to the medical center level so they a understand what happens in their district. >> is with the transfer of money, 358? can i go back to my district to tell those that are waiting for adult day care we have extra money to address the issue? >> part of what we are going through right now is leveling against different locations so a lot of bad is happening where one may have one center that has additional resources ed there is leveling happening at the top of the h.j.. we will look internally in the short term for opportunities that we're able to distribute while waiting for the appropriators not on the additional $350 million we

ask that they allow us to transfer. . .

>> >> if we were successful it comes down to 2 billion is still basically up pool of 2.5 billion dollars for care in the community where we want to be able to sustain that care. >> very good. one thing that concerns me to the answer of the questions to talk about getting to a point where you have to begin rationing care to folks with hepatitis c, i thought that was not your intent to enter the would

not go to something you have already testified to today that you can go to take money out of the bonus program to plug that whole if necessary. surely which used to draw money out of the bonus plan to provide the hepatitis c drugs to keep the program whole. >> we are not doing any rationing of care to date and we don't expect to with hepatitis c but what allows us to do that frankly is choice. if we don't have the resources to provide the care within 30 days and we referred the veteran to a provider in the community. >> and stan that be were your dancing around of the $360 million worth of bonus money sitting there that you can go to and i

don't want to hear anybody say we choose bureaucrat bonuses over veteran health care. >> and stand your point. >> thank you for being here we wish you a happy independence day. we have another hearing in this room in 15 minutes. with that this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> i promised no mistakes. good to see everybody. thank you very much to be here as we release our

reports of end 2014 for two rights so they give to the entire team as the great team effort that works all year long collecting extraordinary information to put together what i consider one of the best reports that the department puts out. and it reflects a vast amount of research that has a uniquely flyable in sort -- resources if you care about justice or a lot. the message at the heart of the report is that countries do best when citizens fully enjoy the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. this is not just an expression of hope.

of these reports. truth truth cannot successfully be evaded or dented or defeated not of her time. it can be changed. the truth will out.

my advice to any leader of set by these findings is to examine them and look at the progress of the country and recognize that the way to alter what the world thinks and the way to change these judgments is to alter what is happening in these countries. that that is the advice that we also give to ourselves. there is nothing sanctimonious zero arrogance, and we cannot help but have humility when we have seen what we have seen in the last year in terms of racial discord and undressed. so we approach this great self-awareness but we also understand that when human rights is the issue every country, including the united states has room to improve. the path the global respect always begins at home.

these reports can actually give government and added incentive to the rights and dignity of the citizens and eclipse the interested observers with an arsenal of facts. within these within these pages are the stories of imprisoned pro-democracy activists journalists jailed simply for telling the truth members of religious minorities persecuted for practicing their faith civil society leaders harassed for daring to speak up and young women and girls who because of their gender are denied an education, kidnapped her views. there are other stories because these reports actually have improved over time. we do a better job of examining and making judgments about what is happening in places and, frankly, reports have become

more comprehensive each year as a result. traditional principles of free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection remain at the center of our policy, but we have gradually expanded our reporting to include human trafficking, internet freedom on the rights of persons with disabilities, and the lg bti community and have begun to highlight the profoundly harmful impact that corruption and poor governance have on human rights. no person anywhere should have to pay a a bribe to open a business or get a drivers license or have their day in court or sell a basket of fruit on the street. corruption is a threat to society at large on only because of the larceny in terms of the values and principles of people helped to organize their lives by because of the cynicism that impedes which matters because when trust in government is lost other

more harmful forces always try to fill the vacuum. in this connection no development has been more disturbing than the emergence of such groups as al qaeda how should bob and others the litany of human rights crimes for which these terrorists are responsible has become all too familiar and no less shocking. murder, torture, rape religious persecution, slavery, and more. make no mistake of the world came before the world community has no obligation to confront and defeat these groups and coercive measures are obviously an essential part of that effort. at the same time we must understand that the terrorist presence does not give authorities license to use violence

indiscriminately. we cannot rescue by distraction. terrorism obviously is not a legitimate excuse to lock up political opponents diminish the rights of civil society or pen a false label on activists who are engaged in peaceful dissent. this is not only unjust plays directly into the hands of terrorists. the road to extremism becomes more inviting. during -- given the suffering we have seen it is unacceptable. terrorism is a grave threat. conflicts are another. we have only to turn to the 2014 country reports of such nations as the central african republic iraq libya, somalia, south sudan

sudan, and ukraine which has been victimized by its russian neighbor. today an estimated 230 million people live in areas of overt strife. we are experiencing a crisis of our food security the number of refugees has reached a record level. unicef. unicef called 2141 of the most disastrous years ever for children. in yemen and in yemen and elsewhere conflict and civil strife have grown worse. the persistence of terrible occurrences is a challenge to all of us, to us to strengthen our institutions and political will so that we can do a better job of deterring aggression holding accountable those who commit atrocities identifying potential crises ahead of time and stopping outbreaks of violence before they begin. finally it is working and some people asked the question why we care. why do we do this?

