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 we could have in fact laid in an

offramp in the early design stages of the cbn 78 in the event we determined it was not mature enough. this was a manifestation of what became a highly concurrent and compressed time line for development, design, production, and decision-making. your example going from what was going to be the permanent magnet motor that failed in test and we had a backup ready to replace, and that has proven very successful in terms of its completion of the development, installation, and testing of that program. >> quickly going forward. >> one of the lessons of this very expensive exercises when your doing transformative technology and very high-risk technology, we will you always make it her team to have an offramp? >> our assessment of technical risk, if we have a

high risk system that we are bringing to a production program we have to keep a hand on our alternatives at least to a decision point where the conference is going to go forward. >> you specifically asked about e-mails and ag going forward. we have conducted thousands of cycles, gone through what we refer to as high cycle fatigue testing, highly accelerated lifetime testing , system at lakehurst aeg is behind rate needs to be. the data is not because it is poorly designed but because we are behind her we need to be in terms of time that demonstrate reliability. we have that emerge between development and production going forward in terms of an offramp. first question, is the

system going to work to make sure there is no doubt or question. the chairman describes other was a plan to back fit all the carriers that have proven to be not affordable. that is not affordable as much is the impact on the carrier and the cost of self >> how many years have we been seeing that? it's a remarkable record. >> thank you, mr. chair. how long are we going to continue? >> ma'am, when it comes to developmental systems we are still doing test and fix on the weapon system that has been in the fleet for 30 years.

there willthere will be a continual test and fix as you bring in upgrades and add in performance improvements. on the specific improvements we will be in test and fix mode through operational testing, identify further issues dislike we do and continue to fix those. today test and fix primarily of software related. >> where is the carrier right now? >> about 95 percent complete >> it is sitting in the shipyard? >> yes. >> okay. and i always don't have shipyards. the only time matters to the folks back home has been they are out they're operating. now, across military services i have been told the 90% solution90 percent

solution on time is better than the 100 percent solution too late, and at some point this is going to be too late, and we are rapidly approaching that. now, you have been the assistant secretary of the navy for research, development command acquisition since 2,008, the same year the procurement was authorized. have you ever received adverse action by the navy or the department of defense due to the delays and the $2.4 billion in program cost growth? >> no, ma'am. >> has anybody within your chain, your structure ever received adverse action for this? >> in the chain, yes, ma'am. >> can you describe his actions to replace? >> it wasthere was a program manager associated with the aircraft launch recovery equipment was relieved of his responsibilities. >> i will level was see?

>> program manager, captain, united states navy. >> secretary mcfarland, have you received adverse action? >> no ma'am. >> has anybody within your structure? >> not to my knowledge. >> not to your knowledge? folks, this is, i can tell you, a lot of folks have been let go for a lot less. and you can tell, i am extremely frustrated with the cost overrun not being on time. there is no excuse. you can talk about all the gadgets you want, but i tell you, this is is affecting all of the other services swell. i still serving the national guard. i am a ground pounder. we are losing in the national guard with this knew nba 8200 national guard soldiers, being cut 1100 dual status technicians,

being cut forces, and this will hit the navy. someday you may not have the sailors to get that out of port. it is affecting everyone, and taxpayers will hold everyone accountable. everyone. i am upset because i have been working hard, early hours, early months of my work in this committee and on homeland security trying to restore the program management process. i have a bill passed unanimously. trying to get something in specifically. unfortunately i did not survive the conference. i am baffled why we are not focusing on program

management and cost overrun? this is an epidemic command we have got to do something about it. you can tell that i am upset. the folks back home are upset, and it does not do us any good unless it is out there providing protection. and if we keep sitting on it , not moving forward in a timely manner it does us no good. i would like toyour response. whenever you going to get this time? >> let me specifically address cbn 78. at one point in time it will be a 2,006 procurement. she was tied to maintain and 11 carrier navy. since the ship was put under construction there was a four-month delay to

launching the ship associated with getting completion levels to aa higher level to ensure that we could control the costs going forward. since thatsince that time there was a six-day week delay that we announced which is tanks to ensuring that we maintain the discipline and cost and executing the balance of the test program. we have not moved the delivery date change the trial state. still targeting. all of that lines up to get the ship on its scheduled deployment. >> i appreciate the response and hope everyone understands my frustration as well as the other members on the committee. this is got to be corrected. >> my -- may i make a comment? >> absolutely. >> your concerns are well

founded and how those bills will be paid, if you look at the cbo analysis of the navy shipbuilding plan, if it is executed as currently planned the navy will need a 30 percent bigger budget than it has historically gotten. that is the navy side. on the air force suddenly of the tanker and a ss. we were adhering a few months ago. one thing i want to bring up, which i didn't, we put program managers in terrible positions. when we create business estimates and technologies and mature, we put a program manager in that position, and they have to do two things, manage the program and then part discipline and

at the same time defend the program. but we dobut we do with our program managers is not what industry does and it is a wonder they take the jobs. >> captain john mayer and his crew have moved upward. in the valley -- operating a lost 50%a lost 50 percent of the systems and the crew is extraordinarily happy. they outline the retirement. the war fighter does need the ship and we are pleased with the fact that the crew likes that capability and the statement referred to the capability. >> thank you, admiral. i will make a closing comment.

i we will tell you, that is a lot of up armor. they could save a lot of arms, legs, lives if we had had that money allocated in our budget as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's unbelievable to sit here and listen to this. i'm reminded of farewell speech of then president eisenhower. keep from being so frustrated, seeing the recommendations, seeing the forecast to put out all these years and knowing that deficiencies will happen. has anyone fallen, those

people who have left, someone mentioned here, how many people were in charge whether it be from the secretary on down, how many have left during the process of some of these acquisitions and where they going to work afterwards? >> i don't know that there has been a comprehensive study. >> we always always say follow the money and usually figure out the problem. >> there is a fair amount of government personnel retiring and moving industry >> moved to the same industry that they were in charge of overseeing? >> they have to abide by that. >> i understanding and listening to testimony.

