advantage undersea warfare. so we need to continue to maintain that significant advantage. in the same applies to summary the ships are airplanes in the world gets a vote on how we have to respond in submarines figure heavily particularly into the

scenarios all the way to contingency. so as far as the upgrade that we are putting into, uncomfortable that the summary community and the navy have looked hard at their role and how they are going to be in the joint role of the joint force and they have calculated a wide range of missions as summer ends do and whether it's special operations capabilities, these have been a future design of the virginia class submarine.

>> we have a confirmation hearing and one of the things that was a concern one of the things that senator ayotte had at a very parochial level, was talking about the industrial base is being under pressure and as we have looked at the projected population of expert shipyard employees, there is with 30 or more years of experience and so i wonder it if you could talk about how concerned you are about this, admiral locklear and what steps are being put in place to address attracting a new

workforce with the folks that will be retiring and especially given the challenges of budget cuts and this includes how we expect we will address the coming challenge. >> he was showing me the inside of his engine gradation porker. and he said i want show you something. and i had good visibility with

that kind of a continuity and i believe that our industrial base is under pressure particularly as our shipbuilding industry shrinks and we don't do a lot of commercial shipbuilding in this country. so we have really a national treasure and the national asked that that has to be looked at from this perspective out there in the open market with all of the other global things. in particular by lobbying are required in our own country, which is the right thing to do. so we have to continue to update that workforce.

and we have to reconfigured the calculation of our national security strategy for the long run. >> they have been there for many years and are very concerned about our actions here and i hope it's something that we can all work very carefully with you

in the leadership of our military to address. and this is the implication that we are making very clear. thank you very much. >> i'm deeply concerned. and the deterrence are intrinsically to readiness.

>> and we have to get back with ready and capable forces. >> we have to do ensure that and stability maintains this and the second is to ensure that we have seven treaties as a nation and those are to ensure that they are upgraded for the 21st century and they have the right military equipment to support those alliances and i would say and certainly less important to us as far as how we maintain and

we have a number of decades and this is what the rebalance will be. the recognition so we can get back at a necessity. and we have a strategic partnership in malaysia and the philippines.

and all of these countries and phenomenally southeast asia are important to the future security. >> okay, so we have obligations to five countries under treaty and then we have these other partners and help us with the peoples that might be listening on the street and the guy at work. >> 17% with land and 82% is water and most of the global economy is generated from there.

the type of a two-way trade that our country does in this region is generated there. most of the energy supplies that really influence a global economy flow through this region everyday. we are a nation and our economy is important to all of us to ensure that a peaceful and stable asia is maintained. >> i think the you are right. and it just concerns me a bit as i look at what is going on now with our european allies. countries that have lied to their detriment on the promises that we have made about the integrity of the territory in the just seems to me that any signal would say we don't need to comment on this and any signal that we send that we

don't really take seriously on treaty obligations. it is a worrisome notion. it is a worrisome notion for people who might rely on us in the future and so i wonder aloud to the members of the community and on the board what signals we are sending when we don't come down very hard on the violations of our treaty partners. but i'm glad to know that the senator is a distinguished leader on this committee and i've asked about our capability and i believe you said that you'd ask for additional ships for your area. >> that is correct.

>> we have a lot in we're trying to help you on this. and why do you need more amphibious capabilities. it also would you elaborate on the role of our marines and the expeditionary marines and wed the effectiveness be diminished if there were insufficiency and i guess if we don't correct that insufficient number, how would this affect your abilities as the combatant commander?

>> certainly i am not the only combatant commander that talks about this. so there is a global competition is the world situation kind of moves around and we need different types of forces and the capabilities of the marine corps brings is applicable in almost every scenario on the way too high and contingencies and so the global signal today is greater than what we can resource. and we only have so much money and so much medication i think we have teamed together to try to take a look at that, but in my particular responsibility not

only do i have forces out and about in the western pacific but i also have amphibious forces that i train and maintain and send to other combatant commands and other central commands and europe. and so in the pacific though it is my view that as the marines come back but we should optimize the capability of them particularly in an area west of the dateline and to do that we have to have adequate situations.

