long haul is a real issue.5uz to garner the long-term commitment needed to make this program al÷0,y success we need transparent about the mission that will be needed to achieve the nation's goals. thank you. this concludes my statement. i'm happy to answer any >> i thank the witnesses. questioning to five minutes. this point openinging round of questions. the chair recognized himself for five minutes.lbs[r >> in written testimonyá6n÷ provided by miss chaplain states that gao that nasa's proposed funding levels affected t0ll = ability to match requirements to resources since its inception. tracking a $400 million

shortfall.$e the president's budget to keep sls and1f+ orion on budget and s$-8g schedule. i realize thisus a tough question for you to answer because you have tow2 efend the president's budget request, but congress is ultimately responsible for funding this program insuring taxpayer dollars are sufficiently spent. given! [ that nasa has delayed the launch, what funding level will keep the date on track? >> i would say that the recent review we did that christina talked about, we committed to a joint confidence level of 70% and]cá]ñ in november of 2018 launch and that's consistent with the budgets we've submitted to congress through the administration, so that's a consistent plan. we've been trying to work to ab earlier schedule based on the

risk mitigation or extra funding we've received from congress so we've kind of kept both plans in place so we take the funds that have been given by congress and use that in an effective matter launch date that we can hold moving forward. we need to be 9aware of the concerns that á) @r(t&háhp &hc% make sure we don't pressure that schedule and work too fast and do things that end up wasting the funds or wasting of reports. so our current planning we were holding des of 2017, i would say we've moved off that date. be somewhere in 2018 now with our current planning just based on the reality of problems that have come along in the program and some uncertainty in funding. planning dates into i would say june kind of 6 (y frame of 2018 and that's still ahead of our commitment consistent with the budget levelw=6 consistent with the president's budget request. so i would say we're managingb;e in

this kind of interesting environment where we get different funding levels. the teamó4w are making tremendous program. sls is entering into one of the more critical phases where they go into the manufacturing of hardware. weg how that goes in january, february and march. again, i think we've been able to balance the bu(g)@h'eeds that we have overall to try to dlefr a program as can for the nation and the that the programs do not havem integrated schedules for development. the schedules for these programs so that they will launch not just on time, but at the same time? >> atç9nh present, there are still different dates in the final launches and orion is a tdd you could say because they're about to go into the process where they look at their resources

their schedules and set a launch date. at this time, it doelnf+n not look like they could make 2017 and 2018 is even a challenge in and of itself. so, we look forward toyi& m

think we could acknowledge this budgets are not optimal for carrying outñçfht major development programs like orion and sls. but i am impresed with how much progress has been made on these programs given these constraints. as you know, the committee has had the goal of having sls andzé&8 orion operational as early as possible date. we're going to be authorizing nasa again, reauthorizing next year, so i want to understandc 1ñ what the additional progress could be made on the sls and authorize additional resources.2k and whether or not there would be an impact on the program as recommended by the national academy's report of 5%e/&. increase

say and would af0vd÷ sustained inkeys of this kind of magnitude be sufficient to accelerate the progress you described for projected launch dates for em 1 and 2 or only be thuf to reduce the risks of those dates being pushed even further to the right. i guess i'm just trying to figure out what would get us back to a 2017 target.ìáhp &hc% you seem to indicate that it's not just resources.;4"f recognized the 2015 dates. budget constraints.,fcñ >> and i think one thing that could be helpful to us is get some stability and understanding whatn it's difficult for the programs to plan for what could be a some agreement between the we know what to plan forí;

terms of budget would be helpful to us overall.[íjtfv as well as the absolute level. in terms of the technical work again, i think we've really probablyi moved off of december 2017. when i look at the work, so i don't think funding will pull us back to that date. i respectfully have a difference of opinion with ?n i think it's fine to complete one of these programs ahead of the others. they don't need to sync up a ól of time. if you think when you take a vehicle top-[ launch at the kennedy space center typically the rocket is ready to go before the payload is. it comes later. it is to our advantage to have difference in scheduled between them. i think sls coming first. having ground systems ready if florida and orion showing up at the third place is perfectly fine. it is not going to waste resources on if em-1 is complete. if sls is ready to fly we will begin working on the next core for the flight of sls. so that will transition imm> $q&y from em-1 to em-2.

so there is an need to have all w,.ñ of the programs synced up. xa%uurp+e to be careful and think " about that. if there is extra constraint in where i have to sync up and wéfna match all of the schedules, i think that puts another burden in that can make an inefficiency. again from a technical r standpoint, where probably under 2018, where sls and the first part with funding levels we've he is not, we have made ;l commitment and kdbc activity and ground ops in june of 2018 with our commitment and we're in the 3n0. process of doing the orion evaluation date.÷ . >> some would criticize the program as kind of a rocket and spacecraft without a mission. we've set a long-term goal of a house pass nasa authorization act of 2014 of sending humans to mars. and we need a roadmap from nasa, the best way to get there. and it seems to me that now is the time for that.

what role do you see sls and orion having in reaching that goal and when will we have a strategy for getting there? >> i think both sls and orion play a key role and that %úv strategy described, sls is heavy ?p lift launch is that we need that ability to launch that much to [u go do a mars mass mission. with what you see in the test and hire from a lunar return áçw velocity which most capsules have not so those two components are critical to our mars strategy.5em there is others that need to be added. and we are actually using space station today to buy down risk on the human performance and how well systems work. so i think it was talked about the life support system of orion is being tested on space station today. so we are actually getting a chance to see how the mean swing bed operations work on board space stations.

so we can use all these pieces to continue to advance towards mars but i don't think there is any request that these two pieces fit squarely in any plan for mars activity. >> so we should set aside that critici 1&ó% >> yes. >> thank you. >> now recognize mr. bridenstine from oklahoma. >> thank you, mr. chairman.,a thank you for your leadership on this very important committeebjìáhp &hc% thank you to our witnesses snzb providing testimony today. it's an honor to be with you and certainly hear your testimony. gene, the last man to walk on the moon, took off the moon december 17, 1972. three years before i was born. he was naval aviator, engineer, electrical engineer, a pilot, fighter pilot, and an astronaut. he and so many others th1v/

accomplished that pentacle feat, never went back to the moon.a+ñ and i think that is a tragedy. and certainly something that this committee needs to be aware of. lifetime. my parents remember exactly where they were the first time it happened with neil armstrong and buzz aldrin. congress as a whole commissioned a report that cost $3.2 million.0x they spent 18 months, it was a 3&pxuár'dividuals led by governor mitch daniels and they aoy came up with a report calledúl pathways to exploration.e aú and one thing that i thought wasm:e.q[ telling in this report is they 1kx talk about a horizon goal.í?c what is the horizon goal for nasa?

and their horizon goal, according to them, nasa's q'÷x horizon goal, aught to be marr5ñ and of course there are stepping stones, pathways, to get to land a human on mars and bring humans home from particulars. and interestingly, it says the current program to develop launch vehicles for spacecraft i;v÷%l for flight beyond leo cannot provide the flight frequency f required to maintain competence and safety.

sternan inspired guys like me tom v join the united states navy, to become a pilot. it was aspirational. this is the benefit to the united states of america. and they said 2017, i would be sd&o the first launch, 2018 could be what it flips to and ultimately we launch a manned orion mission now, it would appear that would have to flip as well. but my initial reaction is we are going four years without a launch.rrq and then put men in the vehicle and add women in the vehicle and send them into space. and my question for you mr. gerstenmaier -- sorry, my name "gku is bridenstine, so i live with the same problem. my question for you is, do you agree with there assessment that current program develop launch

vehicles for the spacecraft for flight beyond leo cannot provide the flight frequency required to maintain competent and safety. do you agree with that? >> we are looking closely at fact that em-1 move need 18 doesn't mean that em-2 has moved also. we will continue to look at ways of holding that. we are looking at building a 3 system that we can fly repeatedly and fly for reasonable cost.(ac and we still owe answers to gao on those activities. k8 our goal is once we fly crew in 21 we would like to fly roughly at flight rate of about once per year. and we're off analyzing that once per year flight break to see if you can achieve that within our budgets and think if does that provide enough frequency of flight that it @< answers the safety concerns and we are off analyzing both of those activity right now.

so our intent would be to take ácólíc@# this period between the first uncrewed flight of orion to deep space on the sls and second flight with crew and follow that with roughly one flight per year after that. and did you agree that the horizon goal of o the united states ought to be land inging humans on mars? )qáy and at nasa we see three phases. we test out systems like i described. we also understand how the human body performs in micro gravity. doing a one-year expedition next year. and see if humans can withstand going to mars. and the next region of space around the moon, that's where we are now days away from return. we can test the systems, look at orbital mechanics. see deep space radiation. rendezvous without communication to the ground.;+fq

we can verify and validate the gf concepts that will be needed to take us eventually to mars and åkñ the last phase is earth independent or the mars ready phase and that's this horizon goal you describe. but we think we have a macro level and orderly process :m beginning in lower orbit and n(hñ eventually moving on to the mars class mission. >> if you will entertain me for a few seconds here, i would likem to ask one last question. which is, the report here that we commissioned, $3.2 million, &by 18 months, a lot of experts they funding for the human space flight director that we won't accomplish that mission of getting to mars. given where we are with flat funding, do you agree with that assessment? >> we are going to need some funding level above flat funding.k< >> would you be willing to come áhn back and provide us what kind of level is necessary in toward gehf@r.?ñ accomplish the objective?

