- >> any luck with ted cruz? >> well, i haven't given up. haven't given up. hope springs eternal. but i really approached roy blunt, okay certifiable conservative missourian and so forth and just kept adding. lamar alexander. look what happened when he did his mark jum on appropriations bill. he gave a bump of $2 million to nih, which is more than 5%. it's 5% plus inflation. pretty darn good, better than the house, but better than the president. and he did it at the expense of a lot of other good things in the bill. don't get me wrong. i'm not happy with the way he approached it, but he was sensitized by the researchers in zlous at barnes jost children's, washington university to the need for medical research. and i believe this crosses the spectrum. we have to reach the point where we take the research and innovation and say this is a

special consideration of the united states and the future. it's not going to be subject to the same budget control rules as the other expenditures. >> last night steve corn aky show showed an interview about how you and he were gym buddies and turned marco rubio around on immigration and used the gym as a hunting ground to turn people over. who are some of your targets that you might like to -- was chuck schumer lying? >> i go to the senate gym daily. >> he said that republicans go early and democrats go late. >> yes. i tend to be -- that's why i try to be there first at 5:30. i go there every day for no obvious reason. a way to relieve stress. the first one there is an

orthopedic surgeon from wyoming. we talk about these issues. and there's an opportunity there. your guard is down when you're sweating and puffing and all the rest of this stuff. to talk about some of these issues. i have solved some big problems in the gym with my colleagues. i caught them at a vulnerable moment, you know. i think approaching this issue on a human side makes a big, big difference. trying to get just beyond the dollars and cents and talk to people about, for instance, this organization, harry johns is here from chicago and he and i have met many times to talk about this issue, too. this is reaching into so many families across america, the alzheimer's challenge. and we see what's coming. the bow wave of not only cost to the government but cost to the families and what they're going through dealing with alzheimer's and people are suffering from alzheimer's. i think there's fertile ground here for a political coalition. >> sounds great. one of the -- susan collins will be joining us midway through. she has targeted 2025 as a

target date that she thinks an alzheimer's treatment should be targeted calling this a vital national issue and moving around. and you have a different approach sort of looking at prevention and treatment and more realistically by 2050. when you look legislatively and you talk to scientists, we had an incredible woman this morning. stacey raised $217 million in the largest biomedical first round ever. when you see that amount of money coming into the private sector, alzheimer's related research and neurodegenerative research and you look at the technology. and are we being too modest with the 2025 target? do you think ten years out we might be able to achieve more. >> it was nixon's war on cancer that we see a 1% decline in cancer mortality on an annual

basis. politicians like to set target dates. it gives us some way to measure how we're doing. i think the honest answer is we just don't know. the honest answer. did you see the "fortune" magazine cover story on alzheimer's? i spent a lot of time in airports looking at magazines. it jumped right off the rack. it was a cover story about biojen and what they are doing and it's promising two different drugs, two different approaches. but what we know is when it comes to lily, argon national laboratory in chicago, lily virtually has a full-time office there using the advancedtrying to figure out how to match up the drug with the protein in the brain and make it work. i'm a liberal arts lawyer. you can lose me in a second when you get into this conversation. but i do get it that there are certain things that we have,

diagnostic tools, also nkats i can't remember exactly what it stands for computing translational science operation. they're using that to do millions of tests that used to be unimaginable. so what i'm saying the pace of change and the pace of discovery is almost impossible to predict, but to set targets and hold politicians to the targets, that makes sense. that's why i picked ten years. 5% real growth for ten years. and i don't know if that's the right number or what, but if we're incentivized to move toward those targets we're not going to fall off and forget our responsibility. >> i have heard you speak on so many different topics. you're always passionate and have found the soft point of where legislation might make a difference whether it's trade policy or technology investment. i got an e-mail from ed markey at "wired" magazine.

and this is going to be a little out of left field. but i can't help it. it has nothing to do with what we're talking about today. why demonstrates how a car is hacked, there's a former nsa hacker and somebody with "wired" magazine was driving his car at 70 miles per hour and it was hacked. this is a sensational text where ed markey and richard blumenthal are throwing in a bill today on the auto safety act. it made me think that in your world to sustain interest in any one topic must be so hard. we have a lot of folks here today not only in this room but in washington coming to sort of elevate the broader discussion on what's going on with alzheimer's research in this area. but tomorrow it's hacking a car. the next day it's another thing. i'm interested from a legislative or inside, what advice or counsel do you have for people who have been struggling for decades with such a dramatic problem on how to

sustain interest. because it seems to me a very difficult challenge given the number of things hitting the legislative docket. >> there's a fellow named jeff valenti, well-known man who worked for lyndon baines johnson, became ahead of the motion picture association. they once asked him about speeches. he says, there's six words, which i always put in a speech, which i think make a difference. and those six words are "let me tell you a story." and when it comes to my world of politics, i have to get beyond the numbers and the statistics and tell you a story about a person affected by something. i found that to be the most dramatic way to bring issues home to people so they understand. how many stories do we have in this room? thousands. what you need to do is make sure that your member of congress or some trusted staffer hears those stories and understands what it

means to a family, what they have been through. when we debated obamacare and i stood on the street in front of my office in springfield, illinois, with the tea party people raging away. they finally said stop telling stories because i this had them. every time they were going to dismiss this as big government, i said, let me tell you who couldn't get insurance in rochester. stop telling stories. the point i'm getting to is no matter what the issue -- and this one especially because how poignant and touching and personal it is. the story of medical research has so many different chapters. make sure that member of congress understands them. i worked for year still have on the dreamers trying to help those undocumented kids brought to the united states who grew up here. it was partisan, but i can recall sitting down with kay bailey hutchison trying to work out an agreement on something. and she turned to her staffer and said will that help maria if we do it this way?