nobody of the higher-level have been reprimanded, relieved, whatever for incompetency. one person was mentioned. back come in west virginia, if we build a homea home and goes over budget you could learn from the 1st one. the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and thinking your going to get a differenta different result. >> i think sean made a very good. these programs take so long, the leadership faces a summary level. these people don't remember what happened. i we will also say i don't think this is a case of bad actors. as a people trying to act rationally probably the system.

president eisenhower saw something coming. what he was thinking that we solve the evolution, god help us in world war ii. some things don't his interest to say we have a problem. be careful. this has evolved for 50 years. going down aa slippery path. i was looking at what china is able to do. look at how they are able to advance and jumping quickly. ii am sure they have other ways of acquiring the information they are getting yet there is a process and move that they are able to do things in a much quicker timeframe. what recommendation what you have?

people that make decisions and maybe can change or create laws that would help us will prevent this from continuing? we pay no attention. it is a shame. there should be a law. we should at least owe it to the american people to give you an answer back. it's very simple. we try to get that done. what's your recommendation? >> i don't think it's a matter of law or regulation or telling the department to do anything. i think it -- wing your biggest opportunity is when you are improving a new program and you have to scrutinize the program for what principles and bodies. if you really believe in mature technologies before you put them in a program,

if you believe in fly before by, if you believe in realistic estimating and scheduling and the program comes up that does not measure up, you have got to say no. >> the jail, the forward class aircraft carriers leadership began construction with an unrealistic business case. you identified that. they talk to you? some hearing still learn a little bit more about. i appreciate your services. that is and gentlemen, we have got to change. $18 trillion of debt in the way we are funded.

thank you. i would love to meet with you later on. >> i would like that. >> i thinki think the senator from west virginia for his involvement and commitment on this issue. >> thank you. mr. francis, i think you opened up your statement by saying the same story program and commented in your opening statement about the committee and the senate are congress as a whole playing a more aggressive oversight role than we have a recent years. can you give me some sense of how much of that is going forward with new programs? how much of that should be applied retroactively to the subject or any other major? what are your recommendations to this committee for what

specifically we should do in the next committee meeting or over the course of the year? >> i would say right now we are kind of in a time whena time when they are not as many big new programs coming down the pike which is really your opportunity. i don't know how much you can do want a program that is already through the milestone and under contract without making more of a mess of it. >> maybe just going back, he is the analogy of seven home runs in the bottom of the 9th. toto what extent do we need to go back and say we know, i think maybe the twins did it to the tigers, but it is very uncommon. what do we need to do with respect to this timeline about being realistic that we will have a timeline of your going to achieve? what we need todo we need to do here to at least not come back and have the same

frustration that senator arts tasks. we see it and now it is not likely to happen, therefore what should we be doing? >> for something like this i would say -- and the navy has moved to schedule a little bit. i think youi think you have to make it okay for the navy to come up and say we need to move this schedule and it's going to cost more. right now they sort of play -- we are on eggshells because the navy might not want to come in and say that because there going to take a beating over increased cost. i'm waiting until it happens >> and i will tell you, someone who has been responsible for long-term complex projects is where people lose their jobs. the thing we ought to put on the table now is if you come back and explain why you miss, that becomes our

problem, senior leadership problem. if you wait and ultimately realize her come to us that someone else needs to lose their job. it's a matter of who's problem it is. it seems like it is obvious that we are going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to achieve these dates. someone knows a responsibility to speak honestly about that and set the right expectations. if not then he doubted. the same story different program. we have to call for some sort of finding of fact before we improve future programs so that we can really have people on this going forward and set of having this as senator mansion said the insanity

that seems to be driving card -- large complex programs. for the admirals i will ask you a general question. with respect to china we spend a lot of time trying to take the edge off of our quantitative disadvantage with a country like china that is turning out a lot of ships by the qualitative advantage.advantage. as admiral harris said, quality is a quantity of its own. at some point are capability may be matched by the shirt quantity. what was so important in terms of some of the unproven capabilities i going on to the ships, what sort of leaping capabilities justified the cost overruns on the basis of the discussion we are having today. >> the sender, i am

responsible for stability of requirements that go into our acquisition programs. when youwhen you have stable requirements you control costs, or at least that is one aspect. we develop a forward class carrier starting in the mid- 90s with before that a look at the future of aircraft carriers. wewe don't look at only one country. we look around the world and take conflicts from relatively low-end conflict like you see in the gulf with the carriers operating over the top of northern iraq in syria and high-end conflicts against countries who can through technology attempt to match are capability. we do campaign modeling. joint campaign models using us air force, navy, army command of the military aspects to affect that campaign. as has been stated, the united states navy nuclear

power is a just piece in our navy. those chess pieces are critical factor on the campaign plans. when. elected the future and the way that the threats are going, we devised the forward class with 33 percent greater sortie livability with enhanced technology and electric capacity and with the email and ability to increase getting airplanes on and off the ship and other technology. that campaign model is what delivered the requirements phase that resulted in the forward design you see today. >> sir, if i may from an acquisition standpoint. the other reason we built the forward class, the nimitz class was reaching the end of its useful service life. technology does change.