>> we can provide that and we can take that for the record and describe that. again, it is going to be an assumption of the timeframe and the timeframe is driven. not only by funding requirements but also by have we gained enough experience in space, have risks. are we ready to take that next step.bíx- so there are several components. more than just a budget discussion. also the technical speed and the assurance of what we can learn during period moving forward. >> and that obviously would require more flight frequency than what we're currently getting. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> thank you, sir. >> we may have six or seven -- >> tha6[) chairman. uch, mr. thank you so much to the ía witnesses for being here today. it's really pretty exciting time for t9 rogram. i know that my colleagues and i all watched this orion test launch with great interest and i want to also join my colleagues 2rt to congratulate nasa.@fqñçkm

united launch alliance and everyone who parti this test flight. i heard from some of my constituent who really applauded this, saw this as a big step in ! our leadership in space.i$ and that comes as welcome news'q5s as we are trying to inspire and spark interest in the next 5 dpw generation of young scientists. in our previous space subcommittee hearings, we talked about the challenges communicating the importance of nasa's work and mission to our constituency who support the mission with their hard-earned 9ftñ tax dollars. as mr. bridenstine was saying, we have a lot of people who are inspired, looking back to the z: apollo missions and moon landings.mvm8 but that public outreach is really important.ue;2 and i noticed that you gave us a publication here that has -- it takes a country that talks about all of the places across the country where the parts and zv é"t :ujuáu(plied and [wr(t&háhp &hc% purchased and that shows a broad> k range of states and businesses

i'm sure that participated in that. that kind of thing is important to convince our constituents of the importance economically as >hc well.rdk0 i want to make sure mr. bridenstine saw that congressmanj n this publication, too. you have some of our congressmen pictured in t? kya%añ also, i know that the budget challenges anrb2 át()hj certainty is very, very vhn important. and mr. gersten about that need for stability.u[ar and it certainly is something that we talk about here on a regular basis. that certainty in decision making is and long-term thinking is so important, especially more so for nasa than many of the other decisions we make here. and also we know about the acknowledging as we all know 2#v that space exploration involves risk.ó;h there are safety concerns and i 45cñ

know that nasa @kp ot to address those. so mr. gerstenmaier, some have said that outfitting orion with the necessary life support equipment on the first cruise kó#l commission will cause the spacecraft to be overweight. so should we be concerned about that? what options does nasa have to mitigate this possibility? >> and if the flight test that we just flew the next flight of orion will be significantly lighter, we have done a major oszp redesign of some of the structures to actually lower the weight of orion. and that wasn't easy to make sg]ár those changes. but they've done that. we also are starting, as we described earlier, testing life support systems on board space stations so we know how much they will weigh and some of the f< systems are ins/77 so i think we have a sound approach to address concerns that you raise.

the life support system and we make sure it can be added and still not exceed the mission. >> thank you.céfme=0 follow up on your response to mr. edward question. we tend to focus on the sls and orion when we think of the exploration program. but i want to talk more about the ground infrastructure at the space center which is also undergoing some significant development. support the sls and orion launches. i know there's been work on the mobile launcher, the vehicle assembly building, launch pad 39-b under way. so where does that ground çóiqñ infrastructure stand relative to progress made on sls and orion. are they in sync so they will be ready at the same time? going on down in florida. that work is in progress. when h7f&á $u$e kdpc review for ground systems and it shows 70% confidence level for

that equipment to be ready and florida to support a launch in i think june of 2018./t.ñ so it's on schedule to move it has challenged it needs to be began i would stress i don't see that all of the activities have ;x%i to line up. even if sls is ready, a little bit early and the ground system ñjf@q(2vmv isn't fully there, it is still the right thing do to move the rocket down to florida and begin checking out interfaces to see how it will fit with the launch tower, see how it fits with the launch pad. that still fits from overall schedule standpoint. there's not a disconnect in the schedule. even though everything doesn't arrive at precisely the same time. it is perfectly appropriate to have the one component arrive before. >> thank you. i will squeeze one more question in here. as demonstrated by ëpáp$t,t)ju)+páion of 2014, there is p a strong sentiment for nasa to have policy on termination liability that maximizes the use of appropriated funds to make progress and meeting those established technical goals and schedule mile stones. so is -- how is nasa currently handling potential liability for sls and orion.y p >> it is actually not nasaçdhwheçu

policy.(f we believe it is part of the anti-defamation act where the p8h(q%=9j5iutáur)ement by all agencies to be handled in a similar manner to which the 3 agency does.á! and that's where we are, so it is not unique, like nasa and what we've done in the past. >> thank you very much. an i yield back.t1. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now recognizing mr. ño9 rohrabacher from california. >> thank you for holding this hearing. it is important we have an oversight of the nasa projects that are the responsibility of this subcommittee. about this sls commitment when it was made. we said ther%g problems.:]9 i had no idea the funding =ñzzm04a problems would come on so quickly. and sir, you noted the funding levels are interesting.$u í4 interesting? they're not interesting.ç

they are insufficient. why are they insufficient? because we didn't have enough money to begin with. am i correct under assuming that finances that will be necessary to develop other technologies that are yet to be developed forjw)lykúísñ;8z this spacecraft for the sls to fbalç we don't even know if those f d expensive technology development projects will succeed. to say we have the cart before the horse is an understatement. and there is an expense to this. and i hope my colleagues on thisún r subcommittee understanxuf6$t +vcv.g3y

with a $10 billion, and that's a minimum expenditure we are talking about here, in developing this monstrous project that won't have a real trqgp mission until we are toward go to mars which could be two decades or three decades from krç now depending on if we ever get over the technological hq! that we haven't gotten over yet. that by doing that, we commit ourselves not do a bunch of other things. that could be hitting the earth that murdering millions of the earth. much less setting up a system that could deflect the nearest object.ís we won't ú]=m"á$(q(puáq e could have a big huge rocket we could be so proud of that won't even have a mission for decades. would he won't be building ways to deflect those rockets.o would he won't be building a way and technology developing way, mr. chairman, to clear space debris.5;?

space debris will end up involving human kind involvementdm#pñ in space in order to ']s beings. not to mention the rocket that ówe doesn't have a mission for 20 years.?7ñ and we basically have cancelled ba÷ even recently, cancelled the solar cell project. we can't have a refueling óñg&& system. in space. incredibly increase our u abilities to do things in space. and basically, we could be perfecting our ways of repairing satellites.e0$íñ all of these things could be funded because we are spending billions of dollars on a rocket that may not fly to mars to decades from now. this is putting the cart before the horse is an understatement that i have ever heard.@$f0 and we are always having budget crisis talks about it right now.h ñíwu it's not justvq interesting.

it's insufficient to achieve the goalc"and even if we do then pump money into the project,#-9 we've pumped it into a project that is provide ago rocket that will be useless to us for two decades. as opposed to the other things that could be done in space. mr. chair 1:_t$*qzpmm serious and responsible. we should not blame the c&m professionals in the executive branch.58 we might a wrong decision when we went down this road and i think that unfortunately the fv& american people and the people of the world are go pay for it, not just with money out of their poc5scbut things that could have been so beneficial to the human race. and i guess you got 30 seconds h=ñ1ñáx0ñ +pñ0bve to answer that. go ahead.÷i rl/rs

anything you have for that observation? please feel free. my feelings won't be hurt. >> my only comments would be we don't have very -- i can't thinkk b of any real major technical challenges in terms of sls development.vb> how about radiation challenge going to mars? have we met that? >> we have nb0fqá that. >> we have a bunch of -- i'm not talking about the challenges of developing the sls. i'm talking about once we built it and spent the billions of 7 ] dollars, whether it can go to a mission, which is what it is supposedly for, we don't even know how to land on the moons on mars.ì÷ we don't have a system set up and how much that will cost us y>six to develop and how it is put on the rocket. we have a list of tech in logical achievements and we are íf0 not even half way there.ga >> please feel free. go. >> we are doing some activity in the areas you describe on board space station. and refueling demonstration v package on the board.

