eastern countries there's a conflict with saudi arabia and iran. where by proxy lebanon, or certain portions of the population will take sides with one or the other. both of those countries are islamic states. this would seem to be a systemic thing. what will you do to make both saudi arabia and iran accountable for their conflict in the middle east. >> i don't how to answer that. what you're asking what will we do. >> i would make the observation however that if in fact the press reports indicate the u.s. government believes the russian airstrikes hit units trained by the united states, it does

suggest a certain amount of effort on the part of the russians a number of folks trains is so small finding them in the country the size of syria strikes me as not, as i might have said in my earlier career, by accident. >> i'm prepared to say and i've said this earlier, the russians are not in syria to defeat isis. that is a fundamentally false narrative. >> i want to thank our panelists is somewhat depressing, i know that both of them will continue to be important voices on the subject in the future. i appreciate your time you spent with us this morning. thank you. [applause].

>> more now from the foreign policy initiative. coming up will look at u.s. relations with asian countries. you will hear from senators dan sullivan of alaska and senator from colorado. >> the strength to lead. it is a pleasure to welcome you back to a session that will focus on the asia-pacific region where the united states has so many allies that asked the question that gets to the heart of the form this year. will the united states retain the strength to lead in light of china's strength and their activities. to discuss this question is a privilege to be joined by senator gardner and senator sullivan, moderated in

conversation by josh rogan. before introducing our speakers we want to take a moment to note a pair of publications you may have seen on your way in. fbi form policy 2015, and a joint publication with enterprise institution, the state of the military, at the fence. they provide briefings for candidates, legislators and their staff. the versions here are hot off the press. we have a few copies here and there are available online as well. the questions we try to address here, we are very fortunate to have two members of the senate to flush out for us today. senator gardner was elected in 2014 to represent colorado. among his assignments is on the foreign relations committee and

chairs the east asia pacific international cyber security subcommittee. previously, he moved from the private sector, he was elected in the house of representatives in 2010 where he where he focused his work on energy policy. senator sullivan was elected in 2014 and represents alaska in the united states senate. among his assignments he sits on the senate arms service committee. he's been designated as the lead for committee's oversight of the rebalance, and pivot of u.s. military activities in the asia-pacific. previously he served as alaska's attorney general, his can mission or of natural resources. moderating the conversation will be josh rogan who is a bloomsburg view columnist. perhaps a little known fact he began his career as a journalist writing for japan's and of course he still follows the

region closely. thank you josh for moderating, please, please try me in welcoming the senators. [applause]. thank you all for coming to the asian panel today. first rule of panels is we have 45 minutes to talk about asia so we will get right to it. i have about 30 minutes of opening remarks. >> so do we. >> we are right on schedule. i began studying asia even it was the gw. i was told this would be the asian century. we are waiting on that 15 years inches there's still time. i went. i went to live in asia, studied japanese and i went to work for the japanese newspaper. i eventually hit with a call the rice paper ceiling, if you are

the there is a upward mobility for you. i went to work for cq, congressional quarterly. at that time, this was there is a group of very senior well-established senators who cared a lot about asia, rick mugged them or take kennedy, richard lugar, john warner, all of the senate leaders are no longer the senate. i remember one particular story when i was covering the nomination of the u.s. investment that was being held up by brownback. i saw senator warren in the hallway and he came up to me and i said what are we going to do about this. he puts his hand on my shoulder and he says to me, josh i fought in korea, i have friends that died in korea, i will always

look out for the little guys. that's what he said. so now, we have a new generation of senators who are lucky learning about asia and wanted to be leaders in asia. we have two of the most prominent here today. we are very lucky. senator gardner is the chairman of the asia policy and international society cyber policy. let me begin with you for a few remarks. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to be with you this morning and for braving the weather. it looks like it may get worse as they say the calm before the storm.

thanks so much for a chance to me this morning. i look at what is happening around the globe and while our day to day focus seems to be, and rightly so, in the middle east. with syria and. with syria and russian activity, our long-term interests really do live in the asia region. if you look at what is happened in china over the last several decades and the last several years, it is remarkable what they have been able to accomplish. 500 million people out of poverty. the question is, what are we going to do to make sure rising china who wishes everything to be a great nation truly is a great nation. and sits alongside great nations that hereto international norms of behavior of all the rules of the road of a truly great nation. right now when it comes to questions of economy, when it comes to questions of security and expansion of the south china sea, this you sign it china sea, cyber security, right now they are not meeting the goals they need to meet to become the truly responsible great nation that can be a part of a world that

truly needs leadership on these issues. just last month i had a chance and opportunity to visit and china, and basic, korea, hong kong meeting with leaders and officials to talk about the challenges we face in the region. and the opportunity we face in the region. there are some tremendous opportunities. look at trends pacific partnership. right now if you look at what is happening the rebalance is seen primarily through the prospective of a military rebalance. we have to pass and put for ppp in order to move beyond the simply military dimension of the rebalance. when you talk to people in the region, when you talk to leaders here, that is a one-sided is a one-sided policy right now that needs to be multidimensional. so we have opportunities, the challenges we face are truly real and could lead to greater

conflict. if we don't take them seriously, what is seriously, it means we move beyond rhetoric on the south china sea and we move into action. serious moved beyond rhetoric on cyber security issues. we need to move into action. serious means that when comes to economic issues, whether international laws that could threaten the security of our corporations and when it comes to the billions of dollars of international property draft each year, which admiral blair predicted of the $300 billion of intellectual property threat, 80% came from china. we have to solve these problems. we have very serious issues if we are going to be a significant partner in a region of the world that will represent half of the world's population, half of the world economy, and indeed the long-term future of international interest. >> thank you.