it was a story she heard and remembered and brought to the negotiating table. so never stop telling the stories. >> you're a member of the bipartisan task force on alzheimer's disease. how many members are there? >> i can tell you i don't know the exact number, but it is in excess of 40. >> not bad. >> when we had the budget resolution on the floor and i took all the medical research amendments and all the democrats and republicans and said let's put it in one amendment, put everything in one amendment. susan went along with it. she had the alzheimer's amendment, a specific one. and we had 42 or 43 who had co-sponsored amendments when it came to medical research. now we're all together, democrats and republicans. that's the way this works. and that's the way you build the coalition to the capacity. >> what is structurally going on? when you look at other chronic diseases heart disease, alzheimer's has got the largest

footprint out there in the country of affected americans and the costs are the highest. as i understand. they're among the highest of all these. but the level of research dollars that the federal government spends is really a pathetic sort of a third or less of what you see going into sort of similar rates of things. i'm just interested structurally what do you think is happening in the alzheimer's field that's made it difficult to step those numbers up? >> that's a good question. i really would address it to dr. collins. i've asked it of nih as long as i've been in the house and senate. how do you pick your research issues and research projects? and we're near a cure. it's a deadly disease. it affects children. things like that. and by and large, it sounds like all of the above when you get right down to it. i don't know. i don't know how to measure. you know the amp program, you're probably familiar with the amp program. alzheimer's was identified as one of the

medical diseases that they are going after in this new partnership between pharma and nih. that's a good sign. and this directed investment specific research may turn out to be more productive than a lot of other things. i wouldn't dismiss it by dollar amount. when i talk about the advanced photon source being so important to lily in developing a new -- i believe that's their drug. i think i've got that right. the advanced photon source is so important to them, who would have guessed that was biomedical research when we were developing it 10, 20 30 years ago? but it is. so there are many tangential things that come into the whole quest to find the answer. >> when you think you talk about conservatives and going in to talk about biomedical, and i would imagine that would be very compelling. my family is from oklahoma and kansas. you went in there and had that discussion and there would be support. who is the opposition that needs to be taken down? >> the opposition is not specific. taken down? the opposition the not specific. let me give you an example.

my bill the american cures act, 5% real growth over a ten-year period of time costs $150 billion. it's likely we'll spend in the neighborhood of $20 trillion on our federal budgets during that period. 150 billion, wow, big sum of money. $20 trillion gets smaller when you put it in comparison. i started thinking about how are we going to pay for it, durbin? great to have these ideas. how are you going to pay for it? well for the longest time, i have had this -- >> smoking. >> this thing against tobacco. >> i knew that. i've got notes. >> the fact that you don't face smoking on airplanes is a bill i passed in the house. >> round of applause. >> so i said let's get real. a dollar a pack and it's going to go to medical research. that goes to half of what i just described to you. the 5% real growth. i'm not going to name names but a conservative republican senator who by his -- i don't want to give it away.

by his religious preference hates tobacco. so i said here's the thing medical research up 5%. i'm with you i'm with you. a dollar on tobacco. no way. why? no taxes. i don't go for taxes. >> is that a grover norquist column? >> it's people that signed this pledge. >> even on tobacco. >> on tobacco. i said but your state and other states are doing this already. republican-led legislatures and governors. no, i took the pledge. so it isn't as if people are lewdites or opposed to science and progress. they sign themselves up for restrictions on their power as a senator in congress to appeal to certain constituencies. i'm never going to sign those pledges. i think you need to have the flexibility to make the right decision for america's future. >> do you think there's attention from your perspective -- because we've been talking about research. there's also about living and

one of the things i want to talk to susan collins about is living with this, caretakers. i'm interested in what the affordable care act -- and what is the social contract as you feel it between our government and civil society and those people living with this disease? because we're talking about research that may not help many of those with this. does that come up in discussion? >> again i'm going to tell you a story. but each of us comes to this with our life experience. if you've ever been a new father of a sick child and didn't have health insurance, you'll never forget it as long as you live. i was one. i was a student at georgetown law just a few blocks from here. brand-new wife and baby and no health insurance. my daughter had a problem. i said i leave the law school classes, pick up my wife and baby and head over to children's

and sit in the room for people who had no health insurance. and wait to see who walked through the door. i had a number. and i was hoping whoever came through the door was a competent medical professional that could save my daughter's life. you'll never forget that as long as you live. that's why i think health insurance and that peace of mind is a basic right that we should establish in america. it shouldn't be a question of whether you're lucky or rich. this ought to be who we are as a nation. it ought to define us as a nation. so we get into this conversation about the role of government, that's where i come from. it comes from a life experience. affordable care act, most important domestic vote i ever cast. 16 million americans now have access to health insurance. the number of uninsured is down by 30%. the rate of growth in health care cost is still at an incline, but it's flattening just enough to get 13 more years