and we have serviced outside of ngr a satellite and we are also looking a the cryogenics servicing and there is a package &2 á >> those are good things. >> and electric propulsion and part of the redirect mission and tation. looking at techniques where we can use a tractor to deflect the7 astroio3!]h >> wonderful. but let me note that all of ó!% those projects were financed in budgets before the sls became part of our budget. testing, they were done in research and development stage long before we started taking 6", money out to put it in one big rocket. and we don't even know, do we, !ñ. whether or not we have money to finish the projects we are talking about in that development. there is now $10 billion and by all of the experience we've had, it is likely to go up to double that by the time we finish on it rocket.ávh]ç that's when the rocket is ready (m;f÷ to take off for the first time.

this so rotten decision on the part of this committee. it is not your fault. you're good soldiers and doing your very best with what the members of congress are giving you.5y we have given you a very undoable task.t thank you for your hard work.n >> nowhxignizing mr. posey. >> thank you. we are all excited about the 1 +ç orion lau"x.and i think we are seeing public awareness. that is something we look forward to. can you take a moment following up on congressman's comments to discuss the importance of another special aspect of the fy$lçjc sla program and that's the íy@1x exploration ground systems. i'm sure many folks are not up to speed on the importance of the ground systems of the importance of the sls.

>> and there is a critical role and they are working on the k)by mobile launch platform to interface with the rockets to z x÷ provide propellent to that to fuel the rocket qskgz$ey launch it and areabtíziuju)r'g on the zq,y launch pad and they are going into the pad. we look forward to lower operations cost so there are many activity on the launch pad. this should lower launch áozaáy we have the firing room and ?zmañ there are activity there.hiv )',ñ and we have made the launch pad a multipurpose launch pad. ívy@ it can not only support sls but the fiber cables and supporting rockets launching off of that pad. so there is a tremendous amount of work and occurring for the flight out of kennedy center, with folks out of navy and anchorage to pick up capsules.jç4w and it is cri÷]1z/háo what we

are doing with the orion xét processing and manufacturing. >> can you explain the thinking behind the president's budget request? calling for fundino9wv[s@d]d÷d and increases for exploration &a.u ground systems in the years, 2016, to 2019. and what happens if the targets are not met? >> again we need the funding levels that we have requested to!! meet schedules that we put forward. or they there will be slippages fpv,ñzpç and activities. >> and now recognize mr. brooks.c fñ'- :f>ñçzvns >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you can discern from the comments.

and representatives and the á÷ñ commission for sls is certainly y-4mcr9vmñ concern for this committee. and for congress as a whole. it seems you are uniquely situated as associate administrator for human exploration operations to answer some of the questions about sls's missions. and whether sls or orion components work.?ñjd it is another thing to get sls r+fdñ and orion a real mission.; ñ such as the lunar mars capturing astroid or whatever. in your opiniy+hat should theí real mission be?t(ñ >> the first mission should be c+o the proving ground and space that i described around the moon. we call it lunar space in the y3r(y vicinity of the moon.,fhkz a very necessary step for us to move forward. as we push into the solar system. -n it understands techniques to prepare much as the early flights did in mercury and gemini to prepare for the apollo

activity. these flights around the moon will help us prepare to get toward do the mars missions decades later. but the first flights will be to the vicinity of the moon. the rock set capable of doing that.03 orion is capable without >$l additions and we can bring our levels of expertise up to where the risk takes bolder steps b9a beyond the lunar space. >> you say around the moon, does that include landing on the moon or just going around the moon. >> in our budget we don't have funding for landing on the money. just in the i have vicinity of the moon. r(t&háhp &hc% we look for mars. we have an international community interested in doing lunar activity and many we can partner with the international

community if they choose to é; develop the lander. but in our fund we don't have a g=]lander for the moon. >> after we go around the moon, what should be the second mission of sls? >> again, it takes more than one mission around the moon to buildbçv(bx the skills -- y, >> okay, after all of the =zvb missions around the moon, then xú"ñ what happens for sls. =,"nç >> then we go to mars. an intermediate destination or around the moon of mars. those are to be decided. >> can you give me a time see sequence of what you believe applies to the missions you just enumerated? >> we kind of think of them in g$bu broad terms.

pá decade of the 20s to the 30s, that this proving ground region i described to you where we learn these capabilities between 2020 and 2030, and ñaqig-lq beyond 2030 we are toward do these other activities to an astroid potentially in its native orbit or potentially to g5v mars.ndbho cf1 o >> so in the next8zpbpde or two you are talkingú+aax%i1%9 then roughly two decades thereabouts, in the 2030s, you are talking about then we can 1÷ think about going to mars. is that your testimony?fçñ >> it is not just circling the gx moon. we are actually doing activities around the moon with the intent we are building skills, understanding the hardware, understanding the techniques, understanding the environment we are operating in. that prepares us go to distance c$"ñ6vhag as far as mars with a reasonable risk assessment.ea÷u (t&háhp &hc% >> is additional funding needed 7

to speed up the mission platform that you just expressed? with that activity. >> how much additional funding would be required by way of example to speed up the mars part of the missions in 2020s, g z or 2030? that question for the record.(jjv it is more than just funding. it is how long it takes us to get proficient at these skills go take that next step. and to give you a real answer i need to spend time with teams looking at how long we think those activities taken a then back into the funding discussion(%s that you had.6ó:yzí÷ >> i hope you can understand this subcommittee's concerns when it took us less than a decade, not only to go around the moon but to land on the moon6zñ under apollo. and with what i'm hearing you testify to, it is gca9 20 years to just go around the moon and not land on the moon. so those timing issues are of concern. and mr. chairman, is that okay?

>> okay. >> in the past year's hearing ono# the president's fy 2015 budget ig3 request.+v administrator indicating that á4p=y% 9t )jtjásáh&i would not be helpful for ow& completing the first version of sls by 2017. for your testimony's sake, top risk, and for ef-1 in december of 2017, is agarneájt)q't funding. would you please explain this discrepancy and would additional funding make meeting the 2017 test flight possible or at least&dr more likely.clñn2o >> and the cost risk be identified with the report comes from nasa's own documents. and was also raised by standing af review board so in deed of very áa[ high risk of not enough money to@9a÷ help meet the 2017 date.

that said, as mr. gerstenmaier a1ágm;ñ testified, just putting in money, ñ now won't help you get there any quicker and there is a lot of sequential activity needed to get some of the critical path ÷!ú items done for sls, like the core stage. the money at this point would bei ñ helping out with reserve and %$e< possibly testing and other ;q8 activity that couldn't be done ;(f earlier and bringing them forward.j >> thank you, mr. chairman.8p and ms. chaplin. >> i recognize mr. swiekard. >> thank you. hnb?abp part of this will be follow-up on both what dana and .bc"÷ congressman brooks wrote. help me get my head a bit from

much of the report was taken po,ç from the documents from nasa and others and then when we start to look at time lines -- and this -- i will let you do it as a personal opinion. because you have been doing this for a while. and how short are we initially.x- and ask how short we are #@ib technologically.)÷ if i said, hey, here is the robustness of what we are try doing, i'm looking at you know, 'dñnt9.÷hút49

a number of tables, that have all these moving pieces and projects and you said, here is what we are over the next 20 years. and here is what we are seeing congress's appetite for funding. what is an honest number.lnpyñ >> i think there is various nueí5[n"_pv ttention to here. first are the short term égx numbers. laid out in the documents for sls and orion. it ranged from 400 to the 00 million. we are pushing out the date and doing other things. those numbers have been reduced. and there is still a funding risk for orion considerably high. >> i'm for the robustness of the system. just orion itself. and personnel cost, every step wmiçñ you need to make this work v