>> thank you for putting this on. a little bit about my background. i view asia from a few different lenses. if you look at a map, alaska is certainly in asia's specific state. i was a state official in alaska, is out in china and japan and other places in korea with regard to our economic opportunities. i also served in the bush administration as assistant secretary of state in charge of the economic energy, finance portfolios under secretary rice. i spent a lot of time in china, japan, other parts of asia. also as a member of the military, a marine, deployed out to that part of the world is a marine. i was then a u.s. senator very interested in the region, i've had had a few trips out there. i was at the shangri-la dialogue

with senator mccain and senator reid, senator ernst, i did confirm with joshua saw there at a bar that whatever i said at the bar would not be quoted here as i is what he said at the bar or not be quoted here. >> are we still good to go on that. >> yes. >> just checking. >> so just a few thoughts from my perspective. i think all of you recognize that american foreign-policy is at its strongest when the executive branch and legislative branch are working together. when parties, democrats and republicans are working together. that is certain away that if you look at her history that has been the traditional major foreign-policy issues. it's also way the constitution is set up. to share that authority. on the good news threat front on the rebound there has been a sense of bipartisan and

executive, legislative coming together on that strategy of president obama. if you look at the defense authorization bill that just got out of conference, there's a strong amendment amendment in there it was amendment that i drafted that really focuses on the importance of rebound. past of the them service committee unanimously. as corey mentioned, trained. a lot of us worked hard in the tpa vote which passed by one vote. a lot of republicans worked with pres. and his cabinet forward on that. the military rebalance is something i have been very interested in and people say hey maybe it doesn't exist. i think it does to some degree. then there's another element of the rebound but i like to talk about. not just military strategy but

should also include energy. we have a huge opportunity in this country in terms of energy that we didn't have ten years ago. in terms of exports, exports of oil and energy. the asian economies needed and want it, it's a great way to deepen our economic and energy and security relationships with opening that element ever read down. i've been trying to convince the white house, cabinet and administration that this should be a three-pronged strategy. that is the good news. the bad news in my view is our credibility, even on this important strategy is starting to decline. like it is in a lot of the world in regard to america's steadfastness on key foreign-policy issues. why? it is one thing to talk about your policy, it is one thing to make statements about policy objectives. it's quite another to act on

them. the difference between talk and action is becoming quite apparent. it's starting to creep into our rebound strategy. let me give you one obvious and important strip example. when we were at the shangri-la i doubt dialogue. we made a point. we met with sec. carter, bipartisan bipartisan meeting, literally walking around the conference together, the chairman of the armed service committee, the secretary does fence, some of the new members like myself, we're doing that purposefully. this is the united states, we are working together, bipartisan executive legislative.

senator carter gave a powerful speech. if you read it, a lot of people were waiting on what he had to say. he was talking about south china sea, about our ability and call to fly and sail anywhere the way we have for decades. they even sent a submerged reef, whether it's built-up or not does not provide sovereignty that we need to respect. that was a strong statement. what have we done. well we are not following up on that. as a matter fact, a lot of people and i think it became clear in the committee recently he does it exactly but if you look at the testimony in that hearing, the military is interested in failing to my secretary carter mentioned. including inside the 1212-mile limit of some of these islands. yet it's also apparent that the white house seems to not want to do that. i think that is a strategic

mistake. we haven't done that since 2012. why does that matter? i'll finish with one anecdote that has a bit of a personal meaning to me. some of you have been an asian might recall what happened in the spring of 1986. i'll refer to it as the taiwan crisis. china had move forces close to taiwan and was shooting missiles in terms of provocation with regard to the taiwanese presidential election. president clinton urge to carry her battles to the region, not one, two for a show of america it resolved. during the time there's a debate and i remember hearing on the radio a show, i can't remember what it was,

debasing hey this is kinda provocative, someone else on the show said no we actually need to send naval shipping through the taiwan strait because right now china saying the taiwan strait is their internal waterway. i remember that because i was a marine infantry officer, lieutenant at the time on a marine associate. a very large vessel in the taiwan strait. we did send the ship to the taiwan strait during that time. it was a ship ship that i was actually on. those a demonstration of american resolve. was it risky? some some say was risky but others, and i would argue this, it's a lot riskier to actually accept de facto pronouncements by countries that, in my view don't represent what the international community focuses on. we actually regularly do that still. as a u.s. navy.

i think it is important to remember, we can't use our credibility in this part of the world. there are other allies in countries looking for american leadership. i think we have an opportunity to present it at work in a bipartisan way bipartisan way with the president on this policy. we need to boast our credibility, not undermine it. >> thank you senator i will start up with a few questions i will go to the audience. following up with what you just said, you noted that u.s. has not operated within 12 miles of those disputed territories. i think think the testimonies said in 2012. yet last month, chinese ships were found to be operating within 12 miles of your space. today it was announced that china has quietly begun construction on the first mystic aircraft carrier. from your position what you think it is china's strategy here and what should the u.s. due to response. >> i asked the question and obviously it's kind of interesting to me as an alaskan

senator to be home when china was sailing near my great state. it's interesting. the question i had asked was if that was a provocation? because we had a certain visitor in alaska at the time, his name was president obama. i was serious and i said you think this is a coincidence or do you think it was a provocation? i don't exactly they clearance and to be honest i don't think anybody knows. the only issue there i thought the department of defense response was almost muted. it was almost apologetic. hey there bye alaskan is not a problem. in many ways it's not an issue but it is very interesting. it's an extent of deployment for five chinese naval ships. those of us who are encouraging

a navy response that is within the 12-mile zone of the submerged reefs that have been built up are not doing it to be provocative. were doing it because otherwise we're going to essentially let facts on the ground change the situation and we will be, and many many ways de facto recognizing what i think certainly or military and most of the other members of the foreign policy of the united states, don't recognize. secretary carter didn't recognize it. so i think we need to keep a close eye on this issue. >> sender garnet you mention excellent cyber. the the biggest topic on the recent summit was cyber policy. they claim to to

have signed the first-time controls agreement for cyber. the biggest hack of federal information in u.s. history was when the chinese took all the personnel data from opm. we heard they would be sanctions, then there were gonna be sanctions now there might be, now there might not be. what in your valuation on the response of that hack, do you think this agreement is a real thing or is it just windowdressing a what should be done next? >> i think there's a commonality in my opening comments and as response to the first question and the response to the cyber question. we have an administration that continues to lead from behind. the president is taking the shift cyber security very seriously. it's going to define for generations our security policy, personal privacy issues, in fact it so serious that he is

actually the head of this new cyber committee. in china. i met last month with the president china to talk about what they're doing. this agreement that was reached last week, time will tell what it is, doesn't do anything about opm. it doesn't address those issues at all. raise your your hands if you think the chinese have your fingerprints. exactly right. there is nothing publicly stated, either before the event or after the summit about opm. this agreement, this agreement, was a modest first step about economic and espionage, only time will tell about how much information were going to give to them and how much information will get back. we. we also have to recognize under the new security laws that china is a process of putting in place, will they simply ignore the cyber agreement because they'll say it's against our new cyber, national us on security.

