aye. mr. casey. ay me, aye. mr. warner. aye. mr. chairman. no. chairman votes no. amend >> amendment is defeated. as i understand it, senator cardin has an amendment and that should be our last, am i correct? >> mr. chairman, i have one amendment i'm going to be offering. one i'm going to be offering i'm going to be withdrawing. >> okay, that's fine. you'll be the last one. >> and the amendment i'm offering is 109, cardin amountment three. >> please, proceed. >> this amendment would make the trade, the good governance sections that i have been talking about that was in the original bill would make it a principal negotiating objective rather than an overall

negotiating objective. this is straightforward improvement in the act and makes no changes in the language that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis by the committee. the only change is the is to move it from section 2a11 to the end of section 2b. the reason relates to effective enforcement in the rule of law dwoesh dwoesh negotiating objectives. in particular, the dispute settlement objectives require ustr to seek provisions that treat the united states principal negotiating objectives yawly with respect to the availability to resort to dispute settlement under the applicable, availability of equivalent remedies. as for principle trade objective, objectives. therefore, by moving this from overall to principle, we do get the enforcement that i have been

talking about at some time. mr. chairman let me just make this clear and i'll be glad to ask mr. white the question. we have cleared with the ustr that this amendment is consistent with their negotiations of the trans pa sifb community and it would provide effective enforcement for good governance. >> mr. chairman. >> senator wyden. >> colleagues, i would strongly urge the adoption of the cardin amendment. this basically ups the aents in terms of the importance of human rigtds. this beefs up our enforcement. this is going to be acceptable. i strongly urge the adoption and i think we can just do it by consent or voice.

>> i appreciate the distinguished senator on working with this and working this out. i support the amendment. we work well together on this and if there's no demand for a roll call vote i ask for nays by voice. all those in favor of the senator's amendment, say aye. those opposed. the amendment is is agreed to. >> one more bill. >> we had a lot of conversations during the day. the other would offer is is 107 cardin amendment number one. i do that to point out that there are issues that i hope we'll have a chance to talk about as we move forward in our discussions on human rights and good governance issues. in particular, if you look at that you'll find that the language we now in the bill strengthens good governance, transparency, the effect of

operation legal regimes, the rule of law trading partners of the united states through capacity building and other appropriate means, which are important parts of the broad effort to create more -- to promote respect for internationally recognized human rights. that's what we have as a principally trading objective. i want to take issue with mr. brown. i've had many conversations with the ustr on the tpp and i tell you, i think they have treated our desires with great respect and are working for very hard on this and i know on the good governance issues and have come to me many times and are working hard with the partners in order to be able to have an agreement that moves dramatically forward on these issues, which are important, i think, to having a level playing field. and it's for that reason, i think what we do here is very important. i hope as this bill, i'm prepared, i'm going to support the bill in the committee, mr. chairman, because i think it's

important that we have trade promotional authority. it's important we have a tpp. i'm not totally satisfied with this bill. i've been working with congressman senator langford on religious freedom issues. you'll see it on the amendment i'm withdrawing. we have the issues i think we really need to deal with. i've been working on the anticorruption issues to deal with independent prosecutors and courts and making sure they're adequately funded. these are important issues. and mr. chairman, lastly, let me say, i hope you can approve this bill as it moves forward, we do benefit when we have good strong trading agreements. we create jobs and it's good for american businesses. we also have to make sure it's good for american workers and that's why many of us are concerned as these bills move forward. will taa be enacted along with the trade bill? i know you're sincere about that, but we hope there are

other issues that will be there to help working families so i'm prepared to support the bill in the committee to move it to the floor, but i want to make it clear i'm going to be withholding judgment as to how i'll deal with this bill after it reaches the floor. with that, mr. chairman i really thank you for your help and cooperation and i thank the committee for its attention. >> let me say this. i want to thank you for your help and cooperation. i think you've gotten a number of things done that wouldn't have been done but for your leap and we're very grateful to you and i'm grateful to everybody on this committee. even those who are opposed to the bill. i'm not as grateful for those who are opposed. however, i understand. senator wyden. >> very briefly, mr. chairman very late. just two quick points. one, i ask consent that i be permitted to change my vote on the brown taa amendment. i've long supported the idea the maximum amount of funding for taa obviously was a question

going back and forth. between the house and the senate on this issue we've cleared it. changing my vote won't affect the outcome of the vote. i want to change to aye to increase funding. gl what does that make the vote? >> of course. 13 ayes, 13 nays. >> anybody else? >> the last point, very last point and i think chairman hatch appropriately ought to close, the government's solar enforcement case was raised earlier and i think it's important to note that this is exactly the kind of more aggressive enforcement that our country needs to see particularly as it relates to renewable energy. that's why we have the early warning system and be talking with a number of you about that in the days ahead.

mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you senator. i ask you now consent to change senator thune's vote from nay to aye. >> without objection. we need to give a few minutes to get some final details done, then i hope you'll all stay around so we can vote for this bill. or against it. we'll keep going if anybody has any further amendments. what? >> while we're still in a mood to rubber stamp the president

here. >> we got one more amendment coming and we have to vote on that before we finish tonight. i hope that will be in a short period of time, but let me just say this. i am extremely grateful for all of you who have stayed and worked on this with us. those who were opposed and those who were supportive. i think it shows the committee can really work together. i think we can work together without animosity and without bad feelings. and i think it's, it's a good example of what hopefully, we can do through the come months and years together to help our country. this is an important committee. in my opinion the most important on capitol hill and i can't tell you how grateful i am for the people who are on this committee.

intelligent people who really make a difference and take things very, very seriously. we have a wide variety of viewpoints. from the right to the left and the left to the right. and i think that, that makes for good discussions and better legislation in the end. >> mr. chairman, could i make an inquiry of the chair? >> yes. >> over here. >> what is it? okay. i can't -- >> could while we're waiting for this amendment, could you tell us what is the subject matter of the amendment? >> mr. chairman?

>> i think we're prepared to close it down tonight and let me just say this. if there's no further debate, i would entertain a motion that the committee order as modify and amended. >> i so move, mr. chairman. >> okay, let me finish. does any senator -- let's see. talking about here. does any senator want to record a vote on this bill? >> yes. >> so, we do. and the clerk will call the roll on final passage of this bill through the committee. >> mr. grassley. aye. mr. crepo. aye. mr. roberts. aye. mr. enzi. aye. mr. cornyn, aye. mr. thune. aye. mr. burr.

no. mr. ikicson. no. mr. portman. ay aye. mr. toomey. aye. mr. coates. aye. mr. heller. aye. mr. scott. aye. mr. wyden aye. mr. schumer. no. mrs. stabenow, no. mr. nelson. aye. mr. mendez. no. mr. carper. aye. mr. cardin. aye. mr. brown. no. mr. bennett. aye. mr. casey. no. mr. warner. aye. mr. chairman. aye. chairman votes aye. >> report. >> 20 ayes six nays. >> the ayes have it and the resolution is ordered reported. ask consent the staff be granted

authority to make technical, conforming and budgetary changes to all the bills reported today and without objection, it is so ordered. before we adjourn, if i could have order. if i could have order. i want to thank all of my colleagues for their participation today. and i especially want to thank senator wyden for his efforts throughout this process. we've worked very closely together and i've really appreciated it. as we noted today was a long time coming and i want to give credit for senator wyden for his leadership and willingness to reach across the aisle on these important issues. while the day didn't go off as well as i planned it we got a good debate and covered a lot of ground. believe me i recognize there are passively held beliefs on all sides of these issues. i commend all my colleagues for their willingness to work with senator wyden and myself to get to this point. the bills we've reported today will help ensure that america's trade agreements will be high

standard agreements that are effective of getting american exporters the opportunity to sell their goods and services around the globe. i firmly believe when american exporters can compete, they will win. i want to thank all of our staffs for their tireless work on this mark up. they worked some long hours to get us to this point and i appreciate that. but make no mistake we're not done yet. we've got a lot more work to do. once again, i want to thank all my colleagues for being here, working with us and their efforts on behalf of their constituents. with that the committee is recessed until further notice.

that's the difference and we think that may solve the problem. >> is there going to be more amendments op the floor. >> i have no idea.

as you know the senate's a different gsh everybody has their own ideas, as you can see here. >> any indication on when it might get to the floor? >> i know they would like to bring it up as soon as they can. >> can i ask a quick question, but just with the inclusion of ntb and currency on that customs reauthorization bill, do you think that jeopardizes its chances in the house? because those are two pieces of legislation -- >> we're in touch with the congressman. we'll just have to see. >> thank you so much, sir. earlier today the senate confirmed loretta lynch to be the attorney general of the united states. 56-43 with ten republicans joining all 44 democrats and two independents in supporting the nomination. here are some of the comments of senators leading up to the vote.