of solve engncy to the medicare system. we can see this is working. it's transforming the delivery of medical services. there are 16 million, or 10 or 11 million fathers not sitting in those rooms without health insurance praying that the right doctor walks through the door. >> i want to go to the audience and ask a question before senator collins gets here. i want to ask you one unfair question. >> not the first. >> if you were in the seat that president obama has, how would you deal with this political environment differently than he has? what would you do that he's not? what needles would you move that he's not? how would you deal with that task of making the nation healthier? >> well, i think he will be remembered for this affordable care act, having survived two constitutional challenges in the supreme court. and we've soldiered on through some impossible challenges. how about the rollout? and all the things we went you there there?

i believe this is going to be ranked number one or two in terms of his legacy. we still have a year and a half to go. in terms of his legacy. how could we have done it differently? good question. i really encouraged him to take the american cures act and make it part of his presidential platform and budget. he hasn't quite done that, but he is moving in more and more medical research. precision medicine, for example. which really tries to take the human genome project and these diseases and tailor make what individuals need. he, i think, is a great communicator. a great messenger. and i would hope that he'd spend more time on this medical research issue. >> interesting. good answer. wait, who is it? senator collins, come on in, come join our living room here. come on in. senator susan collins. [ applause ] >> hey, susan. >> susan, thank you for joining

us. we thought we'd just kind of mix it up a little bit. we're going to get rid of him soon. >> i like the blue dress. >> he said such nice things about you. but let me take a couple of quick questions for senator durbin before he needs to run off. do we have a microphone? can we toss it over fast? how are you? >> fine, thanks. >> we're going to have fun, i plom is. >> my name is laura abernethy. i'm on both sides of helping the alzheimer's association raise money through my national sore roy -- sorority but i'm also a caregiver for my father who is 88 and has alzheimer's. my challenge is we are raising money and i think it's wonderful for research because i don't want any other family to go through what we're going through with my father. but at the same time, i want to be able that my father lives a life of dignity because up until this point he was a very active gentleman, very happy, very charismatic. where does the money come from and how do we get the different

nursing homes and care facilities and in-home care to meet the requirements to continue to treat people with dignity? because i feel that, as we've been talking to some of the other caregivers before, that that's one of the things. there's no standard. it's a high turnover rate. i've been fortunate and have found an amazing place for my father that i hope others can find, but then i hear horror stories about what is out there. when you talked about the affordable care act and health care and how we all deserve it i also think people who had served in the war as my father had and supported his family since he was 14 he still has a level of care. >> thank you. so and we're going to also discuss this with senator collins because she's been investing so much in this area. but dick? >> i'm going to hand it off to her, not because i can't answer it, but she can answer it better. susan has introduced a piece of legislation which gets right to the heart of your question.

>> thank you, dick. first, let me thank you for hosting this forum and also say that there's no better advocate in the united states senate than dick durbin for biomedical research and it's been a great pleasure to work with you, dick, on this issue that both of us care so much about. just a week ago senator baldwin and i introduced a national caregivers act, and the reason that we did so is exactly to answer some of the concerns that you've just raised. we are spending $225 billion on caring for people with alzheimer's. the majority of that is uncompensated care that exhausted family members are giving.

frequently an eld early spouse. and we don't have a strategy for trying to ensure that caregivers have the support that they need. whether it's respite care, home health care, whether it's support groups and that's what our bill is aimed at. it is modeled on the national alzheimer's plan act, which i authored with former senator evan bayh. and that's produced a national strategy for alzheimer's that's brought together all the federal agencies. and its most important recommendation has to do with the appropriate level of funding for biomedical research. >> let me get this gentleman right here. >> stewart rosenthal with the beacon newspapers. senator, i commend your legislation to bring more money

to federal research and i think there will be a breakthrough in it in the next few years. my question is you were asking how to pay for it. why is it when the government develops these kinds of basic research things that the drug companies to pay little in terms of license fees and they give no break to medicare on the cost of the drugs that are ultimately provided to the taxpayer that funded it and written in the first place. why can't congress do something about that? >> great question. >> there's no reason why pharma shouldn't pay more. the investment they're making in the amp program is modest, modest in terms of real dollar. we hope that even that modest investment will lead to some breakthrough here on alzheimer's. but i think there are places to turn that are not unreasonable. certainly pharma is large it's important. but its rev news and resources suggest that it can be part of the solution here when it comes to medical research. people will ultimately benefit

from this research but pharma will benefit first. they will develop these new products and when i read this piece i sent a copy out to francis collins. i said it never mentions nih once in the entire article. did you have anything to do with anything that's going on with biogen and lily? he sent me the memo with ten different elements of what basic research at nih led to these developing these new experimental drugs. so there's a linkage there. i think engaging pharma in funding some of this research. >> we had a presession this morning with stacy winninger who is the person who raised $217 million for this first round company denali working on neurodegenerative research. what interested me about the amount of money, which was very large, is one-third of the entire budget of the 666 million they put in. but when you talk to her about this funding gap between those in the lab who develop innovative research and getting to market those that invest

