it's not in the department. >> thank you. let me go back to my questions. admiral, we sort of decided on this rebalance to asia before the latest provocations from russia. if sequestration returns in october, what sort of gaps will this create towards rebalance strategy.

one of the top priorities we have is presence. you won't see a budget reduction in our forward presence. japan, singapore and guam will continue to increase. we are increasing the forces in the european command as we look at how we're going to deploy in the future. strictly for the reason you stated with the instability in the africom and the ucom region.

it's not dramatic, but it is there. >> so the asia pacific won't take a hit from the sequestration and our european presence will not take a hit from sequestration. those will take place elsewhere? >> those forces forward won't be as dramatic. >> >>. >> as you know i've been worrying about afghanistan. general dempsey told our committee there's a terrorist network that stretches from afghanistan to nigeria. he went onto say i think afghanistan is and will remain an anchor point for that

pressure. do you agree with that. >> i think a plat form for which the united states can protect its swres is absolutely correct. >> am i right to worry ant those are based on more of a political calculation rather than the facts on the ground. >> senator, they're all reviewing the current plan in light of the points you just made. >> things are headed in the right direction in afghanistan.

they want us there. as a stabilizing force. >> the cause of all mankind. i almost want to substitute the word cost there. it seems to fall on the united states of america.

there's a sound basis in this proposition. we kept freedom of navigation open for anybody engaged in peaceful and legitimate trade as the president said, we have been the anchor of global security. this is for you but also for our friends, internationally. we keep the lanes open for them. our friends in europe are depending on exactly what you're talking about. we've got to come up with a plan to convince our partners in international security that it is in their interest, too, to

make the financial sacrifice to help us afford all of the protection you're going to give in the world. would you like to comment on that, mr. secretary? >> first let's say we have been friends for a long time. second, it's one of the reasons that we're pursuing these parter in ships. that's a message that you just gave that i take to countries around the world. that we can't do it by ourselves. as part of that, to make sure that we go into things together. and one of the things that -- one of the tangible things that's happening right now that's a sort of partnership that not only we need, but that

the world need. >> thank you, i've gone way over. i hope i speak for my ranking member that you'll perhaps give us some language to address the problems that you pointed out in that very confusing chart. if there's suggestions you have i hope you'll get them to me. >> the senator is correct. he's gone way over. thank you, mr. chairman. i have taken warning of that comment that you just made. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your service. i want to tell you and you already know you have a great team sitting there with you. thank you for everything you've

done for our country. we were extraordinarily blessed to have you on command. i also want to mention, mr. secretary, i want to take a moment to recognize the superior performance of the navy's nuclear forces. it has been exceptional and has not gone unnoticed. now, let me ask you about suicide prevention. it's been such a challenge. it's been something that we've all worked on together. what i want to talk about is physician assistance.

they have a great reputation in the mission. second, to admiral and mr. secretary, what are your thoughts about expanding the services use of pas specializing in psychiatric care to fill some of the provider gaps that we see? >> it's an excellent idea. clearly, we can help folks with resiliency in the psychological arena. >> senator, i'm big fans of nurse practitioners of people we can get out in bigger numbers to help with some of this resiliency. as you point out, suicide is one of the big challenges we face. and not just in the military.

it's the second leading cause of death. what are your thoughts on the utility of physician assistants also helping in the marine core with sick trick care? >> senator thanks. i think my answer would be similar. it's a sense that i would be supportive of anything. how big a threat do you see that in the years a4ed head? >> it's important for us to stay on top of that because some of the counter fit parts that we've detected the crane found were critical parts in our

submarines. it's one of those capableties that we've absolutely got to keep up. it's part of the acquisition strategy that we've got to have adequate oversight i'll go a little bit farther here in our acquisition work force that people around the country that oversaw things like this went down pretty considerably. and, since 2010, we've been rebuilding that work force to do exactly some of those very specialized skills like that. >> the marines have played such a strong role in iraq. a lot of extraordinary relations were created between the marines and the sunni tribes. as we take the battle to isil can you give me an update as to what role the marines are

playing in terms of trying to cultivate those long term relationships? we do have forces in our province today. in addition, to developing those relationships in the province we've got marines protecting the embassy in baghdad. also, we provide the air takt kal command. we support the strikes with joint force air kraft. we support the strike that is go into iraq and syria with the v-22 so that if something did happen, we'd be in position to cover air craft and personnel. >> thank you. >> thaing, mr. chairman.

>> in your judgment, are your missions sufficient -- are there individual munitions whose inventories present or projected, which are insufficient to meet the requirements? and, if so what are they and what is being done to address the short falls? for operations today, we have su efficient missions. there's a series of missions we have to do. they're effectively based upon the war plans. they are air-to-air they are

surface to surface, if you will. now, the air-to-air has two lmts. there's a long range and a medium range. both of those have shortfalls chlts and our lightweight torpedo, we have a shortfall. you have to have enough to reload. that's kind of a baseline, sur. >> senator, we have adequate ammunition today. the three are in javelin systems and tow systems. the other areas, that's in

artillery system. it is a large number of other areas that are short. again, it's been a decision that we've made as we try to balance. for the marine corps, as i mentioned in my opening statement, we'll always ensure that our units that are deployed have the where with all to accomplish the mission. so it's taking risk against a major contingency. that's exactly what we've done in the case of ammunition. >> thank you. >> are there costs that do not currently have those authorities. if there are, would you care to e lab rate on them?

>> well, thanks. senator, thanks to this committee in particular, thanks to congress. we've got multi-year authority on things like the virginia class submarines, where we built ten submarines for the price and nine. we've got a multiyear on our destroyers. we expand those systems for weapons and things like that would certainly be helpful.

so that industry knows what we're going to buy so they can buy things and that we can drive the costs down. the chart i held up shows just some of the steps that we have to go through even if we get them all we have to go through this very convoluted process that has no value at the end and it doesn't give us a better weapons system. >> thank you. mr. chairman i'll yield back my nine sekts.

>> i want to begin by thanking you for your service to our country. i know that all of us on this committee join me in congratulateing you. i think it's really critically important to the virginia class submarines that are going to be procuring. and, as you know the virginia payload module adds significantly to the number of tomahawks that can be paired, i think it's 76%.

in subsequent year one, whether that program can be axelccelerated so that more of the virginia class boats have the vpm and are able to increase their capacity to deliver that kind of attack. >> we're going to look at that. senator. and, i think by in april, may, we'll be done studying that. we'd like to do that. we have to look at the technical risks associated with that. so if it's feasible, we'll give it a good try to get that done.

if we go to that year, 18 we're into secretary just mentioned a block buy, that we have a block buy in there. so we're going to have to transition that bridge if you will, into trying to manipulate such a major part into a block buy. so i don't know what it will do. >> we have to study that. >> what do you think is the timetable for making that determination? >>. >> by may. i'm sorry, with your staff and make sure they know how it's coming along. >> if you could keep us informed, i would appreciate it. >> will do, yes, sir. >> let me move to an issue that

i know concerns all of you. is it enough to deal with post-traumatic stress which, as you also know, is a cause of not only trek to readiness but also suicide and other facts. >> senator we consciously protected those programs as we built the president's budget in 2016. but i would tell you, again, it goes back to what happens with bca levels or sequestration. it would become increasingly difficult. >> a number of personnel-related issues has been questioned. and challenged.

i wonder whether there's more that you can see being done to better relate and transfer information that is important to disability claims and health care. >> as we move them from active duty to the va, we've got a goal in days of how long it takes to move someone, both navy and marine corps under that goal. we're doing it faster. but the goal is not guilty a quick goal. it's too long.

we need to get better at that. it is something that we're very, very conscious of. and trying to eliminate duplication in terms of determination that both dod and the va run and sometimes they do the same things at different times! thank you. i appreciate your service and that you're willing to testify. i'd like to start with you, sir. the budget that we have right now in front of us reflects a switch from land base to operations large scale battles back to being a quick, reactionary force.

we seem to be caught off guard by our adversaries. our enemies seem to be stockpiling weapons, some of which are the m-16s and the m-4s. we have been using this individual weapon system for 50 years now. it was developed in 1964. is it possible while we're modernizing our aviation platforms, within the budget, is there room to move on advancing individual weapons systems that put us at a technological advantage over our adversaryiesadversaries?