so we need to have tough public diplomacy when it comes to cyber, we still don't have that. we could have called an ambassador, the president should have talked about it long before august recess came around. so again, this is the first of many steps that need to be taken. i personally believe that congress has to do a better a better job. right now, you mention i'm the head of the new foreign relations subcommittee on east asia's pacific and cyber strategy. so we have foreign relations and now a cyber component. homeland sick security with a cyber component, commerce with a cyber component, we need to have a select committee committee on cyber policy in the senate that can take the heads of these committees put them on a committee, so we can have a whole government view about what we should do a cyber policy.

we have an amendment pending to the cyber bill that requires the state which doesn't yet have a cyber strategy. then we should review the 2011 framework because we haven't had one since 2011. >> went to the chinese officials say to you when you met. >> i think i agree that he would come to my hometown and i would go to his hometown and that was part of our conversation. we also talked about how they would like more information about what we think occurred. it's a sign that they are not taking us seriously and cyber policy. we just can't throw at the source of the 12 miles on and they use words to try to describe how this is against international law. we can't just just throw new policies at china without backing them up. we need to have sanctions, we need need to pursue sanctions and we need to continue making

sure we're not just talking but actually acting. >> thank you. how are we doing with our arctic policy, what what else needs to be done and what do you see the asian powers including china russia doing question mark. >> we are not doing well. this is become a new area, you've seen the press reports significant increase in the interest of major powers like russia, china and for good reason. it is looking like it is been a very important transportation route for the entire globe. obviously it's a place of norma's resources. so you see what has become quite in many ways shockingly military in the arctic particularly in regard to russia. so in the last year they have

start up a brand-new arctic command, for new gate combat teams in the arctic. thirteen new airfields, and conducted an exercise which took a lot of us by surprise. it was enormous by any standards, probably, probably one of the biggest arctic exercises in decades. what are we doing, the department of defense has announced they're going to remove the only airborne brigade combat team in the asia-pacific and the arctic. that happens to be based in a alaska. i happen to think that's not good for my state but i also don't because good for the national defense of our country. we are acting, congress is acting. another amendment that i put forward and again was unanimously approved by the

committee, there'll be a provision that requires the department of defense to put together an operations plan for the arctic. for those of you who understand what that means, that's a serious endeavor. to seriously look, right now we have in the department of defense as a defense strategy is seven pages are pictures, there is a footnote one mentioning russia. climate changes mentioned six times in the strategy. it's not a serious strategy. congresses demanding that we do have a serious strategy we need to work with our allies. i think we're acting, i think you are going a lot more activity, armed service committee will hold a hearing in the next two months on our arctic strategy and the

importance of it. congresses pain attention, even secretary carter has admitted how key the arctic is and how we are late to the game. we need to catch up. >> thank you. you just came back from trip including hong kong for about one year from the beginning of the pro-democracy protests that took over hong kong. can you give us an update? you what is the state of that movement. was any real progress made and is there any possibility of further unrest? >> i think think there is an article in the new york times about the protests that occurred with tens of thousands of people. they came together and spontaneously. i met with protesters, i met

with council members as well as chief executives in hong kong. i can tell you there's great concern about the future of democracy, the region and what it means to have autonomy. if you look at freedom of the press, for instance one of the index has removed freedom of the press from the most repressed rules policies in the world to somewhere in the 70s. >> i'm not. >> ..

how they are going to promote democracy in hong kong and how they have maintained law. again, we have to make sure that they are constantly standing behind hong kong and making sure that the agreements that are entered into are matched and met and that there is no backsliding >> do you believe the obama administration attitude and statements have been robust enough? >> i don't think the obama administration's actions have been robust on the archive for diplomacy. >> you mentioned taiwan. i will not remember a time

when there was a lot of discussion about taiwan. legislation pushing 1st of armaments. it seems to be out of the news. what is a responsibility of lawmakers, especially on these relevant committees, to continue the us commitment to taiwan? >> i don't feel it has been advocated. you know, it is an important component of our overall strategy. as you know, the involvement of the congress, the senate and the house of played an important role in terms of shaping an element of american foreign-policy. as i said at the outset, it is one of those areas that has gotten a lot bipartisan support, and that is where we are the strongest.

on that issue i don't seei don't see a lot of daylight executive branch and congress are now, but i will mention this to broaden the.of your question, you know,, you know, we have a lot of focus on the middle east, a lot of focus on terrorism, a lot of smart foreign-policy former officials, current foreign-policy thinkers you that the rise or somewhere say the reemergence of china in the asia-pacific as the number one foreign-policy and national security issue of the united states and our allies are the next generation, and i have to agree with that. ii think it is a huge opportunity. it should not all be negative. there arethere are huge opportunities to work with china on a whole host of issues, and there are obviously challenges. we had the opportunity last friday to meet with the

president she's in pain when he came to congress call one of the five republicans who got to sit down with them. it was a very good discussion, but he had talked about and ii had given a speech on the senate floor a few hours earlier, he has been using this term called the lucidity strap, a term coined by graham allison and harvard about when you see in history rising powers challenging and established power that historically it does not turn out so well. ii wrote about the peloponnesian war which was with sparta and athens. the pres. ofpresident of china is talking about this in a speech to us. he is against it. and so should we be. i think it is actually a serious issue.

the seriousness is two things. we as a federal government, government, as partners need to be paying a lot more attention, but this seems a little and congress in a broader discussion, the most important where we avoid the trap is being started home. the strong economy, traditional levels of american economic growth. this is something that ultimately is going to underpin so much of my view of foreign policy in asia, our military, the key which is often something that is overlooked. we keep throwing at these horrible low rates. there going to have problems overseas. >> very quickly, what was your impression?

