. .

.

>> can i urge the minister to think again about the devolution of abortion -- [shouting] >> this is to have smaller jurisdictions making decisions that are sensitive on health care is deeply unwised and would allow those who want to lobby against the interest of health care to undermine the interest of women both in scotland and in england. i would urge to consult before making very big step. >> i recognize, of course, the concerns that the honorable lady shows, but has responsible for criminal of justice and for

health issues and has dealt with some very sensitive issues extremely well in my view. aye spoken to women group's in scotland, they believe that evolution can take place and want to be consulted about that and they will be. >> i forgotten the honorable gentleman, i never do. thank you very much, mr. speaker. >> the most recent statistic show a record year for university entry for disadvantaged students in england 18.2% in 2014 compared to 13.6% in 2009. unfortunately the situation in scottland is not as good, only 10% of the support is 20% attend

university. very concerning. >> someone who went -- came from working class in scotland i am deeply concerned and working class people are losing out. >> mr. speaker, it may sound strange, but president of sterling university, an outstanding university, i share the honorable gentleman's concern and the scottish can learn -- [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. at the last prime minister's questions i know the whole house will join me in paying tribute

to all those who have fallen serving our country. they gave their lyes to -- lives so we can live in freedom. mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with others and i should have further such meetings later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i would like to associate myself with the prim minister's comments, i look forward to looking in the parade within my constituency, speaking to constituents the government commitment of 2% spending gdp spending was very welcome. volatile states of many parts of the world, it's more important than ever that we maintain that commitment and give our troops the support, resources and equipment available. >> i think my honorable friend

is absolutely right. we do live in a very dangerous and uncertain world and the key commitments that we have made, spending which helps our security as well as making sure we are a generous and moral nation. [shouting] >> thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. i concur -- i concur with the prime minister. i concur with the prime minister's remarks. we mourn all those that have died in all wars and shortly we also resolve to try a build a peaceful future where the next generation doesn't suffer from the wars from past generations.

he had a week to think about it. i want to ask him one more time, can he guaranty that next april nobody is going to be worse off as a result of tax credits? >> let me be absolutely clear with the honorable gentleman, what i can guaranty is there will be an 11,000-personal allowance before you pay tax. there will be national living wage giving 20-pound a week pay rise next year. on the tax credits, we suffered the defeat in the house, we are looking at them. we will come forward with new proposals in autumn statement. if he wants to spend the next

five questions asking all over again, i'm sure he'll find that interesting, i'm not quite sure, but over to you. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, this isn't about entertainment. [shouting] >> this is about -- this is not funny for people who are desperately worried about what's going to happen next april. [shouting] >> if the prime minister won't listen to the questions that i put and won't listen to the questions that are put by the public, then perhaps the mime prin ster will listen to a question that was raised by his honorable friend, last week concerning tax credit changes said, and i quote, that changes cannot go april unless any

mitigation should be for mitigation, what's the prime minister's answer to his friend? >> very much the same answer that i gave to him. [shouting] >> in three week's time we will announce our proposals and he will be able to see what we'll do to deliver the high pay, low tax, welfare economy. that's what we need to see in our country. we are increasing people's pay but also right to reform welfare. he will have his answer in three week's time, meanwhile, he has to think about this, if we don't reform welfare, how are we going to fund the police service that we are talking about today. [shouting] >> the honorable gentleman has

been consistent. if we listen to him, you'll still have families in london getting a hundred thousand pounds a year in housing benefits. the answer to the question is you'll find out in three week's time, carry on. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. the reality is that the prime minister makes choices and he's made a choice working tax credit which hasn't worked very well so far, but he must be aware. i give you an example, a serving soldier, private in the army with a partner will lose -- [shouting] >> i ask the question -- >> the questions will be heard and the ans will be heard. simple as that.

[shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. surely that is the whole point of our parol meant that we were able to put questions to those in authority. so i have a question from -- [shouting] >> it's a worry about the family of whether we are going to get by, is this how the government treats veterans of the armed services? >> first of all, let me take the case of the serving soldier. first of all will benefit from 11,000-plus allowance that comes in next year. they will be able to earn more money than paying taxes. serving sold years that have children will benefit from the 30 hours of child care and

serving sold years -- soldiers will be able to see tax credit in exactly three week's time. he is not dealing with an opposition party, the leader of which could not see any use of uk forces anywhere at any time. that serving soldier wouldn't have a job if the honorable gentleman would have gone in power. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> i know he is trying to dig himself out of a hole with the offer this morning, which we await the detail of, but there is a question that i want to put to him and i quote, the

president of the royal college of emergency medicine who said, this winter, we are worse than last winter, and last winter was the worst winter that we had in the nhs, can the prime minister granny there will be no winter crisis in the nhs this year? [shouting] >> first of all, when it comes to the college of emergency medicine, they actually support what we are seeing about a seven-day nhs and the junior doctor's contract. i would urge anyone in this house and doctors that are watching this to go on the department of health website and look at the pay calculator because you'll be able to see that no one working legal hours will lose out in anywhere at all, this is an 11% basic pay rise and what it will be deliver is a stronger and safer nhs.

it is benefiting from 10 billion pounds that we put in, money that the labour party did not support. nhs has the resource that is it needs and that's why we are seeing it treating more patients with more treatments, more drugs being delivered and more tests being carried out and the reason is simple, we have a strong economy supporting our strong nhs. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i know that the prime minister has not offered any comment about the winter crisis whatsoever about what happened this -- last year and what will happen this year. [shouting] >> there is -- [shouting]

>> mr. speaker. >> order, order, order. the leader of the opposition is entitled to ask questions without noise and the prime minister is entitled to answer questions without barrage of noise. that is what the public is entitled to expect. >> mr. speaker, if the prime minister won't answer questions that i put, then i quote to him the renowned king's fund which has expertise in nhs funding and administration and i quote, the national health service cannot continue to maintain standards of care and balance the books, a rapid and serious decline in patient care is inevitable unless something is done. could i ask the prime minister which is riding faster nhs waiting list or nhs deficit.

>> let me deal directly with the king's fund. what we have done in this side of the house is appointee in nhs and did a very good job before then, he produced the steven's plan that required 8 billion pounds of government funding. we are putting 10 billion pounds behind that plan. that is the plan that we are producing and the results you can see is that we've got 1.3 million more operations and 4.7 million more diagnostic test, what's going up is the successful outcome. and if he wants to know who is heading for a winter crisis, i would predict it's the labour party. new policy adviser -- [shouting] >> his economic adviser is a

communist. he is trying to move the party to the left. i give him full marks. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the issue that i raise with the prime minister was the national health service in case he had forgotten. i just want to remind him that since he took office in 2010 the english waiting list is up by a third. there are now 3.5 -- 3.5 million people waiting for treatment in the nhs. [shouting] >> if his party can't match action by its words, then i put this to him, will he just get real, the nhs is in a problem of deficits in many hospitals, it's in a problems of waiting list

and the financial crisis, can he now address that issue and ensure that everyone in this country can rely on the nhs which is surely the jewel in all of our crowns. let me tell him what has happened in the nhs since i became prime minister. the number of doctors have been up and number of numberses and fewer patients waiting more than 52 weeks to start and we have seen rates come down. that's what happened. it's happened for a reason, because we've had a strong economy, because we've got some of the strongest growth anywhere in the world, because we've got unemployment coming down, because we've gotin flaición on the floor, we are able to fund nhs, whereas the country he

admires all over the world which crazy socialist plan cut the health service and cut the people who need help the most. [shouting] >> 12.4 of gdp, as consumers move online, so do criminals. does the prime minister agree that must give our security services the power to keep them safe ensuring the proper control they exist as to how they use the power? >> i think it's one of the most important bills that this house will discuss. it's obviously going through prelegislative scrutiny first. will set out very, very clearly what this bill is about and why it's necessary, let me make one simple point.

communication data, the who called who and when of telecommunications has been absolutely vital in catching rapists and child abductors and solving other crimes. the question before us is do we need that data when people are using social media to commit those crimes rather than just a fiction or mobile phone, my answer is yes, to keep us safe. [shouting] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this week's events we remember all of the sacrifices from past and present conflicts. we also show our respect to veterans and to service fathers and mothers, does the prime minister agree that everything must be done to deliver on the military both the spirit and the

latter? >> because of the sacrifices they make on our behalf, they should not have less good treatment than other people in our country and where we can we should provide extra support. we report on it every year. >> however, is the prime minister aware that many, many service we -- widows continue to see clear breach in the military and what will he do to rectify? >> we made a big change, i think it's last year to make sure that