the other thing is that the nimitz class was built in an era where people are relatively inexpensive. so from a total lifecycle cost perspective the nimitz class was expensive. so it's pretty clear not only do we need the war fighting capability but we have to drive long-term affordability in the most important thing we could do was to get people off the ship which required a complete redesign of the ship. some of the things are seeing provide a significant reduction in the people on the ship. it will take 663 sailors off the net result is over 50 years. the cost to buy, own, and operate we will be about 4 billion less than a nimitz carrier today. >> ii must say, all those things that both admirals

pointed out are undeniably accurate. put those numbers there are totally unacceptable, and i hope you realize that. i would like to.out that senator cain has been more involved in this situation that any member of this committee. he has been constructive, incredibly helpful in forming the committee and is a strong advocate for the men and women who are doing great work in the construction of these aircraft carriers and arguably one of the finest shipyards in the world. >> thank. >> thank you. thank you for your comments about the shipyard. i am proud to represent thousands of shipbuilders who work at the shipyard and

did not make the decision about putting a new technologies on the 1st in class of the 4th class and they did not develop the weapon systems that have developed. they arethey are working to install them. i have seen the work that is underway. i have seen the navy take control of the ship in recent months command they are excited. a couple of items. cost overruns, and i agree that there are very systemic issues. cost overruns, i would say that a lot of this is less and overrun that a court cost estimation. you unpack. before 2010 when the navy was talking about their cost estimate on this project to this committee and others repeatedly the navy said that their confidence level in the cost estimate was less than 50 percent or even

in some cases less than 40 percent. isn't that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and i gather that was because 1st in class and the addition of all these untried technological systems as mandated by a previous sect death was one of the reasons that the confidence level was low. is that right? >> yes,yes, sir. >> let me talk about 1st in class history because you talk about this is a similar problem with the knew example. iexample. i think it was eric plavsic in the cbo study were elected navy acquisition programs and looked at 1st in class over a variety of programs and basically concluded that as a general matter 1st in class acquisitions and shipbuilding tend to be 30 or 40 percent higher than the estimate that the navy has begun with.

>> yes, sen. in my statement we have a list of the most recent, 1st in class, an average cost, and average cost increases. >> and that's kind to defend 23 percent is a better than an average. ..

>> >>

>> >> me is exactly what needs to be done. >> isn't it also of a true of the delay had a significant effect? hell won't have to do that? that to do that budget fairly rigidly would be a 2006. but in the 2008 it was

authorized to procure the and centers of a 12 carrier navy. subsequently made by the department of defense the with the 2013 budget. the that is stressed out to have adding more cost to the program. but one of the challenges that you referenced in your testimony is millions of dollars of overruns that

this is the a typical outcome. when we come in here and testified with the my constituents at the billions of dollars of overruns. why are you dealing with that? we give you more money we need you to deal with that.

but even to end aligning responsibility to make this right. it has to be equal priority for all of us.

but senator i think your point is very well made. and not sure we would reward our program managers very well.

but that is read as decisions are made. how is it altered of the decisions are directed to that manager? >> i would say is if you have someone the leader needs to be held accountable also.

but the cost sharing has to be considered. when we ask for a six part contract the contractor in order to get the corporate headquarters to agree upon working with that contract they add that risk related to cost. >> i understand that issue but i am talking about production cost. >> i agree in production. >> is that consistent across the board? >> across the services and yes. >> 1.regarding that

historically though the ship at we have been trying to drive down the number of cost of the ships is in our program would have to cross plus in production. >> my time is up but i will submit a question for the record that concerns me highlight to understand what lessons we have learned from this and we don't go down the same road that is very important to the nation. i will submit that for the record. >> can i jump in on the time that you don't have left? >> you are right on production contracts that they should be fixed price

but there is still times that contracts are costs plus and you have to match the risk with the contract a good contract cannot save the good program so i don't fault the contract type the but i raise the question wider rigo into production if we are not done with development yet? >> then we should not invest in the first place with. >> or if it isn't ready to take the next and. then on your first point with program managers people who were held accountable is a philosophical question about accountable for what? what constitutes success? i am a program manager trying to get my program through the next milestone milestone, then there is a cost increase, what will i be rated on? getting in on the next

milestone? if you can support the program, that is what you are mainly accountable. >> it is a problem. >> it could cost you a lot more than you are not meeting your target so people need to be held accountable otherwise this is where we end up. >> i know the department has is reiterated with the headquarters positions well we all want to reduce waste and the efficiency of and urge the department to look at targets on the case mackay's basis to make informed decisions keeping in mind that they can cost a lot more in the long term

than short-term savings. so to rancher but to the tune successful outcomes to carry out the missessful outcomo carry out the missions. but to recruit and obtain a quality work force that they are too inexperienced we cannot expect to have the results of the acquisition is a program. and it contributes to the problems that dod has had in the major acquisition programs. and i n agree that congress

says the important oversight role to play but at the start with that analysis of the team and we could consider the acquisition program so what is your assessment of the health of the work force especially as we deal with these complicated acquisitions? >> the queue is said jay human endeavor but the principle understanding of the underlying problems that we have with acquisition to insure the work force is appropriately trained and experienced to do these jobs.

in 1986 we had 622,000 gore acquisition people but -- with this time frame through 2002 that work force was reduced to less than 300,000 people. this committee in congress has given us the work force development fund allowing us to reeducate between eight and 10,000 people that is a critical improvement to wear we are with the majority of the work force with a workforce that we do have is predominantly younker but in experienced the with these capabilities we are discussing our by those people who don't have that adequate acquisition experience for what needs to be executed. i would say we are very

fragile right now. these people are working very hard and very loyal they don't get well-paid day get a lot of abuse in the press there is an opportunity for what they have done well that has been put together under the principles of the initiative and i commend them for that program and others by having a disciplined approach the only way we will protectorate future is to protect that core capability >>. >> i will add one comment back in may 2014 chairman mccain solicited input from organizations what do we need to do to improve its

acquisition system? i was fortunate after have the opportunity to respond but my concern was programs that succeed because of a highly talented team in place that is able to overcome or work through in and around this system that we have got and master the technical details and oversight to deliver a complex weapons systems they fail quite often because not having those same attributes of the acquisition work force team so we have to have the tools for those professionals to get the job done. >> i emphasize to have the acquisition team to rely upon because these are complicated systems and it would be very difficult for

congress to be the first-line to analyze the efficacy respect the acquisition people to do that therefore thank you very much. >> i a show with chart of $40 billion spent on programs that never became reality that is not and acceptable situation revalue the men and women who work in this business but these problems are of such magnitude we cannot lose sight the system is badly broken. >> thank you for your