>> we talked a little bit about cyber. i think the yen the foreign minister they're along with a number of other officials in the. you have a lot more work to do, and it will take more than an hour or hour and a half to break through on these issues. whether it is hong kong and voting rights, cyber administration policies, we have to engage. >> firm in his beliefs. that is why we can't just simply back away or talking to rhetoric. we have to back it up with action. that is why it is important we backup.

sale will fly, and operate. >> firm and unyielding. >> it was a good meeting, direct in both ways. members of congress, democrats and republicans asking direct questions. >> what do you think of the man himself? >> very committed to his country and somebody who we are going to need to be focused on dealing with. i think he was direct and i think we were direct, and in some ways that is useful. i will say, i saw a transcript of his press conference with president obama in a statement along the lines of we don't gauge cyber theft things like that. you know, i'm not sure that is the prevailing view in the us.

seriously, this kind of statements, that does undermine his credibility. >> did you think he lied? >> you said that. >> we will leave it there. hands for questions. let us know who you are in your affiliation. >> yes. i am russell king, retired federal employee. he built employee. he built man you have you both met with beijing chain. there were some churches destroyed in coastal province. he blamed that on his predecessor. also, i think they have pictures of chairman mao in china.

after world war ii they're were jewish investigators. it has been a lot going on. back in the 18th and 19th century there was something called the kowtow whereby european leaders and therefore has down to show obeisance to the chinese ruler. is that too much right now? i have never known a chinese leader to be accountable for atrocities at all. >> you lazy really good. this goes back to my initial.of a bipartisan strong commitment of the legislative and executive branch. that is with regard to human rights particularly dealing with authoritarian regimes. a tradition of us foreign policy for decades.

i witnessed it. i was in meetings. president bush raised these issues. one of the disappointments of the administration and the press and everything is how they downplay that element of our relationship with china. that is not a way to advance our interests as a nation. i think that has been a strategic mistake because it looks like then we do not care command we do. we need to show that to our leaders.leaders. i think we have not done a good enough job subordinating those concerns over the last several years. that has not been a policy that is bipartisan or in the american interest. but this is something we

should have seen more focus on. i held a hearing with chris johnson and others talking about the aftermath, what we achieved comeau we fell short of, and what we should be doing looking forward. their concern over treatment of christians in china, there is a need for more focus on human rights in china. it goes back to that point. working with the world in terms of international norms violating human rights is no way to do that. >> follow-up. >> once said we should not let human rights get in the way. do you think she set the wrong tone? >> probably.

but i think how do you tell someone, just ignore human rights. >> lady in the front. can you please identify yourself? >> i wanted to ask you. what are your predictions? >> the administration command do you think there is a role for china? thank you. >> we have got to get this done sooner than later. i want to see this done now. we need to get this agreed to. they restart of the toxin conversations. as soon as we can get it and

start the 68 time frame, look, like to see it done this year. i know that is probably my you and optimistic. we have to look out. and really with regard to china and tpp, it is very concerning. that is why we need to do it , to work with the nations and representatives to build a strong relationship. they are trying to do it. eventually perhaps this will show what an organization can do. send over and negative list, list that was pretty objectionable by most standards. mixed messages on whether the list was acceptable or

not. progress, but more work to be done. that's why we see more progress, at least a few more steps being taken. >> and from my perspective i would agree with everything corey mentioned. we are certainly encouraging them to finish, the president has been focused. and i think he has done a good job talking how this is a strategic agreement. our free trade agreements are very different from almost any other countries free trade agreement. very, very detailed on critical issues. i puerto rico, investment. we need to make sure your writing the rules of the road, i think that's important. and i think there are a lot

of countries in the region who want to be a part of it. so i certainly don't think it would be ready for china any time in the foreseeable future. whatfuture. what is key is that it sets the standards. it helps us our discussion with the chinese. more than just an irritant. i think you see most republicans interested in finishing it up. >> and this will have to be the last question. >> hello. you talked about having an energy component. can we expand on that? in the climate agreement that the president announced for how it plans. >> and go back to the early

question, my understanding, but was a coto, and my understanding, there was a poll out that was pretty dramatic in terms of the interest of the citizens in sweden, which is another very strong example of what is going on. i don't think ten years ago there was any interest at all. with regard to energy, with its japan, korea, korea is the biggest importer of lng in the world. and whether it's taiwan or china, all of these countries need energy, all of these countries are looking, particularly at

lng, cleanburning gas. and right now the united states but from what was looking like to be in importer of lng to the world's energy superpower, largest producer of oil in the world's largest producer of natural gas in the world right now. in russia, huge opportunity for us domestically. jobs, domestically. jobs, energy security, but it is a huge strategic opportunity. i give you one example. we are working hard and have been for a long time. and a very large scale lng project that would get affordable gas to alaskans more importantly to the japanese, koreans, and any other country in the region. that is a strategic play cause not only in terms of energy, but our broader national security with our

allies in the region. we have been exporting lng to japan for four years. we want to build upon that, and i think that it would benefit the region and it would certainly benefit the united states. >> thank you so much for your time. let's give them a round of applause. thank you for joining us. [applause]

>> and i am greatly concerned that the nuclear deal with iran will prove to be a marriage certificate of that unholy union. i know that some well-intentioned people sincerely believe that this deal is the best way to block iran's path to the bomb, what if histories most important yet least learned lesson, the best intentions don't prevent the 1st outcomes. the vast majority of israelis believe that this nuclear deal is a very powerful. and what makes matters worse is that we see a world celebrating the fact,

rushing to embrace and do business with the regime openly committed to our distraction. last week major general, the commander of the iranian army proclaims this. we are glad that we are on the forefront of executing the supreme leader's order to destroy israel. and as for the supreme leader himself, a few days after the nuclear deal was announced, he released his latest book. it is a 400 page decree detailing the plan to

destroy the state of israel. last month once again made his genocidal intentions clear. he wants top clerical, the assembly of experts. his book about israel. over 6 billion jews. he pledged, there will be no israel and 25 years. seventy years after the murder of 6 million jews iran's rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response

from nearly everyone of the government represents to have governments represented here has been absolutely nothing, utter silence. deafening silence. [silence]

>> perhaps you can understand why israel is not join you in celebrating. if iran's rulers working to destroy your country perhaps you would be less enthusiastic about the deal. flying thousands of rockets in your city perhaps you would be more measured in your praise. and if this deal or unleashing a nuclear arms race in your neighborhood, perhaps you would be more reluctant. >> up next, health and senate democratic leaders talk about budget negotiations in federal spending and senate armed services chair is critical of the rising cost of the

navy's aircraft carrier named after former president gerald ford.