so i would hope that the committee would do what we did to make sure that we are ready for contingencies in that area. >> we had exercises done under the polar ice cap. the machine and the device and the ship was extraordinary. but the overwhelming impression i had was the quality from the commander they were dedicated and passionate about what they were doing and you have an extraordinary organization. i think i'm times we talk about it in a general sense and to see these young people and their level of knowledge i was

impressed by people who have come up through the ranks that have real responsibility and it is an indication of the quality of the military and we don't adequately acknowledge and reward those people for the extraordinary and uncomfortable work that they did in second i want to associate myself with senator sessions. we are whistling across the graveyard of the debt service requirement that is looming as interest rates inevitably rise. in interest rates are running at about 2%, including a world record agosta 4.5% and interest

charges will exceed the current defense budget. and that is in terms of the comments, that we have an asymmetric cyberadvantage. it we will have a cyberone ability because of the advanced nature and the extent to which we depend upon the internet and the interrelationships for everything from the electrical grid to natural gas to financial services. i believe and i do observe that we have had this advanced state

but turning to the situation, what we need to do to bolster the partnership of the region. we can't carry the burden and there is more we should be doing in the area of foreign military sales and foreign military financing and training in those kinds of things and they are an exceptional tool to do a couple things there are partnerships and allies so that they can be more supportive in the security

environment so we have training, with a position that we have sure schools are common experiences and all of those kinds of things. >> we have training components were military officers come here for training and is that an aspect that takes place in the

pacific theater? >> yes, it is and in our partners direction, we have a list of going in their direction and that last for years and it builds an inherent ability into the security environment. and it makes a difference when we have to deal with crisis.

>> would we provide the capabilities that we need or will gaps be created by the retirement? and what do you think of what is going on in your region? >> first of all, i understand the air force's need in those platforms. as the operational commander in korea, youtube provides a unique capability that presently not everything will provide. it's very important for educators. >> we have so rapidly configure

that this is of the utmost importance. >> yes, it is. i've looked for persistence because of this. >> on the question really briefly, air force also request reduction for combat air patrol from 65 to 55. is that a problem? why don't you tackle that. >> well, and we have an air of superiority and what we have to have is a survival.

and the reduction in those platforms is less important to us. >> he gives me the conditions and the high-intensity potential. we would have to work in a before we employ those. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator ayotte? >> i want to thank both of you for your service and leadership. >> you are an advocate for greater capabilities and that is

right. and there is an importance of the virginia class submarine particularly with our capability and one question i wanted to ask you and what provisions are being met? >> and terms of the combatant requirement request for tax summaries, i would appreciate an update on that but my sense is that it's probably not much better and may not be better but will lower. so i look forward to those numbers.

then we have this retiring in coming years and we have these attacks the marines in 2013 compared to if we go forward with a low of 42 in 2029. so we are seeing a diminishing trajectory despite the fact that i'm very glad that there was the inclusion of two virginia class submarines. and there are current predictions for tax summaries.

if we are rebalancing to the asia pacific region as we have heard today, it is an environment dominated by that maritime presence. and then china has creasing capability that has continued to invest in their submarine fleet. can you help me with that? >> i think you've accurately represented what the future will be based upon this and he is a guy who has to manage putting other requirements into the fix

line. so comes down to the managing rest in finding where we can absorb the rest inside and the budget that were forgiven. and that's the best that they been able to do with what you just outlined. >> thank you. i just think that the people need to understand that this is going to be a significant decrease if we stay where we are with regard to how we are resourcing the overall defense budget and also our submarine fleet and they are making greater investment and where the value of our submarine fleet is paramount and so i think that this is an issue that we have to pay careful attention to it. it maintains those workforces

that has the type of expertise and background and this is something that is a treasure that we need to continue to invest in if we have that capacity going forward. i wanted to ask you about something in your testimony and we talked about missile defense in terms of your responsibilities and what is it and what your concerns are? >> first of all we have development of ballistic missiles and we continue the pace of that. and the big concern that i have in terms of the alliance and the developing along with the republic of korea with a missile

defense system that has the right components and also has sufficient ammunition and i have made specific requirements known. >> it seems to me that this is an important investment with missile defense in particular for protecting south korea and our troops that are there and i look forward to working with you on this issue because i think that this is critical that the threats we face in the region and what we have seen with troubling actions in terms of proliferation of weapons. and that is the system is to

defeat the airborne threat and i wanted to ask you about the fact that combatant commands, four of them have expressed an interest in the capability provided. part of it helps to provide her control requirements to better provide missile defense and deployed so right now in utah

not being deployed, can you help me understand why that is? >> you've accurately per trade and i have asked by a simple letter to the secretary asked me for the capabilities but this system would provide in relation to the sophisticated missile defense scenarios that we face. and we can't have them overnight properly integrating it. and i think the decision was made by a joint force because of the capabilities of the system and the other regions of the

world. and i think that it probably was probably two of the system in the world is pretty dynamic keeping one in reserve. >> there are comments recognizing the dedication of the men and women i also want to commend you on releasing the energy security strategy and it is a concise clear eyed assessment of the challenges and opportunities and this includes our energy sources is a key part

of security in the region. and we are talking about this. and we have partners that are part of the alliances. ..

westerlies assisted bill within these areas, their beneficial to our national security interes