leadership on this issue in terms of oversight a critically important function of this committee. but who is responsible? who is irresponsible? who would raise their he had to say it is my responsibility? >> i will tell you that to day i.m. responsible there other gentlemen that our responsible for elements but i assume responsibility for this program and the decisions i have the opportunity to make as we execute. >> nab is responsible. >> i am not talking about the organization and talking about people or individual. >> i believe we could have done much better to prepare and advocate for the right

aspects of this program to be conducted at the beginning through the execution. >> who is responsible in your opinion? >> the department. not a good dancer? >> it is a ridiculous answer. to? who is responsible? parted the issue is the responsibility since to be placed, secretary, i appreciate your statement of front bucket secretary mcfarlane and asking the same question. who is responsible? i am talking about individuals we cannot believe that on the navy. >> i will take responsibility to help the new program along. >> who is responsible? >> then i would say myself. >> admiral looking at your

biography is impressive but when you are assigned to be the program manager in the united states navy when that happens did you celebrate? how ted your job viewed in the navy is that part of the issue? >> to spend my 16th consecutive year in d.c., yes. >> i feel for you. >> is that a career in cancer that is filled with land mines? to have our most ambitious top-rated officers trying to you get these jobs or do

they try to avoid them? >> i believe this is the best job in the navy. most of us will tell you that we want those challenges and we will run shy away from the responsibility for gold smelly i am accountable and i accept that responsibility of want the tough job and i was glad to take it. nobody is happy with the cost overrun. we have done significantly better but to your question to people want these jobs? >> i know that you see the frustration from the committee that the senator

did a good job to articulate talk about a dollar cost overrun so just one of these could find day brigade combat team in the army 10 years. it wants to cut 40,000 troops right al so strategically it doesn't seem to make sense. do you need statutory authority with the responsibilities of cost overrun and not the american taxpayer? can you do that presently? >> we have the authority when we contract with the contractors to hold them accountable. >> that is from the production standpoint?

>> yes, sir,. absolutely. >> first thank you for your interests june this topic is the most important responsibility but in terms of today's discussion there needs to be context. i suspect the first macintosh computer cost $1 million in terms of the work that they went through to develop the computer but then they made them by the thousands or the millions in the price went down $2,000 to one of the problems that you identified this is where we need to focus our attention to deal with new products. you mentioned mature technology and try before you buy. but we are building a product that has the 50 year life and if we build it with

fully mature and fly before you buy technology will be absolutely - - obsolete by the time it hits the water. so essentially we are building prototype you cannot do our prototype with that first macintosh that could sit on the desk you cannot build the prototype of the aircraft carrier. you identified it, how do we deal with that first in class issue? and maybe it is more a realistic estimate in the beginning. may be more realistic estimates of the time but to simply say there is an overrun the senator mccain pointed out, if the estimates had been more realistic it would be what

was estimated. so how low do we deal with this? it is the cost balance and in order to build up highest technology weapons system we have to take risks in terms to be sure that that technology is the most advanced possible. talk about what you identify a properly it isn't the overall procurement problem but the fact it seems to have been in every branch whether the death 35 for other weapons system tanks tanks, how do we deal with the first in class issue? >> we need to take a risk. our position has been let's take more risk in science and technology and that

takes money and we are stingy before we get into a program. >> is it accurate to say some of the systems is r&d? >> yes. we talked earlier with you are going risk and weg to take a risk and we have the off ramp if this doesn't work that we have plan b we tend not to do that we bet this will come out the way we say. if you look at the original plan, these systems would be land-based tested before they got onto the ship but we were too optimistic about that schedule so they put it on to the ship so personally i am not terribly concerned about the types of problems we're having on those

systems but it is when we are discovering them is the problem of. there is a way to make their risk more intelligently but coming back to that acquisition culture to say there is no risk if you say it will foster that then maybe you will be told the knows you cannot put that on the table. some how the culture faster change so we can say it is okay to take their risk and here is how to do it. >> and talking about a class of ships and we are building three of them so you don't have 50 or 60 to spread those costs over. one example is cheaper now in real dollars it had a lot of problems now it is the mainstay so again this is a very important subject.

we need to focus but also understand the context to focus on the real problem that seems to be how do we deal with a quantitative risk? site was then the classified briefing of the new bomber with the same issues how to redo the contracts? who takes the risk? but this is a tough problem when you talk about trying to build the most advanced weapons systems in the world and imagine the chinese are doing pretty well to steal our intellectual property allegedly. [laughter] that is one way to short circuit that but i think it will be helpful to present to us to present us with

thinking of first in class program - - problem. >> it is smaller complex than just first in and class but what technologies you choose to put in their? and they'll push the options into one class but ranking member read talked about the radar project to replace the dual but and radar. that is a non development whole solution we have requirements looking at the industry to reduce the use of technology. the brand new submarine war kraft -- were craft to reduce the risk of integration by using

something that was already proven. several weapons programs were used of back end motor that is very capable so the type of risk that you take on is a key. if you do like the joy revolutionary fighter there is a lot of risk and we realize that now. that was revolutionary. so i would submit his comments are on the mark looking at the risk if you are first in class it is revolutionary nor do those things for technology will have a cost delivery mismatch to deal with later and we look at the risk. >> if i may add

this, because senator brought up the ohio is a spot on a question and wrestle with continuously and ohio is the next big thing coming our way with first-class, a program to provide reliable secure sea bass strategic deterrence through 2080 so how do design those capabilities on the front and and be delivered on scheduled and then throughout its life remain the effective weapon system in 50 years? >> we have been working this. what do we need to do that we don't already do on the ohio? we have a very effective high performing strategic program and turns of the

weapon system is self we will not develop a new system we will fork over in the current state of technology on to the whole. of virginia class's very effective with sensors and communication platforms we will pour over those technologies and the events is that we need to make in terms of stealth answer by fidelity that is where our focus is with development and design and we challenge requirements up front that doesn't just mean what do they need but what is technically feasible what is the risk make sure you have a development program that works the rest would then have those off rams that we discussed?