>> it doesn't matter if you are one of the most qualified nominees for attorney general in the history of our country. that makes no difference. we have a new test. you must disagree with the president who nominates you. let me say that again because we love common sense in missouri and this defies common sense. you must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duelly elected president of the united states because she agrees with the dually elected president of the united states. the consequences of that vote. think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this senate. if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seat

i can't get elected president unless i'm against loretta lynn, if we all adopt that in the future, how is any president going to assemble a cabinet? because it will be incumbent on all of us who have the nerve to agree with the president who has selected them for their team. it is beyond depressing. it's disgusting. she is so qualified. she has worked so hard all her life. she is a prosecutor's prosecutor. she's prosecuted more terrorists than almost anybody on the face of the planet and the notion this has occurred. because she agrees with the man who selected her. i think we all need to understand what that means. it is not a happy day.

it is a very sad day. i am proud of who loretta lynch is. i am proud she'll be attorney general of this country. i am sad it will be such a close vote. thank you, mr. president. >> for several months, i've called on the republican majority to block the confirmation of president obama's executive and judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the president resends his lawless amnesty. i'm sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. the republican majority if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the republican majority has chosen to go forward. and allow lor ta lynch to be confirmed. that are more than a few voters asking what the difference when the exact same individual gets confirmed as attorney general promising the same lawlessness. what's the difference?

that's a question each of us will have to answer to our constituents when we come home. >> ten republicans voted for confirmation. kelly ayotte, that'd cochran susan collins, yef lake and lindsey graham. also supporting the lynch nomination orrin hatch, ron johnson, mark kirk, mitch mcconnell and bob portman. senator tight endfloor speeches and more coverage on the confirmation tonight at 9:30 p.m. on cspan. next, wisconsin governor scott walker. he was part of last weekend's leadership conference hosted by the republican party of new hampshire. the gathering also included several declares presidential

candidate candidates for 2016. you can watch their speeches at cspan.org. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> thank you, governor, not only for that great pep rally i feel like we should start charging the hill right now. you made a great case there, but most of all thank you for your leadership in the party. in the state and this country. we appreciate two first ladies in the back there. i want to begin by adding my thanks to jennifer horn.

you've done a great job again, so thank you for this great couple of days here. i want to begin off the bat because i'm going to talk a lot tonight and end up a little bit talking about freedom. one of the things about freedom, it's certainly something endowed by our creator. defined by the constitution, but each and every day, it's defended by the men and women who proudly wear the uniform of these united states. among us, we've got some folks who are active in the military today. be it in a active duety, guard or reserve. folks who are veterans of military service in the past and family members who have loved ones in the service so would you just stand for a moment so we could recognize that.

puts it back in perspective. having served as governor, the commander in chief, it's an important thing. actually one of best parts of my job is welcome homes. i'm like a kid. i get up about 5:30 in the morning, anxious to see because you see the families, the kids, the loved ones. actually, last year, i had over at woke field, one of our bases in wisconsin, one of the funniest things that happened. all these families there and there was a dad with three kids, his wife was deployed, he was coming home. he wasn't just excited. he was exhausted. he was, he just had the look like okay, she's taking the kids. i don't care. i'm just going to collapse right here. but to see these families, to see how pumped up the kids are, it's phenomenal. but it's a glaet reminder that sometimes, we forget about this because it doesn't get talked about enough in the press, but

we've still got men and women deployed and we in the foreseeable fuf. tonight, i want to begin by saying thanks. not just having us we're honored to be back here. i wore a suit tonight. i didn't wear the one dollar sweater like i did the last time from kohl's, although the think the shirt is from kohl's. the suit is from joseph a. banks, but i saw a couple of others, the three of us stood together and took a picture, made the price of one suit. right? zblt throw in four. two shirts on a sale and we'd be all set. i just want to thank you all not just for having us. we had sessions in a couple of other spots around town and so many of us have told us, you have a pass visit. so many folks mentioned to us you helped us out. some sent 20 30 bucks along the way. we appreciate that.

some physically came to wisconsin and others made calls for us and just about everybody said you prayed for tonette and i, so for that, all of you who did that, thank you because that meant the world to us. it's interesting. sometimes, it seems like that's that was an eternity ago. i think time magazine or one of the publications had a headline, said dead man walking. because my polls were so low, i'd come in trying to fix things. one of the critical mistakes i acknowledge from four years ago, i was so eager to fix things, i didn't botter talking about it. i just went in an fixed it. i've now learned you've got to listen, talk and act in that order, but not leave out any of the three. but as i looked at that process,

it was interesting. we were so eager to fix thicks, we just did it. and in reaction, the national big government unions, the big government special interests out there, the bosses, came in and took us on. literally, they brought within the first week, there were a few thousand protesters the first couple of days. by about the end of the first week, they had bussed in flown in chartered in people from all across the country so at one point about this point, earlier in march of 2011 and february of 2011, we had over 100,000 protesters in and around our camp. and then we had threats. we had death threats against me our family, against members of the state ledge is lay and it was overwhelming. a great reminder that back a few years earlier in 2009 we had sat down and thought about, talked about ultimately prayed about get ng the race for

governor. the reason i tell you that is to kind of put in perspective of what and why we were doing it. we decided we've got two sons, 19 and 20. one going to be in state next week, this coming week. when he's stuff doing stuff with college students around the area. met some great college students earlier today, our kids were in high school. and we did it because we wanted to make sure our sons could grow up in a state that was at least as great as the state we grew up in. ideally, better. and so we knew it would be a risk, but we got in that race for governor, even though our state hasn't gone republican for president since 1984. that was when i was in high school and i still had a full head of hair, so that's a long time ago. but in the way we thought it was worth it because we wanted our sons to do better than we had and we knew it would be dift to win and wouldn't be an easy task. not only elected me wu no

majorities in the state senate. two new members of the house of representatives. i say it's put up or shut up time. the reason i said that, the republicans an democrats controlled everything and the state had flipped it all to republican. if we just nibble around the edges and are less bad than the democrats, the voters would have every right to throw us out. so, instead, i said we need to do big, bold, show we were -- went big and bold and the reason it sustained us during all the protests attacks abuse and all the death threats and everything else was we knew in my case, we knew it was because of mat mountain and all the others in their generations. the other sons and daughters like them. we knew it was not acceptable not to have a state that was better than the one we

inherited. and so we took on the big channels. and it wasn't just about taking on protests. we had to bring together republicans in both houses in the state legislature. one that wasn't that thrilled to go down that path because much like we see in washington, sometimes, there are people who have been there a long time who like the status quo. even in our own party. but we had to make the case for why reform was necessary and i would argue today some four years later we're much better off for it. from the economy, early 2010 unemployment rate was 9 -- just this last thursday, it's down to 4.6%. we have what's called a labor participation rate meaning the number of people working is over two-thirds. well above the national rate. unemployment's lower, labor

participation is is much higher. it means people are working and we're finding more jobs and opportunity. we took a $3.6 million budget deficit and turned it into a surplus. we've done it in each of the last four years and the budget i introduceded ends with nearly half a billion dollar surplus going forward. we've got the largest rainy day fund we've had in our state's history. 165 times bigger than when we took office. the only pension system in the country. we have a debt an pension ratio that's one of the biggest out there. a lot of the lawmakers were excites buenos aires they said that's not always the case here and elsewhere around the country, so we're proud of that. we did some other things, too. we took on other issues. for example, a lot of people don't know this, but in our state, we got rid of seniority of tenure.

that means we can hire based on merit, pay based on performance, put the best and brightest in our classes and pay them to be there. it makes our schools better. four years after reforms, have higher graduation rates better third grade reading scores and now, have the second best act scores in the country for states where more than half the kids take the test. that shows you that despite all the hype you heard from the left and the protesters and the others out there four years ago, our reforms actually workeded. going forward. sometimes, people are surprised. we took on other big government special interests along the way. we levelled off our regulatory environment. we reigned in the lawsuit environment so we now have pulled back on the ability to have out of control lawsuits. we no longer fund planned parenthood in wisconsin. we passed major pro-life legislation as well.