earlier usually wiped out in the way equity is diluted. so there's a structural bridge that's not being met by most. so to just say that pharma should do that doesn't necessarily figure out the incentive problem. >> i'm not saying do it alone. that they would be an element in this would be important and make sense from their business model. but i really view this whole research question not just biomedical research but related research to be the kind of commitment america needs to make in this 21st century. look at our competition. they get it. what china is doing now with research. >> china. >> they see this coming. they want to be dominant. if 21st century is the american century they want the 21st to be the chinese century. we better wake up to this reality. i'm not opposed to finding the cure for alzheimer's in china and using it in the united

states, don't get me wrong, but we have established here -- >> a strategic industry. >> a strategic industry that produces so much. what we do in mapping the human genome project has been paid back to us 150 times over in every dollar spent in doing that. it will continue to. so it's an economic driver, not just morally. >> susan if you want to comment. >> yes. i just want to encourage us to look at this in a broader way. alzheimer's is our nation's costliest disease. it is going to bankrupt medicare and medicaid if we do not invest in the research. the alzheimer's association has said if we could delay the onset by even five years, it pays for the increase in research. so i think this is one of these issues where we're looking at it far too narrowly because if you

look at alzheimer's as our costliest disease, if you look at the return on investment, if you look at the tsunami of cases that we're going to be facing just because of the changing demographics of our country we can't afford not to make this investment. [ applause ] >> oh, yes you're waiting for senator durbin? oh, okay. senator durbin, thank you for coming. big round for senator durbin. thank you so much. susan, come join me here. [ applause ] great to see you dick. remember our deal about the rights on your living alone. i think there's a story there. we were just talking about him moving from "animal house" into his own place. and there had to be something in there about his sort of daily routine. we were talking about steve

kornacki doing an interview with chuck schumer and he talked schumer talked a little bit about his going to the gym with dick and they would target republicans at the gym to sort of seduce over to whatever sort of legislative game they have. do you work that way yourself? >> i have a far more direct approach. i just bring people facts and then badger them until they agree with me. >> i spent much of last night actually reading about the volume of things that you have done not only alzheimer's research but in aging aging in place. you know, i was just reading tweets of yours on diabetes and the whole broad arena of how to think about designing homes differently for the aging. you must know more about this subject than any of your colleagues. it's just i'm convinced that's the case. would you say that's the case? >> no, i wouldn't be that

presumptuous. but -- >> you've invested heavily. >> i have. >> what's driven that? >> well, first of all i have the privilege of chairing the aging committee. so it's my responsibility. >> but somebody called you that -- you mean, you wanted that job. >> absolutely. i represent the state with the oldest median age in the country. >> so if you had the youngest median age, you wouldn't do this committee assignment? >> no i would still do it. but that's an added incentive. >> but what about you is driving you in this direction? >> but also i meet constituents every day including members of my own family who are struggling with the issues that one of your questioners brought up. maine is a low-income state. we have a lot of rural elderly whose families have moved away. and we need to figure out a way

to make sure that their needs are met. the statistics on alzheimer's are really a call to action for all of us. what we are learning from the experts is by age 85 -- and many of us are going to live to at least 85 -- nearly one out of two of us will develop alzheimer's or some other kind of dementia. and the other one's going to be taking care of that person. so to me that's a real call to action. >> are people hearing you? >> finally, due to great advocacy and to some of the stigma, which i've never understood, that's been connected with alzheimer's. >> what's with the stigma thing? >> i don't know. i don't understand it. i grew up in an era where people didn't say that they had cancer.

it would be whispered that she had the big "c." i didn't understand that either. and with alzheimer's there's been for some reason this desire to keep it hidden within families, and i think that's really changed and that's what has helped us make progress. and as dick may have already said we made tremendous progress in the appropriations bill this year. we've only been funding alzheimer's at the highest level has been about $600 million. this is for a disease that costs our society as a whole $226 billion $153 billion is out of medicare and medicaid and yet we were only investing $600 million. this year we got a 60% increase in the senate version of the

appropriations bill to bring us up to $950 million. we should be at $2 billion. that's what the experts tell us. that would still be less than 1% of what we're spending, but that's huge progress to have a 60% increase. >> you know, dick durbin was just sharing with us -- because i was asking were we at a different inflection point in technology and history what we can do. and he was pretty modest. because i was sort of looking at his target for dealing and treating with alzheimer's in 2050 and yours of 2025. you got your colleagues to basically pass something saying this is a vital national priority and you can't wait on a vital national priority. let's move up the date. it occurs to me you served in the senate for 18 years. when i think back 18 years ago we didn't have gadgets like this. >> right. >> we didn't have all the embedded sensors the wearables. all of the data management that we seem to be having today.