why do we americans care? well, in an interconnected world injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and there can be no doubt that they will do better and feel safer in the world with the values that we cherish's being widely upheld there is also an even deeper reason. the very idea of progress. is there more hopeful measure of civilization and the abolition of slavery the enfranchisement of women the end of apartheid

in the fall the berlin wall on the broadening recognition of minority rights this ranking of bigotry, curtailment of conflict and defeat of terrorism, prevention of genocide and a four commitment to the rights and dignity of every man, woman and child. why do we care? because respect for human rights provides the truest mirror that we have of ourselves. the most objective the most objective test of how we have come over the centuries and how far we still have to go. it is a yardstick by which we can measure life itself. i realize that is placing a lot of weight on what is after all just a report when i think that the description fits. i hope i hope it will inspire us people here and around the world between

this year and next to take more steps hopefully giant steps in the direction of greater justice, wider decency, and peace. i thank you for coming together. i know you will have questions. i will leave this in his hands to further make a a statement and to answer your questions on specific countries. assistant secretary of state. [inaudible conversations] >> that is a hell of a trade. abcaseven quick thank you very much. thank you. >> i i am always hopeful yes. hopeful. not considering options. [inaudible conversations] >> all right.

thank you, mr. sec. hello, everyone. good to be year. before i answer your questions let me take a few minutes to talk about 2014 reports and highlight some of the major developments that have been documented over the past year. the secretary emphasized the human rights reports demonstrate america's commitment to human rights and a tool of the advancement. the entities that they strive to provide a comprehensive and factual review of conditions around the world and are also the most widely read documents at the state department every single year which provides us what america says about human rights. despite all the problems that the reports describe or

want to the want to start by noting that people working for democracy and human rights around the world made many advances in the last year and in recent months. people stood up to uphold their constitution. part of a larger movement that is manifesting itself across africa and in many parts of the world. in ukraine peaceful protests help citizens reclaim their country's countries traditions for the freedom of speech and political choice. afghanistan and indonesia all the candidates before the. this year human rights and

human rights activists. activists who have been missing for over 100 days the circumstances surrounding his disappearance. the brutality of nonstate actors. these readers did not emerge from nothing. exacerbated by the action and inaction of the previous government. fueled by the horrific abuses in iraq. marginalized.

as president obama noted they come from the biggest human rights failures. our response to terrorist groups must be consistent with human rights which leads us to another troubling trend identified in this application of counterterrorism laws criticism and restricted space for civil society. for example, in saudi arabia peaceful internet activists raise -- sentenced to ten years in prison and 100 lashes. used a real threat of terrorism of nonviolent opposition and demonstrators. a legitimate interest in protecting his people against violent groups you

will have a scholar who promoted moderation amongst the most important contributions that we asked for is to set an example and their own societies so as not to feed and the terrorist propaganda. russia's aggression in the ukraine is another example of human rights crises sparking first-order challenges to our national security. our 2014 reports highlight the abuses associated in the territory russian backed

separatists control. control. meanwhile, even as russia denies being involved in the conflict continues. in fact, there may be many more such cases. all should all should be returned. the russian government effort to abolish domestic discussion of its intervention in ukraine is one example of how his behavior broad mirrors the enforcement the persecution of the russian people at home. seventy-six of the countries most respected ngos are listed as foreign agents in a new law banning undesirable foreign agents. it has been no progress in identifying those ultimately responsible for past murders, journalists, activists, and now with the killings. other prominent trend with the use of technology to control the flow of

information reduce to zero when chinese authorities prevented mainland users from accessing. and in turkey turkey government authorities locked -- blocked youtube and twitter in the lead up to elections. in cuba access remains restricted the vast majority of the population, something that we will be working with us service providers to help change. change. access information is also critical in fighting corruption and the secretary highlighted that. authoritarian efforts. venezuela is one country to be highlighted in the report. the government crackdown on corruption and convicted

civil society activists associated with the citizens movement in retribution for public campaign to expose official corruption including several individuals. china has introduced draft law to foreign ngo national security counterterrorism which appear to call in the question the commitment to opening to the world that has supported the transformation over the past three decades. we expressed our serious concern about these strategic and economic dialogue this week and will continue to do so. these are all tough issues. there is no single approach for remedy and change which sometimes takes a long time, but we must press for change because our hope for peace and security and prosperity depend upon respect for human rights. this makes clear this is the standard toward which we must drive and to which we will be held. in that spirit i welcome your questions. [inaudible conversations]

>> just one, and i will be brief. so late this year. conspiracy theories, i have heard three myself something to do with trade promotion authority or the strategic and economic dialogue yesterday defending china. and then society they come i am wondering if you, your office has any problem or seize any disparity between what the reports say about iran and cuba and the administration's engagement with administration's engagement with both of them that are presumably coming to fruition pretty soon. >> got it. thanks. first on the delay. at the outset of this process we decided, the secretary and i that we wanted to release the reports of the time when we would both be here to do it.

that is, admittedly, not a requirement a requirement for something we felt was important to demonstrate our commitment, his commitment to this issue. what happened what happened was with that in mind we scheduled for a date, first back in march. his travel schedule changed. we scheduled it again and it changed. at one time i canceled the date because i decided i decided i wanted to go deal with the crisis and each time it was no big deal because we will do it next week, next week. in the secretary had his injury which also obviously affected his ability to come down here and do it. the result was a delay that was far longer than anyone wanted. i think it is fairly clear what is happening this week and when secretary is going next week that it had nothing to do with some of

the issues you mentioned. if you want an alternative conspiracy theory i will suggest it was actually a a devious plot to build interest and anticipation so that you all will cover it. i think you promised us wall-to-wall coverage. >> well, i didn't -- >> can i hold you to that? >> are promised everyone wall-to-wall coverage. >> cuba and iran. one of iran. one of our sayings is engagement is not the same as endorsement. with respect to cuba i think that that is -- that should be crystal clear that our opening to cuba and i have spoken about this many times, design because we felt that the new policy is better suited to promoting human rights in cuba than the old policy. as you well know the opening was associated