numbers. like mr. gerstenmaier mentioned kox the cost.te you have to pay for landing system. how is much that. it is very important to lay out the roadmap and see the different pieces that you need. we don3 have cost estimates beyond the first test for some of the systems. >> you understand sort of the, you know, when we are lookf:opá numbers we have, here is our best guess.1jcío cf1 o here is our optimistic and here is when we are in trouble. we understand for every step of technology, every additional incremental piece of time-out, the various grows because it is unknown. but we are trying in a number of discussions to get an idea what the exposure is and are we about$glj?ç to cannibalize everything else.y01b÷o@a mr. gerstenmaier? >> technologically, if i came toc you and said the goals over the $>6bmnj[cñ

next 10 years, 20 years, where do we have things that we don't actually have the technology yet >> i would say the biggest tefpnjjt+hp)eas we need work on or we need work on radiation for the human being ajsá,ñçoqpq radiation shielding. we can only shield so much. but i think again a manageable risk. but ultimately some risk associated with the cosmic radiation that we'll have to o át(s ith on humans. other big thing is we are going ] k to mars, entry descent and landing and the surface of mars is a big technology leap.ñn the order of one metric ton to d, tügñ)face of mars.@m m v for a human class mission we cçus have to land about 20 times that. at least 20 metric tons. we don't know exactly how to do that.v÷ñ

we did testing in hawaii to look at reentry heat shields. technology. and going back to the other questions mr. brooks about why we aren't sprinting to the moon t2iukl /z like before, i'm building u3 v systems that are modern manufacturing. so the equipment we're putting ea. in down can be flown multiple times for minimum cost. so we are spending extra time to* prepare a system that's affordable in the long-term. gao want more details on that.jiz we need provide that information to them.;i but we are looking forward and not just building a single :zd[ $z system that sprint to a y destination.-cnu1of> we are building an

infrastructure that allows us to have presence beyond earth's orbit. >> thank you. mr. chairman as you had a number of conversations, we still think there's so much variability exposure and cost and we all know it is about to hit us in next decade cost wise. what happens in the future federal government spending. somewhere here we have a much ú;k more robust and much more í6c&÷ brutally honest what we have cash flow and what we don't. with that i y;djt)ip r(t&háhp &hc% >> at this time we go into our x; second round of questions. when did nasa first begin tracking the $400 million risk identizév.by gao? >> probably that guy identified back in 2013. 2014 timeframe. zx4ruá$ápv f you asked my ld ÷ teams now, they would say that that $400 million risk, because of appropriations we received in 2014 and the pending bill that qkfñ we saw las$i million risk will be required.1ñ6 .d2r÷zzfz >> if you said 2013, we had -rvst]qtñ ÷ administrator bolden sitting

where you were telling us if we threw another 300 million at sls and orion we want even notice it.t?r meaning it wasn't needed at that time. so you recognize this risk. so if would you have come to us there a year ago. and when you first started tracking it, you find out about ej"9a? :mñs this risk and 400 million since the gao report has come out and 32 ê you are telling me nasa has known abíip+áhis for much longer period than that. there were earlier report"gb qqt and technical risk is and budget risks and again to meet a specific launch date.e$]e$ ñ margin as well and we know what hh+dhl!rg the budgets are as well in 2014. and those remove that uncertainty and lowers the lemi of the risk. as we identify those we carry those and bring those forward as soon as we can. >> you match your expenditure of(& " fund based on congress's budget or the president's request which

has been quite lower than what congress has been appropriating =hç for the past several years?"m(sypt-t@x >> this is the dilemma i have.if the reality is, program plants .)çñúl"ñ that you just described.45fbñ >> and if you had come us to for;d1z say additional funding a year or two years ago, would you have been able to mitigate the risk or buy down the technical risk or would we still be having the d@xzfyuudq same conversation that the test ía will slip to the right regardless of the amount of funding we may have been able to appropriate for the program?é 5ó >> that's a very difficult question to answer.z0ó"n

the other thing that is hard for me is that i look at human space flight as the total which is sls orion, also commercial crew, commercial cargo and #tzf internú átp(q tation. i see human space flight is really the combination of all ç)kñ those activities. we are using space station today to boy down risk for mars so i have to look at a balancing across all of those programs. i can't optimally fund any one of those programs.n-lu so i effectively ballet cross those and the risk and i try to 8h weigh the budget and the technical risk associated with those programs to give what we think is the best approach to deliver hardware for the lowest cost for the congress and taxpayers.2wv >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you f'j4q:ujtjáádwp of questions.a6! i want to go something i raised earlier.hn' regarding recommendations by the national academies that 5% /

inflationary increase in the budget. and i understand that for the specific purpose in looking at 2017 to 2018 that that's not 9,ffñw what we are talking. i want to know about the$3 and would it bei.3 the administration to recommend and congress to"@í;x,wñ incorporate this margin that the national academies has recoe'dti/y so that we over a period of time that we're not look at the questions that are being raised today.?ej >> so give us some guidance. >> okay.# flip a coin. yes.)slñ >> i would just add that that's not the first time a recommendation like that has been made.

it was made at é pr& end of @ the constellation program by the augustine commission. i think they recommenì @r(t&háhp &hc% million additional a year, which was pretty significant.rki that was significant and that was their view)bgñ of what was needed over a couple of different p!x ñ they mentioned a pact that is similar to what isgç9tt)jt done here. >> and that would provide a lot more stability than what we're"m seeing now wouldn't it?2rvl the other thingi eq to remember is that funding-qñ programs need spikes, sor themselves, wfb)ñ that recommendation1z went up9nízhht/5ñ muchp½ as 7$7nrjñ billionmo" azoh% yearádepending on their need. >> i want to just ask really briefly. and departmentbv of defense large scale programs, they don't go

through this they set out,5ñ kind of a goal, and congress/ap ton there's acóyid difference= large s+iék development fundings, why is -- a scientific program that has a lot of ñ uncertainties year by year and in some cases, a few months by a few months. do./u we actually endhjr up wasting way more money over the long-term by doing that, than just setting out a goal of saying that we funding this program in the most robust way possible across congress so that the goal isquwçjwñ achieved? why isn't there "t modeling fortly" these%yí large scale science programs instead of that kind of models. asd÷! >> we have never annalyzed nasa.

jx#e(éy0w eóot kys6yk/ but we do no&z stretched out. it's not like the £ciçdod experiences a programs with a lot of scheduled pressure and everybody recognizing it. kaç and ).mexperimentation. >>ëñ programs where everyone-fmv recognizes5 to be more support funding wise and it tendspa y3k to be more stable.l[atykvi i think again the discussion is good. some understanding and stability indx+gñ@hs÷k3&r budget would be helpful. qóh.

with essentially a year budget sometimes y,7ud?sják we throw in furlows and other things just to make -- and those are real impacts to us. we stood downrq for two weeks, and how do you plantç for that in a program matticx¿ it's !ñ extremely difficult. it's aá tribute to my team that'shn in this environment and figure out a way to make as significant progresdû.t as we idwcan notñ waste funds, not use funds in any significant manner. ke vakñ! we're looking at it here with%4ol0héñ?

-- then it's like starting all over again. and i just think it is.!hl bout the dumbest way to do science. and with that i yield. >> ms. edwards i think there's3ghñ4 several people that will agree with you. i now! u recognizev7t the congressman. >> your comments are certainly well recognized on both sides of the aislm÷ we recognize that rpgspó]6!and we would like to-r --hyh international implicationsojt our directions for human space flight to the report that ms. edwards referenced from the nationalq ÷ academies indicated that if we were to do thises a destroyed bii/redirect mission, we would be not inwbr8db+ j with the international community most of which i6s4v focused on

lunar surface, and then on to mars, and that this açzxxmisalignment according to the report again headed by governor mcdampblniels indicates us spending a whole lot of money on this technology to actually get to the moon. >> i would say%

the theo th,ryan the asteroid redirect mission also fits in the long-term goal of what we want to do. d mission, we need solar propulsion, we're going to move a 50 metric ton asteroid through space, that could be thew > sam¤b cargoj mars. that space we're building for the asteroid redirect mission,>