too you feel in your long service to the country that all this stuff, you sit inside the center of the wizard of oz. do you see in the crystal ball something very different in the next six to ten years? >> i do. >> tell us why. give us some -- what are your benchmarks? >> because i have talked to so many researchers. i spent a fascinating two hours at mass general one day with their top alzheimer's research. and they are making real progress. and it takes money. it takes money. no matter where you look whether it's jackson labs in bar harbor, maine, or mass general or the university of pennsylvania, all across the united states there finally is a

focus on alzheimer's in a way that leaves me very optimistic that we're either going to find more effective treatments. that will probably come first. but ultimately either a means of prevention or a cure. it's the only one of the top ten most deadly diseases for which we don't have any and, right and the trajectory is frightening. and here's what makes me optimistic. when hiv/aids came on the scene we really invested and focused like a laser and look at the breakthroughs that we have made in treatment of people with hiv/aids. it's just amazing. and it happened, if you think about it, really pretty quickly but it was because there was this concentrated effort, a

national strategy and the investment. we still spend $3 billion a year on hiv/aids compared to the meager $600 million -- soon i hope to be $950 million -- for alzheimer's. so to me, that shows the effectiveness of a concentrated effort. >> we had a wonderful conversation this morning with a woman i just mentioned who raised all this money for biomedical company called denali. and she said that she was sort of sick of mice. what she's trying to say in mice we can show that we have cured mice of alzheimer's, but the translatability of that to what we're dealing with is so limited and there's so many problems and she made two really interesting points. one was that this stigma issue or something out there is still limiting those people willing to step forward to have sort of

genetic markers done and get into the population pool that they would need. she said hundreds of thousands of people is what they would ideally need over a period of time to map this better. the second is we have a ridiculously low tolerance for risk in the alzheimer's area. if you're having a heart valve procedure or you're having other procedures in which the risks are high, people take them. but in alzheimer's there seems to be a barrier to that. have you thought a little bit about that dimension of both risk and population pools? >> i have. one of the hearings that we held on alzheimer's we had bea smith the restaurateur/model, come testify. and she sadly has early onset alzheimer's. and one of the wonderful things that she has done is a public service announcement reaching

out to african-americans in particular because they are not participating in clinical trials. and she is encouraging their participation in clinical trials. i've had members of my own family participate in a very unsuccessful clinical trial for alzheimer's. but we need people to think not only about themselves but the next generation. yesterday i met with two constituents who were struggling with early onset alzheimer's which is the saddest kinds of alzheimer's. and there are genes that have now been identified for early onset. and so that you can get tested for it. and they talked about the dilemma of their 29-year-old daughter who is about to get married. and she can't decide whether to

get tested or not. she can't decide whether she wants to have children or not. because she feels if she doesn't get tested, she shouldn't have children. that's a horrible dilemma for someone to be in. >> right. >> and i think it causes people when there isn't an effective treatment or a cure, to be hesitant about getting tested for genetic markers. because they think, well, if nothing can be done, do i really want to know? and i think that the more that we can get people to participate in testing and clinical trials, the more we'll know and the sooner we'll get to our goal. >> counseling might be a part of that. >> absolutely. and i think also, though,

helping people understand the benefit for the next generation. >> i was thinking about the senate. one of the things that you think about. pete domenici stepped forward on brain research and has had difficulties. former senator domenici is someone i had the privilege to know well in the 1990s. but when i think back and you go back and look at a number of the senators who have passed, a number of them likely had alzheimer's or some form but not reported. >> correct. >> that people hid it. they didn't talk about it. it wasn't disclosed, but i know of some cases. the senate is like a family after a certain period of time. right? whether you like -- sometimes unwanted family. but they're family nonetheless. but you think more of the stories ought to be an effort for people to come out with their stories? would that be a healthy thing to help other people around the country do some of the things you're talking about?

>> it would be, and i'll tell you a person that i so greatly admire is maria shriver who has been very vocal about her father's fight with alzheimer's. i remember when she testified, it was so poignant because she said that he remembered every word of the "hail mary," the prayer that we catholics say and yet couldn't remember her name. and when i heard that, it was so heartbreaking. but having people like bea smith, like maria, come forward and tell their personal stories or their family's stories is very important. but it's very hard because sometimes those family members still want it not to be known. so part of our job is to do more

forums like this and to encourage people particularly celebrity, to tell their stories. we had glen campbell come and testify before us. >> oh right. >> and that was wonderful. and he played some of his music for me before going on with his daughter's help. and music had stayed with him. i've seen that with members of my family struggling with alzheimer's that music seems to still stay with them. >> i don't know if alzheimer's was part of it but you had richard gere up there playing an elder man who was homeless as well. so there's an element of homelessness, being lost not being connected that's part of this well. so working through those celebrities helps you broaden the story. let me ask you a couple unfair questions. to be honest, there are probably some democrats who are not big on science and got ds or fs in

science but there seem to be a lot more in your party. [ laughter ] you know. >> that's not right. >> i accept that. my point is so science though the solvency of science, the investment of science, the belief that science can deliver something there seems to be a point of contention with some of your colleagues. one, is that true? and two, is there a way to bring over -- i mean, dick durbin was talking about going and taking the most conservative members of the caucus i know he wanted to say anti-science but he didn't. but taking them, go talk about biomedical research with your constituents and you'll see them come alive and he said that's happened. so interested in this debate about science and health and investment and whether that is a challenge for you with your colleagues in your caucus. >> well, the best answer i can give you is the republicans are

in control of the senate and for the first time ever we've had a 60% increase in alzheimer's funding. >> very good answer. so who is -- i mean you make such a compelling case about the footprint of this problem. about it's really a national security issue for the nation at least on the domestic front. dick durbin talks about it being an area of strategic necessity. what's the problem in bringing more colleagues on more quickly? what is the barrier? what are they distracted by? >> well, there are a lot of serious diseases in this country, and it took a while to get a focus on cancer research, which we spend $5.4 billion on a year. and it's paid dividends. i think we need to look at the