we signed -- so that law-abiding citizens can have access to firearms to protect themselves and their family and their loved ones. we passed about a month ago, to uphold the law i signed that says if you want to vote in the state of wisconsin, you have to carry a photo i.d. to prove who you are. earlier this year -- that makes it the 25th state in the country to have a right to work so you don't have to be a part of the labor union in wisconsin. when i thought about running for

governor, wouldn't be easy, that's because this is a state that hasn't gone republican for president since 1984. we did all that early on. because we decided to go big and bold. we didn't hold back. we said put up or shut up. we were going to show the voters of our state that we could get things done. we needed to do it and do it early. that's something i think that needs to happen in this country as well because for matt and alex, and for my nieces and for all the other sons and daughters like them, i'm optimistic about the future of this country despite the challenges we face today because i look at what's happened in wisconsin michigan and ohio and other states across this country and i see if you put common sense republican conservative leadership in place and the chief executive and legislative branch, there's no end to the good things that can happen in the states. if we do that in washington in the republican house, senate and a new republican president, there's tho end to how much better things can be in this

country. first off, i think we need to start talking more about growth. i'm all for balanced budgets. i took a $3.64 billion budget deficit, one of the biggest per cap in the country and turned it into a surplus working together with our legislative branch. we didn't do that through austerity. we did it through growth and reform. fortunately when i listen to this president, people like hillary clinton, i think they've got it backwards. somehow, they seem to think the way to grow the economy is to grow wug. look at it. the last year alone, six of the top ten wealthiest counties in america, you know where they came from? in and around washington, d.c. that tells you they let you grow

the economy in washington. i think the vast majority of us in america, we believe you grow the economy in cities and towns and villages across this great country, that people create jobs, not the government. it's about time to get the government out of the way. make america a competitor again. so we can bring more american jobs back to seas. it's one of those where we need to put more money back in the hands of american consumers. some heard me joking about that $1 sweater, but i love the tell the story on why i'm so focused on cutting taxes. in my state, we've cut taxes in the last four years by $2 billion. on income, property, on employers. in fact, property taxes today in wisconsin are four years later lower on a typical home than they were four years ago.

they'll be lower at the end of 2016 than they were at the end of 2010. what governor in america can say that? i said simple. it's a simple story out there and i explained it. we've been married as of february 6th 22 years. we're proud of that. i made a critical mistake. i went to kohl's department stores and i bought something for the price it was marked at. if you've shoppeded at kohl's, you know what i'm talking about, right? so now, if i'm going to go buy a

new shirt, i go up to the rack that says it was 29.99 and it's marked down to 19.99 then i go up to the front and get out the insert from the sunday paper the scratch off that gets me another 10 or 15% off or maybe because we get stuff in the mail all the time, i take the 15 or 20%, if we're really lucky, the 30% mark that i take up to the cash register and then we pull the kohl's cash our our pocket and next thing you know, they're paying me to buy that shirt. right? right? it's close, right? so, how does kohl's make money? how do they make money? volume. you got it. volume. they could sell a few of those shirts at 29.99 or lower the price, broaden the volume, get more people to purchase and they're making more money. that's what i think about your money. the taxpayer's money.

the government could charge you a higher rate and a few of you could afford it, or we could lower the rates, prodden the base, have more people participate in the economy and fair better. it's the kohl's curve in my mind. that's how we need to explainnin things. i doubt the nominee for the other party has been to kohl's before or shopped in the last 18 or 20 year but i think about that. it's not just about lowering the tax burden. it's about doing other things that promote growth. about ramming in out of control federal regulations. about repealing obamacare and allows patients and families to make decisions about health care. it's about the energy policy that -- instead of relying on places in the world that hate

us, we're going to focus on things that promote growth and when we do we not only grow the economy and help raise wages, we ultimately put ourselves in a position where we help lower the debt and deficit problem not through higher rates, but by spreading the volume just like we do at kohl's. secondly, we need to talk more about reform. and again, this is where there's a stark, stark contrast. think about it. we've got a president right now in washington, let's think about washington. i'd love to go to washington. i love flying in by the monuments and i love it even more when i fly home. to me, washington is 68 square miles surrounded by reality. so it's nice to be out with everybody in reality again but i think about this president, people like hillary clinton and they seem to measure success in government by how many people are dependent on the government. how many are on medicaid, food starps unemployment. we, we should measure success by just the opposite.

by how many people are no longer depen dend on the government. no longer. because we understand that true freedom of prosperity does not come from the mighty hand of the government. comes from the power of people to live their own lives, to the dignity that is born of work. it's interesting as a kid, i grew up in a small town, paul ryan was on one side of me reince priebus on the other. go figure. along the way. but my first job was washing dishes at the country side restaurant. i moved up to the big time in high school. i flipped hamburgers at mcdonald's. paul ryan was flipping burgers in janesville when i was flipping burgers in dellville. his manager told him he didn't have the interpersonal skills to work the front cash register so he had the flip hamburgers in the back. it's true. my manager might have thought that, but she didn't tell me that. i think about that and not just

my early jobs but my parents, my dad was a preacher mom was a part time secretary. she raised my brother and i. i think about my grandparents, my mother's parents were formers that didn't have indoor plumbing until my mother went off to junior high school. my dad's dad was a machinist for nearly 40 years. what i think about my family my parents and grandparents, the jobs i started out early, i realized my brother and i didn't inherit fame or fortune, but something better. if you work hard and play by the rules, you can do and be anything this america. that's the american dream. we need to revive that again in this country. and so, we need to put that focus out there. i often laugh when i grew up in dellville, not a one of my classmates every said, hey, scott, some day when i grow up, i want to become dependent on the government. nobody ever said that.

nobody wrote in my yearbook, scott, good luck becoming dependent on the government. that's just not the american dream. somehow, you listen to the president, hillary clinton, they act like that's something we should aspire to. not only for those who have been honored to be born in this great country, i meet people who come here from other places around the world. doesn't matter what country they come from. literally, almost the people i've been honored to meet over the years particularly those who are successful, small business owners today who have come from all over the globe, the reason they came to america wasn't to become dependent on the government. it was because in america, it's one of the few places left in the world where it doesn't matter what class you were born into. doesn't matter what your parents did for a living. in america, you can do and be anything you want. the opportunity is equal to all, but the outcome should be up to each and every one of us. that's the american dream. we need to be a party that stands up for anyone that wants

to work hard and play by the rules and say we're the ones who are going to champion the american dream. if you remember nothing else tonight, remember this. there's a reason we take a day off to celebrate the fourth of july and not the 15th of april because in america, we celebrate our depence for the government. the last thing i just want to tell you about for a moment is about safety. safety. i call it safety. some of you may call it national security. i call it safety because national security is something you read about page six in the newspaper. safety's something you feel here. i watch as you travel this country. i see it elsewhere around this great america we live in, as i

talk to people, i see person after person who tells me that when we see those video images of a jordanian pilot being burned live in a cage when we see christians in egypt being beheaded, and others like them that's something you start to feel. that's safety. not just national security. it's so frustrating to me because saudi arabia as i see that to think we've got a president who a couple of years ago drew a line in the sand and then allowed people to cross it. we had a president who calls isis just to year ago, the jv quad, who called yemen a success story. iran a place we could do business with. who's got a former secretary of state in hillary clinton that gave russia a reset button. i'm glad you mentioned yemen because it's amazeing to me when i think about this. not only was the president saying last fall even after

the -- had moved their ways, the shiite based iran backed had gone into yemen. you've got to president's current administration still proclaiming it's a success. how do you say that? when you think about russia out there, there's a reason why putin is willing to act. he's a nationalist. he knows the old adage that you -- and if you find, you push. if you find steel you pull back. in the world today i was just talking about two weeks ago with some of our allies in the arab world and middle east, i'm not just talking about israel, but others out there in the gulf states. i asked them what's the number one concern you have. don't tell me about the details you have of the iran deal. i asked what is the number one concern that you have in the world today. the disengagement of america. those are our allies in the arab

world. they're worried about the fact that america's not there. our perez ebs endorsement in the world. i got to tell you, now more than ever for the sake of my children and your children and those children yet to be born, looking for ward we need a commander in chief who will identify that radical islamic terrorism is a threat to us all. we need a leader who will identify israel as an ally and start acting like it again. and we need a president who's going to be honest with the american people and look them straight in the eye and say this isn't going to happen. this isn't going to happen with a couple of issues here and there. this is a generational issue. and it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

we're not going to wait until they bring the fighttous. and so, there are some sharp contrasts out there. not just between this president, but hillary clinton, who is jennifer and others have said is really an extension of the third term of barack obama. americans need to realize that. this is this isn't a third term of bill clinton. it's barack obama. and we've got a real choice out there. we've got a real choice and i am optimistic about the future because i think we have a real opportunity not just to win an election, as republicans, but i think we've got an even better opportunity to lay out to chart out a course for how to make america great again. i see anytime the states. not just in my states, but others across the country where good teams, not just executives, good teams have come together.