[inaudible conversations] >> we just met and spent a little time together. first of all, we extend our sympathy and best wishes and all the good thoughts that come from here. violent gun accident oregon. if you don't know the details, we are not the only ones that don't know. hopefully they will find the person or people who did this very quickly. we had a national meeting. we have been in close contact with the white house we need to stop these devastating sequester cuts from hurting her middle-class.

our military is being devastated. it is so illustrative of sequestration. the national institutes of health, almost $2 billion. we have never gotten that money back. almost a $2 billion hole stopping them from eating more research. it is ready. sequestration. i want to be clear from in the coming weeks a top priority is lifting sequester to invest. this is not a new hope for democrats. we haven't fighting for years. it was meant to be so

devastating that they would find responsible way. the republicans have ignored this. we have been telling our counterparts again and again we wrote a letter four months ago saying let's start the negotiations. we were ignored until just a few days ago. inevitably going to end up in negotiations. we could not agree more. but to my dismay yesterday 151 republicans in the house and 20 senators voted to shut the government down. imagine that. otherwise me when that government was closed 17

days. this is a republican party that is without delivering the point in turmoil. everyone knows bipartisan budget negotiations need to happen. and they need to happen now, not in some distant time in the month of december. they need to happen now. the mcconnell said, we have divided the government and will find out a way to move forward. nothing happened. but he has moved a little bit. not on the verge of government shutdown. >> thank you very much.

in our prayers and thoughts are with the families of those affected by the tragedy. we extend our sympathy directly to the families and our colleagues. as the minority leader said, last night, yesterday 151 republicans voted against the government based on their ideology sold women's health hostage our country. this is disappointing but also a signal that we have to observe. the next ten weeks as we prepare to write a budget, a timetable of progress which we hope it will be, or calendar of chaos. while we need to do is pass a budget that has the proper effects clickers economy,

creates jobs. now, in addition to writing that budget have to pass a transportation bill that is robust and worthy of the aspirations of the american people in terms of job creation. ..

>> >> will this 10 weeks be a timetable of progress? it is up to our republican colleagues. 151 republicans voted to keep the government shut down. that is not responsible that is up the message of pope francis had told this to be respectful to have open this in the decision making and to go forward for all people so they cannot irresponsibility is for the american people s and is

possible to remove all doubt the government will be open you will order the full faith and credit that our explicates is job-creating as well. and to honor people as we did on 9/11. >> the negotiations to be extended with the speaker had is that change? >> you should direct that to somebody in the house. i am glad you mentioned that in directly was is going on there. what we did earlier today we

wrote a letter -- a letter to speaker boehner to say it is a rip-off of the american taxpayer perc almost $5 million and six other committees. i dunno if he meant to speak the truth that is a political witch hunt and and that is too bad on the other side of the capital. >> we have also written to this speaker that republicans should have disbanded to be in favor of supporting it.

but some members still believe that we should be present to defend the truth. this is not the only a selection committee. $5 million in existence to produce nothing that our bipartisan intelligence committee has written its report so they are wasting time and taxpayer dollars and now with a select committee against women's health with another waste of time we should have been focused on our responsibilities to the american people. hopefully as we take this challenges sentiment will

weigh in and republicans will stand up to the responsibilities that we all have and to keep it open and >>. >> we have had my staff and nancy pelosi staff and the white house today is in a row and the push that we will stress more than there anything else we don't want to weigh we want to move this along to get paid for the offset is payable work we will get that done. pay for the topline then make sure it is all resolved

and any increases have to be equal that is to read will stick to and do it as quick as possible as quickly as we can. >>. >> [inaudible] civic leader policy and i have been to the white house more than once talking about this. you are party to some of the - - we're privy to some of the conversations going on some of the congress wants to cut this out but that will happen in has to be a bill that the president will sign and that is not a way to get republican votes so

do they know that they have to reach across party lines and 186 democrats. 100 percent voted for the bill to open government. >> the republicans need our vote. >> that the governments will take place and some of the other issue is that i mentioned and will be addressed because then we lift the debt ceiling over the suspicion it could happen to with a credit rating so the time table doesn't relate to who is in charge but the american people in a strong way.

>> are you to be coequal negotiators with president obama? >> why wouldn't we be? the answer is yes. >> how much longer with the new leadership in the house? >> talk to the "wizard of oz". [laughter] >> the man behind the screen.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning for more than seven decades the power production -- projection to rely on our carrier fleet to protect our values around the world is more important than ever as the global threats multiplied to the north atlantic. for 15 years the department of defense has sought to develop our newest aircraft

air carrier ford of marking the beginning of an entire new class of the ship the program is one of our nation's most complex and expensive acquisition projects it has become unfortunately one of the most spectacular acquisition debacle's in recent memory and that says something. the program is estimated to be more than $6 billion over budget despite the recent announcement of a two month delay the first ship is scheduled for delivery next year. the second is five years behind schedule. but questions remain of the capability and reliability of these systems that yet to and i asked the former chief of naval operations that is responsible for the cost overrun he said he did not know. we have been actively involved with this program

from the star in since the beginning of this year our oversight has increased significantly at the direction the senator reid and myself committee staff have conducted a thorough investigation of the program this work has entailed requested review of work plants a proprietary documents correspondence and testing data as well as steamers interviews with key players from those in the industry it has been done and a bipartisan basis to keep with the best traditions of this committee. we meet with clear goals to examine what has gone wrong wrong, identify who was accountable, and assess what it means for the future of our aircraft carrier fleet and to determine with any reforms to the system could prevent the failures from happening again. to help us today are key

officials responsible for developing testing to oversee the program the honorable mcfarland is the principal adviser for acquisition is in technology and logistics'. assistant secretary of navy for research development and acquisition is the executive responsible for research and development of the marine corps systems. director of air warfare for the staff is said and charger the requirements and the we are admiral is the tattoo aircraft is responsible for naval

acquisition programs. michael gilmore is a senior in advisor to secretary of defense with the evaluation of weapon system and a managing director of the acquisition at the gao whose 40 year career is focused mostly on major weapons acquisition and especially shipbuilding. and we think them for joining us today. secretary rumsfeld to see a transformational weapon system. all have one day host of unproven technologies

including a new nuclear plant a distribution system the flight deck electromagnetic catapult system to launch aircraft this was the original sin did my view. since 2008 the estimated procurement has grown by 2.%procurement cost has grown by 2.$4 million for a total cost of 12.$9 billion. and it could be worse. to prove the new systems this has made them the second to lead ship for all the associated problems that