many people who had remarried were able to get their pensions, that was a very big step forward. if there are further steps that we need to take or look at, i'm very happy to look at them and see what can be done. i also remember that in the last budget, i think it was, we looked at the case of police widows and we tried to put right the situation there as well. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime mip ster join me in congratulating my kansas city which [shouting] >> have a better opportunity to regenerate. >> i certainly doing him. i don't know if it's in the same

category for this prize as my hometown which has nominated, so i might have some conflicts of interest, but what i would say to him is obviously in whales, business rates is a issue and to take approach that we are taking of evolving business rate so that they have a better connection with the money that they raise and the decisions that they make to attract investment in that area. >> mr. speaker. >> both schools which invest heavily in excellent teaching and facilities for music, dance, art, drama, yet, while he is being prime minister, the school that educate 93% of pupils have cut teachers in those budgets. would his legacy be that has

become -- >> it's been protected by this government. we want to continue school funding. what i will not make apology for is getting the basics rights in our schools. i think it's absolutely essential that we get more children learning the basic subjects, getting the basic qualifications and on top of that, if then for possible i would argue to put in place the art, dance, drama that i want my children to have as they go to those schools. >> are major pieces of national infrastructure, but there's disruption to services it caused chaos, will the prime minister give special consideration to to

long-term solution? >> i absolutely recognize the serious problems that were caused torres dents and businesses, when it becomes necessary, we already implemented short-term measures including using the availability as contingency measure. i understand the pressure and we will do everything we can to relieve them. [inaudible] >> could i raise with him the issue that thousands of people that served would serve before 1987 are entitled to full compensation. people who have been and contract the cases of

mesothelioma to the extent has been exposed to the industry could get a hundred thousand pounds and a service person would only get 31,000 pounds. [inaudible conversations] [shouting] >> i understand that the defense secretary is looking at it. since putting in place the military covenant into law we try to make progress whether on the issue of widows, particular groups who have been disadvantaged in some way and i'm very happy to go away and look at the point that he makes. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. as as royal society have identified the need for one million scientists and tech professionals by 2020, one way to bridge the skills gap is increase in high quality

apprenticeships. however, for every one place available, 20 people apply, redouble efforts to meet commitments of 3 million new apprentices? [shouting] >> 3 million target is essential, i believe we can achieve it, but going back to the honorable member, one of the ways that we will achieve it is making sure that more of our young people have the qualifications necessary to apply for an aparen -- apprenticeship. the numbers come right down. i'm delighted to announce today that the honorable is going to take the place of the member who has moved onto other things and he's going to help me to make sure we get businesses to deliver on this agenda. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

does the prime minister realize that my constituents spend with office formula, so i ask him, would the cross-party letter, one from my neighborhood watch group and one from police commissioners, mostly tourists and chief constable all saying it's flawed, how many blue lights before we head meltdown? >> it's a consultation on which no decisions have been taken. crime is down by 5% over the parliament. funding is 180 million pounds which is the same in cash terms of 2003. i record to him that found that

it's exceptionally well prepare today face its future financial requirements. that's the view of hmic and in a world, country where crime however you measure it has fallen significantly since this party took office. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents one of the uk specialists went out on monday to help medical students dealing with the nightclub fire disaster, i understand there's 150 patients in need of critical burn care, considering practical humanitarian medical assistance by allowing uk burn facilities for that treatment? >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely right. all of thoughts are with the victims and families. i'm glad to please about the

doctor's visit. i'll take that away and see what can be done. >> dona johnson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will understand the heart break of a death of a child. the parent not to know what happened to the ashes of that child as the case of families in the country must be simply very cruel. would the prime minister meet why we need national inquiry as to what happened to baby ashes? >> this must be tragically event and only made it worst to know what happened to that child. i'm not aware of the case. i hadn't heard of it before, let me look at it and see what i can do. [shouting] >> i was delighted of the chance

which had launched the new national infrastructure commission. could the prime minister confirm that this is a start of a new era where roadways and great cities in the north will help bring growth and prosperity to the region. >> my friend is absolutely right to raise this. people have long felt that there hasn't been a fair enough deal in terms of funding on road and rail, people can now see that there are 13 billion pounds to balance britain's economy, we committed 4.8 billion of major road improvement but continue to invest 864, absolutely vital for the people of york and will go on looking at what more we can do so the economy has what it needs. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on the night of september, the