closely with the belief that over 50 political prisoners in cuba the situation is to get far better for any of us can say we are where we want to be but feel that what we have done is to take the cuban government take away the cuban government's ability to say the problem on the island of the fault of the united states and embargo independent focus where it belongs on their actions and policies. [inaudible question] clicks on a rant a rant look, the nuclear talks the purpose of the nuclear talks come as we have explained many times, was to deal with the nuclear issue. it is not to deal with the human rights issue, a separate concern. we have we have made it absolutely clear that we regard those talks and will continue to seek a standout for human rights. sanctions are lifted as a

result of the nuclear deal human rights related sanctions will remain in place. >> follow on that ask you to elaborate a little bit. this report is a one-year snapshot issued every year. i would like you to explain what you see the trends are in cuba and iraq. president for holly became president in 2013. do you see any discernible improvement in iran's human rights record and since the obama administration began its opening to cuba has there been any improvement in human rights situation there or is it pretty much as it was a year prior? >> with respect to iran i cannot say we have seen any meaningful improvement in the human rights situation. if you read the reports and

compare them to previous year reports you will find the details of what we are concerned about which involves widespread reports of torture political imprisonment ethnic and religious minority communities, activists, and so forth. with respect to cuba i think we did see a fairly dramatic decision that the cuban government released the vast majority of political prisoners who we had been raised concerns about for some time. we have not yet seen a letup in the kind of day today harassments that civil society activists face in cuba, short-term interests have continued. i am not particularly surprised about that.

we in fact, i think expected it precisely because the cuban government would be nervous about the implications of the opening that in the short term they might actually intensify the crackdown. we firmly believe in the long run in response to matt's question that this will put us in a much stronger position to promote human rights and to stand by civil society. >> follow up on that how many -- give congress a figure recently since obama and castro announced the agreement, have we seen numbers of prisoners and increase increase or decrease, and where are they currently? >> a distinction between prisoners who have been convicted. short-term we are talking about people picked up for a day or two to prevent them from having a meeting a rally or other things. what i mentioned to congress

and we report the numbers is a significant decline earlier this year. very cautious and not suggesting that we thought this was necessarily a trend but a fact at that time. we have seen an increase. as i mentioned this is a problem that continues. the section appertains. the link. so consistent the united nations commission inquiry the improvement. share with us. >> on your commission of

inquiry. we made clear we made clear that we supported the right to self-defense. at at the same time there were deeply concerned about the welfare of civilians and urged all parties to do all they could to protect civilians, particularly given the high civilian death toll in gaza. now, with that said it is important to look back important to understand what happened, join the lessons, to apply those lessons and is important to do it in a balanced way that it is no secret that we have long felt that that balanced approach has not been a hallmark of the human rights council approach to israel. our concerns have been made clear for that reason. thanks.

>> you mentioned venezuela country you highlight the report. go over the specifics. >> and mentioned venezuela in the context of corruption and i think that that is delivered. the reason is that there is we often hear from the government of venezuela strong propaganda directed to the united states and american interference in blaming the united states for problems in the country and have found that not only are their high levels of corruption but they involve people who are part of the government supporters and then enjoying the proceeds of corruption which is one reason why we took action earlier this year in

imposing the visa band not just against human rights violators to that those responsible for high level acts of corruption clicks thank you. i i was wondering if i could ask you, yesterday the economic dialogue with regard to the ngo a matter of strengthening rule of law and have done it with consultation and other countries and essentially there's nothing to worry about. when you raise this kind of concerns do you feel the pain reflected at all to correlate you are repeating the same thing over and over again? clicks we will see. in my diplomatic career i do not think i have had a meeting in which people on the other side respond to a brilliant.i have made by

saying, you know, you are right and we are wrong and will change we are doing. i think that the chinese side received a very strong and unified message not just from me or the secretary of state but from people from every agency, the dangers of this ngo and the reason why it was a unified a unified message was this affects everyone who does business in china foundations, businesses, potentially affects cultural exchange for student and educational exchange in addition the to people who are working on issues like rule of law and human rights. whatever rights. whatever china does, it will find that moving in this direction will result in a very concerted and unified push from quarters that it is not necessarily define it is not necessarily used to hearing from.

we will we will see what happens. we are concerned about the implications of it and about the rhetoric of cultural infiltration the chinese government is using it to justify this law domestically and what that says about china's future development. clicks thank you for doing this briefing. you mentioned that this is the most read document that the state department issues. could you give us a number? secondly, in the section on iran i i noticed that you do not refer to any american citizens by name but call them dual citizens and i'm wondering why that is. >> i will have to get you the numbers. i do not know them off the top of my head. it has a long list and continues to be a widespread document. dual citizens, we generally

there is not an absolute rule but generally do not mention american citizens by name when we mention them in this report. we followed the same practice with respect to several individuals the same practice as last year with the exception of jason which is new this year and this is that we decide it is absolutely clear these are the cases we describe but did not name them. one reason is that the report cannot be a comprehensive listing of people, individuals who are detained around the world under circumstances. we're trying to do is use the stories of the cases to illustrate a larger human rights problem. that really is the main.to want to talk about the pattern in iran or others in other countries of detaining people unjustly for

reporting stories or the peaceful exercise. >> thank you. >> continuing on the human rights issue what is the united states destination for the improvement of human rights in north korea? clicks what is our? clicks destination. >> destination? clicks yes. >> our destination is that the people of north korea should enjoy the same rights and freedoms of the people of south korea and every country in the world who are able to speak their minds and elect their leaders and travel where they want and not to be placed in labor camps because of something they have set our thought or their relatives are. now, as i mentioned if s is difficult to achieve i think it is interesting that in

the last several years we have seen inside north korea far greater awareness among the population of what their rights are and how people outside of north korea live. what has sustained this regime over many years has been its ability to deny people that knowledge and its ability to do that has eroded considerably in the last few years. we are doing everything we can for the people of north korea so that this trend continues. i think one lesson we have learned from changes in other countries is that change takes time, when it comes about it surprises us and is quickly. they will come when we see that happen. >> do you think that north korean leader. [inaudible question]