cost as risen to $11.5 million or 25% increase and the ship has been delayed five years. and the delays are due to the major components which sped neighbor it -- the navy is developing separately. id to face their oats it if it can cost growth and they're still not ready. the advanced and arresting gear was built as a memory efficient way to cover a wide variety of aircraft on the deck. but the development cost have more than quadrupled and as a result in 2016 will

do so without the capability you with all the types of aircraft on the ship. t.j. of that cost the navy could not upgrade with the new system as originally planned. by the 23rd season in the aircraft could land on the carrier's. those that is symptomatic of a larger problem. it is a defense acquisition and system as a whole. with the same problems with the navy shipbuilding in then they rushed to production to talk about the

capability for all these problems have been made worse with the absence of competition. the fourth class program with the misalignment in our defense acquisition system and to my knowledge no other single person is ever accountable to the failures of this program in no small part across multiple offices and program managers for the blurred lines of accountability allow the defense acquisition and system for results as everyone is responsible so no one is responsible. they deserve much of the blade and a rest with the office of the secretary of defense specifically the undersecretary to new

technology and logistic said his response will for determining if a program has the sound a business case and the navy can be faulted for sufficient realism but with the there complacent and authorized the navy to start construction with only 27 percent of the ship was designed to 13 systems were richard despite ted years of warnings from the weapons testers they failed to make timely course correction. we're not above reproach while congressional oversight is to control the congress we could have intervened more forcefully

and demanded more from the department of defense and we did not. we need to internalize the lessons. i encourage and the navy appears to be doing so to stabilize the program to approach -- changed their approach. the national defense authorization act contains several provisions that increase oversight of this program to streamline responsibility in our defense acquisition system. and with a foreword aircraft carrier especially in the current fiscal environment to have 12.$9 billion for those alternatives with a

capability on time and on budget. you must be willing to question if we build bigger or cheaper carriers to bring in competitors we may have to consider our portfolio with fewer carriers and more precision guided weapons if we cannot do better everything must me on the table and as long as i am chairman it will. i'll look forward to their testimony. >>. >> thank you for calling this extremely important hearing and calling your attention bedstead careful word -- the class has been plagued by overruns and

today's hearing will focus on the problems some delays of the shipbuilder has been applied that the shipbuilders are using. these imager technologies with operation of the aircraft carrier the electromagnetic aircraft system in each has scheduled challenges and millions of dollars over budget. law realizing is a costly enterprise some of the problems should have been resolved years ago. to look back at the

inception with that inevitable retirement of the uss enterprise which was scheduled to run other fuel at 2013 bertolt -- 2014 that evolves into the gerald r. ford. and then to install new systems to the inclusion. with that two-step plan with the reform act however in late 2002 with the secretary of defense for a program that was more of transformational.

that allow them to make risky choices in a real living with results of those now. and then failing for those that did not measure in time. in to see those parameters on maybe it is and all the problems they have faced but to give better options with the unpleasant discoveries. the navy before sufficient work had been completed. and history has shown a schedule delays and cost increases. congress shares irresponsibility hill may change that they insist upon is to institute a although i

think it has brought a better discipline but i look forward to hearing from these witnesses about changes that have been mating can be made in the future to schedule those overruns that we see today. >> we will hear opening statements from the secretary's and then we will proceed with questions. we will begin with secretary mcfarlane. >> senator mccain and distinguished members of the committee i appreciate the opportunity to do testify of the navy gerald ford aircraft carrier program.

the program is initiated in 1996 multiple changes of acquisition policy as noted. the program has been subject of many reviews looking to reduce cost of a acquisition approach or of the baseline. bid had to compete for the resources in the budget review while each change of policy and the technical base line was made in the best interest of the department of inland the taxpayer in mind making the but if the fact is to instability. since 2010 with the introduction of the initiative it has been largely stabilized.

polytechnic gold challenges remain it continues to work with the navy to ensure appropriate oversight. we have established a relationship with the navy in order to succeed to include the skills several thousand men and women who lead the relationship building of the acquisition. the complexity is enormous to economic policy and business sectors many of which cannot be predicted in time to be mitigated but we're committed to their resources to keep control for all that followed to deliver them to beat the

needs of the war fighter. 80 for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> 80 for the opportunity to discuss this program. this committee fully understands the role of the carrier of american diplomacy power projection and a global security. just yesterday the navy operation on which the sun never sets with the turbulent world although the next president may be elected without addressing this size and configuration configuration, for four years they will be acutely aware of where the carriers are. the newest is the gerald r. ford the new carrier design

from 1967 it will be a service 50 years through a 20 adn therefore it is imperative that this committee has so clearly impressed upon the department better future force has the capability necessary and does so at a cost that the nation can bear. to operate and maintain these ships is beyond any of their nations undertaking. those members who have visited fully appreciate the daunting numbers that measure tens of thousands of structure of thousands of miles of cable and fiber-optic says thousands of departments of ship systems and integrated to air dry if nuclear power

throughout its life in remarkable demonstration of what industry is able to achieve as a quantum increase that is required in the century ahead and to lou we clear this program has had significant challenges resulting of an acceptable cost growth it is important to a understand the carrier history to modernize beecher carriers will ship design and construction and the total capabilities were to be introduced across three ships at a pace consistent with maturity of the related technologies. it provides that 33 percent increase.

. .

transformation by the secretary of defense dod changed course such said it will be modernization. this decision resulted in what is a high degree of concurrent development, development, design, procurement, and construction. costs were estimated adequate information regarding the complexity of the new systems and with inadequate risk factors to account for the high degree of concurrency ultimately invest in cost and concurrence in each phase of development, build, design, and test. today design is effectively complete abstraction is near 95 percent complete, and we

are focused on text program. actions put in place from 2,009 through 2011 have been ineffective in halting the early cost growth including converting the design from a level of effort to a completion contract that the firm target and incentive fee placing contract design changes under strict control producing fees. removing overly burdensome specifications that impose unnecessary cost contracting and competing alternative sources of supply to mitigate the significant impact of material delays raising completion levels at each stage of construction to improve production efficiencies and while following a detailed review the navy converted the e-mails and the contract to

a firm fixed-price contract for production to cost on the systems. the shipbuilder suggested is built process to view by competitive ship in order to review fundamental changes necessary. finally coupled with increased readiness reviews focused on cost performance critical path issues to ensure we are doing all it can be done to improve cost performance. the rear admiral more with experience across care operations construction and program management as an executive officer. concurrently we made changes to eliminate colleges for cost growth and to further improve performance and 80.