successful investments in cancer research, in hiv/aids in cardiovascular disease. there's not an awareness of the prevalence of alzheimer's. now that's partially because people used to die earlier and also, remember when it was -- people would say, well she's just gotten senile. do you remember that term? and people didn't realize that alzheimer's was a disease. they thought it was something that happened as people got older. so that's why i commend all the advocacy groups, the alzheimer's association and the many alzheimer's -- u.s. against alzheimer's, alzheimer's cures and all these groups. because raising public awareness

is absolutely critical to getting the kind of support that we need. and that has been there for other diseases that have organized powerful advocacy groups that are willing to speak out. and that's what we need to do. but it's changing. i've been the chair of the alzheimer's task force in the senate for years. senator clinton was my first co-chair. i've always made it bipartisan. well, it's been quite a while since she's been in the senate. and so back then it was really difficult to get people interested. now i have people clamoring to be the co-chair. now senator warner is a co-chair, senator toomey is a co-chair. senator markey is a co-chair. that's a real difference.

and that matters in terms of our ability to bring bipartisan efforts here. >> so you mentioned hillary clinton. we are entering a political season. and just about everyone you know is running for president. >> yes. >> do you think there's a chance -- >> i don't know donald trump. i want to put that on the record. >> but in it, do you think there's a responsible way to elevate something like alzheimer's research -- >> yes. >> -- in the presidential. we seem to be talking about a lot of silly stuff. but is there a chance to bring some of the serious health insures into broader discussion? >> yes. >> and how would you recommend doing it? >> let me give aw great example. jeb bush called me and asked for my support. i am endorsing jeb bush, but i took the opportunity to talk to him about alzheimer's disease.

>> i just want to say that that's a -- for those of you tweeting, that's a tweetable moment. probably the most tweetable moment. jeb bush is out there. i would link to him. i would ask jeb bush to comment. >> and here's the good thing. just a few weeks later, he talked publically about alzheimer's disease, about his mother-in-law's battle with alzheimer's and the need for more investment. so see? it works. but in all seriousness, regardless of who you're supporting for president, ask them what is their position on alzheimer's. encourage them to make it part of their platform, their agenda, and push them to speak publically about it. that's what we need. and it worked in my case. >> that's great. let me go to the audience in just a moment. but the other thing that you have spent a lot of your time

thinking about, which hasn't really entered our national discussion as much as, is aging in place. >> yes. >> i'm really interested in how you think about that. what do you think we as a country need to get right in that arena? what are the doable things that we should try to check off the box? because it's beginning to percolate but not widely discussed. >> well, i'm going to give my parents credit on this. when they built their house two-story house in 1957 they were smart enough to put a master bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. and i'm one of six children. and they closed off the top floor. they left one as a guest bedroom when we come visit, but i cannot imagine how they had the foresight back in 1957 to think about their ability to climb

stairs. and when my father had his two knees replaced, one one year, one the next, it wasn't an issue for them. i happen to have broken my ankle last december, and the house i live in thank goodness, has one of those automatic chairs that goes up a back staircase. >> just happened to have one? >> yes. when i bought it. little would i have guessed that i was going to be the one to use it. but it was going to the university of maine which has a whole program to help people age in place. and they went out to assisted living houses, places and interviewed seniors. they interviewed 50 seniors and said, what do you need? and it wasn't just stairs, by any stretch. it was sensors.

it was all sorts of indicators where they could be connected to their loved ones. now, i will tell you there were privacy issues here that had to be dealt with, but we're a long ways from the old i've fallen and i can't get up medical alert button. and what's from them that i realized you could redesign living spaces and renovate living spaces so that there would be a sensor if you didn't close the refrigerator door or if you left the stove on or just better pathways through your house if you're losing your vision through macular degeneration. so it's a really exciting area, and let's face it most of us

want to stay in the comfort security and privacy of our own homes. and we've got to do a better job using technology to make that possible. there are also huge cost benefits being able to live in your own home, so we had a hearinghear ing ing on this issue too. and we had someone who came in to compare the cost of being institutionalized to a nursing home to the care of an adult child. it was wonderful. >> i was talking about you and she said there's no one who knows this world -- i can't imagine anyone telling you no if they asked you to-- you asked them to work on the bill. we're going to get you a

microphone. just throw it. >> i'm with next avenue. yesterday, i had a nice conversation with dr. david, the former surgeon general. >> right. >> he was the member of the alzheimer's study group, which came out in 2009 with a report that was supposed to be a wake-up call, a call about all the statistics that you mentioned that dr. john's mentioned, that other people have mentioned, and i asked him the question that steve just asked you, which was if all this is true and we're facing this tsunami of cases and we have a fraction of the research money unlike hiv aids that effected

younger people his theory is that one reason for the slow response is that this disease unfortunately effects older people. and he also made the point that many of those older people, who are obviously afflicted with the disease, don't vote. to what degree do you think it explains some of what's going on in terms of the slow response to the need for funding for alzheimer's? >> can i piggy back on that? with the self-awareness that we're all going to have at some point about our own health frame, our genetic make-up is the question of whether that changes the stake holding in that or not. go ahead, susan. >> first, i have to tell a story about dr. david, whom i got to