republican legislative branch have come together to make the states great again. from one state to the next to the next. we can do the same for mesh. and i would just end with telling you this. it's not just about the states in the last few years. what gives me hope and optimism is something i look at when i look at this great american history we have. years ago, i had a chance to go to a governor's conference in philadelphia to see constitution hall. as a kid my family never got a chance to go to philadelphia which is too bad because i loved history. i love history. as a kid, i was maybe a little geeky, but i thought of our founders like superheroes, bigger than life. and so, back in the fall of 2011, we got a chance to go to a conference in philadelphia. we got up early in the morning. went by the liberty bell and as the sun was coming up that

morning, we went into independence hall and because of my fascination with our founders, i was ready to be blown away. and i looked in that wall, which is as as we are tonight, not much different than the hall we're in right now. and i looked at the desk and i looked at the chairs, and at that moment, it dawned on me. these are ordinary people. these were ordinary people who had done something quite extraordinary. these are people who didn't just risk their political careers. these are folks who didn't just risk their business ventures. these are people who risked their lives. their lives for the freedoms we hold dear today. ladies and gentlemen, tonight i tell you that moments like that remind me what makes america great. what makes us exceptional. what makes us arguably the greatest country in the history of the world has been all throughout our nation's history in moments of crisis be it

economic or fiscal, be it military or spiritual, all throughout our nation's history what has made us amazing has been in those moments of crisis. there have been men and women of courage who have been willing to stand up and think more about the future of their children and their grandchildren than they thought about their own futures. tonight, i would tell you that looking ahead, this is one of those moments. this is one of those times in american history when we can look back and tell future generations, we were there. we heeded the call. we did what was required to make america great again. i'm convinced that working together that's exactly what we can do. and we ask for your help on that path going forward. [ applause ] >> and with that, i'll take a few questions before they give

me the hook or throw a dessert at me or something along the line. is that all right? great. so comfortable at dinner. sure. debt and deficit. there's a series of things. first of all, i'll put it in context. when we came in, in my state four years ago, we inherited a $3.6 billion budget deficit. it was one of the biggest in the country. and we not only balanced the books, paid back a huge rate on the state's transportation fund of nearly $1 billion, paid back $250 million that had been raided and did all of that while still cutting taxes. we did it through reform and we did it through growth. so looking forward, i think a series of things have to happen. certainly the part we talked about with growth growth has to be part it.

we have to grow the economy both as individuals and employers. but then as part of reform, i believe we should take major portions of the federal government and send it back to the states. certainly the congress and the house has talked in the ryan budget plan about medicaid. i'd go further than that with block grants. i'd look at medicaid other social services, transportation worker force development, other issues like that. a whole spectrum of things the federal government currently does send it back in block grants to the states. it will be more effective, more efficient, more accountable, certainly more accountable to the public. and then it gives you the leeway and the flexibility to look at big issues like entitlements and also to look at other areas where i do think we need to spend more money and that is in the department of defense. governor sununu did a good job of -- sure, you can applaud that. [ applause ] >> governor sununu did a good job of summarizing that. but you look at the navy as an example. we're at 275, 280 vessels right

now, headed down to 250. that's less than half of where we were under reagan. luke there are some real challenges for us to be able to protect ourselves and our interests here and around the world. i do think we need to adjust the defense budget. but when it comes to debt and deficit, part of that reform, sending it back to the states. part of it is tackling bigger issues, and should we be a candidate for this office of president. obviously in the coming months we'll be laying it out in greater detail. sure. >> not a specific question, but i have watched you run a 160-person manufacturing operation. you speak in general about small business. we are burdened by regulations that we can't even stay on top of. and talk about the opportunities of small businesses. >> well, you did build it, for starters, which is a good thing. but part of that mindset is different.

the idea that -- i believe that people create jobs, not the government. and so starting with that premise that if people create jobs, not the government, one of the best things we can do not just for small business but for anybody, and i think it's one of the starkest contrasts for example between hillary clinton and some of those of us that are republicans is president obama talking about top down government knows best, that we'll tell you what to do, when it to do and how to do it. that is stale. that has failed. it's not good at the federal or state level or local level. and yet people like the president and like hillary clinton keep pushing that. in contrast, i think we need to say not just to small business owners but to young people and anybody else out there, we offer the contrast. we don't believe in top down washington knows best. we believe in bottom up. we believe that that's new and exciting and dynamic, and that's the best way to grow the economy. and one of the best things we can do is say as long as you

don't violate the public health and public safety of your neighbor, go out and do your thing. you want to start a business? you want to start out your career, go forward, i think it's a pretty refreshing message not just to small business owners but to some of the college students i met earlier today. what they are looking for is some optimism that they can advance their career that maybe some day they could start a business like yours and others out there. what frustrates me is sometimes i hear from current small business owners who say, if i knew what i knew today, i wouldn't start this business. and that's frustrating because job growth is going to come from new businesses and start-ups special small businesses that grow. we have to talk away that mindset. so to me, what we try to do at the state level doesis true at the federal level. unless you're a clear threat to public safety and health, most of the rest of this should be cleared out of the way. instead of costs going like this to get around taxes and regulatory costs, allow capital to move forward in a way that

flows naturally. that will help greater investment, put more people to work, raise wages, do more for the american public. way back. you get the last one. >> [ inaudible ] >> yeah. well thanks. well, one, if we chose to get in, obviously, we've been here a couple of times. we love coming here. for us, a lot of new hampshire is very similar to wisconsin geographic geographically, demographically, and otherwise. should we get in for sure, we'll come back and maybe have a little fun. a couple of folks have invited me to bike week. i ride. little known fact, i ride a 2003 harley davidson road king. 100,000 miles on it.

i either would ride my own or pick one up at the dealership. this state is a nice enough size that i think in two days you could get through all 10 counties and make a nice road trip around the state. i did that in my last re-election. some of the most fun is going out on saturdays and sundays on the weekends. instead of doing a whistle stop at a bus, i like doing it at a harley. there's a few lawmakers that already said they want to go with. if you ride a motorcycle we'll even let you in if you're not a harley rider. but that would be a lot of fun. and certainly making visits. three times in the last four years, i have run for governor. so we actually like to campaign. we enjoy meeting people. i have to tell you, one of the greatest blessings for us, she's nodding her head no back there. depends on the day. [ laughter ] >> this is a bad thing about having your spouse sitting right behind you. [ laughter ] >> but we actually have two sons, one of which is going to be in state next week who should we make should next step

forward are probably likely to take a semester off or more to go out and campaign with us. we want to go to college campuses and stuff like that. if that goes forward we'll be back. not just on the road trip but for town hall meetings and things like that. i love going to factories. i love going to farms. i can go to your factory if you want. i'm inviting myself in everywhere. love going to small businesses and farms and others along the way. what i have always found is that's a great way for me when i was first a lawmaker, i loved knocking on doors because people are real when you're at their house. congressman, you probably get this. they'll tell you the truth. and at least in our state, they are pretty polite even if they don't agree with you in front of their house. maybe not elsewhere, but i like that. that kind of interaction. and the other part for us that's nice is this state, i think having looked at this and being here a number of times and talking to enough folks about it, fits well with what we've

done in the last few elections. we won 96% of the republican vote the last election. other than terry branstead, that is the highest. terry and i are about the same in iowa. he has 97%, and i got 96 rs. so we are right there. but it's great because that means tea party to establishment from social conservative to libertarian, we have it all because what people want more than anything is they don't just want a fighter. they want someone who fights and wins. [ applause ] i think that's really important, because a lot of great fighters out there but they don't win. a lot of winners out there that don't fight. what people want someone who fights and wins for the hard-working taxpayers. somebody said i like walker because he wins without caving. and so that's really important. but the other interesting thing about new hampshire that ties in to this story is not only did we

win with almost universal support amongst republicans, that's not enough to win in my state. we had to carry independents by over 11, almost 12 points. and you don't win the center by running to the center. you win the center by leading. what independents want is not unlike what our base wants and they want people to stand up and look you in the eye and tell you exactly what you're going to do. they don't have to agree with you on every single issue, but they want someone they know every single day is going to get up and fight hard and then win for them and their family and people just like them across their state. ultimately i think they want the same thing here and across the country. so thanks. [ applause ] tonight, "first ladies," private lives, public image.