>> that actually is one of my greatest concerns. we know the marine corps needs to invest a minimum of 11, 12%. this year, we're at about 9%. today, i think we're doing a pretty good job. i'm not satisfied we're investing enough in the capableties that we need to fight tomorrow. i agree with your point that we need to be able to do that. it's not the same fight. it's the marine behind the weapon that makes the m-16 most effective. but your point about increased investment is one of the sacrifices we've made. that we continue to fight today's fight and make sure our marines that are fore-deployed

have what they need. >> exceptional, general. it is that marine that's behind that weaponing. making sure we have the means to do that is extremely important. one thing that i would love to address to both admiral and to you, as well, general, and secretary, secretary. >> i would love to hear your comments on back membered opponents! this is the hundredth anniversary of the navy reserve this year. just a few days ago. so happy anniversary. >> happy anniversary.

we are absolutely unable to function without our navy reserve today. they've gone from sort of folks that were there for a strategic force in case of the big war. as we go to the unmanned and the remote areas they are our operators in waiting. a lot of them are integrating fully. so there are other areas that they're working their way into. very effect ef force woven into the fiber of who we are today. >> thank you. >> senator, thanks. our ability to meet the combatant's requirements on a day-to-day process is inextricably linked to the readiness of everything that we do.

>> thank you very much, gentlemen. thank you, mr. chair. >> gentlemen thank you for your service and a particular hello to admiral granard this being your last forced posture testimony.

it is important that the asia pacific area is important to our national security as the conflicts are arising in other parts of the world. as you stated in your testimony, kwt we must have the right platforms in the right places to ensure our friends and allies understand e understand our kmitment." >> the rebound has to be more rhetoric. as it updates a strategic lay down, it will ensure that future plans reflect the rebounds in terms of equipment, personnel and partnership opportunities and i certainly look forward to further discussions with you. secretary, do you think that this budget reflects our continued commitment? >> senator, i do. the commitment is real. it's absolute. and you can begin to see the things that are already happening.

you're seeing the second deployment of an lcs to singapore. and, by 2017, we'll have four lcss in singapore. the crews will follow in on the ships. within the next year or two, that will go up to a full 2500 marines, special purpose marine ground air task force. you're seeing the plans that we have. we're going from about 55 fleet

in the region to 60 pbt. the fleet is getting bigger. 60% of this fleet is going to be bigger than the fleet of the past. >> this is the minimum that we have to have in order to do not only the rebalance, but all the other missions that we're called upon to do. >> thank you. i think i heard your response to senator donly. and i believe you said that you do have a concern about that. and i just wanted to ask you one question, though. you do have a concern about counterfit parts. >> yes. >> so i was just wondering whether you were aware of any technological product that can be embedded in parts to ensure

that it is not a counterfit part. >> senator x i'm not aware of any specific chip or whatever you can invent. >> i am aware of the particular product. >> we do need a sustained long term commitment to research and development in this area meeting our energy security needs and preserving the severity of our forces in the faces of energy challenging in the 2st 1 century are posht goals.

>> using energy more efficiently and diversifying are certainly agreeing with our efforts. can you give us an update briefly, of the 2009 formal energy goals and how does the proposal support these energy goals. i'm sure it will come from nonfossil fuel. >> in terms of afloat, we will

buy no alternative fuels unless it's absolutely cost competitive with traditional fuels. we've demonstrated we've certified all of our ships, all of our aircraft on this. in terms of efficiencies, we are making great strides and efficiencies. and the president's budget supports both the indull jill sills. >> i want to thank the chairman and our military in such an important time. i just wanted to associate myself with some of the comments that senator made about the

paemt module. it's possible to do that. >> i also wanted to follow up admiral, in your prepared statement, you've noted that our naval shipyards are critical to maintaining war fighter readiness for the force. i certainly agree with that. and in order to have a strong tax submarine fleet, we need to ensure that those submarines are maintained properly and quickly and combat ready. one thing that i wanted to ask about is making sure that the facilities that we have are prepared to do that. and doing that in the most efficient way. in doing that, they have the

workers workers. >> the maintenance, in april of last year, they undocked the u.s.s. topeka 20 days ahead of schedule. they returned the u.s.s. california to the fleet 14 days ahead of schedule. in september, they delivered the u.s.s. springfield back to they're working in struck which you shops that are, on average 100 years old and have deteriorated to the partial failure to which he deemed is condemned and the buildings have

exceeded their useful life. the fact that they're delivering faster and under-budget, even with these facilities can you imagine what they could do with more modern facilities. there's a military construction project that has been submitted for reprogramming p-266 structural shops consolidation. it will address many of the problems that i just talked about. most importantly, save money and time, which i know we're all looking to do and result in submarines being sent back to the fleet even more quickly. i'm confident if we're able to do this, it will allow them to do an even better job and they're doing an incredible job now. admiral, i'm not expecting you to be familiar with all of these right now, but i would like an update on where this

reprogramming request sits and, obviously, i don't need you, if you have it now, great. if you don't that's something you could submit to our office as quickly as possible, i'd appreciate it. >> i want to talk to you about the navy civilian work force and what we see in terms of the importance of this civilian work force. many of them, i think as the economy improves the competition for the types of skills that they have that they're able to work on such important equipment, we're going to see competition for their skills and be able to serve the navy.

can you talk to me about the strength of the civilian work force and any concerns you may have had? >> thank you, senator. in terms of the public shipyards, like portsmouth, if you want to see the effects of sequestration, you don't have to look any further than that. there was a hiring freeze put in place because of sequestration. they could not be in place. there was a furlough. some of them were exempt from, but not all. they do great work. but they have to have enough of those artisans, enough of those people with the specific skills to do it.

again, that is a great, tangible example. the civilian work force at large, we wouldn't have a fleet to put in the sea. they are, in every way, an intragal vital part of our navy marine corps. >> thank you, mr. tech e secretary. >> ma'am this morning, there's a great article for what the director on office of personal management is trying to do. we are trying desperately to hire people into our shipyards. we need the build it up. it's hard. the gourd yan knot of getting people through to hire someone, it's difficult. >> these are incrediblial ented people. i've had a chance to meet many

of them -- >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> admiral green, i'm going to associate my comments. i'm sure you're very sad that this is your last hearing before this committee. we've had long and very distinguished career. and i want to thank you. i can remember my dad standing in front of me on the telephone looking at his long distance watch. i think they've had some spiritual kinship. admiral, the arctic is an important area of policy i know you've been looking at.