know when i first came to the senate and he was surgeon general. it turned out he had done an institutes of medicine study with my uncle, who practiced in maine for many years and who has since died of alzheimer's, so i think the world of dr. david. i don't agree with him in this case because any of you who have had a family member with alzheimer's know that it effects the entire family. it does not just effect the victim. it effects the grandchild whose name is no longer remembered. it effects the spouse who is trying to deal with a husband and wife who is for the first time yelling at them. it effects everybody so having

seen this very close up front and personal i don't think it's because it's a disease of the elderly. i think it was because of for years it was hidden or people died earlier or it was, well she's senile. we didn't understand that it was a disease even though that work has been done for years, but think of the difference. dr. johns would tell you the difference in the last five years on public awareness is remarkable. when the alzheimer's association bring those purple clad advocates to town, i always have a hearing that day because it fills up the entire hearing room and it's important for people to know it.

i'm sorry. >> you answered my question by saying we're all in the game. >> yes. >> let me take one last question. yes, right over here. >> i, along with so many other people in this room, want to personally thank you senator collins for what you're doing. >> thank you. >> you're just an amazing advocate. i also want to ask you and knock it up a notch -- i'm wondering if in the words of pinkerton who is a wonderful journalist, he said we need to declare war, worldwide war, on alzheimer's. i'm wondering if you have worked with foreign leaders or your counterparts in trying to address this in a global way? >> excellent question and the

answer is yes. great britain had an international conference. last year i was invited to it and to speak at it. i desperately wanted to go, but the senate schedule plus my campaign schedule precluded me from doing so, but i -- george bradenburg has brought in people to meet with me internationally because we do need an international approach and we need to pool resources and research. and one issue i feel strongly about is that if you get federal funding for alzheimer's research you should be required to share your results. >> is that the case today? >> not always. i don't pretend to be an expert on this, but i'm told that some

of it is deemed proprietary if it is in conjunction with a pharmaceutical company, which it often is. of course, there's the new amp initiative also where there's pretty modest investments from both sides and that one is going to be published, as i recall, but it seems to me that ought to be a minimum. but i agree. we need an international approach. this problem is only going to grow worse across the world, and there are countries like in western europe and japan where the population is ageing that would be particularly interested in a collaborative approach. >> i would say in closing this last point about the sharing of data of research as long as the privacy issues are worked out -- in the atlantics, many forums in

the health area it's the single thing that comes up the most. we did a thing up in cambridge. had several cancer researchers from harvard saying we don't share in the way we should. they'll say the absence of protocols and the sort of commitment to share very broadly is the biggest inhibiter. everybody says it is getting better, but it's not where it should be. susan, thank you. >> thank you. >> the awesome senator of maine, thank you. good to see you. [ applause ] >> senator, thank you steve. this has been a remarkable morning. we heard poignant stories, important information, and a gratifying amount of humor on such a serious subject as we talked about the critical topic of the critical and economic cost of caring.

you have from me a survey about today. we would love your feedback on the experience. there is also hard copies in the room. i want to thank steve and mary louise for moderating. you've been a wonderful audience. you've been engaged. thank you so much. give yourself a round of applause, and have a wonderful, wonderful day. [ applause ] the republican presidential candidates are in manchester, new hampshire, for the voters first presidential forum on monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. c-span's road to the white house is providing live coverage of the two-hour forum on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. the new hampshire leader along with media organizations are sponsoring this forum for the

republican presidential candidates to answer questions from voters. and following the live forum, you can provide your input by joining our call-in program or adding your comments on facebook and twitter. road to the white house 2016. tonight on c-span 3. the confirmation for chief of naval operations. accident shipments of the live anthrax virus by the defense department. and later a capitol hill ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the start of the vietnam war. john richardson said there are other alternatives to the iran

nuclear agreement besides war. this is an hour and a half. morning. we meet today to consideration the nomination of john richardson. admiral richardson, we thank you for joining us this morning. we're thankful for your continued willingness to serve. we also welcome members of your family, who are joining us this morning and thank them for supporting you and the nation. as is our tradition at the beginning of your testimony, we'll invite you to introduce any family members that are joining us.

the next chief of naval operations will lead our navy in confronting the most diverse and complex array of global crises since world war ii. our nation is counting on the forward presence and rapid response that the navy uniquely delivers. in the asia pacific china is undertaking an ambitious naval build up. the asia pacific shown some success, but this policy is not yesterday addressed. while some would rather avoid a discussion of our competition with china, this relationship will be a serious challenge for our navy. and yet while worldwide challenges like these grow, the defense department has grown larger but less capable, more

complex, but less innovative more proficient at defeating low-tech adversaries, but less at defeating high-tech adversaries. now more than ever, a strong navy is central to our nation's ability to deter adversaries assure allies, and defend our national interest. and yet by any measure, today's feet of 237 ships is too small to address these critical security challenges. the navy's requirement is 308 ships. the bipartisan national defense panel calls for a fleet of 323 to 346 ships. and our combatant commanders say they require 450 ships. with continual high operational tempo, we will continue the downward spiral of military