>> do you know offhand specifically whatw you're looking at as we pursue this path? >> we didn't get to speaks with -- how we're going to use this cargo capability forbqahc÷ mars, i describe that fornh(÷b them, we would see that as a dead end capability. i think we/ x needed to have more dialogue with the committee. they didn't get a chance of our latest thinking of how all these pieces fit together. but i can't judge what their answer would have been. >> last question we're down to about a minutesh&z and a half. we noticed that the warren act, notices went out for the warren act,wuh recently associated with the u.s. pzépx$m can you more money than expected and everybody seemed to be telling us that things were ahead ofñ0áe çue schedule, and we're spending more than what waséiz anticipated, why did these warren act0vyzz notices

go out? one reason for the warren acts is they're -- depending on the activity and %=9 we give them. there it's a change in the development life cycle. t( p ot of engineering a lot ofñ nalysis kind of activities know manufacturers, the work occurs down in the1 by new orleans to actually do manufacturing, so we're shifting from design to manufacturing and during that shift,e a natural ramp down of the skills, the overallw@on workforce will come up, but it will come up in other areas, but it will show u up in materials but y not in personnel. so a piece of that warren act activity is7% )jt this natural progression from design to manufacturing. /u yrñ roger that, mr. chairman, i yield back.j

>> two stories below us is the house armed it wases room, and we also served on that same committee, and we have had testimony presented to ustlc0 that the number one threat to our national debt. and i would have& number one threat@a2x to america in this leadership in space is also going to be our gnarl -- hopefully we can overcome that once again congratulations to you and your entire team at nasa, to lockheed-martin and ula for a very successful outstanding test flight.d8!ujñ want@q= thank theí k witnesses for their valuable testimony. and the members of the committee may have additional questions for you and we will ask you to

respond to those in writing.e the record will remainwtáq open for additional c'ts for!0 the record. this meeting is adjourned.:?fnc" a look at coal and energy policy and a discussion on'j how+6&w)q u.s. protects critical defense information.2áf president obama announced that the president will restore full diplomatic relations withohvwb cuba.

the deal was negotiated over 18 months of secret talks hosted largely by canada. here's part of what president obama said.z >ñ c and to address cuba's interest in the release of three cuban agents who have been jailed in the united states for over 15 years. today, allen returned home. reunited with his family at long last. allen was released by the cuban

government on humanitarian grounds, separately in exchange for the three cuban agents, cuba important intelligence agents that the unite áes has ever had in cuba, and who has bee#/, in prison for nearly two this man whose sacrifice has been known to onlyh< few provided america information that allowed us to# 1 arrest the net wrk of cuban agents that included the men transferred to cuba today as well as other spies in the united states. this man is now safely on our shores. kyk%u÷z s leading republicans reacted to outrage over thejcfz obama administration's move to normalize relations with cuba with some catching it as

blackmail by the -- -- a likely 2016+4 perhaps the most ardent voice in the administration. he and others in the gop tried to derail the white house's efforts. here are part of senator rubio's comments. >> this president is the single worst negotiator weeó $kr(t&háhp &hc% the white house in my ó@htimerç;w who has basically gimpven government anything it asked for and has received no assurance of democracy in return. let mekh lose bye!úm reminding everyone that god the cubani that he did on every man, woman and child that has e&zmsw5r9t lived. the inalienable rights spoken about in our founding documents. like all people repressed around the world, they looked to

america to stand up-é+o to these rights, to live up to our commitment t4z the god given right of every person, grñ life liberty and pursuit of happiness. people born in7d&t theuoth( continental united states, but for"f0u people everywhere. it is unacceptable that the only do not know democracy, and have hy %zó÷ known democracy for at least five decades are the people29 cub)3hir(t&háhp &hc% that should be our overriding objective, ul bring all that we can to bring%qc-p!out political democratic openings in cuba and the cuban people can decide every economic model they vhywant. but the measures today will do nothing to bring about that day. significantly bring it back. today by6 oppressor oppressors, this president and the administration have let the people of cuba down.c d& >> but the "new york daily news"

t "á$r&e the u.s.'s new policies on cuba normalizes thenu6)ç traditionally tense relationship, there are still strict limits on tobacco and travel. visitors will bej0pñ allowed to bring back $100 worth of cigarsd(ici between') one andand won'tuap be able to sell them states bound. you can seey of events today at cspan.org.p?y1hñ& this?rybz on q&a, author and town hallj on what she perceives as a war on women rhetoric. p>ñbaú >> what is your problem back to >> it goes back to where the idea of this book came from which was the 2012 w[ñañ convention where they were showing this tribute video to

him because he had passed away and portraying him as a/b&ó women's rights champion when he left a young woman to drown in his car;mjñ and if he had not gone back for nine hours and tried to save hisañçj behind she would have probably survived. and5ñ6ñ you can't do an entire video at a convention claiming to be preaching and fighting about the war on women anlx like that while not that part of his live in a videoua."about his women's rights record. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. on cspan's q&a a5bv@p to mark teny years of q and a, we're airing one program in each year starting december 22 at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan.óxs up next an update on nuclear dm(dñ uju control andp under secretary of state for arms control saidcäñ that despite u.s.-russia tensions over ukra-p[l russia continues to implement the new"d1,"e) yv

treatyah1ib even though at a[lbt recen4l house + cruise missile that the u.s. hasx?qñ charged violatese yky;m another nuclear treaty. house lawmakers appears to be violating sevenfx treaties including the951p5 y5xtreaty. she spoke at the brookings institution for an hour and a half. >> good morning and welcome to the brookings institution, i'm steven.ñ# piper, fellow here where i direct the?"v÷ arms controló nonproliferation initiative and it's my pleasure to ---who's american arms control policy? before continuing with my

introductio6 @=etuá$sr)q o express the gratitude of brookings to they carnegie -- which+ like today's when president obama took office in(ptr 2009 he set out aúr verya ambitious agenda for arms control which hent9 speech in'9i(g÷ april in fwooin2009 in prague. over the course of that year, the administration set out significant x->ñachievements. in april of 2010, it signed the new strategic arms -- which set hrb,e objective of reducing the role of a number of weapons in american human policy and!gm itizl&ylìáhp &hc% launched the nuclear security summary process. sárq %'c"ent even laid out even more ambitious goals so on'y9: signing the u.s.bé z flee4ká40ñ also to expand that n khçk )jjuz include both tactical -- in a way that for the first time would have had

the united states and russia negotiates on their entire nuclear arsenals. the administration also talked about the possibility of ratification of a p!ñ comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. and when nato and russia discussed the cooperation onrkgñ missile defense. things have slowed sincefr=ñ then. certainly in the last year+ had the crisis in the ukraine, but even before that crisis, it was clear thatñr on major questions of arms control the russians had still made up the processes processes. but the obama administration nevertheless has two years left to go, and we're delighted to have under secretary to talk about what's0& ñ to be expected in that period she has a long and distinguished career with the u.s. government. we actually first met in q990 when we were on the severe yet desk of the state department. and she went to her first start negotiation, s)d2uñ also served at the national security council, seniornbyç positions at thewsfb depa÷j&

were among other things she led the negotiation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and sheumw holds the position of under secretary of state for arms control of national security. i should also say that in addition to beingúf

compartment, went?!f perry scope drove the sub man.8v÷ a7r2 onezq point got to climb inside an armed missile. for an armsjze!lc@xv1 this was a dream date. >> what steve didn't mention about that day was/lh e

about our plans about the arms control agendaj years. first of all, this holiday time is a very special time for this administration, because so much in thekfy1t lódisarmament arena[

gave its advice andayv consent to:gxl the new start treaty. so i always feel pretty special about this time of year for a number of jvqp's in our arena, in addition to the normal good fun that ensues. as#plíll of you mig r(t&háhp &hc% been traveling quite a bityñ =õ lately, and just gotf]v% back actually from a trip to the hague to visit the [cfitopcw continue our work on syria chemical to do a speech on again, our disarmament agenda going forward,?1u and i'll replace some of those points today, but also expand on +xfbés days, onra humanitarian impacts on nuclear weapons use to all of that will be beholden to what i have-aú tos] but this third stopz]sñ the recent trip of mine was the ukraine. i had the unite to go to kiev actually the anniversary was the

anniversary of the budapest memorandumá on december 4 of 1994 so i had an opportunity to speak to ukrainian audience and as you can imagine, there were harp sharpfçb of the budapestb áqñ gj memorandumd1iñi i wil that on our question and answer period, but it's q) reason very important one. what i would like to say about the ukraine in beginning my6pv$ remarks today, is first of all, that there we see a government that is #&p focussed on9"uáñ problem sol solving and p intenv4h on moving strongly forward with the reform agenda that they have, i thinká)vi9h @r(t&háhp &hc% failed to fulfill over so many years now, so i'm actually very hopeful after thisu ukrainejif and hopeful for the and also not only hopeful, but convinced of their continuing partnership in thet6 ration treaty machine with

strong commitments voiced to ú their nonnuclear prohibitions status. i come back to you1áhá washington with many recent and important impressions and look forward sharing them with you in addition to hearing your thoughts and your questions this morning.h#ysñ i will say here to begin with what i said in prague, first of all, there should be no doubt the u.s. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear help weapons is unasalable. we continue to pursue puck clear pace with our commitments. our responsiblel0úñ@ the reduction of fissile weapova nuclear material and weapons inthat structure. this has led us.-0

have gone from 31,255 3450uk dleeru%z2ú weapons, to 4,804 in 2013. we know however that we still have work to do. )÷ 4,804+$g2 nucleard lot of weapons. as we consider future reductions, our focus must be oneufwy achievable and verifiablei measures that all interested parties, nuclear states and nonnuclearéle states alike can trust. our past experience both successes and addition appointments will determine5e how and when wesç. proceed each step building on the last. it is clear that our path has been the right one. we have accomplished so much and ify'#d2hut had all been gatt evered@of/o cf1 o together in this room for a?íg 4a0t&a9u1 policy event at brookings in 1985, i don't think anyone in the room=çfdv could have imagined orr we were able to accomplish.