secretary of state for culture media and sports said to dcms committee, i quote, there are no plans to sell channel 4, can the prime minister confirm that remain it is government's position that no discussions are underway to privatize and thus imperil institution? >> first of all, i'm a huge fan of channel 4. i think it was a combination of willy white to help bring channel 4 to our screens. i'm a huge fan. i want to make sure that channel 4 has a strong and secure future. i think it's right to look at all of the options including to see whether private invest meant into channel 4 could help for the future. let's have a look at all the options. let's not close our minds like some on the opposition

front-end. let's have a proper look to make sure this great channel goes on being great for many years to come. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. would the prime minister take action to speed up the adoption process so that more children can be put with the right families much more quickly? [shouting] >> we have seen a 72% increase in the number of children adopted. average waiting time like five months but still far too long. ..

order more of our brave soldiers to put their lives on the line is a chaos and confusion of a four sided civil war in syria

spent i have great respect for the honorable gentleman but i would suggest on armistice day we should put aside political questions about conflicts and decisions that were made and we should simply remember the men and women who put on a uniform comco uncertain risk their lives on our behalf. let's make armistice day about that and not about other questions. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [shouting] mr. speaker, the last week as been a very good week for the airport where the scrapping of the airport development fee which was an additional tax on passengers and a very to growth. the announcement of new air links and the upgrading of the link with the support of the others. would be prime minister join in congratulating the team for the excellent work in supporting the

economy? >> i am a huge fan of the airport at a frequent user and a government made a series of promises about helping the airport to make sure that final connectivity between the rest of the country and, indeed, continental europe is there and i'm delighted it is doing so well. >> can i think of the prime minister for his welcome -- >> order. i want to hear this question. mr. lamb a. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the prime minister for his welcome for the campaign launched this week, where over 200 from across society join the right honorable gentleman, the number, alastair campbell, and me in calling for quality for those who suffer from mental ill health or the truth is those who suffer from mental ill health to not have the same rights to access treatment of the others

enjoyed in our nhs. the moral and economic case for ending this historic injustice is overwhelming. will the prime minister do what it takes to ensure that this spending review delivers the investments, extra investment in mental health, to deliver general equality? >> let me say to the gentleman who did a lot of work in the last part of i very much welcome the campaign that has been launched and what they want to achieve. we set out in the nhs constitution parity between mental and physical health and we've taken steps towards that by introducing for the first time waiting times and proper targets for talking therapies. there are i think now twice as many people undergoing those talking therapist asked or five years ago. i accept is more to do in healing the divide between mental and physical health, and this government is committed to do that. >> further to the question from the right honorable gentleman for norfolk north, and i think the prime minister for his

support and emphasized this is indeed an all party campaign? does he agree there's a real opportunity to build on the work of the coalition over the last five years, and with widespread support across all parts of society and historic injustice between the treatments between mental health and physical illness? >> i think my our or friend is absolutely right. let me tell him what we are actually doing. we are investing more in mental health than ever before, spending 11.4 billion this financial year. and crucially we've asked every group to ensure real terms increases in their investment in mental health services. so it can't be treated as the cinderella service that is sometimes been the case in the past. i think if we do that and also deal with some of the other issues such as mental health patients being held in police cells inappropriately, we can have a better system for dealing with mental health in our country. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the announcement yesterday

of a loss of 860 manufacturing jobs at the plant and one of the factors being high energy cost, with the prime minister undertake to work with executives to address both the short-term and medium-term issues as a matter of urgency, ever people are currently in work in northern ireland and who are extremely worried about the impact of cutting working tax credits, given that the tractor and the chancellor and the government are showing a surprising triplex build across a range of issues so currently will the prime minister reversed the thrust of that policy and remove the burden at threat against working families in northern ireland and across the country? >> first of all on the issue industries come if a company qualifies as part of the energy intensive industries it will see a reduction in its bill because of the action and out from the dispatch box last week or the second point i would make specifically to northern ireland

is we have passed in this house historic legislation to allow northern ireland to set its own rate of corporation tax. us when we can put together all of the elements of the agreement, then the sooner northern ireland will be able to take action to try and build a stronger private sector in northern ireland which is exactly what i want to see. on the issue of tax credits i give him the same answer he will know in three weeks time but he also knows people who work in a business or other businesses will be able to learn -- will be able to earn 11,000 pounds, get more help with childcare and have a higher which to start with. let's build an economy where you earn more, pay less taxes and we keep welfare costs under control so we can build great public services [shouting] >> border. -- order. >> here on c-span2 leave the british house of commons as members move on to other business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays when parliament