>> we need to get up there and study the place. find out when is it going to melt what are the sea lines of communication open. that is where a sealine of communication is. also, how do we survive up there. our ships, our aircraft and our people. >> i think just a simple example about infrastructure, ice breakers, we have one heavy duty, one medium duty coast guard. the russians have 17 ice breakers in the arctic. that's an example of how we are not really adequately, i believe, developing our strategic interests in that region. again, for the secretary and

admiral, it strikes me that had one of the issues that isn't talked about and i don't have to pile on that subject we all agree that it's a serious risk to the national security of this country. but the industrial base, you can't turn off and on a shipyard. and one of the things that worries me, as i rook at charts from bath iron works, for example, in maine if we don't have the workload, the employment drops down. >> it's one of the reasons that i said in the larger statements of the committee that i will protect shipbuilding to the maximum extent possible.

it's not reversible. if you lose those highly-skilled workers and their unique skills, they're not easily learned. in fact, i was -- senator reed said i was at kwanzaa point for the u.s.s. colorado. they recognized more that shall ten people celebrating their 40th anniversary at that shipyard. that worked there for more than four years. so the industrial base, if you lose it, if you lose these high-quality high-skilled shipbuilders, you don't get them back. and you -- you see the effects today in terms of bathd or some of our other shipyards.

what you see is the effect on our fleet. i'm going to protect shipbuilding until the last dog dies. we're going to try to stay there partnershiply for the industrial base. >> and one of the problems is the long lead time means that shortchanging we're doing now is going to have the effect five, ten years from now. i remember learning in driver's ed if you are going above a certain speed, your head lights won't illuminate the wall in time for you to stop. in ole fejt, there's a wall out there that we're very close to hitting. >> we are living today with decisions that were made 10, 15 years ago in terms of the size of our fleet. the people sitting in all of these chairs 15 20 years from

now, they'll live with the decision we make. >> you live with a quote from theodore roosevelt about the navy is an strult of peace. from that same speech, roosevelt said something that is extraordinarily applicable to the discussion we had today about ready nks. they ever unsurpassed in daring resolution. to build the finest ship with the deadliest battery and to send it afloep with a raw crew would be to ensure disaster if a flow of average capacity wr encountered. this is the payoff line.

neither ships nor men can be imp ro vised when the war is done. improvised when the war has begun. general dunford, i would assume this is all about readiness and training and the irresponsibility of our not solving this funding problem so that you can have your men and women ready. >> absolutely, senator. that is what you expect from the nation's ready force. when you call us, we're there. as i mentioned earlier when you called us for today's crisis we respond actually today. and that is what it's all about. >> thank you gentlemen for your service. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to all the witnesses. admiral greenert i add my comments to those of my colleagues about your service and we'll miss you at these hearings. you've been very, very helpful. we all appreciate that. on sequester, i can't resist, secretary mabus, since you started talking about how cheap your dad was. i've done a lot of budgets. i've done them as the managing director of a, you know, law

firm with lawyers in three countries. i've done them as a mayor. i've done them as a governor. i'm the only governor in the history of my state -- this is a sad accolade not a good one. i'm the only one that left with a smaller budget than the one i started with because of being governor in the worst recession in 75 years. sequester violates every principle of good budgeting that any competent manager in the public or private sector would follow. period. full stop. sequester violates every principle of budgeting that any competent private or public sector manager would follow. i am proud that one of my first votes as a senator in february 2013 was to eliminate the sequester. i know how to find budgetary savings. i've done it my whole life. but non strategic across the board cuts can be done with the slide rule. it is not about the application

of human judgment. and any budgetary philosophy that says we don't care about human judgment and we're just going to do the across the board cutting is foolish. i've watch us have rare discussions on this committee where i think we've all come to bipartisan consensus about afghanistan. and let me make an analogy that. a calendar based strategy is a bad idea. a conditions based strategy is a good idea. and i just want to analogize that to our budgetary reality. we're either going to be sequester-based and say, well, we're obligated to follow caps the congress put in place in august 2011, before we saw the degree of cyber attacks from northern korea, before we saw vladimir putin go into ukraine before isil was gobbling up territory in iraq and syria, before boko haram was slaughtering thousands upon thousands of people in africa. we're either going to be

sequester based and ignore all of that or we're going to be conditions based. and i would like to to ask all of my colleagues, we decided that we'd like to be conditions based not calendar based. and i would say for purposes of funding on military and other priorities let's be just as conditions base and let's not grab on to some bizarre, incompetent, budgetary theory, and elevate that over the security of the nation. that is just my editorial comment and what i intend to do as a member of the budget committee, as a member of the armed services committee, and certainly in any floor activity about budget or appropriations. i want to offer some praise to general dunford and admiral greenert. in your written testimony you both talked about something really important. which is helping your marines and sailors transition from active life to civilian life. the transition of people into a civilian workforce where only 1% of the adults have served in the military. so there isn't a natural

understanding for what a gun sergeant does for what an e-5 is. the care about that transition, which is something that i think the d.o.d. has generally woken up to more recently as we've had iraq and afghan war vets, especially enlisteds with unemployment rates that are unacceptably high, i think you've all come a long way in the last couple of years in being really intentional about this. and in both of your written testimonies you talk about efforts that have been under way to help folks get credentials that match civilian work skills and help people think in a more significant way about that transition. general dunford knows i have a son who's an officer in the marines. and about two weeks into taking his first platoon he called me up and i said dad my nco, who is the guy i'm really relying on, has just told me he's leaving in two weeks, and he doesn't know how to find a job. and if you wait until someone is at the end of their time and try to cram it all into their head and help them figure out how to transition the last couple of weeks, it's not going to work

very well. but if you start on day one and make that a priority, it will work a lot better. and our marines will be marines for life and our sailors will be sailors for life. and i give you all a lot of credit for making that a priority. and your written testimony today attributes to it. one question i want to ask that may be a question for the record because it may involve classified information. i'm concerned about the stability of the government of bahrain. the flif fifth fleet is headquartered in bahrain. and that fifth fleet is not only important for our defense, but it keeps open sea lanes in an important part of the world that allow shipments of oil and other shipments that affect the global economy. the instability of bahrain in my view causes me significant concern about the long-term viability of the fifth fleet there, as its headquarters. certainly the security of the lives of those americans serving but also whether that is, you know -- can we have a fifth fleet strategically positioned there given that instability?

and maybe for the record i would like to ask if you could just offer some thoughts appropriately classified, if need be, about what the instability issues, what threats that poses, and what the navy is doing to consider how to mitigate those threats. if you could admiral greenert. >> i'll take that for the record and give you a complete answer, senator. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator kaine. and i thank you also for your eloquent dissertation on sequestration. and i totally agree with it. i thank you for that. senator. >> mr. secretary, admiral, general, thank you very much for your years of distinguished service to our country and for all of the men and women you represent. the sailors, marines and the civilians. i was an army guy myself. general dunford i've had many of

your marines tell me that the army stands for ain't ready for marines yet. that's not true, is it? >> it just may be senator. >> shocking revelation. well there is no substitute for having a army but also no substitute for having a navy and marine corps constantly on watch around the globe. that is never in peace time phase because it's always deployed somewhere. we're very grateful for what y'all do. admiral greenert you have written and spoken in other forums about the concept of payloads not platforms. could you give us a truncated simple version of what you mean by that and how it informs the procurement plan for the navy in the future? >> we're a capital intensive service. so when we build a ship it is there for 30 years at least. and a bit longer to. put an integrated, complicated system in there, inside -- weapons system in such a vessel. when you want to change it i you have to take the ship out of service for 18 months to two years. we can't do that anymore.