we have that they doubt it is a vote sitting here today to manage 2021 then assess the risk along the way visibly for congress in department of defense to ensure that each step we are making the right decisions and we don't find ourselves with the delays with the cost overrun. >> when your time is expired reduce the joint strike fighter as a success story you have lost the connection between the military and this committee. the most expensive the longest and largest cost overrun the first trillion dollar weapon system and you were using that as a success story you're using that as a

connection with the members of this committee and those of us who have been involved in this fiasco over as a decade you have to respond to some of this we are now being painted a picture that everything is buying. >> i think this is the of byproduct of the culture and though long timeline so when programs get through their problems they fall back it is a much better than what we have but we forget the cost and opportunity cost of what it took to get their. this system does produce tremendous weapon system but it takes much longer and we give things up along the way but we don't know what those are. that is not a pattern we want to repeat. we want to get their right the first time. >> for the record i did not mean to use that as a

success story but to illustrate innovative technologies is a challenge. >> innovative challenges in silicon valley reduce cost but in the department of defense apparently increased cost. >> i know we have gone over details of those programs will not rehash of is that with the spirit of inquiry in the future i have some simple questions i want to ask. has the navy ever delivered a ship under budget and on time. >> i know of i can answer that for a history but in their recent ones in has not happened but that someone probably has better data. >> the answer is absolutely

consistent a. but you want to get on is the leadership and the answer is yes we have a we are very measured with the risk that we carry into those lead ships and men talk about the reporting technologies and the ships coming our way the first one is the ta0x we will leverage existing technologies and designed to minimize the risk. the next one after that, we have made the decision to make sure we deliver the capability at a cost we can afford and rely upon when it delivers to use the old form of what we understand to support the initiative and then deal with those changes that our necessary for that

platform. >> but those are in the future retrospective what what did the baby delivered under budget? >> the last was the mobile landing platform delivered on schedule and under budget. >> secretary? >> the underlying premise of what we're having as day discussion doesn't go specific to that but the culture of what we discussed earlier. >> to be clear not just the carrier but the major capital investment that the navy and air force have to make. if the air force was in front of me i would ask about the airplane's parisienne i asked is i want to know if we have done it in the past even if it is

rare then what are the features for best practices for those cultural conditions to allow a program to be delivered on time and under budget? >> go like to bring a list of programs that have brought in on schedule and with the culture that was adequately discussed by the chairman ranking member. of things can be done to approve things like bureaucracy and overhead. the other piece that you are getting yet, one of the attributes of the new implementation is to take the lessons that come from the gao and incorporate those into the system to work to save these improvements in the long term. reseed the performance that

we started three years ago a moderate improvement and increase the performance of contracting and we have been trying to do measure what we do with acquisition reform and policy and regulation as we have done for-- upcoming legislation. we need to get to the heart of the matter the points us to what we do to improve. >> one of the classic cases of the success story is the fighter. it is old but the lessons are still applicable as a low-cost alternative so their requirements were kept a low. five international partners they all have to agree to any changes has the effect

to keep their requirements down and the contractor at the time that was in difficult financial straits so they couldn't underbid. so that combination had the effect and i am trying to think of the shadow uap was also quite well and in that case we have data requirements from the army and acquisition drove the program to keep its in check. my experience suggests the success stories are the byproduct of exceptional circumstances and not normal circumstances. the take away is how to replicate that and to make

that'' serve normal. >> you have anything to add? >> i was in a row there program manager in the eyes that i that super hornet was the most successful program in the history of dod. two years later i was wrong with. the growler beat the super hornet and i would argue that is normal acquisition for over there that is an aberration of $47 billion portfolio with those platforms coming it includes next generation jammers a very successful program. but that right there is the unfolding of one and at night -- agonizing

technological discovery after another and at its root is we did not do it adequately. we did a risk reduction and ever before signing the contract we spend $322 million this year act was passed for next generation and jammer before we go to the milestone the department of dispense will spend $622 million for technology development for the next generation so that means a solid technical base line or a cross assessment and i feel pretty confident of the execution of those programs. we spent $29 million and to discover everything we discover then it could have

been sooner. we're at a point wary we beat back an uh discovery in the design changes and now we are into the software. we wish it was like than next generation and she never. and in 2004 by the way normal acquisition we did propose that we propose the of five-year development program it was deemed too costly in and and then replenished technology to a the left and that is the consequences of those decisions made which is all documented in the acquisition strategy.

>> if you could i would follow up to provide examples of where systems have succeeded come in under budget and on time but the headline grabbers like this one like a strike fighter that don't do that but we have a lot of lessons to learn with what will happen in the future for the up platforms that our soldiers need to win the wars of the future. never be very helpful. thank you. >> senator mccain has one question. >> super questions. in this program, i want to get your opinion. the cost estimates came with

a confidence factor of less than 50%. if we are asked to make the decision about a significant acquisition and if the cost is less in the neck has the uncertainty as well. do we say come back at 75 for 60 if there is that much uncertainty? should we push you to do more work before it is information and and in fact,

be a certain years coand in fac, be a certain years come up with the long range of finance but to understand the confidence that we're ready to put a budget down on and cut steel. not just a cost estimate for the to read three layers below that that they are pointing at to identify the risks just like we have been discussing here of the carrier program we need to retire before rigo to contractor before we go to congress to say this is a major program. >> senator mccain, for you, start your were in its

bid to create ted expectation that you want that to come in and i confidence will and the risk identified and few are willing to pay for a the risk reduction like the admiral talked-about or willing to offload their requirements to bring the system down but the work has to start earlier to position it for success. >> thank you very much for your extraordinary and interesting testimony and your service to the nation. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] looks

at fossil fuel in the united states. next, a forum on national security. we will hear from free program members of congress -- freshman. bill kristol is the moderator and posted by the foreign policy initiative -- hosted -- >> good morning, i am the executive director at the foreign policy initiative on behalf of all of us at the team here it is a pleasure to welcome you to our sixth annual forum, the strength to lead. the foreign policy initiative was established in 2009 as a