is in session. a quick reminder you can see this week session taken sunday nights at nine eastern pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to get every program which aired from the british house of commons since october of 1989. we invite your comments via twitter using the hashtag pmq pmqs. >> about who will your next right and i thought there is only one person besides wilberforce, only one about whom i would write if i were to write a second biography. i remembered bond offer. of course, i did write that book -- >> and i thought i we stand next to the president speaking to 3005 in of the most important people in the world in this room here in d.c. who knows how i will feel in a moment? i don't know. i had the idea i might do that. i think of giving the book later

but if i feel a senior colleges the word chutzpah, if i feel it in a moment to be able to pull off the goofiness, i will do it. >> this sunday night on q&a, author and radio host eric metaxas on his writing career and his crossover between religion and politics. >> i think it's important for a buddy to take politics seriously and at least two vote, but never to make what we christians would call an idol of politics. the people that have done that and they are sort of worshiping god they're worshiping that idol rather than the god who would cause them to care for the poor and injustices. i think it's a fine line, something i talk about fairly often. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> c-span presents "landmark

cases," the book, geico landmark cases series which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions, including marbury v. madison, korematsu v. united states, brown versus the board of education, miranda v. arizona and world the way. landmark cases of the book features introductions, background, highlights and the impact of each case. "landmark cases" is available for $8.95 plus shipping. at your copy today at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> about a defense analyst including former nsa director keith alexander testified at a senate hearing about the future of war. they talk about potential threats from russia and china,

computer hacking and new military technology. senator john mccain chairs the armed services committee. this is two hours 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the committee meets this morning to consider the future of warfare. this hearing held on a series of hearings this committee is conducting to discuss our

current geopolitical challenges, examines the build up our defense enterprise to meet these challenges and identified what reforms are necessary to ensure that we have the most agile come innovative and effective military and defense organization possible. today we focus on the future. what features will define the battlefields of tomorrow, what technologies and methods of employing them our future warfighters who will require and what we must do to reform our defense institutions to function and adopt closer to the need of innovation than the speed of bureaucracy. were fortunate to have a distinguished panel of witnesses of this morning and will present their views on how to reimagine and reshape our military for the future. general keith alexander, former commander of you cyber command and director of the national security agency, an outstanding leader. mr. bryan clark, senior fellow

at the center for strategic and budgetary assessments. mr. paul share, a senior fellow and director of the 20yy warfare initiative, the center for a new american security. and dr. peter singer and dr. peter singer, strategist and senior fellow at the new america foundation. the witnesses who testified before the committee continued with the current global threat environment is the most challenging, complex and uncertain in 70 years. it would've told you should is that as we look to the future veterans to making the world more dangerous seemed likely to persist and intensify. many of our adversaries are investing billions into reshaping their militaries and developing technologies to counter at fort america's military advantages. at the same time the speed of globalization and commercialization means that advanced disruptive technologies are increasingly available to rival militaries, terrorist groups and other nonstate

actors. add to that the harm caused by the budget control act and sequestration, and we are now facing the dual problem of a quantitative and qualitative erosion of our military edge. reversing this trend requires greater military capacity. there's still a lot of truth in the old adage that quantity has a quality all its own. that said, simply buying more of what we have now is insufficient. that's not how we will preserve our military technological advantage or wind or future wars. our enemies are not just investing in new defense technologies. they are investing in a strategies to counter america's traditional military strengths, asymmetrically through cyber, hybrid warfare and have access and aerial denial capabilities. doing more of the same simply plays into our adversaries hands. as the national defense panel concluded quote, maintain the operational and technological edge of our armed forces requires sustained and targeted

investment. i want to emphasize targeted. we are witnessing rapid technological advancement in areas such a cyber and space capabilities, robotics, an unmanned systems, miniaturization and directed energy, hypersonic, and data analytics. this is not science fiction. it is happening right now and we better understand the implications of these changes for the future of warfare. because we know our adversaries are working overtime to do so. this is a major defense acquisition challenge. because of these kinds of disruptive technologies are being developed more by nontraditional commercial companies than traditional defense industry. indeed, the top for u.s. defense contractors combined spent only 27% of what google does annually on research and development. and yet the defense acquisition system all too often serves to rebel rather than attract,