by can't afford to take it out of service. that is one. two, the industry and technology is moving so fast. they can put together a weapons system that can come in in a modular fashion. so the deal today is put together a platform they call, one that has enough cooling, volume, persistence and time at sea and the ability to support the upgrades, quick, fast upgrades. the enterprise was our first aircraft carrier built in 1961. its first mission was the cuban missile crisis. its last mission was off afghanistan in 2012 and it had the most modern systems we had. a platform with several changes of payloads. so that is where i'm getting at. it applies to aircraft and it applies to ships for sure. >> general dunford would you care to comment on how that concept may or may not apply to a ground force like the

marine corps, or, for that matter, the army. >> i'd like to take for the record. i'm not sure i can answer that. >> okay. admiral greenert would you like to comment? because obviously the navy and air force are much bigger platform platforms. more capital intensive investments than general dunford tends use in the marine corps that the army uses in its ground operations. >> the payloads and platforms my support for general -- i'm a supporting entity for the marine corps. when i build an amphibians ship it has to be able to expand to bring in the marine systems as they evolve and expand. so it is very much a part of what i support for joe dunford there. and, in fact, we fell behind in that regard. as the marines went ashore in afghanistan and iraq, we didn't evolve in our ships. and now we're making that adjustment working together. >> thank you. i also would like to associate myself with the comments of senator kaine and senator mccain about the impact of sequestration. in particular the impacts on readiness., the impacts on

readiness. i'd be curious to hear about the time line that you think may be required to get back to full readiness in your two services. >> if we have a predictable, stable budget at the right level, which we believe the president's budget is minimally there, we will be back where we need to be in 2018 for carrier strike groups and 2020 for amphibians readiness for supporting general dunford. >> senator, our timeline is roughly the same. sometime between 2018 and '20. but that very much is dependent on future budgets as well. >> would you care to comment on the status of morale for sailors and marines especially in the last two years in a sequestration environment. >> when sequestration hit morale, it was hard on them. it was a hit. they were angry. they didn't understand what is this? what did i do? so the now the families are angry. they have gotten over that. today they are anxious but morale is good overall. it is not very good. and it is not poor. it is good.

they understand that we're looking out for their basic needs and we're providing the ready forces when they deploy. but there is a great anxiety out there. and if we go back to that, i'm not exactly sure what is going to happen. i lived this through the late '70s and early '80s. >> on balance we have very young force. i'd probably describe the reaction as angst at this point. they are concerned. where i'm mostly concerned are the mid grade staff ncos and mid grade officers looking to the future of uncertainty and would make decisions to leave the marine corps when we want them to stay. >> thank you. thank you all again for your service. and thank you again for all the hard work of the marines and sailors you represent do, as well as their families since there is no peacetime navy and marine corps and you are always on watch. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here. secretary mabus and admiral greenert and general dunford. and thank you for your service to the country.

admiral greenert we're going to miss you but we hope you'll be back in another capacity at some point. as we were discussing before the hearing started i had, as you all know, the great opportunity yesterday to embark with the "uss new hampshire" submarine to go out for the day, to dive with the submarine. it was -- it was really an experience of a lifetime. and i very much appreciated that. and i was especially impressed by the dedication and the professionalism of our men serving on that submarine, as on all of our submarines. impressed by the team work that they all experienced. as they pointed out to me, that a submarine only runs if everybody works together. and the cook knew as much about the ship and how it's laid out and the operations as the people in the operations room. so it was very impressive.

and one of the things that became clear as we were discussing with folks about their experience on the new hampshire was that while general"new hampshire" was that while general dunford can appreciate this, a lot of the discussion during the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been about the toll that that's taken on our fighting men and women. and one of the things that was clear yesterday and not because anybody on the "new hampshire" complained about it. but the toll that the reduction in our ships and their capacity has on the men and women who serve on those ships. because the deployments increase just as our deployments increase during iraq and afghanistan in a way that i think is less clear to the american public and the toll that that takes.

and i wonder admiral or secretary mabus, if either of you would like to speak to what that shortfall in our ship capacity -- the impact that that has on those men and women who are serving on those ships. >> you explained it very well, senator. there is a commitment, a covenant we have for providing ready forces forward around the world to be what we like to say where it matters when it matters. if you have less ships to distribute, those out there will stand the watch longer. we have a phenomenon we were trying get out of as we were just describing how long it would take to get a readiness right. and that is, when we had sequestration, all of our maintenance slowed down. naval shipyard, puget, all of our shipyards slowed down to kind of parade rest, as we like to say. so now we're trying to get that back up. get the workforce back, because many left as the result of sequestration. somebody is out there standing the watch.

and that is that longer deployment waiting for the other folks to get their maintenance and training down to come out and relieve them. that hurts and takes a while. >> senator, in the early '90s we had about a 400 ship navy. and we had on average 100 ships forward deployed. today we have a little less than a 300 ship navy and we still have a 100 ships forward deployed. you explained it very well. sailors are going out for longer. they are staying for longer. one of the things that we've been working on is trying to make those deployments more predictable. and not just the deployments. but the things, you know, as we we are talking about the training, the maintenance and the surge capability when they come back. it is called the optimized fleet response plan. we're doing it for our carriers first and strike groups. we're going to do it for our amphibious ready groups next. but it's trying to do that.

and the last thing i'd like to say, it's one of the reasons that i have remanied so committed to ship building to getting the right number of those gray hulls so that it will he's some of the stress on the sailors that -- who -- the men and women who sail in them. >> thank you. well one of the things i neglected to say that you all know is that the "uss new hampshire" is a virginia class sub. and one of the things that was very exciting to hear from folks on the ship was that they always feel very good when it is the portsmouth naval shipyard who has done the work because they do such a great job at the shipyard. so i had to put that plug in for the portsmouth shipyard, because they do such great work. i'm really out of time but mr. chairman, if i could ask one more question. thank you. secretary mabus last september

the departments of energy, navy and agriculture awarded contracts to three companies to construct and commission biorefineries to produce drop-in fuels to help meet our transportation needs. drop-in biofuels. can you speak to why you think this is so important for the navy? >> it is important because it makes us better war fighters. it is important because it takes fuel away as a weapon to be used us against us. all you have to do is look at the head lines about crimea or the ukraine, europe today and russia using fuel as a weapon. and we're trying to avoid that. it will also help us smooth out some of these huge price swings in the oil and gas market. and finally, i'm a big believer in the free market. i think you need competition in things like fuels. now, we are -- we will not buy any alternative fuel unless it is absolutely price competitive

with traditional fuels. the other two requirements that we have, one is that it be drop-in. as you said. we're not changing engines or settings. and third that it take no land out of food production. so we're looking at second generation, third generation bio fuel production. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham? >> thank you all for your service. what's the morale in the marine corps like, general? >> senator, it is high. >> yeah. well it should be high. because you are the finest fighting force on earth. and i want to tell the marine and the navy better days are coming to the families. we're going to get our act together in congress. i don't know exactly how yet. but we will. we're not going to leave you hanging. we're not going take modernization off the table so you can't fight the next war effectively. and we're going to somehow solve the problem we've created.

so just hang in there. keep your chin up and focused on the mission. general, do you agree weed be smart to leave a residual force behind in afghanistan if conditions require it? >> i do, senator. >> from a navy perspective, admiral, do you believe that the threats we face are growing as i speak? >> i do. absolutely. >> do both of you agree that there are more terrorist organizations with more capability, with more safe havens, with more weapons, with more desire to attack the homeland than any time since 9/11? >> i do. >> i do, senator. >> when it comes to iraq and syria, you do agree with me that if we take isil on -- and when i say "we," the united states and the region, that we must win? >> yes, senator. >> how many marines were involved in the first battle and second battle of fallujah?

>> the first battle, senator, was about two regimental combat teams in the order of 6,000. the second battle was about 14,000 u.s. forces. that is marine and soldiers. >> so do you agree with me , without that capacity it would have been very difficult for the sunni tribes to prevail over al qaeda and iraq at the time? >> without absolutely, senator. >> okay. so we're about to fight a bigger force. and how many members of our military do we have in iraq today? >> senator, i don't know the exact numbers but i think on the order of 3,000. >> how many of those are marines? >> we've got about 500 marines, senator, that are actually on the ground in iraq. >> do you agree with me, both of you, that isil represents a threat to us, not just the region? >> i do, senator. >> do you agree, admiral?