i was right@m4

reaching weapons, banning long range missilesy weapons reducing the united states andnsj by 11,000 weapons drastically reducing tactical nuclear weapons while deployment and converting material to gñ astounding 20,000 nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear power plants. these effortsqz wer'$9x(4rxibj the strategic offensive reductionsd call the moscow treaty.i &háhp &hc% and of course, in 2010, the united states andxifñ ru5#4ñ signed the new s.t.a.r.t.kó? treaty, whene,tñ 9 it is fully inchmplemented, new s.t.a.r.t. l issue deployed -- new s.t.a.r.t. is# strategic and security stability betw;cbp! russia. both nations'ñyt areew> implementing the treaty's

inspection regime, and i note, even during the severefnv crisis with the russian federation the russians are continuing in a bd("(iness like way to implement the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. current tension with to the russian federation highlight the durability of the american#ñ;pd -- and the important confidence that is inspections under the treat you, as well8ak as the security and predictabilityj, ñ provided binew limits onb central strategic forces that are verifiable in nature ,'ljozuhp &hc% none of these achievements could have been predicted back in jtf 1985, n/i% laid out in a long-term time bound process. on the contrary it was the faithful implementation of each individual initiative that provided trust and xñconfidence, and the1h/iq% opportunity to move ahead to the next phase. under pinning all of our#é&m efforts, stretching back decades, it's been our clear understanding and r÷@ the humanitarian consequences of

the use 04@0 these weapons. that is thenaat/e united states delivered in vienna last.÷oç weekq conference on thekl.í humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. w testimonies and statements of the participants there including manydt= victims of nuclear radiation contamination, while we acknowledge the views of thosegí& negotiation of a nuclear weapons ban treaty the united 1aotj cannot and will not support efforts to pursue such a ban.2añ we believe the practical path that we haveh'"a÷ so successfully followed in the past only realistic route to our goal of a nuclear weapons free world. .gleke)áuáu e remembered that we share the same goal b÷ we just have different ideas about how to process to that goal. the international community cannot ignore or wish away the onbstacles facing us on arms control and ínonproliferation

efforts. we must all acknowledge thatoi)] not every nation is ready? or being to pursue2!yx arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we are &ñ ensuring new andyxf6ñ -- pressures that threaten global &ity. we are seeing nations turn,g?÷ away from cooperation, turn away from the common good of nonpro fuápáion efforts andx clinging'kvkç more tightlydt to their nuclear arsenals. as we push thoseaknz nations to accept their global and ethical responsibilities, the united states will maintain a save, secure, and effective arsen5f2ui for the defense of our nation and our allies. this is not a stance that is mutually exclusive of u.s. disarment goals by nof $4 means. it simply5-4ñ recognizes that the international security environment in which we find ourselves is3hjtj one in which we must take account of andjwx pursue further progress in a very difficult,r overarching situation. we aren5y confident of our obligations and responsibilities and we are meetinghñ them.

the united states also knows it has a responsibility to lead efforts towardrz [ isarment and i canbh)% -- xn)41÷ relechblt in this pursuit. there are people here in washington and people around the world who see t0e)ky landscape and see that we cannotlr control the7cr spread of weapons of mass destruction nor further limit stockpiles. they are wrong. it was in prague that president fatalism is a deadly b8#adversary, for if we believcq that thet4x r(t&háhp &hc% spread of nuclearl&q÷ weapons is inevitable, we are admitting to ourselves that the÷d nuclear weapons is inevitable. again the united statesçvñ(jju and will not accept this. when we failed to pursue b the presidíiy also said, it stays bi$- oure eñ cooperatiq z easy but also a cowardfhnwlyl. thing to do. the united states will press ahead even in the face of many

on stack ( accomplished much over the ac91 five al +áák we push forward. we have no intention of diverting from oursyñç active efforts to reduce the @ nuclear weapons, increase confidence and transparency, we will do soukra pursuing all available and practical avenues.-y&í0i> comprehensive test ban treaty organization in jordan the so-called ife 14 integrated field exercise 14. such practical efforts helped to ensure that the international community will have ani verification regime in plies for the dairy when the cbt enters the force. the united states has made it# ' @r(t&háhp &hc% clear that we are prepared to

engage with 1÷russia, and there are real and meaningful steps we should be taking that can contribute to a more predickable, safer security environment. given thatk b÷ the united states and russia continue to possess over 9 "4ífç the world, this is an important and worthy 50-o&.bo2vi z june of 2013 inv% president obama stated, u.s. willingness to negotiate a reduction of up to 1/3 ofo:" our strategic nuclear mr progress requires a willing partner and a strategic environment. on the boarder world stage, progress towards disarmament requires that stateskaeq- beath responsibility to resolve the conflicg sy>: ut rise to arel[ ufxive rationbeu danger sqs,o---er

requires that we make progress elsewhere when web ]ñ can. this importantly includes in the middle east, where we will spare no effort to convenenevm historic+. conference on a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and y tjjt their delivery and our assistant secretary for proliferation thomaszxhk countryman is slngaged in this as well as our envoy adam shooinman. as1çvñy the united states considers mon h.)guprolive -- closely with our allies and partners every step of the way, ou security and defense and theirs is simplyfv9]b nonnegotiable. we are in a difficult crisis period j ith to the russian federation, i began with that. the matters include not only ukraine, but also russia's violations of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, the

imfw9 x treaty.5&3ñ address with specific regard to>tp thesrmóm russian v continue to resolve u.s.eio6nñ conc'ó< our objective is for rc return to verifiable compliance to nuclear treaty negotiations. indeed, we need cooperation with to address new threats first and qñ foremost, the threat of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon or nuclear material.;z )zñn]s÷ they need this cooperation for their own f?u ecurity, as well asw for the security of other countries around the globe. as i have ñódqoutlined here this morning, there's no way to skip to the end and forego the hard work of resolving the nuclear disarmament challenges that lie ahead. i{5(not enough to have theb8po$(t&háhp &hc% political will toqj6ñ pursue this ageneral darks we@hfzq have to have a practical way to pursue this

agenda. we can all acknowledge that verification will become increasinglyçk numbers of nuclear weapons -- as we lower the number of nuclear weapons while reqw7fk'ents for$vh'ñ actively determining compliance will dramatically increase. everyone who shares a world free of nukeclear weapons will be devoting al3m+ct of time and energy, with that idea in mind, i announced in prague, a new initiative, the international partnership for nuclear disarmament(l:c verification. the united states proposes to work with both @ñ8l states and 6&;çñnonnuclear weapons tec9-(s problems ofocy verifying nuclear disarmentf 59 tos!>s u r solutions, the united kingdoma> and norway have already pioneered this type of work. the new initiative will build on that experiment to create ab nontraditional partnership that /nf1 o ddh on the expertise(ff and talq,brjt people around the

world both in and out of6 government. and i am delighted that the.5my nuclear threat initiate-to-will @ñ:"qhip r(t&háhp &hc% provide a nrt never. we are+z with them on it andj muq hope to work with2i5k more of you on this initiative as so i do hope that we'll have md going discourse as we roll out the agenda for the initiative fu(p the process side,:gs5ñ procedural side or actually# technology side as well. we truly do want a wide ranging>?+xx partnership with the nongovernmental community..#(v+h beyond this effort, w=(w will continue to work+mh r2t(v!( with the mp-5 a @r(t&háhp &hc% and -- sixthbxh-ó annual p-5 conference in london. the regular e and trust building that are happening now in this p-5 forum/6j# a2nay1the basis on what future p-5a

negotiations will stand. in closinoñ78 i would like to make it clearqñ thatsq( has plans and nl wl]@ú2ñ times to e tñ ut weapons. radiation and contaminatiotcz4ad economic problems as well.j !vmg that is why the united staten sent a delegation9