non-profit organization dedicated to educating policymakers about the importance of american leadership and engagement in the world. standing with allies and standing up against the rogue regyr regi regimes that threaten them. we will be joined by policymakers and opinion leaders who will speak on these themes. i thank them for joining us and thank you for joining us on this rainy day. we will start the day with a conversation among rising leaders in national security featuring martha mcsally, elise stefanik, and mark taka. each member is a freshman member of the house of representatives and each serve on the arms

committee and will voter today vote on the national defense act. congresswoman mcsally representathize second district of arizona. she served in the united states air force retiring in 2010. she was the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat and later command an air force fighter squadrant. elise stefanik represents the 21st district of new york and she is the youngest woman ever elected to congress. she served in the administration of george w bush and oversaw paul ryan's campaign of 2012. and congressman mark taka represented the first district of hawaii and served two depcads

in the congress for. our moderator is bill kristol who founded the weekly standard. he served in the reagan and bush administrations including chief of staff to president dan quill. thank you, bill, for moderating the conversation and i ask you all to join me in welcoming me to welcome our guest. >> thank you. you have done a great job as executive director following jaime fly who i noticed on this program they are self depricating. chris and his staff do all of the work.

working for senators now and going back and forth from the hill and thank you for talking the time to be here. i think we are doing a favor to representative mcsally and representative stefanik to take a break from phone calls. you will have 96 messages with you turn on your cellphone where as representative taka knows everything is quite. you all represent districts that were represented by a democrat last year. you passed the continuing resolution that funds defense at a lower level than what you voted for months ago in the

house. and you will pass the defense bill on the house floor today or vote on it. how worried should we be about the level of defense spending? will we stay at the budget control levels all year? >> i think we should be deeply concerned. i will speak for myself but you can see from the committee and the way we addressed in a bip bill we felt like we were now cutting into muscle in our military readyness a-- readines. the military is going to do everything they can to keep it

going and make sure we are ready but we are gutting core capabilities and training and rearranging. we are at a crisis point. one like i have not seen since we had the hollow military starting to happen in the '90s. we should be deeply concerned. we came together in a bipartisan way to provide relief to our military spending at a time when the world is more dangerous than i have seen in my life and i have been focused on safety for 30 years. the president threatened to veto the defense bill. for 54 years, even when congress was at its most dysfunctional, we have been able to pass a defense bill. so my hope is the president is not playing politics with

defense and will sign the bill. continuing resolution is not the way to go. i have been on the other side of that level and you cannot plan, do new starts, you are having to continue things from last year that you maybe don't need to do anymore. it is not the way to have the capabilities and be able to prepare for the future and deal with the threats we have. the fact we are choosing between government shutdowns and continuing resolution is ridiculous. that number cannot be at the sequestration level. i think that would be adaption for the military readiness. >> the only way it moves off the sequester level is an appropriation deal by the 11th of december. how hopeful were you for that? >> i am hopeful. members of the house are

addressing sequestration and talking about the dangers of sequester. i am hoping with the shakeup of the house, one of the priorities is coming to a budget agreement and i know members on the committee and those concerned about national security and defense want to make it a priority for the end of the year. this has a tremendous impact on my district. i represent new york's 21s at these district. the most deployed unit in the u.s. army and one of my first jobs as representative for this district was fighting back against the army cuts. and fort drum got cut the least out of any army facility in the country. but as we ask our troops and military families to continue to pursue these high operational deployments we should not gut

military readiness or continue down the path toward sequestration which was never intended to go into affect. >> this is one of the committees functioning the most bipartisan. do you think you will get a bipartisan deal along that pattern? >> i would hope so. i think we all agree sequestration hurts. but i have a different perspective than martha. i don't support sequestration across the board, defense and non-defense. we are moving forward on defense and dealing with the increase in local funding to offset the cuts and not really looking at the n non-defense appropriations and in totality the entire budget. i supported the ndaa.

i think the first vote coming from the house, i was one of 41 democrats that voted in support of the bill. today's vote is going to be very interesting but i am going to vote for it. i think it is too important an issue for our country and also for my home state of hawaii. having said that, i think the president and the democratic leadership on the house and senate, has a very compelling argument in regards to the fact we are moving this forward without a budget deal, and the question remains what is going to happen on non-defense. the non-defense includes the veterans affairs department as well. i would hope we have a budget deal long-term. i am a little disappointed truthfully we passed a short term cr but that last night was better than a shutdown so i

vetted for that. i am looking forward to the ongoing discussions between the scombrez both leaderships in both houses -- president and -- as it relates to a budget deal. i don't know if a two-year budget deal is in the making. at the end of the next federal fiscal year, september, 30th, or a little past the next election would be more of a possibility or probability at this point. i think we all agree budgeting, especially for defense, on a c i re or short term budget deal is not the case. >> i made the case for a higher defense budget and the weekly standard and foreign policy initiative said give me particulars. everyone knows the pentagon is bloated. but you have experiences in

divini different ways and different services with parts of the military and i am curious, give me an example of what is not happening that should be happening? >> with the continuing resolution you cannot do any new starts or investments. at the head quarters or acquisition program, if you need to do something new you are not allowed to do it. i have been on the end of being stuck in the status quo of limitations you have under a cr and then you cannot plan so you end up doing a nine month or less depending on how long you do the cr that you are trying to have the fiscal year spending and planning and it ends up being more costly in the end. so that is what -- going on the auto pilot in the cr is not good. being at the suquequestration ll

has brought questions and the administration came to congress' budget and they said it was because of sequestration. we are cutting it and putting it in the boneyard. it is not because i am nostalgic because i flew it. but if we want the muwren renes to get home this plane has the capability no other plane brings. so this is reckless and one example of what the sequestration is doing. >> our son who was in the air force was fan of the a-10. what is up with getting rid of that? >> absolutely. we will let the air force speak for themselves. but whall of the services are