>> yes, i do, senator. >> so anybody who thinks that defeating or destroying isil is their problem, not ours, is making a huge mistake? >> i agree with that, senator. >> where he have to prevail, yes senator. yes, senator. senator. >> do you agree it's in our national security interest to make they're not only are they degraded and destroyed, they don't come back? >> i agree with that, senator. >> do you agree with me the best way to ensure that you degrade and destroy isil is to have some american ground forces to help the regional forces? >> senator, right now i think it is critical that we provide u.s. support. and i think, as you know, we're waiting for general austin to make a recommendation as to exactly what the support would be. >> doesn't that guarantee the highest chance of success is to have some american capability on the ground enhancing our regional partners? >> certainly my perspective would be as a link to our supporting capability. >> do you agree with me that any marine or soldier, sailor, airman who participated in these operations would be protecting the homeland? >> i believe that, senator. >> if somebody died trying to deal with isil in iraq or syria,

they would have died on behalf of protecting their nation? >> they would have died in protecting our national interests is clear, senator. >> do you agree with me that if we don't stop isil sooner rather than later, the likelihood of another attack against this country grows? >> i think it grows but i think if we don't stop them there will be destabilization in the region as well as important for our national interests. >> do you worry about the king of jordan if they don't get slowed down or degraded pretty quickly? >> i do senator. >> do you, admiral? >> i do senator. yes, i do. >> so to both of you and to those who serve under you, i am sorry that some of you may have to go back. i regret it more than you will ever know. but i think you know better than anyone else why you may have to go back. and the only commitment i will

make as a senator from south carolina is that if you go back, you go back to win and that we get this right this time. thank you all for your service. >> senator mccaskill? >> thank you all for being here. i sometimes neglect to say how much respect i have for all of you. i'm so busy getting after something that i forget to tell you. so let me do that before i get after something. admiral greenert, i'm dismayed about the fat leonard scandal. i'm dismayed because it rips at the fabric of honor and integrity that defines our military. and one of the things that i have tried to do since i was allowed to join this important committee is make sure when we

have those moments, that this consequences go to the very top. instead of hanging out at the middle or the bottom. which has sometimes occurred. when there is a scandal like this. so what i would like you or secretary mabus to speak to the accountability of those at the top of the chain of command for this conduct that occurred on their watch. >> the leonard francis scandal is that -- >> correct. >> well, senator, we're going to hold people accountable that violated either the law or a navy ethics. i've already issued letters of censure to three admirals. one three-star and two two-star admirals. the two two-stars elected to retire. the three-star had already decided to retire. the one thing i think is

important about this situation is that the reason this was uncovered is that we set up financial trip wires that gdma went across. so red flags were raised. ncis investigated this for three years with no leaks. we during that investigation, found that an ncis agent was furnishing mr. francis with information, that they set up some false information to him. and it led to mr. francis believing that the investigation had been shut down and it allowed us to arrest him on

american soil. he has implicated a number of naval personnel. we are at the -- on the timetable of the u.s. attorney's office in san diego in terms of how quickly we get to these things. and that's been a frustration because we have -- it's taken a long, long time. but i've set up a consolidated disposition authority. so if somebody was found not to be criminally not liable we're taking a look at them to see if they violated navy ethics. we are -- we are stepping up ethics training for c.o.s, x.o.s, people in areas of responsibility. we've completely overhauled our procurement requirements and regulations in terms of husbanding these services that gdma provided. we're auditing that on a routine

basis. and one thing i do want to say, though, is that you could have all of the ethics training in the world. if somebody doesn't know it's wrong to steal, if somebody doesn't know it's wrong to take a bribe, they missed something at home. >> right. >> and what we have to do is set up a system that will catch them. and will hold them accountable. and you are right. it is up and down the chain. and i think that by the first actions -- i not only took the actions to censure three admirals but i've taken two more with access to classified information based on allegations. i don't know if those allegations are correct yet, but in order to protect the integrity of the service. finally, senator, unique among the services, when we make a change in command, when we do

something to a senior officer, a c.o. or a flag officer, we announce it. we try to be completely transparent about this. partly is because of what we can -- the learning effect that will have on other people. but partly because people need to know what's happening in the service. we have not seen the numbers go up. but because we announce it, we tend to get more scrutiny. >> well i appreciate that. i appreciate that you all have done this. i wanted you to know i'm very interested in how all of this shakes out. and if there is anything i can do to prod the u.s. attorney into doing justice in the most efficient and effective and time sensitive way, let me know. i don't have much time left. i do want to ask a couple of questions that you all can respond on the record for me at a later date because i don't

want to hold up the senator from alaska. one is obviously the electronic capability platform as it relates to the growlers. i know you testified last week admiral about the shortage of two to three squadrons. i'm very concerned about that. i would be concerned about that if these amazing aircraft were not built in st. louis because of the capability of the electronic battlefield that we face now. and i would like you to respond to what -- i'm worried that this joint study that's going on now won't be completed in time for us to really evaluate whether the needs jointly even exceed what you have said which is two to three squadrons in terms of a shortfall. so that i need on the record. and for you general dunford i'd

like an updating on how the realigning of guam is going. this is something we've worked on in this committee and when i used to chair readiness this is something we talked about a lot. if you would get to the committee and specifically to my office where we are with the realignment of guam and what the situation is on that i would be very appreciative. >> we'll get that information to you, senator. thank you. >> i know everybody's covered sequestration before i got here. but for what every other senator said about sequestration, me too. thank you. >> senator sullivan. >> thank you mr. chairman, and senator mccaskill. i might get a highlight of your final question as actually one of my first questions. so gentlemen, i appreciate your service. and your frank testimony. general dunford, i also appreciate your highlighting the bang for the buck component of the marine corps' spending and war fighting capability. 6% of the budget, 21% of the infantry and battalions. i think that is important for

the american people to understand and recognize. i do want to follow on a number of the general questions from senator wicker, hirono, mccaskill. on the redeployment, the pivot to asia in particular with regard to some of our ground forces. and ar as part of this committee's oversight responsibility i'll be heading to the region relatively soon to look at some of the issues in terms of cost, training, readiness, deployment capabilities as it relates to the guam redeployment but also other issues. i would just like general dunford, from your perspective, how -- what are the issues we should be thinking of when we're looking at that?

and are you satisfied with how that redeployment is going? as you probably know there is some concerns about that. and i think they have been consistent concerns over the years. >> it clearly is one of the more important issues we are grappling with right now is the pacific. i this i maybe break it into three pieces. first would be capacity. and for the united states marine corps what the rebalance means is 22,500 marines west of the date line. and we're there now. as we've drawn down the force in iraq and afghanistan we've reconstituted our unit deployment program and get the numbers back for our third marine expeditionary force back to what they ought to be. the second piece is reposture of forces, relieving pressure in okinawa and building up forces in guam and as the secretary talked about, forces in australia as well. so there's several pieces. the guam piece, the australia piece and then forces will go to ewokuni, japan, and others to hawaii as well. we're just getting started with that this year in president's budget '16. there is a training range in guam.