>> the of north korea is under more pressure for human rights today than it has been at any.in its history which is partly frankly because of the efforts of this administration japan and south korea and all over the world to support this commission of inquiry and its recommendations and to bring this issue to greater public attention, and it is interesting how the north koreans have responded. people used to think that they did not care what we think about their human rights record. that is clearly not true. >> thank you for your report. do you think the human rights situation in bangladesh. [inaudible question]

collects again, again, for the details i am sure you will read the chapter but i , but i can say that since the one-year anniversary of the flawed 2014 elections we have been in regular contact with clinical leaders to urge a peaceful resolution to the political impasse, to end the violence. wounded innocent victims condemned in strong terms of violence for political objectives and emphasize the government responsibility to allow peaceful political activity to be used and appropriate levels of force for law law and order. >> the secretary mentioned countries that the us might have a a problem, but i am just wondering on the opposite of that all when you look at a country like egypt clearly the death

sentence of mohammed marcian some of the other things that you have had problems with this year but clearly last year there was a massive crackdown on not just people who had committed crimes but in general members of the muslim brotherhood brotherhood, and there has been a criticism that the us has not been as forceful as it could be because of its important relationship with the new government, and i am wondering if you look back on the last year you had problems in bahrain. clearly egypt is another issue, and i am wondering if you could reflect about the past year and whether these important political national security relationships make it difficult for you to be able to advance human rights in a way that human rights defenders such as yourself look at these issues quite sure. these are difficult issues, and difficult choices.

if it was not i i would not be interested in having this. it would be boring. people who are deeply committed to the defense of human rights around the world often disagree about the best way to do it but as you mentioned, i have been your four-year and have been in all of the discussions and conversations and involved in virtually all of the decisions we have made on those issues. and i can tell you the objective of defending human rights the objective of the secretary have been front and center in everything that we have tried to do. look at how we launched our campaign against isys by first and foremost seeking a

more inclusive government and then launching an effort to protect the people from a potential genocide leveraging tpp to try to get improvements and labor rights and human rights in vietnam or how we used cuba in the way that i just discussed or prioritized the democratic transition in sri lanka before we engaged there. time and time again we have made decisions with that objective in mind often getting results including some of the ones i mentioned and then sometimes it is difficult because this is not the only interest we have in the world. it is an interest that is intimately related to national security and prosperity, but it is not the only one and would not be -- it would be childish and unrealistic to

suggest it can or should be the only one. with respect to egypt in bahrain to countries in the middle of regions in turmoil or we have important interest in partnering with governments in the fight against terrorism we have still cap this issue front and center. we have not gone back to exactly the same military relationship that we had with egypt before all of this started and encouraged as you know strongly, the release of an individual and were happy to see that happen and will continue to press for the release of the other activists, opposition nonviolent activists, opposition, nonviolent opposition figures to remain in prison. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you everyone. [inaudible conversations] lecture is what is happening on c-span2.

congress passed the ban after russia annexed crimea last year but now the pentagon says it needs more russian engines for a few more years. in the morning a house armed services subcommittee is holding a hearing on with the chairman says his us dependence on russian rocket engines and what we are doing to change that.

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the committee meets to have a hearing on nuclear deterrence in the

21st century. i ask unanimous consent for complete opening statement be made part of the record. i am afraid we will have posted a few minutes. let me say, in my view our nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of all of our defense efforts as well as a source of stability around the world and in my opinion for too long we have taken it for granted neglecting the systems, infrastructure, and people involved in making all of those complex machines safe reliable, and effective. unfortunately, the investment that we have made in delivery systems and weapons in the past are all aging at about the same time which presents us with a substantial challenge, especially when we emerge that with what other nations are doing. the committee has had a series of events over the course of the past week or so classified and unclassified, looking at various aspects of this

problem. i understand the oversight investigations subcommittee will have a further hearing on this matter this afternoon. so i think it is appropriate that we have our witnesses with us today to examine these issues. i look forward to introducing them in a moment mr. smith has been detained for a brief time. in his absence i yield to the distinguished in woman from rhode for comments. >> thank you. on behalf of the committee i welcome my witnesses today. i look forward to your testimony. mr. smith is at a physical therapy appointment and will be here shortly. he welcomes you and in the interest of time mr. chairman, without objection i submit the full statement for the record and yield back clicks i thank

the gentleman and without objection, so ordered. let me welcome our distinguished witnesses. your presence is evidence of the seriousness with which the administration takes this issue. we. we're pleased to welcome the deputy secretary of defense deputy secretary of energy and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. let me also say, adm. the odds are this may be your last hearing in front of the house armed services committee, and my memory is something like 37 years. thank you for all of those years, not only in your current job or we have been able to work with you on a number of issues but an