under pressure with the sequestration making sure they have the right pay and health care levels. looks like the numbers are going pre-world war ii as far as the people serving in the military. space and nuclear and all of that stuff they have to do. but still given all of that when they look at the rest of the force and investing in the future why would you take away a capability, we are talking about different capacities where you have different sets of airplanes in a mission set, but you would take away a capability that no other airplane brings before you have a follow on replacement up and running. that is reckless. i have been hammering them since before taking office and since taking office that this is a reckless decision and we were able to get it fully funded in the house and senate version of the defense bill and both on the

nda and appropriation side. >> it affects military readiness and training and that translates to increase in loss of live and limbs. we are in the tenth mountain division with increased deployment and that is a direct impact of being budget driven. i want to speak on behalf of my colleague martha i sat next to her as her wing woman during the house armed service committee where she was able to get on record this was a budget driven decision to get rid of the a-10. that is a bad way it conduct your national security strategy. i was pleased you were able to get them to say that. >> you served in the national

guard, what your sense of this? >> any challenges with the budget will result in readiness and personal issues and really questions about whether we are still combat effective. i agree with martha to talked about the acquisition challenges of the short-term budget fix. clearly not only does it cost a lot more but we will not be able to compete with the china's offense this world. take a look at the acquisitions from the chinese and it is mind-boggling. for us to be sitting here today with short term budget fixes and sequestration moving overhead, it puts us at a serious disadvantage. i think we all know that and we have to work through that. i go back it the challenges of sequestration and i believe the intent of congress was not to have sequestration. i know it was a deal but i think everybody in their right mind thought they would create a new

deal get rid of it. the fact is we still have it. in order to get rid of sequestration on the defense side you have to know we have to play together. and deal with eliminating or increasing the caps on the sequester side for non-defense as well. >> that is an interesting discussion to have over the next few months. >> it is going to be interesting message soon because part of the president's veto message is part of that. i was hoping to do the nda later on. with it moving forward now it is a little too premature. >> you mentioned china but i want to get back to russia and syria which is in the news and i know you heard a lot of

testimony on. as you mention, china, and maybe you are the member of dprsz closest to china. >> apparently you can see russia from your back window. >> i can see kauai. >> i mean the pivot to asia is one of the reasons there was bipartisan support in the foreign policy community. duff do you feel why doing the right things to balance the power in asia? >> it is absolutely real. some people want to stay focused on the middle east. but we have to focus on the shift to the pacific. it mead to be a priority and i believe it is for this administration and congress. i have had opportunities to host congressional delegations.

in late march, i hosted a delegation for many thad that didn't have the money to go to the pay debrief, the one that talks about the mission that pay com and the entire area, including the indian ocean has. if you get a brief like, even if is unclassified, you understand the challenges in that part of the world. more than 50% of the world's mass is covered by pay com. most of it water and all of the air. we also celebrated and the end of world war ii on september 2nd and the 70th anniversary of the u.s. war happened birthing at

pearl harbor facing the uss arizona memorial. we had the pay com brief and with those members of congress, mostly republicans, 28 of us or so. the focus on asia was something they said we need to focus on. i believe it. despite the cuts we saw in the army in particular. we lost and transitioned from the striker birgade. so we are okay. and our focus on cyber, and our focus on missile defense is all part of the pivot to asia.

the last think i would say is this: we had 70 years of peace in the pacific region and i believe the biggest reason why we have had long lasting peace is because of the strong military and strong relationships with our allies and other countries throughout the asia pacific region. we have to continue on the path because we have bad actors in our region and the strength of china there as well. so i think it is real. is it real? >> it is an adequate resource. what about china? i am struck how i have been here longer than you have and there were great hopes, i have been a skeptic of china but we lost that '90s and there was hope that china was liberalized and was going to be a responsible player internationally. i have to say those hopes have

diminished some in the recent years. what is your sense of the threats and challenges there? >> i will say i don't think we should be having a pivot per se. it sounds like either or. we are not pivoting because we don't have the resources militarily to redirect and focus in the pacific region even though it is important to us. china, and russia, and iran and north korea are looking globally and looking at the status of the global leadership and they are sensing weakness and we have created a vacuum and our decreasing of military spending and capabilities where we are challenged where are we going have to aircraft carriers? in the pacific or the middle east? we have to do all of the above. we see china taking advantage of it with building islands in the south and east china sea and our

allies are looking around asking where we are. but it can't be like second graders with a soccer ball saying we are over here china because russia is invading our allies and putting other nato countries at risk. i was at the meeting after the soviet union collapse and focused on the former soviet slavic areas so we had students from the baltics and acraukraind i am friends with many of them and they are like are you going to help us? we have the check the russian aggression in europe and potentially we don't know who is going to be next. and we do have, as much as we want to get out of the middle east having deployed there six times, i would love to see we don't want to be involved there but we have to because we have national security interest.

we have failed states. we have growing threats of islamic extremism with isis. iran is the elephant in the room who is feeling more legit with the botched deal. you have sunni arabs who are wondering if we have their back. and now we have russia flying fighters planes and telling the u.s. to get out of syria. you cannot make this stuff up. it is like a bad dream. so we have got to not be -- we don't want to be in the middle east anymore and showing weakness in our policy and not being coherent in the policy in the middle east and talk about we are pivoting in the pacific when we really are not because we don't have the assets because we continue to degrade the military. global leadership requires

strength, it doesn't mean we need to be involved everywhere. i was at u.s. africa in my last assignment before retiring. we have national security interest there. we don't need to go in and fix every failed place in the world but we need to identify vital interest and having peace through strength and make sure we can back up the strength with military and foreign policy and we are not doing that all the way around right mow. >>ia degragree with martha is it either or. it is important to have a strong defense presence and show american leadership but another issue is economic leadership. and i think this is tied to the trade discussions we have had over the past year on capitol hill. our allies in the asia-pacific are looking to economic leadership as a counter balance to china trying to assert