that's one of the preconditions for us to bring forces down to guam. we'll bring a total of 5,000 forces to guam eventually. we are rotating this spring another force of 1,000 marines into australia with an eventual plan to bring that number up to 2500. but i think in terms of the issues that you should be concerned about, one clearly is the progress for the futenma replacement facility and how that progresses in japan. because that's going to be critical. we have to have the futenma replacement facility in order for us to leave our current futenma air station. and then make the redeployment to guam, as well. and properly support the marines that are in the area. the other piece is lift in the area. we're going to better support the combatant commander's day-to-day requirements. by disaggregating -- in other words by moving to guam and moving to australia, we get better coverage in the pacific on a day-to-day basis. but then in the contingency we've got to aggregate those forces, for example, in a conflict on the korean peninsula. one of the real critical things we're working on in the department of navy with the

secretary and cno's help is the additional lift that would be required to move marines around. so there's enabling capability and the first is lift. amphibious lift and other forms of lift to move marines around both for training and for contingency purposes. and then as well the training facilities and the quality of life support that will be in guam over time. but all of this is a -- we're a lot further -- i've touched on this for the last ten years, senator, and we're now finally starting to pour concrete, we're starting to actually move forward with the plan. i feel much better about it than i have in recent years. >> thank you. i want to follow on a question senator king had talked about in terms of the arctic. i'll be a little more blunt. we have a d.o.d. 13-page strategy, and yet when you look at what the russians are doing in the arctic, it's actually quite impressive. impressive but disturbing. i'm sure you gentlemen are somewhat familiar. general dempsey mentioned in testimony with the secretary of

defense last week, the russians are looking at four new arctic combat brigades, as our u.s. army is thinking about pulling them out of the arctic. i think that would give vladimir putin a lot of joy. they are building new airfields, 13 new airfields, conducting long-range air patrols with their bombers off the coast of alaska. again, they have, incredibly, six new icebreakers coming, five more planned to add to their fleet of 40. meanwhile, the united states is thinking about an additional one to our fleet of five. does it concern you, particularly when we talk about keeping ceilings open and there's going to be a very very

important ceiling open in the northwest arctic passage there and has the navy given any thought to this in terms of particularly adding icebreakers to the navy shipping fleet if we're going to be remotely, remotely competitive with the russians in the arctic that they have stood up a new arctic command. and they are all in in the arctic. and it's not 13 pages of paper. it's concrete. it's ships. it's airfields. and we're thinking about removing forces from alaska. and i think we're number five or six in the world in terms of icebreakers. it seems to me a ludicrous situation that the navy should be concerned about. >> well, the purview of the icebreakers is the department of homeland security, the coast guard. so if we split that, then we'll be clobbering our strategy. although it sounds like a petty answer, you know, somebody has to be in charge here. right now, it resides with the department of homeland security. am i concerned? yes, senator, i am concerned, because for us to take our combat ships up there, we have to work in conjunction with that and make sure that we can get up

there as well. so we have to look at hardening of our hulls, and we look toward that. and it's not just surface ships that we tend to focus on, it's the aircraft and undersea domain. as i mentioned earlier, we've increased, i've directed the increase in our exercise capacity up there and our activity up there. and we are spending a little bit more. it's modest right now. exercising with the norwegians, with the scandinavian countries, and with canada in that arena to get used to operating up there. >> mr. secretary, any thoughts? >> as the ice melts in the arctic, our responsibilities clearly are going up. we just -- cno and i just issued the new navy road map for the arctic. we updated it. i stopped through the university at fairbanks, at the university of alaska fairbanks, in terms

of, it's not just platforms and it's not just capability, it's what we're facing up there. we not only have less ice, but it's freezing in different ways. so as we send our submarines up there, they don't have a whole lot of clearance both above or below. and the ice is forming in different ways that are beginning to be a hazard to navigation. but as the cno said, we are -- we're upping our exercises, we're upping our research into the area. we're moving in terms of hardening hulls, in terms of war fighting capabilities. as you know, we have a s.e.a.l. unit on kodiak specifically focused on cold weather combat. every s.e.a.l. goes through it,

right after they come out of b.u.d.s. we are concerned about it. we're trying to move on it. but it, again, is one of these things that in this budget situation, you have to make some very, very hard choices. and we don't have the capability that we would like to have in the arctic. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> on behalf of chairman mccain, let me thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony and for their service to the nation, and the navy and the marine corps, and adjourn the hearing. the hearing is adjourned.

on the next washington journal, congressman steve king of iowa will discuss his recent trip to egypt, the ongoing iran

nuclear negotiations and immigration. after that, representative brad sherman of california talks about the israeli elections the iran nuclear program and the president's request to use military force against isis. >> later, a conversation with daniel metcalf. he'll talk about the personal e-mail server used by hillary clinton and what that means for transparency. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern every morning on c-span. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. the senate monday resumed debate on a human trafficking bill that had been held up because of a provision that blocks federal funds for abortions. a procedural vote on the bill is expected tuesday with 60 votes needed for the measure for

advance. the outcome could affect the nomination of loretta lynch. the senate was expected to vote on her nomination this week but mitch mcconnell said the nomination would only come up once the human trafficking bill moves forward. josh earnest was asked today about that at the briefing are reporters. >> senator mcconnell laid out a timeline yesterday that suggests it could be mid-april at the earliest before her nomination goes to the floor. is that a timeline the white house would be willing to accept and, if not, what is the alternative or how do you get her nomination voted on earlier? >> well, this is the responsibility of the united states senate to vote on the president's nominees. as i mentioned before, there's not been a legitimate question that's been asked about her aptitude for the office.

so the delay is unconscienceable and unexplained and the thing that i will -- that i think that warrants mentioning here is you'll recall that as i pointed out, miss lynch has been waiting 128 days to get a vote in the senate. the reason that time period has been so long is because the president nominated her back in november for this job. and at that time, we saw senator mcconnell himself say that miss limp lynch, achl, will receive consideration and, b, he also said that her nomination should be considered in the course of -- i'm sorry. should be considered in the new congress through regular order. so essentially you have senator mcconnell in the position back in november telling the president he should delay submitting her up to congress until republicans were in the majority. now, i've gotten asked a number

of times since november about whether or not the president trusts senator mcconnell whether or not senator mcconnell and other members of the republican leadership whether their word is good with the president. so senator mcconnell back in november was saying that her nomination should be considered in the new congress but yesterday when senator mcconnell was asked on cnn about whether or not he was going to act quickly to confirm her and to explain the delay, he said the nomination hasn't taken that long if you consider when it was actually taken up which was this year. he continued to say the democrat majority back in december had a chance to work on the nomination earlier but decided to delay it until this year. he failed to point out that that delay was at his request and now he's in a position of delaying it even further of delaying her nomination even further despite the fact -- and i'll say it again -- no legitimate question has been raised about her aptitude for this office despite

the fact that she submitted to more than eight hours of testimony and she's answered 600 ten questions. so there's no question that republicans are playing politics with the nomination of the nation's top law enforcement official. and it's come to an end. >> you can find that entire briefing with white house press secretary josh earnest online at c-span.org. next, a discussion on u.s. policy towards the arctic with retired admiral robert papp. he's u.s. representative for the region from the brookings institution. this is an hour. >> good morning everybody. welcome. my name is bruce jones.