incredible history of service. thank you and congratulations. mr. sec., you mr. secretary, you are recognized for any comment you would like to make. without objection your written statements will be made part of the record. you may have to punch the button to get the microphone >> i want to thank you and the members of the committee for the support you continue to show. i and everyone in the department greatly appreciated and simply cannot maintain the finest fighting force in the world without your help and everything that you have provided. provided. i am delighted to be here with the dr. from the department of energy. as you said the vice-chairman to talk about this important subject. i would like to touch briefly on three topics the critical role our nuclear forces continue to play the continuing importance of the nuclear deterrence and the

action the program is taking to maintain a safe reliable and effective nuclear force. the survival of our nation is our most important national security interest. the interest. the fundamental role of the us nuclear force is to deter attack on the united states which is the only existential threat. extended deterrence. well we seek a world without nuclear weapons we face the harsh reality that they are modifying their already capable nuclear arsenals and they are being developed. a strong nuclear deterrent force will remain critical

to our national security for the foreseeable future. i would like to address russia's provocations as members of this committee will know. senior russian officials continue to make irresponsible statements regarding the nuclear forces and reassess that they have been doing it to intimidate our allies and us. these have failed. if anything they have really strengthened the nato alliance solidarity. in our estimation our goal is to return the viability of that treaty. under any circumstances we will not allow them to gain significant military advantage through imf violations and are developing and analyzing response options with the president and consulting with allies. let let me just say this about russian military doctrine sometimes described as escalated the escalate. anyone who thinks they can control escalation through the use of nuclear weapons

is literally playing with fire. ..

>> >> we have developed a plan to transition in our aging system there are reaching the time while they will age out to carry out this plan will be a very expensive proposition and weeks -- recognize that it will cost dod in average of $18 billion per year through 2035 with bfi $16.

>> we appreciate the priority that places the nuclear matters given the significance to national security to insure the safety security and effectiveness with global nuclear dangers. today's hearing is set aboard a step in the ongoing effort with the nuclear deterrence of united states i am honored to testify along my colleague from the department of defense the

department of energy and defense share a solemn responsibility to you deliver the nuclear deterrent to work in this with deterrent to provide the delivery systems. our to agencies collaborate through the nuclear weapons council to approve communication and increase coordination and the cooperation is strong and deliberate as you will hear today. the cooperation depends upon the leadership of experienced members of the military as the chairman noted will be retiring after the voice -- but its chairman of joint chiefs it is up privileged to work with the admiral to join forces i would like to take this opportunity to thank cd4 his years of dedicated service to our nation. we're already united states

and our allies and partners have growing nuclear dangers assets in the speech from prague the threat of nuclear war has gone down but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up. the obama administration set forth the strategy to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and we must maintain a nuclear deterrent to charge to implement both elements of the nuclear strategy. this is a no failed mission in which we must provide a safe secure deterrent without explosive nuclear testing to respond to terrorism around the world. indeed as to reduce is the arsenal that safety and

security effectiveness becomes all the more important. infrastructure modernization with the ongoing stockpile from sound science and advanced technology are necessary to enjoy the 21st century threats. the storage chip program is one of the most remarkable achievements of the past two decades and every year it has enabled the secretaries of defense and energy with fellow salamis nuclear laboratories said commander of the strategic command to certify to the president the stockpile is safe and secure and reliable and the scientific and technological expertise has achieved this without nuclear testing and in fact, our labs know more about the inner working of the stockpile than they ever

did during the days of explosive nuclear testing alterations refurbishing and reuse nuclear components to extend the life span of the arsenal to ensure the continued safety and effectiveness. to maintain confidence we must continue to invest in a uniquely skilled work force as well as the science and infrastructure essentials to stockpile stewardship. the national security administration is responsible for the nuclear enterprise necessary to sustain the stockpile to execute all nuclear missions. the infrastructure dates back to the manhattan project as many of you have seen with your own eyes and has exceeded the useful life

and made a substantial maintenance or replacement and equally important to more than 50 percent of the federal work force will be eligible to retire in the next five or seven years. this wave of retiree requires us to recapitalize our work force with a generation of standing talent to carry forward our nuclear mission for this century. building a responsive infrastructure requires investing in people as well as our new facility with high explosives, nonnuclear components with office work space. secretary rodis - - moniz and i seek your support over new construction that we need. your recognition of your support to the life extension program are

critical to american national security and security of our allies and partners around the world. more broadly reseed the implementation of a congressional advisory panel on the august the report as a top priority that will enhance efforts:00 -- along the enterprise undersecretary moniz leadership we have taken steps to improve the operation and management of the nuclear security enterprise. one of the records set to begin fighting was to rebuild national leadership with an emphasis on strengthening regular communication with congressional leaders on policy elements to make up the nuclear security mission along with the team added been straighter will feed

the implementation group to look for to working with you on this important issue your report will be critical to our success as they already observed delete -- deal he plays a central role to implement the threat reduction activity and our portfolio of work aimed at preventing and responding to global nuclear threats is rooted in our capabilities to sustain the nuclear stockpile to enable us to implement a dimension of the prague agenda. these activities are a defense by other means. when retake material off the playing field or work discreetly to keep that fissile material those who share values from those who would do less harm. for example, nnsa has safely

and securely removed or confirms the disposition of highly enriched uranium and plutonium around the over all that is enough material for 200 nuclear weapons. with challenges including the expansion of the russian and chinese nuclear program with this clause certainty we cannot afford to delay the investments wavey to make another nuclear security enterprise. with your support we can sustain nuclear deterrence in the 21st century. think for the opportunity to testify before - - day on the national security issue and of the forge your questions. >> members of the committee i just missed ranking member