itself. when we talk about american leadership it is peace through strength and part of that is economic leadership and that is part of the reason i think the tpa and hopefully a good deal for the region because alplies are looking for us. >> republicans delivered trade promotion authority to president obama and most republicans so he has the authority to negotiate the deal and get the up or down vote in congress. do you expect a deal? >> i expect a deal. i am not sure how good the deal will be. the clock is ticking and this is a key priority and they are hoping to finalize it hopefully before the end of the year. there are sticking points on the dairy issues and the human trafficking issues but trade

promotion authority was a tough lift for this president and republicans and some democrats brought it over the finish line. i think you will see a continued discussion on the actual details in ttp and those votes shouldn't be taken for granted. >> i think the point about what happens in the middle east doesn't stay in the middle east. chris griffin let a bunch of us from fbi and other think tanks over to japan in november of 2013 and we met with prime minister abe and i was the oldest person of the five or six of us and i was seated next to him where the other head of state of his sits. and we began the discussion and i started to say i appreciate the meeting and look forward it too hearing about the situation here in asia and trade and such. he interrupted me.

and he understands english well and said what happened in syria? this was november of 2013 shortly after the red line. it was so out of context it took me a minute to realize what he had said. i tried to tell him i thought the u.s. and japan relationship was sound. but it brought home how much one part of the world is not happening and they say peace regions stay distinct in terms of credibility. >> that is our friend and enemy. putin's action after the red line comment -- these are all related. enemies are watching like there is an opening here. and our friend are saying we thought they had our back and now they are rethinking whether they can rely on america and

allies. you are seeing it globally and not just regionally. >> i voted the against the ttp bill that gave the president the power to negotiate directly and come bag to congress with the up or down vote on the deal. i said then, and i continue to say this, a lot of complicated than what you may think. if you look at trade between u.s. and japan, for example, if you go to japan and drufb around you notice there is hardly any u.s.-made cars. after 2012, the bilateral car agreement between korea and the united states. in korea that is hardly any

american carsism th-- cars. theal chacha -- the challenges re real. the leaders for the trade met in maui and walked away with no resolution. and some of the most serious resolutions are causes of concern for us here in the united states even. i had a chance in japan to tuck talk to the leader of the lower house, who by the way was a dairy farmer in japan, and was very concerned about the ttp as it relates to agriculture for japan. it is not that easy. all i asked for with my no vote was to allow congress to stay involved in some of the more

difficult issue. climate change, environment, labor standards, crunching manipulation. all of these issues are real. and despite what the administration says was a deal coming together and we had to do it when we had to do it. a few weeks later they walked away. i don't think it will be a few weeks or months. it might be next year. i am hoping it will be longer than that. >> i think it is a fair point. it is unfair to say the critics of it were protectionist. or afraid of free trade. this a funny free trade deal. i am old enough to remember when the free trade deals were simple. they were eight pages long and free trade deals. now they are 5,000 page and i

don't know if they are fair trade even. it is not cleave if on net it is bringing up that much trade to the countries. >> there is nor transparency requirements in this tpa than any other previous tpa vote in congress. it is required to be public for 60 days so the american public can weigh in and different stakeholders can share their view and i think it will bow a robust conversation before the final ttp is published for the voters. >> you mentioned russia and syria which is the headlines news. pretty astounding. it was a priority to keep russia out of the middle east and this is russia's first use of open use of military force outside of its borders since '79 when they

invaded afghanistan. >> you don't count ukraine? >> well on the booutside of the borders. >> it is on the outside. >> this is big thing. the heart of being a super power is you don't just invade your neighbors. you protect people that are 4,000 miles away. he is doing it. and i think it is a big moment and people get the sense it a big moment i think. >> i would hope the definiteion is we don't invade our neighbors. i agree with you. putin, obviously, has been trying to reverse this union in this third term. he said the largest mistake was the break up oof the soviet

union. he wants to be back in the game as a coequal and global power player. things are related. if we don't think this is related to the nuclear deal. reading and seeing this administration is weakly addressing the threats and even in the way we have carried ourselves militarily in iraq and syria is an embarrassment. it looks like isis is taking on u.s. air power and winning right now because of the way that we have even reluctantly and anemically done military operations in iraq and syria.

there is an openly go-politically and economically for -- if you are putin this is brilliant. you see the statements like i don't understand why they are doing that. this is not high school debate club. this is a go-political power play happening. and we have to step up our game if we are going to take it seriously. we are going to be bystanders and someone who has been involved in air rop -- air operations we have been clear so we don't have misidentification. i think the stakes are high we could have a mid air or unintentional response. or a purposeful provocative

encounter with the russian aircraft. this is sear jarious is the sta are high. >> i think this is a direct consequence of this administration's failed leadership within the region. both iraq and syria at a few house armed service committee hearings i have asked administration officials what is your syria policy and the answers have not been complete. we are where we are because we had this administration that said assad must go and he is still in power. we have failed to identify friendly anti-assad forces we should have worked with earlier on. we should had have to no fly zone and the rise of isis is because of this turning inward. unfortunately, i think in the coming months we will continue seeing the region continue to

spra sprawl downward but i think this is a direct consequence of this president's failed leadership within a violent region. >> bipartisan is not my normal mode to be fair. but the republicans in congress in september of 2013 opposed intervention in syria. tom cotton wrote an opt-ed saying we should support the president on this. and they had eight house republicans on board supporting the president and about 200 gin against. so it was a bipartisan decision not to get involved in syria and one i criticized and one i think we are paying a price for. do you have a sense there is a sense now in both priorities thought you cannot sit back and let it go. or is their aversion to being on

the gruound and people would sa this is unfortunate but not much we can do? >> we have had numerous administrations that had challenges in the middle east and i think part of the reason why we have isis moving forward is because there is a void. there is a void in that whole area. but we partially created that. you know, i was shocked, what is is interesting to vote is there is ongoing discussion at the un with secretary of state and president obama and president putin and no indication this was going to happen except for the