earlier this month, u.s. commanders in the pacific region testified by the senate armed services committee warning of north korea's capabilities saying they now have the capability to place a nuclear warhead on a missile capable of reaching the u.s. >> good morning. the committee meets today to receive testimony on u.s. pacific command and u.s. forces korea. i'd like to thank both of our witnesses, admiral locklear and general scalparotti for appearing before us today and their many years of distinguished service. in the past three months, this committee has received testimony from many of america's most respected statesmen, thinkers and former military commanders. these leaders have toldall told us we are experiencing an array of crises more varied than at any time since the end of world war ii. as we confront immediate challenges in europe and the

middle east, the united states cannot afford to negligent the asia-pacific region, which has been called the defining region for our nation's future. if the 21st century is to be another american century, the united states must remain an asia-pacific power. our national interests there are deep and enduring. we seek to extend free trade free markets, free navigation and free commons air, space, sea, and now cyber. we seek to maintain a balance of power that fosters human rights democracy, rule of law and many other values that we share with increasing numbers of asian citizens. and we seek to defend ourselves and our allies by maintaining the capability to prevent deter, and if necessary prevail in a conflict. achieving these objectives will require sustained american leadership. we must use all elements of our national power and in particular i am hopeful that congress will pass trade

promotion authority with a trans-pacific partnership. this vital trade agreement will open new opportunities for trade and level the playing field for american businesses and workers while sending a powerful strategic symbol about america's commitment to the asia pacific. but the soft power is the shadow cast by our hard power. that's why the united states must continue to sustain a favorable military balance in the region. the department of defense will need to update concepts of operations with emerging military technology to enable our military to operate in contested environments. from projecting power over long distances and exploiting the undersea domain to developing new precision guided munitions and investing in innovative ways to rebuild the resiliency of our forward deployed forces we have a great deal of who, to do if we

aim to maintain our military advantages in the asia-pacific region. none of these will be possible if we live with mindless sequestration and a broken acquisition system. as we build and posture forces to secure america's interest in the asia-pacific we must remain clear-eyed about the implications of china's rise and its evolving foreign and defense policy. as director of national intelligence james clapper told this committee back in february, china is engaged in a rapid military modernization deliberately designed to counteract or thwart american military strengths. i believe china can and should play a construct up role in the asia-pacific region. unfortunately, in recent years china has behaved less like a responsible stakeholder and more like a bully. in the south china sea, we have seen the latest example of a trend toward more assertive behavior. china's land reclaimation and

construction activities on multiple islands across the spradly chain and the potential command and control surveillance and military capabilities it could bring to bear from these new land features are a challenge to the interests of the united states and the nations of the asia-pacific region. such unilateral efforts to change the status quo through force, intimidation or coercion threaten the peace and stability that have extended stability across asia-pacific for seven decades. as a wrote in a letter together with my colleagues reid, corker, and menendez, the united states must work together with like-minded partners and allies to develop and employ a comprehensive strategy that aims to shape china's coercive peacetime behavior. this will not be easy and will likely have impacts on other areas of our bilateral relationship. but if china continues to pursue a coercive and exclusive tory

exclusion, the cost to regional security and prosperity as well as to american interests will only grow. i'm also concerned by the recent assessment from admiral bill gort me gortney that north korea has a missile that could carry weapons to the united states. general, i look forward to hear your assessment of this potential breakthrough and the implications to our national security if the erratic and unpredictable regime of kim jong un achieves the ability to carry out a nuclear strike against our homeland. i thank the witnesses and look forward to their testimony. senator reid? >> thank you mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming the generals. thank you, gentlemen, for your service and sacrifice and that of your family. and particularly convey to the

men and women under your command our deepest appreciation for what they do every day. on tuesday, we had an extremely insightful hearing on some of the challenges we face in the asia-pacific region. the consensus from the panel is that we face some very serious challenges especially in light of china's increasing military budget and destabilizing activities in the region. and one of the biggest challenges will be to continue to provide as we have for 70 years security, stability, and free transit in the pacific. particularly as senator mccain has said with pending sequestration in the face of declining resources that we have. and i echo his call for the end of sequestration. admiral locklear, we'd be very interested in your views about the the land reclaimation activities of china in the spradlys and elsewhere. that is something that we both, along with senator and menendez and corker objected to or at

least criticized. what more must we do to build a capacity of our partners in the region to help them with their maritime awareness and encourage all of the regional actives to seek legal redress to problems, not to invoke lethal threats with respect to sovereignty and stability in the region? as the chairman indicated, admiral gortney's comments this week, as he said, north korea, quote, has the ability to put a nuclear missile and shoot it at the homeland quite disturbing. and general, would you in your comments or questions please let us know about the dimensions of this threat as it exists today and as it might evolve in the future? again, we thank you because the north koreans appear to be not only unfortunately well armed but very difficult to predict

their behaviors. and your views and insights will be extremely important. also, if you could comment on the possible deployment of thad missile defense system and its contribution to the defense of our allies in the republic of south korea. we are concerting all of these challenges once again under the constraint of serious budget limitations. and admiral locklear and general scalparotti, please indicate the impact of secrest ration on your operations. it would be very helpful, i think. thank you for joining us. >> i thank the witnesses. admiral locklear. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator reed, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for this opportunity to appear with you today. before we begin, i would like my written statement to be submitted to the record. for three years, i have had the honor and privilege to lead the

men and women of the united states pacific command. these volunteers are skilled professionals, dedicated to the defense of our nation. they are serving as superb ambassadors to represent the values, the strengths that make our nation great. i want to go on record to formally thank them for their service and their families for their sacrifices. in u.s. pay com we continue to strengthen alliances our partnerships maintain an asured presence in the region and demonstrate an intent and resolve to safeguard u.s. national interests. when i spoke to you last year, i highlighted my concern for several issues that could channel the security environment across the indoh pacific. those challenges included responding to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, dealing with an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable north korea, a challenge that general scalparotti and i remain aligned in addressing, a continued escalation of complex territorial disputes, increasing

regional transnational threats and the complexity associated with china's continued rise. in the past year these challenges have not eased. they will not go away soon. but the asia rebalance strategy has taken hold and is achieving intended goals. however, the greatest challenge remains the continual physical uncertainty resulting from secrest ration. -- sequestration. the greatest challenge in the indoasia-pacific will be dealing with the national interests as we respond to a rapidly changing world. i echo the secretary of defense the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and the service chiefs testimony before congress. our nation is being forced into a resource driven national security strategy instead of one properly resourced and driven by our enduring interests. in the indo-asia pacific, we are accepting more risk, not left. sequestration will force harmful reduction in force size structure, and readiness that will reduce my ability to manage

crisis space provide options to the president, and diminishing the united states prestige and credibility in the region and around the globe. in the last year, at great expense to the readiness of the forces in the continental united states, pay comhas been able to maintain forces to protect the homeland deterring aggressors such as north korea, strengthening alliances and partnerships, and developing the concepts and capabilities required remain dominant in a world that is growing in complexity with threats that continue to increase against a seemingly unending stream of constraint constraints. without adequate resources, we will be forced to make difficult choices today that will have strategeic consequences to our goals. /* >> i am honored to testify today as the commander of united

nations command and the combined united states forces korea. on behalf of civilians, contractors and their families who serve our great nation in the republic of korea, one of our most important allies, thank you for your support. i prepared brief opening remarks, but i would like to ask that my written posture statement be entered into the record. last year i testified that the combined and joint forces of the united states and the republic of korea were capable and ready to deter and if necessary respond to north korean threats and actions. due on our accomplishments in 2014, i report to you that our strong alliance is more capable of addressing the rapidly evolving and increasingly asymmetric north korean threat. in recent years, they have utilized abilities such as cyber warfare, nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles to advance its interests. to put this in perspective or

time, in 2012, my predecessor noted north korea's advancements in cyber and nuclear capabilities during his opening statement to this committee. a year later, north korea conducted cyber attacks on south korea's banks and broadcasting stations. and in 2014 they boldly projected their cyber capabilities against sony pictures in the united states in an effort to inflict economic damage and suppress free speech. this example represents a trend that is persistent across several north korean capabilities. my top concern is that we have little to no warning of a north korean provocation, which could start a cycle of action and counteraction leading to unintended escalation. this underscores the need for an alliance to maintain a high level of readiness and vigilance. last year, the alliance took significant steps in improving its capabilities and capacities to deter aggression and reduce its operational risk. but our work is not done.