>> let me take the questions and rf1ok -- approximate welñ1é have an÷ga about hour or two to grill you now. when you're looking at the j overall u.s.-russia relationship over the past year obviously there's the crisis over the ukraine that's been a big shadow. and you did l )jz that despite that, theá3axy russians have3#rp@ v worked in a]dwn cooperative way in the implementation of new s.t.a.r.t.

but you have been to moscow you have met with deputy -- how ÷ has that/rebáamñ >]ted those v÷exchanges dorg >> =41;jjz quite honestke and there are a lot of you know,á!$ speculations out there=,÷ that things have gone/1q%x severely worse since the crisis inúród the ukraine and i would say that the -- some of the hesitation we saw from the russian federation about1gv7 disarmament agenda had emerged&- wellgcrñ:am> before the crisis overl%x(qhax e ñ ukraine. there were concerns about and many of you remember, there were wz@!j5&qwq)ies of issues they said were of ce they wanted to engage in any further separate ; reductions negotiations. including mississippi valley= ñ>pñ defenses-conventional global strike, a nib of issues were out

there, which i saw as serving a blocking function to any further discussion of nuclear disarment measures in the periodz$< entered into force. and oh by the way, another key through3:h@f that period in the runup to the ukraine crisis,k!h was that essentially h implemented afv fó they womk(]z have toaa mw proceed with any new negotiations. g7jñ3?á=u new sn4k).t. will be fully y implemented onool january 1 of 2018. but i have been arguing regularly to my russian c7myñ6gues, that not only is the berlin proposal in their security interest as well as ours and no country enters into anas arms control treaty unless interest. but furthermore, it'so of proposalff that could be implemented that wefd=u1 implement new s.t.a.r.t. and

immediatelyk@/build out from that and implementing- proposal. so i.pjo just wanted to make people aware that we had i would=lzú say hesitations and barriers in the way evenqf% before ukraine crisis emerged. since the ukraine crisis emerged, the situation has been#6f4 complicated, by the severity of that terrible crisis. however, i would also say that i think continuingex5&y signs out there of pragmatism and a business=@ic like start treaty k8&rimplementation, but prior;g6g success with the syria51 weapons project, getting fénkñ1,300 tons of chemical weapons qn f z period bet1c& and september of 2014.4gym>0arj +a(ñry fnp

that was assigned with)ñ chemicalja1:ñ weapons out of the country.ç1÷ there's still more work to8jq our concerns about the capabilities that the syrians may not havezrcd declared to the kxlwç opcw, never the less, i think?sí that's a good sine of a continuing attitude in moscow. and the' colleague went yes sherman and fgt is the so calledqchz p-5 plus one talks. where again, there's been< (÷ a very business like attitude by the russians and they continue t$g&l help move that agenda forward. soñ it's anb interestingbr@ mixed picture, i would say, and people have askedñ /ñjdb mexqw÷ why iz?g continue to be optimistic, despp 1ky the negative trend 8qoelines, part of it is assocfd like attitude thatn%c i have scene when the russians have clearly>8!ñ @r(t&háhp &hc% decided that it is in their national security interest to continue to cooperate.7c+é

>> let mejw6 ña3 a second t/question when you mentioned the violation of the imfc7!> xik[treat9 $;ó and theñeha÷ russians came out and said, well, we:+v have three concerns where we agree with the united states in terms of use of drones, targ c#v!ñmissiles for the sm-3"mñhqdç interceptor and a questiont about the vertical lock boxes inc@ poland. how do you respond to those charges?>)4h >> first and foremost what thewu cf]pz statemento the united states remains fully in compliance with the imf treaty, and furthermor uhás i talk about thepd(áq very substantive -- the defense department has the lead for those assessments, but neverthelessv consultation with other agencies of our government so0@ we say we have a careful process and weh come toúz@). careful determination

and we say to the russians, don't you have such a process of wealth? essentially that's part of my discourse with them to talk about thec9leózñ necessity of compliance being whole of government type of issue. i'll put i will c qsay,@ i know there's been a lot ofoi÷ interest in this and takingn0!÷ from(2zvy the interest we have heard from the nongovernmental$x cñ

very solid interagency process. e2f[ >> let me go ahead and open up[9iñ the questions to the audience.8exd state your name and affiliation should be something resembling a question markr añ at the end, there in the front.&x >> good morning, madam secretary. q 5 -- seeing as we're speaking about the dangers of nuclear weapons, i wanted to ask you about the u.s. modernization+ program, and specifically, ipf+f wanted you to comment on a newsm article by the professorllv2] from -- so i@itwá read you two brief the information. and i would like you to comment on those. close analysis ".qsreveals a technical and#u effort to use nuclear sources for a direct confrontation with

russia, as point number one, and onnpointnrjsñ ,) number two. it'síé disturbing indication that to the use.o of nuclear against russia can be fought and won. any grtfghts on that? >> gñ disagree profoundly on both i have made repeatedly to my interloc!1 ñ cutev zap;z fors in moscow, we have been through this before the last thing we need to do now is repeat the &n>mistakes of to the coldcç ç sm

of the arsenal waskm2z essentially jq out of its guaranteed period of service, to the cold war the ss-19s, they have passed out of their servicex4 life, soiot russia.añ has had -- russia,íp3z has been yçc focusing on.[int modern nicization of strategic 3?h second deczkñ of the 20th zlylb century, now under s>, he united states is puttingj resources into stu judicious modernization of our strategic forces. so there's a bit of a lag-time here, but i would say bothñ moscow and making some decisions about again what i consider to bebrbf judicious modernization war era systemsyp/ going outó1:mn

of their service life.é%aylñ >> rose, thank yougq( ranging brief. one of the challenges out there.$cr mw that you mentioned is the growth of nuclear3 arsenals in asia i was wondering if you could expand a bit on that z+; (u&ar problem and how yourz>p/et of the administration is thinking about dealing with that long-term problem. and01hf more specifically, if you can give'u+mçk5coz sense of the quality of our3e> discussions with the chinese on these particular issues, not just in the p-5 context, but bilaterally on the question/oñh?1jñ of strategic@:acç stanltbility. i remember the very first meeting inzirw london in september of 2009 which was i considered it a pro toe meeting, it was one

of those meetings where you9;z4 have been/h. g2fáñ"sf iú]x in government, you reck recognize that people exchange their scripts. but in the five years since, there has been a steady increase in the amountg interaction in thesee ñ ,ykykyz0meetings, and aih mature ration and$s new the interactions among all of the )!b@tp-5. so i very(/b1ç much welcome m/ax÷again, uk host of the first p) meeting and returning at the end of the first cycle know the discussion will be verù!yq rich andd actually we iá(?v i think, putting a lot of issues on the o#j%1%qeo &ñ having to air them and exchange viewings on

i want to give try credit to theef. governmental have been going on in regard to china and a lot of -- there's a lot ofñ interesting vu developments i would say in those settings with the chinese being willing to talk about details of verification regimes and that type they had not been able to historically to really touch on those topics or had simply beenmr inr aji" listening mode and not willing to come outlk(-ñ or participate in these proje,2 and theser activities are reflected on the particular practical, i would>:fí say, developments, i mentioned the ip-14 in jordan a coupleuddáutt)j ago i was there for the vip day and/h got to see a number of thewip various sensor systems1e

and so forth that have been brought. one of the most impressive inñ sensor=%0nnsensor that theicz?÷ chinese text kl teams havez'ñ worked on and brought, they had it there and showing how it would operate for the vips, many of us not knowing anything technically, it was good to see at chinese tickle thñm ey had brought by the rest1ys"át 0xgá$u(jo&mv good to seeík on an international basis. andmkz(xm of you who know the ambassador, he was there as well representing china as and he was one of the negotiators of the him

not seea% !efore i came into k this time 69 in t0l,kxñ last five years i think there'sóh been a real intensifyication their intentions to engage both some true prablg kl results. >> inside the pentagon i wasksdç just a littleymv%ç curious about the international partnership, i was3c;y wondering is that something that needs funding and would that go in the fy-16 7á i was also weiring when we might see results from the partnership and what kind of reception you have heard from our internationalawt partners on the partnership? >> are you talking about the global partnership? for nuclear árdp[scñdisarmament. >> the verification partb&#v)r( i beg your pardon. we are starting small with this we have someíp particular -- some particular early projects that we are engaging, we are working very, veryñdá#closely with thej@j uk and?