as reported to congress and may 2013 requirements are locked down. the design model is complete, and 80 percent of initial drawings released. new technologies are virtually mature. materials being ordered efficiently and on schedule. leverage learn course ability and implementing bill sequence changes to drive down protection cost. the navy is implementing a two phased delivery plan to allow the basic ship to be constructed and tested in the most efficient manner my labeling compartments to be completed in the 2nd phase for the work can be completed,completed, accomplished more effectively, and use of skill installation teams. the fixed-price construction contract pictures cvm 79

nine or below the congressional cost. wecost. we are on target and will continue to reduce the cost. mr. chairman, you have raised questions regarding accountability. i am accountable for the decisions i make. this simple statement does not adequately address your concern. the current system is challenged to align responsibility, accountability, and decision-making, large complex projects that take years to develop and deliver. his program in particular has encompassed many people.

course changes in decisions have been critical. a decisioncritical. a decision to pursue a transformational approach driving three shifts and one was made for what was believed to be the right decision at that time. as the acquisition executive what can be done to stabilize the cost on cvn 70 and pursue cost performance improvements on the remainder is being done. much further to go in this regard, but, but i believe we are on the right path. going forward undersecretary's direction the cnl, they are changing the way we do business within the department of navy to achieve much greater clarity of authority, traceability to cost, visibility to performance and therefore accountability for cost and schedule on our major programs. we hope to have the opportunity to share these details with you and your staff. your navy is committed to

providing sailors with the capability they need to perform missions around the world. and we striveand we strive every day to do this in a way that enhances affordability while ensuring we maintain the robust industrial base to hedge against an uncertain future. we look forward to answering your questions. >> mr. chairman, senator reed, members of the committee, whether the combat improvements will be realized that are associated with the new systems being incorporated not now known, the navy indicates the reliability of the electric aircraft launch system in the past arresting gear will support initial operational test and evaluation for deployment. the most recent definitive date i have indicates the reliability of emails is

below the navy's goal by more than a factor of ten. the reliability is unknown and we only have engineering estimates and little test data. prior to redesign reliability was a factor of 800 below goal with data providing a 1st indication available later this year as a result of ongoing testing. testing. the navy knows reliability is above the december 14 reliability growth curve. however, that was very baselined below the liability gold and consequently the data we have indicates emails was not on the path. what the effect if any of the oath of the liability of the systems could be not be known until development of operational tests are conducted post delivery, and particular the specific

nature and the difficulty of the repair will be important to understand. the navy has recently said that failures and selected e-mail components could result in multiple catapults being down. this is because there is no ability to read too readily electrically isolate components permitting maintenance on nonoperating catapults will fight operations are performed. a key determinant of whether projected lifecycle cost savings will be realized. the schedule of activities subsequent to its delivery including the timing for a number of independence exercises and determined primarily by the safety and training requirements. operational testing will be conducted as part of the

force joint task force exercise which is an integral part of the training exercise. the plan is to test systems realistically, as early as possible to provide feedback for the program office and to provide training and testing. nonetheless, the current test schedule is aggressive with concurrent ship and land-based developmental testing and with some developmental testing including important 1st time integration testing continuing past the start of operational testing. in august the deputy secretary of defense. historical experience indicates clearly this is a key means to identify and mitigate mission-critical failures before the ship and her crew deploying the times way. finally, designed. finally, designed to reduce manning thereby limiting total ownership costs. however recent assessments raise concerns about manning issues that would only be exacerbated by any shortfalls realized in the reliability of e-mails. in particular, the navy's many wargame three states fund and analyses have not been finalized.

that won't be possible until we know more about what the reliability will actually be thank you. >> thank you. iyou. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the carrier programs morning. let me start with the cbm 78. my bottom line is same story different program. in 2007 we reported that costsare likely to be underestimated by 22 percent on the construction of the ship and that the three main technologies were immature, likely to slip to the right and out of schedule margin. we said the navy or be faced with the decision to either push the shift to the right or approach the technologies

to the right. fast-forward to today, 2015, cost increases of 22 percent. the three key technologies slipped about five years. the decisions made to keep the ship construction schedule pretty much intact but with the technologies that. it is probably hard to see. the top chart, we have circles you. that is i before fly. so my view at this point is ship costs are going to continue to increase. full capability of the ship has been deferred command right now we're looking at getting less for more. error over 25 years ago i was interviewing the 2nd

undersecretary of defense john betty who told me, cost me, cost estimates and the department of defense, solitaire impossible to be achieved, but they count on hitting seven home runs in the bottom of the 9th. let's look at home runs. and you can see them bunched up. i'lli land-based test, ship -based test, integrated testing, ilt in the come all the time trying to complete construction. it is a big list. what are its home runs? right now the cost estimate depends on reducing construction labor hours by 18 percent. 9.3 million labor hours, never been done before.

the dual band radar has been removed and will be replaced with one that is to be determined. anddetermined. and upgrades of a planned for the ship postponed. so ii think that's raining a lot out of the program already. his already withhis already with all of these changes at command we are seven years from delivery. i think cost increases are likely regardless of what is reported. ii would like to put the carrier in context against the acquisition. you brought this up. the cbm seven a program is the typical acquisition outcome. the 22% increase in cost, schedule delays are pretty typical for acquisitions. andacquisitions. and mr. chairman, i have testified before you a number of times on different things, but we can think of worse examples. so i think what's different here is this program we knew

all along was going to be the case. we should not be surprised by anything that happened. it is not an i told you so moment. and so ask yourself why do something like this happen? best practices are pretty well known. mature technologies before you put them on the program. go with the realistic cost estimate and budget to it. weit. we have always gone with the lost cost estimate and still are. and 54 by was not done here. you ask yourself why don't we do these things. mymy belief is, it is the prevailing acquisition culture, the collective pressures that the different participants bring upon the process that create incentives for programs to overstate what they think they can do, the state