i'm delighted to welcome you all here today. before we begin, i'd like to acknowledge and thank charlie and tim from our energy security initiative who organized this event and i'd also like to acknowledge and thank commander jason, a federal executive fellow from the coast guard here at brookings. he's been a terrific colleague over the last several months. admiral, i know you're ready to steal him back soon but i hope we can borrow him again sometime down the road. as all of you know, in april, the united states will assume the chairmanship of the arctic council for two years. we go back about five years i would say there were two things that were true. one, not that many people had heard of the arctic council. and, two, people writing about the arctic council were writing about it in real saber-rattling

terms. there was going to be clashes between those dangerous nations, the canadians and others. i'm kacanadian, monday other things, so i can say that. of course, the most dire predictions about how things would evolve in the arctic have not come true and an important piece of the story has been the institutional lie zags and development of the arctic council. of course, things are changing fast in the arctic, a region that one of our board members describes as the world's next emerging market since 1979 we've seen a 40% reduction in the ice coverage that's having important impacts on communities, wildlife, it's changing the pattern in the fisher rees and more substantially since 2007, the northwest passage is around for the countries that have the right and capabilities and of

particular import it's opening up new prospects in terms of oil and gas developments and really huge levels of reserves in the arctic particularly for russia, driving a sense of a potential for the region but also of course challenges in terms of where that energy lies and claimants to it. it's a region without any question, of growing strategic and economic importance to the united states but also to india to japan china and, of course, to russia. we are, therefore, delighted to have admiral papp to talk to us about these issues. he was elected in 2014 as special representative for the arctic. he's a graduate of the coast guard academy, two master's

degrees and as a coast guard officer has served on six ships commanding four of them, including what i'm reliably informed the u.s. government's only acting sailing tall ship. i am also reliably informed that he's frequently found up in the sails inspecting the rigging, not just a etdleader but a leader held in high regard and in the defense and security committee. it seems appropriate to have a sailor's sailor serve as our representative to the arctic in this upcoming period. thank you very much for your service and thank you for joining us here today. the floor is yours. [ applause ] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. what a great crowd. this is wonderful. i feel great. i think i met here at brookings

when i was the commadant. i've been introduced as the 24th command before. i know the first 24 commands. i don't know what happened to the ones in between. that's a good title. i like that. but thanks for the introduction and, yes canada is one of those dangerous places. in fact, i remember going a couple of years ago, they brought a bunch of us up to the foreign relations committee up in the senate, secretary kerry was the chairman at that time. and we did a hearing on the wall of the sea. we might want to talk about the wall of the sea at some point this morning. but at that particular event somebody talked to me and said one of the senators said we

don't need to follow the treaty. we can do anything we want. i gave an example between the yukon territory and alaska, there is a color gray because the united states and canada have not come to an agreement on the border there. and they said, you can't tell me that we haven't come to an agreement with canada and that's true, we can't. we might want to touch on that because i think there's interesting developments in terms of the continental shelf claims that we can talk about. it's great to be here at brookings. i feel good because all my basic needs have been taken care of. i was served a hot breakfast. i have coffee. they brought in a team over breakfast to warm me up with a lot of challenging questions so i feel ready to go. but as i look around the room i'm also a little concerned because i see so many faces that i've seen in so many other places and you start after a while, losing track of who you have spoken to and what sea stories you've told and whatever

else. and there's one other thing i have to correct. i can't take jason back. i'm no longer the commadant of the coast guard. senator drew pierce of alaska, welcome. thanks for being at the hearing last week. drew has heard my story many times. i'm going to have to watch and make sure that i don't do any repeats this morning. i thought i'd take a different course this morning and i'll start off with an alaska story. last fall i went up to alaska and there was an alaskan native who got up to talk to us. my recollection is his name was

ikalusak. he's a hunter involved with marine mammals. very articulate and interesting individual. but he was talking about the challenges of washington coming up and telling alaskans what to do and et cetera et cetera. the example that he used was, he said one of the departments sent the s.e.a.l. expert up here to talk to us. now, he's a seal hunter and it's been in his culture and in his tribe for thousands of years. and as i looked out across the bay there, i could understand why. everywhere i looked you could see the heads of seals and the alaskan natives revere them. it's a part of their culture. they use it for food for furs and other things. it's a part of their life. so the seal expert came up from washington, came in to speak to a group of them and when he was introduced as the seal expert

ikalusak looked at him and said, so you're the seal expert. how many seals have you eaten? and i like to tell that story because as i was going and talking about the arctic i find that i can usually classify people into seal hunters and seal experts. now, there's an awful lot of people in between. some who are sincerely interested in the arctic others that couldn't careless about the arctic and during our chairman ship we'll be able to bring more of those people into that category of people who are interested in the arctic. but i found that it's very important to listen to the seal hunters and i use that as a metaphor. there are certain people that have spent a lot of time in the arctic that are interested in it, that are passionate about it. in this city i find a lot of people who are seal experts.

i was in a meeting the other day or preparing to go into a meeting over at the state department and a young staffer came up to me and she said oh, admiral papp, i'm so excited about meeting you. i'm passionate about the arctic. she went on and on and on. i said, when is the last team you visited the arctic? well, i've never been there but i'm passionate about it. i've watched the nature channel, et cetera, et cetera. that can be excused. it's great for youth and young people to be interested and have that passion because we need more of that in this country particularly as we address the arctic. where i'm concerned is when senior leaders are not necessarily -- they are in that seal expert category. i attended a hearing last week and there were a couple of

senators who had very legitimate, very good questions. there were others on the panel who you can sense it they almost have to establish their credibility first. one of them -- and i know ambassador gearhart, are you still here from iceland? there he is. i looked at him because one of the senators to establish credibility said, well my wife traveled to iceland once. you have a very nice country. and i looked at the ambassador because you know at that point they have some sort of very shallow interest or knowledge about the arctic and yet here they are making decisions. another one mentioned to the alaskans who were in attendance that he had visited alaska once. i checked that later on and i am told -- i can't confirm this -- but one of the other senators told me that he took a cruise to alaska once. so therefore, established his credibility in terms of understanding alaska. i would never put myself in the

category of the s.eal hunters. i respect our alaskan natives and i've learned a lot from them. i'm in that category of people that is very interested, that is concerned about the arctic and i have a limited amount of knowledge. i started out my coast guard career in alaska. i was -- let us say academically challenged at the academy and in those days we selected our first assignment based upon your class standing. and there were not many choices left when it came down to me and i saw a ship in alaska and said well, that looks exciting. alaska. a kid from connecticut going to alaska? the ship was home ported in a place called adack alaska. i didn't know where that was but it sounded exciting so i went

back to my room and broke out an atlas, opened it up and, believe me, do this open up an atlas and usually alaska will cover two pages in the atlas. except down at the bottom there's an insert that has part of the alaskan peninsula and then the first couple of islands and then another insert that covers the rest of the elucian change and that was in the second insert. suffice to say, my fiancee at the time was not too pleased. however, afterwards, after going there, it sort of got us off to a great start in our marriage and she's with me 39 years later so it probably was a good experience. professionally it was a great experience. i learned a lot about being a sailor in alaska. first of all, you have to deal with the -- what i call the tyranny of time and distance.

we're still challenged with that today. going back to my coast guard position the nearest air station that can fly helicopters for search and rescue up in the north slope is about 850 miles away in kodiak, alaska. that's tyranny of time and distance. and when you're sailing ships up there, when you have to refuel and the nearest port is 800, 900 miles away that you can get to for fuel it causes you to be cautious and concerned. and then the weather you have to deal with up there. i have seen the worst sustained weather of my entire career was during my first two years up in alaska. i've seen weather in the caribbean that lasts 24, 48 hours. they call them hurricanes down there. the same weather conditions in the bering sea they call normal weather during the wintertime and it lasts for weeks on end. so the challenges that i faced

serving and learning as a sailer up in alaska stay with me my entire career. and then drove me to be very interested about 36 years later when i became with the coast guard. of course, at that time, it was almost forced upon us because there was a lot of coast guard equities involved in the opening of the arctic and we began a process of coming up with a coast guard arctic strategy. and at the end of that and after trying to campaign for resources to better prepare our country for what was happening up in the arctic, i was about to retire on may 30th of last year. and on the evening of the 29th secretary john kerry called me and asked me if i might come to the state department to help coordinate activities in preparation for the arctic council. and i didn't even have to hesitate. asked to serve your country by a senior commercial of the government in an area that i was passionate about, it was -- there was no decision involved.