to emphasize andnahgñg focus on war head verification, because it is tackled as a true international matter and part of the rationale here is tor"b$ convey to nonnuclear weapons states theelg plex si ofá#áa this nuclear disarmament agenda. that is monitoring and verifying the reduction and elimination7warheads, that's a very, veryäár complicated matter because the huge(% sensitivity obviously of war head arsenals and it has to be handledú!%q a way that doesff!cf1 o not allow sensitive8"tñ information to get out and contribute to any proliferation threat. we'll be concentrateing on building on: eñ norway-uk experience and expanding out from that. and i should give full credit towyq

the bilateral acts wezle -- between the united states and russia. at that time there was some really decent work that was done on information barriers and that type of thing.[ x so again there are other )jz stones thatnz(ff@?p we can build on but i don't want to limit it, because that's a set 2 of projects that were li#x at the time, but they're[= u now over a6@z@xp)b;v decade old.qa bñ ng/f3&omorning, madam"bfyñ secretary. i was wondering if there had been a date set for the next discussion with russia about zúár and what that engagement would entail on the >> i would never ever talk about our quiet diplomatic scheduling in any detail.f>xr(t&háhp &hc% but i can assure you that the interactions are ongoing.gqk1gñwrjp8 z-vcdig -akhfñ a(s!jf÷

>>r5iz you referred to theá ambassador in south korea.c how do you see thatged cms prospect? >>paúç first of all, with regard to x v north korea we are verü£q interested, of course, in

returning to the0ck@ñ process of denuclearization of the korean peninsula. but that process)q%9 can only take place if north korea re-establishes it's bona fides%bç between the international community. we need4xú to concrete indicators that are serious aboutf negotiations, they÷%;

p-5-plus one context and we are all hopeful that that4r;8)pr(t&háhp &hc% negotiation will produce good resultsøy in the nextram k coming months and ig we'll see some good results toward the time of the npt i hope that will have a salutoryç@ effect on the north korea situation and that it will be a kind of signal that it's time2 to move forward with somew$s problem solving also on the korean korea's nuclear weapons. so wexfja÷ will see howzn( that works. buto some momentum that results, perhaps from a number ofriql-dft different directions in the comingrññ9d4x e÷5ey but that is one that i think is worth zlqd j on your second question, are%, ñ youo04tñ referring to the"ykyi31-2-3 agreement? the 1-2-3 agreement, the agreement for nuclear ---i don't diplomacy that's going 9"'2on but i will say we have made excellent

pz-zess in the negotiations and i don't see anyglzvl reason why we should not be able to completeú1óìáhp &hc% it in á short order. again, i don't want to talk about any details of3w"d meetings)n. y and so forth.2 >> thank you very much, rose, for our overrule. thanks for pressing tough+qs issues5fi and ilñchallenges. question about the upcoming :z review conference and the humanitarianazn zñ÷:/bimpacts dialogue. first, very pleased to see the united states participating in that meeting. as you.e?÷ know, one of the disappointment about the progress on the disarmed action and oneú raised at ther meeting was concern aboutjyh÷ñ the incompatibility of the potential use of nuclear weapons with

international humanitarian law and the laws of war. are you thinking about or planning on engaging with some of the non-nuclear weapon:ñqeñ states through the p5 process to discuss how .ñ the united states and other nuclear arm53qi;

practically over -- near,ácf 70-year non-use of nuclear weapons must be extended forever. that we must continue to do everything we can to ensure that dzz weapons are never used again. that is at the heartbo0 of u.s. policy in this regard and in our ownákz ational arsenal that was -- and in our own inter.x@hnal doctrine that w?ì put forward in the nuclearr,0ñ posture review and in the implen mentation study that ensued from the nuclear posture review.=™ñ so, we will continue to bes definitely(+%9 points that were$m! made in the 'ñnpr and in the$ publicly as well.h4&fth that's actually a good ]'nñreminder+t)!

iz7 international community of the veryúg(ñ significant in my view, policy steps and initiatives that thee=bñ administration has undertaken since it came into office to really put in place the structure for de-emphasizing nu9=z@p weapons in our doctrine and policy and in our overarching militaryñ0fu arsenal. so, good >> tds$ you.7tñ leann, russian press. specificallyte3rjz the inf treaty in a hearing with congress last week you wereçvzau pressed toxjy+n makeúr@# the statement 1yesf,yóu it is

the united states' 3< russia is non-compliant in the treaty. so very%nfis exactly is -- whatu=ñ exactly is the reasoning for its o8ésa e4mñ non-compliance. is it the?x is it the x 101 cruiseci67 missiles and where ú3 ly location wise is it nonyhfv-comenon-compliant? is itag&-÷ x

federation -- i should be clear for this audience if you're not familiar with inf, it's:!bffuúz a total 5,500 kilometers, so it matter whether they're deployed or development, then they are not compliant with the inf treaty. it is that concernúfa] that we raised in ther compliance report in july of 2014f:a2l and i have beeng,/zk continuing to raise with the russian federation. it is a ground-launch cruise missile. it is neither of the systems that you 100 s n it& is? i'm seen some of those reflections in the press and it's not that one. so i think it'sv#é% really r ycw

important to focus down on you know, a good discussion of this&! matter. that's my basic point. the russians have made certaint0fñ allegations against the united iz states. steve already raised that this morning. we believe that we are complete compliance with the -- with the infa: ó sorry. and were willing tow ys talkxdáñ about that with the russian federation but we need to hear rt russian side as that's the3) y most importants .ñ thing from our perspective. this can't be a ñ&one-sidedr!cñighg÷ conversation.é(ur++rq$çmñí6trzy% jdq >>ñbñxñ thank madame undersecretary, i'm@ mqñ fleck. one point)au i want to totally 4$"s(hasize is that we've asked

you to send a delegation to the vienna conference and/ thank you on behalf of your members all over the country, also asking you to do so, thanks to you, thanks to secretary kerry, thanks to president obama for making the decision. i know it wasn't easy. nonproliferation there was -- i think thatn united states policy mav&ñ be out of step with theu

but i think at the npt you may find that other nations and peoplekp34z here in the united states also sense t8 6ñt$355 billion expenditure over the next ten years, a trillion dollars over the next 30 years is not judicious and it is not indicative of a nation that'sõhv& moving to live up to its article vi. so my question, what's1sqñ my question? it's really a favor. wouldl+uáu ask the president to put the brakes on thebkñ to improve the opticsc÷ as we go into the i0pnpt dñj♪qreview? >> well, me say a few things. first of all, about our deciájqex to attend the vienna conference we really saw ityen< as an opportunity to makeouz case that i've made to youp this morning and( good discourse and debate with broad spectrum of views and i welcome the opportunity to hear other viewsd@ó in this room this81

morning, but these wmq@sbe a continuing so @r(t&háhp &hc% and f1 o there's no question about it. but our coreflmnj'fs rational for going to vienna was to make sure that our story was out there kú to because i do want to make sure that fromba $85% reduction in the u.s.┌d arsenal of strategic --a full stop since 1967 is a significant step on thew q road to disarmorment and we areg6!çp continuing further elimination and cé single day. so the notion -- i just don'txah accept the notion that things si,eìáhp &hc% have stalled. i want that message to be very clear for this32 audience. we will continue to press thatár message forward and weátéç can &-bf1 o debate it and this matter of, you know5)ñ whether our modernization is judicious or not i'm sure will also be strongly debated. i welcome thehñ((ñ debate. but our reason for going to the conference was a practical one and thatjh is we felt it very importap8yz get our side of the

story out there. and i hope opportunity to continue, you know with openp] mindedness among the community to hear what0 have to say as uptwell. and so i think that's how i'll answer your %0tdñ#, )szquestion. so thank you.eet >> hi, my nameññ4ñ is rebecca gibbons.xjnu"tr provide contractor support for with that) yw in .iñmind,w/%m i want to ask you about thepzp 9 m!%aforyy:úñ verification< will be involved in that effort and if it's going to be an innerioiqñ agency effort. >>h0 [x9c interagencyr effort.