in 2015 we will maintain this momentum by focusing on my top priority sustaining and strength being the alliance with an emphasis on readiness. this includes improving isr capabilities and critical munitions. the return of sequestration would negatively impact these priorities reduce readiness and delay deployment of the forces required to defend the republic of korea and u.s. interests. in crisis on the peninsula, this will result in more military and civilian casualties for the republic of korea and the united states and potentially place the mission at risk. the men and women serving on freedom's frontier defending the republic of korea, remain thankful for this committee's unwavering support and prioritizing resources that enable us to defend our national interests in asia while

advancing universal valley values and international order. i am extremely proud of our members serving in the republic of korea who never lose sight of the fact that we are at freedom's frontier, defending one of our most important allies and vital american interests. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. general, i mentioned in my remarks, admiral gortney said that north korea has an operational road mobile missile that could carry nuclear weapons to the united states. do you agree with that assessment? >> senator, i believe that they have had the time and the capability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead. they have stated that they have an intercontinental ballistic missile as a nuclear capability. they paraded it. and i think as a commander, we must assume that they have that capability. >> admiral? >> i would agree with that assessment. i mean we haven't seen them

effectively test it. but we -- you know, as commanders, all the indications are that we have to be prepared to defend the homeland from it. and we are taking actions to do that. >> and those actions are? >> first, we work very closely with north com to endure that the defense capabilities of our systems are optimized. forces forward in the theater that i and general scalparo ittti have command of. and the ability to work with our japanese and korean allies to bring capabilities to bear has been productive. and in addition, we've been in discussions about potential deployment of additional thad battery beyond the one that's in guam but on the korean peninsula. >> general this is rather

disturbing particularly given the unpredictability of this overweight young man in north korea. is that -- is that a disturbing factor? >> that's a disturbing factor sir. and i think, you know, i believe that kim jung unis unpredictable. he has a mind that he can intimidate. he does that with provocations. he has committed provocations this year. i think it's a grave concern given the leadership there as well. >> let's talk about the china and the reclaimation, admiral. we from time to time put a picture up of the areas that are reclaimed by china out in the east china sea. our south china sea. and the problem is our pictures don't keep up with their activities.

it's my information that they have now in the last year filled in some 600 acres of land and are constructing runways and possibly artillery and missile defense systems. the congressional research service, congressional research service on april 6 issued a report on this issue. and i quote their report saying, quote, the publicly visible current u.s. strategy for dissuading china from continuing its land recmation activities appears to focus primarily on having officials make statements expressing the u.s. view that china should stop these activities on the grounds that they are destieblabilizing and inconsistent with commitments china has made under the

nonbinding 2002 doc. do you know anything else about our strategy concerning china's continued expanding and filling in these areas which are international waters? and how great a threat do you -- does that appear to you, admiral, as far as long-term threat to our commitment to freedom of the seas? >> yes, sir. well, the overall u.s. strategy i think, goes way beyond the military component of what i deal with each day. and so i only make a recommendations on that military side. so i'd refer the policy decisions about how we deal with it -- >> and your recommendations are? >> well in general, where you find that the u.s. has a clear policy on how it feels about something, military solutions or diplomatic solutions become easier for that. the policy we have in the south

china sea as i understand it today is as we take globally on territorial disputes is we don't take sides in those territorial disputes, but that we do want them worked out in peaceful, noncoercive ways and legal matters. >> and that in time could impede our ability to navigate through those areas of waters? >> yes, sir. given the fact that my view of all of the claimants in the south china sea, and some of them -- they all own some of these land features and have different postures in different places. >> only they don't fill in some areas of 600 acres either. >> no, sir they don't. so my assessment is that all of the claimants for china are doing what they agreed to in 2002 is they are just maintaining them while the legal process would work out. the chinese, however, are doing much different than that. they are obviously as you have stated have been aggressive.

i think it's been -- how fast they have been able to do it has been astonishing. they are building a network of outposts to enforce control over most of the south china sea. the southeast asian nations are increasingly worried that the prc's new capabilities will allow china to take de facto control of the surrounding waters. places like fiery cross reef where they are putting in a runway. in the last 10 months it went from a barely noticeable feature to now having a deep water port on it and a potential runway. this will allow the prc number one to put their maritime security force down there which is equivalent to a coast guard or fisheries patrol which to give you the magnitude of the size of the prc's capability is if you take all of the southeast asian countries coast guards and put them together it's still a smaller number than what china has been able to produce. i have also observed that they have taken what would have been

considered a couple of years ago gray hulled warships and painted them white and turned them into maritime security craft. so we portray this, i think or try to to the prc, to china. and their response is generally well, this is our sovereign territory and stay out of our business, which is for them to enforce their nondash line claim. so the implications are that if this activity continues at pace is that it would give them de facto control, i think in peacetime of the -- much of the world's most important waterways, where much of the world's economic energy is created. it would -- if they desired it would in the future give them an opportunity to have outposts to put long-range detective radars in there a place to put more warships. they could put warplanes to force potential down the road air defense zones. those are the kind of scenarios

we have to think about. and it essential complicates the security environment. so far, the asean nations who have tried to work with china on this to develop a code of conduct in my view has not produced very much at all. in fact, you know, the asean is an effective diplomatic organization, but it's not designed to handle these security issues that pop up. so i think we've got to watch this situation very carefully. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general scaparotti, we have a very complicated relationship with chinese, particularly in the context of north korea. to what degree do you have sort of a contingency plan to communicate with them if there say provocation, or serious provocation, by the north koreans that would introduce the idea of using force? >> yes, sir.

well, you know, as we -- even in our exercises, one of the first priorities is communications with china if there's conflict on the peninsula. so we exercise that in communications even in our exercises and of course it's very important for us to understand that. and to ensure that they understand our intent. >> uh-huh. now, that's one side of the equation. the other side of the equation is to the extent that they are facilitating these activities particularly the cyber. do you have any sense of the degree of facilitation? and the general question is, you know, they have to appreciate the instability of this regime and the irrationality of the regime. they like the buffer between south korea. they like because they are affecting our behavior and disturbing us. but they have to i hope realize that there's a danger of, you know, looking the other way. >> yes, sir. and i think they do.

my sense is, and those who have had conversations with them, i haven't talked to their military directly, but that they also are concerned and have some frustrations with the kim regime. in terms of cyber, you specifically asked that question. you know we know that north korea has some of their cyber activities take place in china. but i don't know and i haven't seen intelligence that lead me to believe that they have had a direct relationship with north korea and their cyber development. >> and just to finally -- and this spans not just military capacity but diplomat capacity. are there efforts to try to move the chinese government to be more pro active in terms of -- with financial pressures with diplomatic pressures to at least

demonstrate to the north korean regime that, you know, they can't do these things? >> yes, sir. there has been. >> okay. admiral locklear, you have described a situation in the south pacific and the southeast pacific is one where china is exerting itself. the witnesses in the last panel suggested that in terms of an officer career in japan, et cetera we're fairly well positioned against potential operational threats. but it's not the case in the southern pacific and the southeast pacific. is that fair? >> yes, sir. it's a large region. as we talked about at the beginning of the whole rebalance discussion was trying to move ourselves from what had been a post cold war to kind of a location in northeast asia. and to bring that to be more relevant to the security

challenges throughout the region. so a number of initiatives. one is that we -- with our filipino allies have rein reinvigorated that alliance and helped them improve their minimum defense but also to improve access to the region to ensure better security. we've opened partnerships with nations in southeast asia that we probably wouldn't have considered possible in the last couple of decades. vietnam, malaysia, indonesia, countries that have become increasingly important to the security of the region and to the global security environment. >> as the chinese are creating these artificial islands in the pacific, there are a lot of, you know, real geographic islands that our allies control. are we thinking about in conjunction with our allies positioning forces forward, in effect using islands as sort of

a way to deny, you know, oceans to the chinese as they appear trying to do to us? >> well, i wouldn't go into specifics of where our plans would take us in this forum sir. but i would say that first we're ensuring that the five alliances we have there are set right for the security environment that we're going to see ourselves in in this century. and we're encouraging -- and to their credit, most of them are spending money and spending money on defense assets. and they want the things that allow them to be able to be complimentary to us. so we're -- we are working hard in that area. >> final question to add mirral lock here. it was indicated that one of the clear advantages we have is our submarine fleet in the south pacific. in fact, he suggested doubling the number of deployed marines.