i automatically said yes and here i am about seven or eight months later and i'm very happy with that decision and very excited about the prospect offous taking on the chairmanship in about another month here. so, as i came into the job, the big task was organizing our u.s. program for the arctic. what i was very pleased to find was there was an awful lot of work that had transpired in preparation. in fact, if nothing else, what we had to do was pear it down a little bit, package it and market it is the way i describe it. and we've been about that process. there was something called the arctic policy group, the apg that works across the interagency and also con summits with akconsults with alaska. we have an official who has a lot of contacts with other countries and groups in alaska. and what i found during my career as an officer and ship

captain is one of the most important things you do in terms of developing policy programs or carrying out a mission is you listen to people. so, we set about the business of listening to others and forming our program and packaging it together. we came up with a rough idea first of all for a theme which is one arctic, shared opportunities, challenges and responsibilities. and if nothing else comes across during our chairmanship, that's the theme that i want everybody to remember because it is one arctic that's not just shared by the eight countries of the arctic council but it is a part of our world and things that go on in the arctic impact the rest of the world. and we want to develop interest in other countries about the arctic as well. then we had this collection of projects literally scores of projects that we could choose from and we started lumping them into categories. one that appealed to me as a former common on the coast guard

is safety, security and stewardship. it's a theme that we use within the coast guard, but it's really a components of merritime governance. when you look down from the pole which is a view of the earth that not too many people look at what you see as the predominant feature is the ocean. lot of it is covered by ice. there's certain times of the year where it's all covered by ice, but it's opening up. there are new routes that are developing. it's interesting and exciting and i think it's going to change the world and the way we conduct commerce over time. but once again, merritime environment and we have to provide for the safety and security of mariners and ships that will approach its shores and have to transit, have rescue capability, aids navigation other things in order to assure safety of navigation and

navigation and trade contributes to prosperity of a country. it will contribute to the prosperity of alaska and the arctic. it's happening in other portions of the arctic and we need to be prepared for it as we go along. so we're heavy on the emphasis of arctic ocean safety, security and stewardship. hopefully everybody has read some of the details of those programs. we're going to emphasize search and rescue and exercising the search and rescue agreement. we're going to emphasize exercising the marine oil spill preparedness and response agreement that was executed by the countries and a number of other projects within that that will move forward. the second category is improving the economic and living conditions of the people of the north. a series of projects that go from renewable energy all the way to a review of telecommunication capabilities within the arctic. and then the third is adapting

to climate change. very important. we're not going to cure arctic change been the council but we need to draw attention to the effects of climate change and also come up with ways to mitigate and adapt to it to hopefully protect the environment of the arctic to demonstrate to the rest of the world that what goes on in the rest of the world affects the arctic and what's happening in the arctic affects the rest of the world. people in boston massachusetts, and people in washington, d.c., in fact, probably don't need to be reminded that some of those changes that are occurring are drastically changing our weather patterns. i'm not sure we can change that in the short term, at least, but we need to be about the business of thinking how we can do that and also helping people that do live within that environment to adapt to it. so we lump those things together in that order and then set about that process that i talked about, listening to people. and first and foremost the most important place to go to was

alaska. so last august our team went up to alaska and we met with the full range of people starting first of all with our alaskan natives in various venues. we met with environmental groups, other ngos. we met with the oil industry. we met with alaskan legislatures and everything in between. we took their input, went back to washington, refined our program a little bit and then sent it up to secretary kerry for his at least conceptual approval. we took the program back to alaska after getting his approval, it coincided with an event called weakening the arctic. we went up there and did listening sessions in nome. okay. there we go. so we went to nome, baro and did

additional listening sessions. brought that back and further refined our program. now, we had projected that i wasn't going to speak publically about the program until we had done those listening sessions. and i can't remember the exact date, but there was an event that hart conley at csis had scheduled, which was passing the torch between canada and the united states. and that was to be my first opportunity to speak publicly about our arctic council program. until i was asked by other leadership to speak at another event, the center for american progress on the day before the csis event. so, i sort of use those as markers. for those of you who are familiar with the center for american progress, they have an environmental focus. and when i spoke to them, afterwards, they said, admiral, you got it. you've recognized the importance of the climate. you recognize the importance of

the environment. you're a little strong on that security and safety stuff on the other side but, you know that's okay. it looked like a balanced program. i went to csis the next day and spoke to them and they said you know, you got it. you got that security stuff. the arctic ocean safety and everything else. you're a little strong on the climate change and environment, but it's a good balanced program. okay, we hit the sweet spot. we're doing good here. and that has followed through across the board as we've gone around and spoken to groups. so the next step was to take it internationally. and so i -- it coincided at that time with something called arctic circle, the arctic circle event was being held in re koe vick iceland. that's the first time i met ambassador ray hard when i was there in re koe vick. it was my first opportunity to speak publicly in a large group. interest in the arctic, 1,300

people from 39 countries in iceland in really kind of lousy weather, no offense sir, but it was rainy. it was cold. it was blouing 40 knots. we were walking into a head wind from the hotel but it was very invigorating and certainly helped to get me even more excited about this program and also gave me the opportunity to do a lot of bilateral meetings with folks that had come in. we refined the program once again. did another briefing to secretary kerry and then recently just about a month ago i went on another trip to go to the rest of the nordic countries. we started out in sweden. we went to norway where we went up to an event called arctic frontiers. once again another opportunity to speak to a large group another group of about 1,300 or so people from 39 or 40 countries, senior

representatives from around the world. and once again, an opportunity to talk about our u.s. program. from norway we went to copenhagen. met with not only the danes but the greenlanders as well to get their perspective. went from there to finland and not only did we meet in helsinki with the full range of activities but we also traveled north to meet with the parliament to meet with one of our permanent observers in the arctic council. then most importantly we finished up that trip by going to moscow. i'll talk a little bit more about that in just a moment but very productive meeting. it was the first senior level meeting of a u.s. representative in moscow since the imposition of the sanctions it was a cig nif event for the united states as well. i would be happy to entertain

questions on that when we get into it. so, there's been an awful lot of listening that's gone on. and what i would say is it's broken down into a couple of themes. the first theme being this theme of balance finding the sweet spot. as i've said i've spoken to an awful lot of groups similar to this diverse groups, brookings tends to have a very balanced view of things more centrist so perhaps this program resonates. we've tried to make it a balanced program, to try to reflect all the needs that are going on up there. but the second comment that i get most constantly when i brief this to groups, to the press and in particular to the other seven countries is almost the immediate response is wow. that's rather ambitious. and it is. i will lay claim to our united states program probably being

the most forward leaning, most ambitious program that's ever been proposed during a chairmanship of the arctic council. and i think that's the way it should be. leadership, part of leadership is setting the bar high. setting goals and then measuring progress towards those goals and that's what we intend to do doing our chairmanship. everybody else says it's a rather ambitious program. there's one decenter. every time i brief this to secretary kerry, he says are you sure we're doing enough? can we do more? perhaps we found the sweet spot there as well. the third thing that comes up frequently, in fact, came up in the session this morning is -- why doesn't the united states support the arctic economic council? the arctic economic council or the aec as its referred to was one of the canada's initiatives. and i think a very good initiative. the focus of the arctic council

since its inception is environmental development and sustainable development. we have plenty of representation on the environmental protection side. if we want sustainable development, it seems to me we need to cut an industry. we need to let the industry know what the standards are. we need responsible, sustainable, development within the arctic. and the arctic economic council i believe, is set up to facilitate that. now, i think where the united states -- where this misperception occurs about the united states not supporting the arctic economic council is we had some disagreements on exactly how we ought to employ our participation in it. now that i've had a chance to dissect it because of all this feedback about this perception of us not supporting it i've had a chance to get into it a little bit. what i've really found is that with eight countries you've really got eight different approaches. just like you have eight different forms of government literally as you look across it. and for our form