producers of new technology. leading commercial companies are integrating an 18 month cycle but the department of defense is talk on an 18 year cycles. this is a recipe for failure and fixing this problem must continue to be a top priority for this immediate acquisition reform efforts. it's not enough, however comes to acquire new technologies. we must also devise entirely new ways to employ them. would be a failure of imagination merely to try to conform emerging defense technologies to how we operate and fight today. ultimately, we must recognize the radical potential that these capabilities possess and shape new ways of operating and fighting around these new technologies. the classic example is a tank prior to world war ii. at the time all the major powers had tanks, but they could only imagine them as mobile artillery

or armored calvary. it was the germans who first understood that a tank is a tank, and they build entirely new operational concepts around it and realized its true potential to similarly, the united states navy in the 1930s adopted itself despite fervent opposition at times both internally and externally from a force built around around the battleship to one organized around carrier aviation. he military leaders at that time anticipated the opportunities that aviation presented, develop novel ways to fight with aircraft at sea, preferred our nation to wage and win a new type of naval warfare. we face similar challenges now. instead think about how cyber or unmanned systems or other new technologies can simply enable us to do things we are already doing now, we must discern the real potential of these capabilities. both how they may be used against us and how they should

be used by us. then we must rethink and reimagine and reshape our military around the disruptive new technologists. that's the only way we will sustain our qualitative military edge. this will require tough choices, prioritizing for the future will not always be popular in all quarters of the defense establishment. advocates for the status quo will likely resist change, but these are the choices we must make to ensure that our military will be ready to deter, and if necessary, fight and win our future wars but i look forward to the testimony of eyewitnesses. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and let me join you in thanking eyewitnesses for the willingness to appear today to provide their thoughts on the their thoughts on a future war their thoughts on the future warfare and that may shape the organization of and investment in the military going forward. each of you has contributed to our national discussion on these issues, and i look forward to

testimony. a central them theme of last wek sync of one i suspect will continue today, is the city today, is thi the city erosion f u.s. technological superiority and the need for a so-called third offsets strategy. to recapture distinct collocated advantage over our adversaries and operationally critical as. presumptive the decades long technological superiority enjoyed by the united states and our allies will continue into the future they no longer be valid. temperatures have learned from our past success and made advancement of their own. particularly in areas of precision and long-range strike at the access aerial denial, space, inside. this diffusion of technology has impacted our advantage over nonstate groups like isil and al-qaeda going crucial able to acquire and employ tools including the drones and selecting medications equipment which would've been unthinkable only a few years ago. as deputy secretary of defense of work told students at the

nashville, tennessee, and the cluster, the fundamental nature of war is an interactive flash, a two-sided dual, action followed by reaction. while the united states fought to lengthy wars the rest of the world did not sit idly. they saw what our advantage were back in 1991 in desert storm. they studied them and they competed. our armed forces face a possible other rising any future combat theater and find themselves facing an arsenal of advanced disruptive technologies that could turn our previous technological advantage on its head. where armed forces along the uncontested record access or unfettered operational freedom of maneuver. underlying these challenges are civil technological trends that are reshaping the future warfare. global investment, notably by the commercial sector in research and innovation as far outpacing the research and development budgets of the dod and u.s. government as a whole. to compete will have to develop

better acquisition hiring policies. harness his drink and to incentivize some of those talented scientist and the private sector to work with us. we will have to predict the military research programs from laboratories and agencies that are driving the innovation that will shape our future military capabilities. the pace of technological change is accelerating but dod processes seem to be slower and more bureaucratic than ever. we needed 21st defense industry advice to keep up and help us is a key theme in the committees effort that the defense reform being led by the chairman. beyond acquisition reform this includes the development of new military concepts of operations that, for example, deal with complex robotic systems, new rules of engagement for the expanding cyber battlefield, new regulations this barbecue with expanded use of things like nanotechnology, artificial intelligence or biotechnology acting attitude both in the pentagon and in congress that encourages the informed risk-taking innovation that is characteristic of the people and

companies that are shaping the future. i welcome the witnesses thoughts and suggestions and i look forward to their testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general alexander, welcome. >> thank you, sir. chairman mccain, ranking member reed, distinguished them as other committee, i'd like to talk briefly about what you've address in your opening statement, chairman, about where technology is going and what this means to the future of warfare for i will do this rather quickly. i submitted a statement for the record and would ask that abbey put on the record spins all witness statements will be made a permanent part of the record. >> thank you, chairman. we look at the rate of change of technology and what you brought up in terms of the cycle of where we are with the dod acquisition system and were industry is, 18 years versus 18 months, it's unacceptable especially when you look at cybersecurity. when you think about the rate of change for cybersecurity it's doubling every two years. that means that the kids were in