smith but i figure for the opportunity to share my perspective chairman jesse and i with the use of force resource allocation and assignment of risk it goes about saying that work long -- that goes to the catastrophic attack on tarnation. additionally our deterrence commitments cover our interest to ensure our non-nuclear allies that they will be protected without developing their own nuclear capabilities. with that force to be the most important that was the only way to deter an essential attack with zero

lesser state we accomplish this through the long proven triad and the combination of deployed weapons and platforms in europe with the ability to rapidly do the same in the pacific. at the end of the cold war to the point where it was obsolete recent events remind us of the necessity to maintain a capable deterrent including the triad as long as the weapons existed we still believe that any reductions must be done in concert because unilateral gestures of goodwill have little standing with authoritarian regimes all three legs of

the command-and-control structure within a natural cycle that systems aged eight to be refreshed or modernized russia goes to this exact same experience but in the coming years is is over relatively short period of time and this is all happening at a time when our resources are decreasing any remaining margarine that we have has been whittled away as repression investments further and further into the future. there is no slack left in the system made a long-term funding with this most important element of what we do we cataloger adjust priorities that absence

another form of relief that you have to reach into the other things that you do to protect other national security interest to make people both inside and outside happy. for our part to to exercise the best stewardship that we can and continue working closely with our partners to ensure the viability and affordability of the stockpile stewardship for i hope congress will do its part for your strong support for the nation's men and women did your form is my tenure as vice chairman. they give for the opportunity to appear next to my colleagues today. >> as here we have the votes

on the floor so we will have to reassess the we will return as soon as those are concluded. make your way into the room we will buy you a cup of coffee they will stand in recess please come back right after votes. [inaudible conversations] >> come to order and thank you for your patience. let me ask the couple things as they make their way back from the floor. to issue a message of

deterrence our nuclear deterrent plays a critical role to ensure u.s. national security and it is the highest priority mission that no other capability we have is more important. is that still the case? do you agree with that? >> absolutely. one of the issues we found in the nuclear enterprise review and with the mission that resulted in some very bad outcomes that we are working to try to overcome since 2008.

that is why secretary hagel said mission. it is day mission for those who are responsible for every aspect efficiencies are great when you look for functions but this is about the commander responsibility so i believe that is absolutely the case have the vice-chairman would agree with that also. >> let me ask you this question because part of their action is that this has got along pretty well as of nothing has changed but we haven't had nuclear testing since 1991 so there is no need to spend this money because we make it okay we have enough weapons to destroy the world several times over is you ask us to

waste money to put it into the warhead for the delivery system. what is their reaction to that? >> as both the vice-chairman and i have testified and all senior leadership has said the only existential threat is a nuclear attack the one step down with those nuclear weapons to be fired in the continental united states. anybody who looks at the way the environment the way russia has described the posture is the biggest

mission it is critical we can to deter the much smaller force that is true and is reflected in the cost with the peak of the replacement is nowhere near the peak of the replacement cost of the sixties and eighties. it performs an extremely important mission and i went gsa looked at the international environment it is not is time to say that they are useless. >> i would add to that description why it remains relevant as the capital asset. like kidney, it needs to be maintained and refurbished and modernized and as we mentioned earlier, is due at the same time. it has lasted two decades

beyond that life and that is one small side - - slice of the need to do that. >> the cost of the systems aging out yesterday or day before the center for strategic and budgetary assessment released a preliminary study entitled our u.s. nuclear forces is affordable? a kanye budget request now through 2039 is that no point with the nuclear force sheriff national defence be more than 5% of the defense budget. does that sound right based on the projections that you look at? >> we did an incredible

steady but retrieve their estimates and dollars is the long-range bomber for the nuclear mission. it would take 7 percent of the budget right now spending 3% to double that level of effort to sustain the force requires about 7% it would be when we peeked out around 2826. look at the last two times of the vice-chairman said we would recapitalize the forest and led the spread out over another period if time. but the important thing they said it is a matter of prioritization and in

previous times so on the flats budget to take a hit with the defense portfolio. >> we differ a little bit of a number respect and to modernize. >> i appreciate that how you assign a long-range bomber but regardless with the highest priority for the national security his marcion's it is not completely unreasonable. >> and we already lost 10%. and the one thing i do agree with this study is if we

don't find another outside release people are happy because they will be pushed aside. >> ag for holding this hearing and is great to have such ted distinguished panel before us to hear this affirmation for the nuclear deterrence because it is the most important mission but sometimes forgotten and i appreciate you stressing it to the committee and the public at large it will take at least $355 billion with the stockpile in russia goes along with it and we're in the bad habit to not really fully fund our military or a fully funded highway bill in eight years when paul full my colleagues will hear this

message not only supported it but a star of funding and now a regular schedule i congratulate the obama administration as they find these priorities i just helps -- help as he goes to the conference we can figure out the better solution for fully funding not attending for the overseas contingency operation accounts but as to deal with these issues there are tons of questions to ask it is a chairman to work with mike rogers of the subcommittee but whether the new list were the freshest or a young sailor on a nuclear sub for somebody is preparing to fly a strategic bomber in any of us on the panel the ivory have

descended so much weapons that we will never use but i am appreciative of you devoting your careers to make is deterrence real and i hope we can figure out ways to encounter the vladimir putin doctrine of dominance that is one of the main threats from the panel this comment the best way to counter a a different threat from what we have seen before. >> we have tried to deemphasized the role of nuclear weapons where

strategists -- for russia tries to emphasize it arad a conventional disadvantage that language is extreme because of the implications that you would use the weapon to to escalating crisis there is no way to foresee what would happen after that so the russians could moderate their language to talk with us with the weapons below that they give each of the

witnesses we're very fortunate to have you with your analytical skills and we appreciate what you do. admiral you have a wealth of experience to this position and to avoid just want to take a little bit of that from new. in the part of the nuclear program but what we keep others from taking from us or steal from us that china is committed to stealing our lunch every day to cybersp niosh but this is the latest example did they steal our technology and applying it to their navy and are you aware of any evidence with them stealing nuclear technology and diverting it to the navy?