is that your view also particularly with their aerial denial, their surface capabilities. is that your view also? >> we have the best submarines in the world. we continue i think to outpace the rest of the world in that cape ant. -- capability. in my a.o.r., they are essential to any operations that i have both in peacetime and in crisis and contingency. i have concern about the size of the submarine force as we go into the middle of this century. and its ability for its to remain relevant globally. plus, we're going to have to figure out this replacement of our strategeic nuclear submarine force, which is the most survivable leg of our triad. and the importance of that as we see the modernization of strategic nuclear capabilities in both countries like china and russia. >> just finally, the submarine appears to be the only weapons

system that still can approach virtually to the shores of china and deliver if necessary weapons. is that true? >> well, i wouldn't say it's the only system. >> okay. that's more encouraging. thank you very much. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, admiral locklear, let me thank you again for the hospitality you afforded us in our whole group when we were in hawaii and we laid the wreath on the memorial of the uss oklahoma. that was -- you went beyond your call of duty. on that same trip, we went to south korea. at that time, i recall in some of our meetings there they were talking about the use of a -- or now the use of the cluster

munitions. because of the proximity between north korea and south korea, that's where they were most effectively used at that time. now we have a policy which is a self-imposed policy. i'm not criticizing it. i know the reasons for it. but we're being forced to discontinue in that. and i'd like to ask you, what are we doing in the place to perform those functions those missions, that we were depending upon in the clusters? >> yes, sir. as you know, the cluster munitions as you indicated very important to our plans and particularly on the peninsula if there were a crisis. there's presently work underway to replace our present munitions with those that will provide the same effects but with less -- you know, with meeting the requirements of the treaty. in essence, less than 1% dead rate. >> you're talking about -- you both talked about the increase

in the casualties as a result of some of the lack of the ability to use some of the equipment we've used in the past. is this something that could expose more risk and more casualties by not having this capability and not replacing it but something as effective? >> yes, sir, absolutely. it's a critical component of our planning on the peninsula. >> okay. let me -- i know that both of you agree with this statement that was made by james clapper, so we don't need to rehash all of that when we say looking back over now more than half a century of intelligence, we have not experienced a time when we were beset by more threats and crises around the globe. i think both of you agree with that and you have stated so in the past. i'd like to get into the remainder of the time, admiral locklear, talking about the submarines thing. senator rounds and i were on the uss carl vincent last week. without having any details in this setting, they were very busy. we're now down to 10 submarines.

admiral roughead said on friday that we're going to have to be moving one or we should move one of those into the pacific. now my question would be -- and admiral locklear, i think it was a year ago, that you were quite outspoken in the fact that we should have 11 carriers to carry out the missions. we still -- do you still feel that way? >> i do. >> you'd like to get back to it, wouldn't you? >> i'd like to get back to it. i think the navy is undergoing a bathtub -- i call it a bathtub of readiness now because we delayed through the war years maintenance on these nuclear aircraft carriers. on one hand, they are magnificent machines. on the other hand, you have to take care of them correctly to make sure they're safe. so we'll be enduring that the next five to six years before we get back to the level we need to

be, i think, for kind of day-to-day operations in my a.r. >> of course, maintenance and organization are the first two things to go when we're faced with what we've been faced with. in the event that you do move one into the asia pacific area, where would it come from? what kind of a vacuum would be left behind in other aors? >> well, i think that decision would have to be made at the secretary of defense level. but we have you know, generally 11 aircraft carriers. and out of that 11, they generate a global presence of some number kind of for day-to-day operations and another level that would be able to surge in times of crisis or in times of conflict. i think that the aircraft carriers are probably best suited for the types of missions that we do in the asia pacific today. and where it would come from i can't say but my guess is it would probably come out of the

middle east, given that that's been the primary demand signal for a carrier presence in the last decade and a half. >> senator reed in your final response to his last question, that came to my mind that the carrier capability. well, that's very helpful. and i -- but i'd like to have for the record something a little bit more detailed, because some of us are not as familiar as we should be with that capability. in fact i'm going down to norfolk this weekend to try to become a little bit more informed on this. so if you could for the record try to come out with where might have the capacity where we could afford to move something into the pacific, and then how busy everybody is at the present time. that would be helpful. >> all right, sir. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of you gentlemen for your service and of course the service of the men and women who serve under your

commands. admiral locklear, my very best to you in your future endeavors. thank you very much for being paycom commander. admiral locklear, i know that secretary of defense ash carter spent as i continued a day with you. so were the discussions that you had with him reflective of the priorities as you've laid out in your testimony today? >> yes, ma'am. >> you did mention that with everything that is going on in south and east china seas and the provocation of north korea that we do need to strengthen our alliances with our partners and also establish new relationships. and in this regard, despite historical differences last december the u.s., south korea and japan signed an information sharing arrangement on what appears to have been a first step in what deputy secretary of state tony blinken calls, and i

quote, a profoundly positive trajectory, end quote. admiral, please discuss the relationships between south korea and japan and the challenges we face in furthering our trilateral u.s.-japan-south korea alliance. >> the challenges we face from my perspective are primarily political and social challenges. on the military side, the militaries, if allowed are able to work together for i think the common good of the security in northeast asia in particular. the impediments -- what's happened thus far is because of the political pressure to not have a true information sharing agreements between japan and korea. limit our ability to allow us to bring together in a trilateral way that optimizes the forces that they have invested in and

we've invested in. particularly in critical areas such as ballistic missile defense, et cetera. so i highly encourage both korea and japan to move forward at the highest level of governments with the types of agreements and allow us to optimize a military capability that this trilateral arrangement can bring. >> so the information sharing arrangement that was agreed to, you're saying that that is not enough? it's not what you would consider a true information sharing arrangement? >> well, it is a good start. >> again, to you, admiral, many countries within the region are increasing their defense capabilities. china is procuring submarines quickly. japan, india south korea singapore, and australia have been shoring up their military capabilities. malaysia and indonesia have a

couple of more sub marines, and vietnam recently announced the purchase of russian-made submarines. how will the continued growth of the region's submarine fleet impact the balance of power within the south china sea region? does this cause us to adjust our strategies or basing decisions if growth continues on its current trajectory? >> well the indo-asia-pacific region is the most militarized part of the world. and it's increasing its militarization because most of the countries there have the resources now and the will and the desire to grow their militaries. those that have the military capability to actually operate a submarine force are pursuing that because they understand the asymmetric advantages that it brings and realize the access

and capeability that submarines bring and also the deterrent value that submarines bring. so my numbers are roughly there are about 300 submarines in the world that aren't u.s. submarines. 200 of them are in the indo asia pacific. some are owned by our partners and allies, but many of them are not. and so the increasing number of submarines that have increasing lethality, increasing quietening technology, certainly does change the dynamic of how we have to operate in the area and the type of tactics and procedures and operational conent isescepts we have to develop to remain dominant. but i look at it as a fact of life. it's going to happen, and we have to deal with it. >> so in dealing with it, particularly with our partners and allies, does this require us to be very much more collaborative and to share information so that we're on the same page so to speak, in that

part of the world? >> it does. it not only requires us to share bilaterally more in a particularly difficult environment undersea and maritime domain, but it also requires them to be able to share with their other neighbors that have that capacity as well. and as you know, in the indo-asia pacific, those multilateral organizations don't exist to facilitate that. so we're seeing the growth of that, but it's a work in progress. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, thank you, gentlemen, for your service. we have a memo here. talking about noteworthy challenges in the pacific area. and they list of course north korea is the most dangerous and unpredictable challenge, and i'm sure both of you agree with that. but also territorial disputes in the east and south china seas, natural disasters including weather and disease, violent

extremism, transnational crime, russian intent, and chinese intent. are there any of these gentlemen, that would not involve a need to deliver our marines quickly and effectively through amphibious ships? admiral? >> well, i think historically the marine corps is a cornerstone of the force structure that we have in the asia pacific. i mean it's uniquely suited for a large arch pleg ohs, large sea spaces. it uses the sea as a highway to move around on. and it's -- of all the ones you listed there, i can't think of one that the marine corps does not play as a part of the joint force in a significant way. so, yes, they do play in all of those. the question of whether or not

they have enough lift, the answer to that is no. we don't have enough lift. and i've said this before. we've got to not only is the number of amphibious ships that we can build in our own ship yards but we've got to look at connectors. we've got to look at the types of alternative platforms that allow us to operate in more unique -- >> connectors. connectors and alternatives. >> connectors and alternatives. connectors are like joint high speed vessels that move marines and troops around faster. so it also gets into the whole issue of how do you in huge crisis, in large crisis, what is your military sea lift command? what is the condition of that? >> well, i want the general to get a crack at this question too. but let's talk about that. we understand that we have a requirement for 50 amphibious ships. is that correct? >> well i don't know that i've

heard the number 50. i think you'd have to go back to the department of the navy for them to calculate globally how many they need. but what we've had a greater pressure on our amphibious force, particularly when we have operations in the middle east that now require us to put marine units in position to be able to monitor things like embassy safety and embassy extraction in hot spots. all of that has put a demand that has pulled the amphibious ability away. >> it's a very real contingy that happens. >> yes. >> the information i have is that we have a requirement for 50, and we only have 30 in our inventory. and of those ships, approximately 15 to 20 are operationally available. would you say that that is pretty close to being correct information, admiral? 30 in the inventory and 15 to 20 operational.