technical risk, understood cost and understood schedule which is how you get funding and programs approved. so i would just like to say where does this leave us today? and i we will say, i no it's popular today photography acquisition process being broken, but i think it is in a happy equilibrium. maybe not so happy, but. maybe not so happy, but it has been this way 50 years, and i think is going to say this way until the incentives change. as the chairman said, i've beensaid, i've been in this job 40 years and have not given up hope yet. i believe that congress is the game changer here. i think congress can change the incentives by reclaiming its oversight role which i think is been diminished over the years. what do i mean by that? i will cite three things. first is, your most important oversight is the

initial funding you provide to a program. you give that up pretty early. if our program today, congress had to prove my funding two years ago. information was less. optimism fills the void. as a cardinal rule this is don't take money off the table. once you approve my funding two years later he made the decision for me. the committee has many, many heavy responsibilities, but one of them is the appeals court for services. if osd says something that is service disagrees with, if my gilmore says something that they don't agree with, if the cape estimate they don't like, if it's a gal recommendation recommendation they don't

like, the services, fear and try to strike a deal, and they get those deals. finally,deals. finally, movement and the department and particularly with the navy is the bundle of programs and multiyear procurements blocked by zend block buys induction programs or option contracts. not only do you give up funding, initial funding power, you can't touch the program afterwards. i guess my appeal to you today is let's not think of the cvn 78 program as the story per se but let's think about it as an object lesson and acquisition process and acquisition culture. what the congress can do about it, not just what the department can do, but how you might do differently because i really think what you do with money sends messages as to what is acceptable.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. have you seen some of the changes we have made in acquisition and defense? >> i have. >> are those steps in the right direction? >> i think they are in the right direction in many cases for the department, but i think as you said in your opening statement, to the extent the department comes in with a bad business case, if you approve it and funded you are sanctioning it. so with all of those improvements in acquisition reform legislation that has to be coupled with what you do on programs. a couple of good nose would be healthy. >> i think sen. reid and i i realize that we are just beginning in acquisition reform command we will continue to make it our highest priority. secretary mcfarlane or statically, is there anything you disagree with?

>> mr. chairman, paying close attention and taking notes. if i were changing places children are very similar sobering with some edits that i don't want to quibble over. his summation of the systemic issues, i think he is correct come on spot, and what i would suggest is that we are making some systemic changes on our side,side, and you likewise with the congress to try to address these issues, and i don't give up on them. >> chairman, ranking member, i agree with agree with what to much of what paul said. i has been spending at least 30 plus years paying a program manager and tester.

the challenges the people in the work force itself. at the department is grateful for providing defense acquisition work fund development, but inside of this culture there needs to be a constructive change as to how we work together as a team to provide these products. >> am going to buy back one moment. paul hit the word incentives , and the context that he used, i would make it much broader. the complexity of our acquisition system and stand starting with congress, the incentives across the board are not all lines to the same outcomes. as long asas long as that is true we have forces pulling in opposite directions. >> i would like to direct the witnesses attention to probably one of the most egregious acts backs of these cost overruns.

from the original estimate of $143 million is now an estimate of $1 billion. so much that two years ago this aspect of the carrier had grown so much it hit the threshold to become a major defense acquisition program, and it continues, as we mentioned. i understand thei understand the navy has assessed how they are contractor has performed on this program consistently substandard having significant difficulties. we asked the contractor and the contractor's department management officials to characterize this type of performance as to score average. do you agree with the characteristic that across growth of 600 percent is typical or average?

>> absolutely not. >> on page three of your statement said acknowledging they have had the largest effect on construction is engineering design problems are now in the past, and yet i have in front of me a defense contract management evaluation of the performance from just this past month that directly contradicts your statement and in fact expects additional delays was the disconnect here? can you assure this committee that this cost

increases stopped? >> i do not believe that cost us stopped. i believe believe the majority of the engineering aspects of this program in terms of technological risk and development has been retired there is still testing to be completed, opportunities for risk to be realized as part of that effort command i do believe they're will be activities in front of us. a program that has sunk a lot of effort into getting to where it is ending a backwards with the opportunity that the system as operationally to provide for their carrier does not make a good business case. >> i would just.out that recently the manufacturers of the new tanker experience cost overrun. they absorb that cost overrun within that corporation. i wonder if maybe we should make that is standard procedure here and defense contracting?

i think that it should be a subject of a lot of consideration, senator reed. >> thank you very much. doctor gilmore, you are urged that shock trials be conducted, and those will not be done. they will be postponed to the next check the glass. wrote to the navy basically accepting your advice and opinion, why is it so important that these be done >> as ii mentioned in my testimony the deputy secretary decided to direct that they be done before the 1st appointment. history has shown clearly that there really way to discover critical failures.

there has been some claims the component level shock qualification testing which had not been funded but defunded and modeling and simulation are sufficient, but if those things were sufficient we should never see any mission critical failures but we do shock trials that are conducted in less than the design level shock, but we always do. it was captain on zeus of the committee a letter, the ceo testimony was a plan mine the persian gulf indicating his experience the shock trials now they provide a key information that enable his ship to survive and function after being hit. the history is clear that you will not know about mission critical failures unless you do the shock trial, and i can assume and

no that the history we presented to the deputy secretary and secretary figured into that decision. >> just for the record, you are on board, no pun intended, with the shock trial? >> we are moving out. doctor gilmore make reference to the component testing. it was being lined up with a potential for ship shock trial. they are moving their back to the left. >> thank you. let me follow up with the issue of off ramps. particularly when this was decided in 2002 to be a transformative technology and risk went significantly higher. in otherhigher. in other cases you have used off ramps. with the ddg 1,000 you were

able to select a different type of motor when the desired or at least breakthrough technology did not materialize. what is your position with respect to the cbn 78 and nine? do you have aa backup, were you just going to follow this down? one of the things that was made useful, if weuseful, if we have a system that cannot accommodate every type of aircraft then we are diminishing our 4th projection. >> yes, sir. let sir. let me -- you are touching on the off ramps and that is striking a chord. the amount of risk that was stacked up without adequate off ramps put us in an untenable position. i made reference to the review that we did with concern, cost and technical

regarding the program's performance. we had -- the ship was off and running in terms of production. we look at a potential offramp it would have caused a significant halted production, delay, complete redesign of many of the ship's systems to bring this team back up to the flight deck to go to an alternative. there was no tenable offramp in that regard, and much of our focus became we will the system work, can we the cost? that ended up leading to a decision that weof going to press on because of the trades and cost one path of the other, the impact on schedule, performance if we were to that.in time taking offramp we had not planned. going back in time command we have the ability