>> i have not personally aware of any instances of the nation's stealing nuclear technology. >> it could be happening and not just be to 90 intelligence. and concerns from that that 80l is working hard to tie in that up one thing that has intrigued me that he comes into the people it is applicable to protect ourselves in the cyberworld and reinvestigate how to put those principles into our

work force with the user experience. >> deal times we shed take to upgrade the ballistic missile submarines for the nuclear reactor technology. >> you are referring to the chain no one tier ii but any agreement we have with this regard is not used to have a quieter place of no tidies the. [inaudible] should with this aspect with the tide now 123? is there anything?

>> as the projects are interest it provides opportunity for our industry to have markets to have those performance standards we want to see other countries adopt fake you for your service for i yield back. >> want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. is the chairman noted this could be the last appearance before the committee and thank you for your service you have made great contributions international security. madam secretary if i could start a a a question but in

that category that our adversaries are modernizing their nuclear program program, average you assess our program is that adequate a half? and with those features the we could build with how far technology has advanced or is that with just refurbishing? >> we together with the department of defense set the requirements for modernization of the stockpile and it is our judgment that what we have been doing with the 3 + 2 strategy that we will return

that dietrich capability for our allies and partners around the world will be used with the 3 + 2 strategy will deter any oversight -- adversaries therefore we judge this is the right strategy it is hard to implement it can you describe the importance of radiation designed to vent additional actors? vitter faq for giving me the opportunity to answer it is part of a reprieve this league called a second line of defense that is a

critical part of the efforts to ensure the movement of fissile material does not go undetected because the most important part of a country or a group's ability is to get access to that fissile material to be sure there is detection in capabilities to allow us to know in realtime when something maybe moving so we can be secured against acquisition from those you would do less harm -- do was harm. >> how would you characterize the security measures in place? and how resilient is it? >> of the threat of the systems with the nuclear issues with some of the most

important mission and we have. with shovels it'll pop platform whether cyberfolder abilities to look at it closely right now i judge it to be satisfactory. >> rebate to continue to pay attention to that. admiral the is the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty remains in the national interest? and then i have other questions. >> we monitor continuously that russia is a hearing to the new start - -

s.t.a.r.t. treaty and with love to have complete transparency that we believe that verification measures are adequate to have a better understanding so yes we do believe the new s.t.a.r.t. tree is within our interest. >> with the issue of verification how did they detect cheating? that much work remains to be done with the interagency cooperation that when you might have to do for the record. >> if you don't mind i will is a for the record we will try to keep moving with our limited time. >> as we look back but there

is no good news. we have dangerous and aggressive threats directed at the united states the allies and its neighbors and putin conducting exercises with international criticism that russia will use nuclear weapons tour day escalate that somebody would think it is 80 escalation is an escalation to brazen violate the imf treaty without a response without the

invasion were annexation of crimea that they take for the eastern ukraine. what message would you like to send with that danger is past russia is taking? thank you for the question. i would say it is very important to the russians understand the first use of nuclear weapons risks uncontrolled escalation. this is almost impossible to predict what the outcome would be however small. but we're not falling for this. to protect and defend allies

as deputy secretary is destined to fail. >> those are strong words. when you look at russia's actions and to opt -- occupy cry react to threats and then they doted -- missions if they participate in nato or missile defense with the buzzing of the ships then the aircraft to save data as t.s. qatari foreign that

conflict escalated into a nuclear exchange. >> mr. magwood crisply assess the risk and it certainly is not smaller based on the rhetoric that putin in russia has taken to frustrate any moves but at the end of the day there will take that very seriously the cannot let down our guard with that initiative with the european command that is very active to reassure allies to take the right steps that in the

rhetoric is undertaking its aggressiveness with the deployment of the new and a threatening systems they need to hear those words with the obligations to the allies. >> they give to those witnesses for your testimony with the replacement program so that there will be a relatively short period to capsize the normal lovell's to have that testimony over

and over the many times that i sympathize with the administration because that is our job to fix that but in this side with the ohio is a mechanism to have a positive solution to set up the account last year to talk about activating the account through the navy to give the tools with a challenging cost issue with the highest priority and if we don't we will trade the other force and a large portion of his remarks about

the fact to have a surface combat in tearing the conversation only is migrates to this issue. and mr. ford's who is not here and others on a bipartisan basis led the charge to protect the upgrade with a 74% in the house republican caucus so people are starting to get to the point that we are past that. we are ready to act if you don't like the sea bass to deterrence fund, find. then come back but with the impression with the budget platters purchase spectators

to come up with a fix with the negative fallout to decide very powerfully. can you share your thoughts and then some point you can embrace it and to have president with a ground-based missile defense >> that we will pay for it matter what purpose in the past congress has added money during periods when restart to recapitalize and we hope that will happen again and the theory of the case to help us through. up until this time it has