college today what they learned in their freshman year, half of his -- half of it is outdated by the junior. when you think about the volume of information, the unique volume of information, it's about seven exabytes. what that means is we're going to create more unique information this year than the last 5000 years combined. when you think about the staggering rate of change of information and where it's going and then you look at on the civilian side, th the top 10 10n demand jobs now didn't exist 10 years ago. that means we're teaching students for jobs that don't exist using technology that hasn't been created to solve problems we don't even know our problems. others tremendous good is going to come out of this in terms of the future warfare, and health care, and saving money for our taxpayers and the energy market and others. we look at just the revolution that's going to go on in the energy sector and how we can stabilize our nation and other nations energy sector and not

waste billions of dollars in fuel costs a year, this is a huge opportunity for our nation. but without opportunity comes tremendous vulnerability. and when you think about what the defense department is required to do, it rests on that civilian infrastructure for it rests on the energy sector, the communications infrastructure, all the other communications that are intertwined. our nation in order to execute warfare depends on that being there. and it's not secure. tremendous vulnerability i will just hit some highlights of what i think we're going to face over the next several years. and join you to look back at what happened in a stone in 2007, first distributed denial-of-service attack. 2008, a distributed denial of service as a tactic both of those were by russian hackers. i learned this from my daughter, i would use russian hackers.

they are going after a nation state. in 2008 it was georgia. uniquely tied to russian troops entering into georgia. and as you know, chairman, 2008 in october is when we found while were on the defense department networks. if you jump to 2012, we saw a series of distributed denial of service attacks against our nation's financial systems, largely attribute to iran. it was preceded by a destructive attack against saudi aramco that destroyed the data on over 30,000 systems. so from 2012, august when the attack occurred, to 2013, 350 attacks against our nation's financial infrastructure. that when you jump or two where we are to date with what's happened to target, home depot and you look at what it other countries, you are saying that those nations who disagree with

us are looking at ways to combat as using the full spectrum of power, diplomatic, political, economic, military and with the military the easiest form for at least russia and iran has been cyber. and now we look at what's going on around the world today, you can see at what's going on in syria commute every disagreement with russia, or if the iran deal goes bad, or if we don't have a meeting of the mind on the ukraine, or something pops up in north korea, i expected these countries will come back at us with cyber attacks. and they can say, not our guys. it's an asymmetric way of eating our country and cause tremendous damage. and our nation is not ready for these types of attacks. across the board. i think the cyber legislation that was brought forward takes us a great a step down the road

but i think there is more that needs to be done. within the defense department only the defense department can defend this nation in cyber. homeland security can set standards, but when our nation is under attack, u.s. cyber command, nsa, fbi, those are the ones who will be the first responders. so let's look at what happened to sony and use that as a case example to in my opening statement, chairman pitt when sony was hit, everybody can say that's not critical infrastructure to i got it, but when sony was attacked we wouldd not allow us to govern sony to attack back against north korea. the reason is if sony were to attack back they could start a bigger war on the korean peninsula. that is the responsibility of governments. but if sony is allowed to attack back, then who does that for sony? out for our government steps in.

that's what our defense department steps in, that's what we are needed for. but we can see sony's networks, and i'm not advocating for the government to be in all the networks. what i would advocate for its like a radar system. when a company or sector is being hit, that they can tell the government at large i am being attacked. now, two things have to occur in order to do that. those companies need to up their game in cybersecurity and understand what's going on, and they need to much like a radar system be able to tell the government something is going on your then the government can determine what to do. and all of this has to occur at network speed. it is not a place where you can have someone in the loop making a decision. chairman, it's analogous to doing nuclear exchange where we are racing down the road building powerpoint to brief the white house on the next step,

when the missiles coming in 30 minutes and the briefings come in 30 hours. in cyberspace to go halfway around the world takes 67 milliseconds. that's your decision space. it doesn't provide any opportunity for us to miscalculate in this area. and when you think about what those who wish us harm want to do, if i were a bad guy, i'm a good guy, chairman, i believe, if i were a bad guy would look at this as a military campaign and see how don't want to attack our financial sector, our energy sector and our government. ..