>> 30 is about my understanding of it. and operational availability depending on how it's defined, my aor i have an amphibious group that's available on a greater basis than that. but globally, that's probably about right. >> general let's let you weigh in on this. and how would the effectiveness of our marines be affected if there are not necessary amphibious ships to get them delivered? >> they are very important to me in the peninsula for rapid response. and they are a critical part of all of our plans. operating on the peninsula, it's the marine corps and their ability to be lifted quickly to different places. they provide me agility. it's the quickest -- kind of the most succinct way to put it. i am very concerned about the amount of lift available in order to support our plans. and the maintenance of that lift as well. >> now so if we don't have

enough amphibess, the connectors alone are not a solution, are they? >> well, we have looked at alternative methods in the use of alternate ships to help us with the delivery of marines. i can be more specific, you know, in a response for record as to how we look at our planning. >> thank you very much. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator? >> mr. chairman, thank you. admiral locklear i want to start with a little bit on missile defense. and obviously the asia pacific is of critical importance to the u.s. both economically and

strategically, yet the current security environment in your command is increasingly complex. countries in the region continue to invest in greater quantities of ballistic missiles with extended range and new capabilities. while i think we should continue to invest in missile defense programs that are proven and effective, i also think we should be investing in left of launch and other nonkinetic means of defense. given the vast member of incoming missiles that an adversary could use to potentially overwhelm u.s. missile defense systems, i want to get your thoughts on what steps are being taken in the realm of left of launch such as electronic warfare cyber, that could blind, deceive or destroy enemy sensors before they actually launch. >> well senator, i agree very much with your assessment that the ballistic missile defense threat grows because of the

ability for them to -- you know, people to produce ballistic missiles at greater distances, they have greater distances and greater accuracies and have multiple re-entry vehicles and those types of things that complicate the problem. of things that complicate and problem and you can't build enough interceptors to take them all out, that you can't do it. that said, i think there is a good place for good solid amount of ballistic missile defense. it's a deterrent it buys missile space, it makes a decision for whoever is going to fire at you a lot harder to make. when they do it gives the troops in the way of them some confidence they'll at least be able to get through the first few minutes of this thing before we have to take other action. so we are working left of launch in thinking differently about how we would produce, how we would attack this particular problem. one of the things that is not just about ew and cyber because those events are being worked and i won't go into them in this

particular forum, but they are being pursued. it's also more about thinking differently about how you employ your forces and at what trigger points would you do things like dispersal of your force in a different way, throughout the region. how would you do selective hardening of places that -- and put in places like rapid runway repair kits in places where you have to have them. through this body, you have allowed us to go forward with some of the initiatives in inplaces we have in the asia pacific. hardening some fuel heads and those types of things can make a big difference. so left of launch is a priority for us. >> let me ask a question that sort of overlays on that in terms of emerging technologies. what's your assessment at this point on the value of directed energy systems to support defeating missile threats, and do you think directive energy should be a priority for the research and development community given the advancements in the last couple years?

>> well we have seen some progress. i think the navy has some directed energy systems that are deployed in operations routinely that have proven effective, at least in the tactical area. i'm in favor of it directed energy weapons if they get the job done if the technology is there. i kind of live in the here and now problem and i project and hopefully project in the future what we might need. directed energy if it solves is a good solid solution set for the types of threat we're facing, then we should pursue it. >> speaking of here and now, are you familiar with champ the counter electronics high power microwave missile project? >> i am familiar with it. >> what kind of value do you think that could bring to the theater? >> i think if it was properly tested and then fielded, that it

would be something that would be of interest and benefit. >> thank you very much. i'll yield back mr. chair. >> senator fisher. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. general, in your prepared remarks, you talk about north korea's emphasis on asymmetric capabilities, especially its missile and its cyber threats. can you elaborate on north korea's missile and cyber programs and discuss what command is doing to counter them and can you let us know how do you see their investment in these areas impacting your needs in the future? >> thank you senator. well, first of all, north korea is focused its resources in its military on the asymmetric capabilities, which are several.

probably the most important are the ballistic missile and nuclear. we discussed the nuclear here. you know we've seen a number of indicators of how they're advancing their nuclear capabilities. and then within their missile force, they have more than several hundred ballistic missiles. the prenomnnls of those are close range and short range ballistic missiles that affect or influence the peninsula, but they have also deployed most medium and intermediate range that influence the region and the development of the intercontent missile has an impact on homeland security here in the united states. they have not slowed down at this. we have seen, as you have seen this past year, they demonstrated their capabilities and conducted tests. they had more missile events or launches in '14 than they had in the previous five years together. each of these being a violation

of the unscrs. we have been taking steps both in material capability in terms of our ballistic missile defense to counter that as well as work with the republic of korea and their ballistic missile defense. they just recently funded an upgrade to their patriot 2s to pac-3s which is important. we're working with them closely in terms of interoperability. and we're also working with them on their material solutions, particularly you know their air missile defense center and system they have recently established, we're working closely on that. and then finally as the admiral just noted we look at the posture of our force the preparation of our force, and our plans, and all of those things in the last couple of years has been rather dynamic in order to change the threat and

north korea changes. >> as we talk about missile defense, how do you interpret china? and their vocal opposition to placing a bad battery on that peninsula? >> well, personally,ia know i think this is a decision for south korea having to do with the defense of their country and from my perspective as a commander there, a defense of our troops. >> but do you think that they are narrowly focused on missile defense or do you think they're trying to maybe exert some greater influence over the republic of korea's defensive strategy as a whole? >> i think it's a greater influence. the system if employed, is focused on the defense of the peninsula. that's what it is specialized to do. it doesn't have any influence

beyond that. >> so that would improve their defenses then against north korea, correct? >> yes ma'am it would. >> do you think that south korea and the united states would push against the chinese reaction to that? >> well, ma'am you know, this is the decision process is under way right now, and it is -- i can discuss in a military perspective, but you know from a political and strategic perspective, i think both countries are taking that into consideration right now in terms of the other impacts that have to do with the employment of thad on the peninsula. >> as we look at the north koreans and their missiles are they moving away from their more traditional, conventional forces which they have -- what is it the fourth largest in the world now? are they moving away from that?

>> ma'am i wouldn't say they're moving away from it. i think they have changed their strategy, that is the fourth largest military in the world, a very large conventional force that's postured forward along the dmz, so it's still a very present and dangerous threat, but they're not resourcing it in the same way that they had in the past. we have seen a reduction in their capability conventionally. >> thank you, general. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you mr. chair. admiral, we had fascinating testimony two days ago on this subject. i commend the record to you. one of the pieces of testimony was the historical record of the conferencerontation between a rising power and an existing power, graham allison from harvard called it the lucidities trap, where in 12 of 16 instances in world history where you had a rapidly rising power confronting

an established power ended in war. and obviously, that's a daunting observation. there has never been a power that has risen as far and as fast as china in the last 25 years. do you see military conflict with china in any way inevitable, but given the trap how can we avoid it? >> well, i don't think that conflict is inevitable. i think that the world we're in today is probably a different world than the ones we have been in before when a great power rose. the effects of globalization and economic globalization and the movement of people the interconnectedness of banks and industry, of all these things you know very well about, i think have made it imperative that we understand the rise of

china in that we to some degree accommodate the rise of china. where we can to attempt to shape the rise of china. i've said on many occasions that a china that would a china with a military that would come forward as a net provider of security rather than a net user of security would be beneficial to not only the region but would be beneficial to us as well. and i think that's an achievable goal. i think that has to be looked at, at how we deal with china globally in a global institution from their role in the united nations to how they're behaving and conducting themselves in other regions of the world, and how we interact with them there. i think it also will require us to have a pinpoint focus on how we see their influence in this region that we have been talking about today, which is primarily east, southeast asia, northeast asia. and