been theoretical and in 20201 if we paid for in a single year to add to the navy to be enormously destructive to fit in the topline. we want to work with you and we're anxious to work with you but to a foot stomp what the vice-chairman said it is one thing to be affixed topline that would have been remiss disruption across all services and we're anxious to work with you. >> but again we created a a

mechanism with the incremental authority and i hope the some point and that we can use this fund and to move forward we hope the administration will help us out. >> fakes to although witnesses for your service and congratulations on retirement that is a coming. to weeks ago we received a second straight noncompliance report about russia's violation of the imf treaty and with these

reports we had evidence of noncompliance. so the committee learned the joint staff was conducting an assessment of military responses to russia's noncompliance and minor understanding is that you briefed us on that assessment but chairman has proposed -- proposed response is purdue have the time frame they you can get some direction from the white house? >> anbar have the specific time line. it is what the interagency policy committees are looking at. but we don't want to rush

into to bring russia back into the treaty but we have options at hand that i cannot discuss in the unclassified hearing but they are available for use and some are expensive but none of them contribute to russia security and safety to understand that. he has is played along if we are letting him and said understand why it continues to go on for quite know the you are not the president but but what they is me to my next question. but you talk about the provocative statements with the russian of military statement has made for the nato allies for their

resolve. i am worried about them fracturing nato so what is the u.s. doing to other our allies to the seriousness of the russian of violation and what do we do to reassure them we will be there and everything is okay? >> they are well aware and to a the ministerial i am sure he discusses this with them with the major forums

with the various leaders with the command structure either very well aware of this with the greater threat i had the very twice with the full committee chairman there are very concerned that to be muscular enough i would challenge the concerns there one of the few nations with that too% investment obligation secretary carter is over there and that is the topic of discussion with

the gdp funding they should be well aware of the insurance initiative and all the actions we met with defense ministers with the allies but anyway my time is expired for ago figure of. >> i will take this in a different direction. so explain the rationale behind the engaged for the capacity with the costs associated so then let's do

another question after that. >> and will begin by noting the question is that recently have then asked by richard rodgers me understand the need for were a nuclear infrastructure given to the dynamic threat environment one aspect of that with a nuclear weapons cancel is the plutonium strategy which requires us to meet certain targets over the coming decades. that strategy will enable us to move out of an old facility by 2019 at lowe's alamos that would be necessary to ensure we can continue the extension and

programs to construct and operate additional capabilities to produce 50 or 80 giving us the flexibility should we need it with that environment. >> ashley costs associated with that strategy. >> but it saved she would want to know that at the outset that there seems to be a shortage of money for all of this? what does it cost. >> we have strict challenges on this front. >> as the committee considered updating the existing facility? >> in the scrutiny that the secretary and i that the leadership has applied the

planning for a major infrastructure projects is significant and we have said apple whole new process to examine the kind of buildings we need to bill to recapitalize the infrastructure in the most effective way. >> receives the starting point is the capacity but now it is 80 hits per year the value back into a facility but you have not told the why you need 50 new ones per year. >> thank you for seeking clarification the objective is to give us the flexibility to produce additional plutonium. >> wide to read that flexibility? >> we cannot predict the threat environment we will face as a nation in 20 or 30

years from now we want to make sure we have the infrastructure necessary to respond to the president of the future need to pursue the modernization of our nuclear capabilities. >> some day we might wanted so we will bill the now but we don't have the money to do so. >> we cannot snap our fingers to produce the infrastructure for. >> would is the capacity of the current hit? >>. >> it is between 10 and 20. >> and i want to confirm that. >> multiple chefs upgrade at the existing facility could produce far more than the 10 of today. check it out and get back to me please. >> i will do that. >> cry about of time but i have a series of questions specifically on this report

is said of mine are moving forward and can we expect to see it? >> would you like to me to get back to you on the record? >> i'm sorry i thought you said you were out of time. >> 22 seconds. >> they have asked us to do additional review of the cost of the facility we will have a red team review with the director of the national lab to evaluate the findings and other findings about the costs associated with the facility to determine the best way forward. >> that is to in september. >> correct. >> i would get them to you. >> mr. chairman never like to talk about the treaty we

had a hearing on february february 3rd that the lieutenant general stuart the director was asked about the treaty. the general said the open skies construct was designed for a different era i am very concerned how it is applied today and i would try a in a closed hearing mr. rogers to send a request to the commander of stress, with the open skies construct was designed for a different era that the application today that the united states said concert with allies continues to

address these concerns. i am concerned the treaty has become a critical component of russia intelligence collection capability directed at the united states. in addition to flying over installations it can overfly and collect on national critical infrastructure and dod. are you aware the most recent compliance report from the department of state indicates russia is not in compliance with the treaty? >> i am. this is something we would like to talk about in a closed hearing but we are concerned what russia is doing as well was the other activities and nuclear missions to reach you have any reason to believe they are using it for reasons

beyond what it was ratified for? direct we are concerned the way they're operating as the admiral said beyond the original intent of the treaty and we continue to look at this very, very closely. >> so the russians have requested we continue the treaty and they're able to use even more danced sensors. is it prudent to accept that proposal to fly increasingly advanced sensors over the united states? >> that is a discussion right now. >> you don't have an opinion? arachnoid to overlook cattle different aspects. >> okay. >> this is an issue that will continue to be of high interest to the and the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee whose committee i am honored to serve on.

. .