capacity and readiness until congress acts. i look forward to discussing many of these today. first, each forward class aircraft carrier has experienced more than $2 billion in cost growth. this program continues to be plagued by technology immaturity and a lack of reliability test data for critical systems. this is unacceptable. i repeat. unacceptable. and i fully expect the navy's ongoing study of alternative aircraft carrier designs to provide real options. in all three of the lcs mission packages most overcome major technology integration

challenges to deliver the promised war-fighting capability. building the first ohio class replacement submarine building the first flight three destroyer with the new missile defense radar, radar, radar. in naval aviation it will take strong leadership to oversee the smooth and timely integration and ensure the right requirements for the surveillance and strike system. we must also maintain our advantage in the capacity of our munitions munitions. improving existing ones like the family of standard missiles will continue to be essential. our ships and planes have been operating at a sustained high operational tempo for over a

decade and it shows. clearing maintenance backlogs and restoring the navy's readiness will be a priority. finally, we cannot forget about our members of the united states navy. high operational tempo and lucrative opportunities outside the navy continue to drive some of our best talent to leave the service. i'm interested in your plans to manage operational tempo and views on how best to provide a competitive and modern compensation package that provides the right retention. no matter how many dollars we spend we won't be able to provide our military what they need with a broken defense system. this committee has embarked on a major effort to reform this system, including ways to empower our service leaders to manage their own programs and take on greater accountability.

admiral richardson, we're interested to hear your views based on your many years of service. thank you. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming admiral richardson and his family. no one serves alone in the navy or elsewhere, so thank you very much. you have an extraordinary record of service and we thank you for that. you have a remarkable record as the director of navy nuclear program, the current assignment. in that assignment, you are familiar with many of the issues that senator mccain raised. how do you design a program that is not only effective but affordable? you'll be asked to ensure that we have a quality force.

that's recruiting training. we have a world that is full of crises, and the navy is one of the major ways that we project force. it remains that way. as the chairman has pointed out, one of the issues you'll face is affordability. how do we afford all the ships that we need? how do we bring on the next class of ballistic missile submarines? and these challenges are exacerbated by sequestration or temporary arrangements to get by another year rather than a long-range plan.

all of these challenges will be before you. i'm confident that you'll able to face them and look forward to your testimony this morning. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> admiral, before we continue, let me ask you the standard questions that we ask all of all military nominees. in order to exercise your responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other committees be able to receive testimony, briefings, and other communications of information. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> yes. >> have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? >> no, sir. will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional

requests? >> yes, sir. >> will witnesses be protected from reprisals for their testimony and briefings? >> they will. >> do you agree to testify on request before this committee? >> yes. >> do you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communications in a timely manner when requested by a committee or to cultonsult with a committee in providing such documents? >> yes, sir. >> welcome and please proceed. >> thank you, chairman mccain, senator reed and distinguished members of the committee. i am honored and humbled to appear before you. i'm grateful of the confidence of president obama, secretary carter, and secretary mavis. they have been tireless and superb advocates for our sailors, their families, our

navy, and our nation. i'm grateful to have my family here with me today. chairman, as you recognized have they have been throughout my entire career. my dad is here with me today. my dad is a retired navy captain who served with distinction for 25 years during the cold war. my dad would come out in his service dress blues and his sea bag. we could say good-bye for six months, and then we would carry on supporting each other until my dad came back home. i got my start in the navy from my dad, and he continues to advise me sometimes vigorously and make me proud. my wife dana is here. >> i had the same experience. >> yes, sir. my wife dana is also here. dana and i met as classmates in york high school in southern maine. we married after i graduated

from the naval academy. dana has raised our five children while i was away at sea. she's always been there with me challenging me and adding perspective that i long ago grew to depend on. our daughter rachel is here representing the richardson tribe. tribe. she's a student at the university of virginia. our oldest son nathan is a navy lieutenant. he and his wife are serving overseas in naples, italy. our other son is doing research on renewable fuels in hawaii. if you ask dana she would say we're just a typical navy family. we have moved 20 times. our kids have attended dozens of schools. today the richardson family, like so many other navy

families, is ready to continue to serve our nation. i am also conscious that i'm here before this committee for the very first time and i want to thank you for your leadership and keeping our nation secure and keeping our navy the strongest that has ever sailed the seas. if confirmed i work forwardlook forward to working closely with you to continue that. i hold some core beliefs about our navy that guide me. the navy must be at sea underway. it must be present around the world protecting american interests, enabling access to international markets and trade, responding to crises, and to provide security. we're at our best when we operate with others, including our fellow services especially the marine corp, as well as our partners and allies. the muscle and bones of the navy are our ships and aircraft

exercised frequently and well equipped and ready to operate at sea and far from home. but the heart and soul of our navy are our sailors. they can be found on over, and under the sea. they are smart, resourceful committed americans who want to be a part of something special. they are rightly proud of what they do and they are a formidable force. despite a growing set of challenges and some significant strains, they continue to go to sea to do what must be done today. it is a privilege to work with and especially to lead such a capable and resilient team. america sends us their sons and daughters, their brothers and sisters, their fathers and mothers to go to sea with us potentially into harm's way. in return for that sacrifice our navy must provide them a positive and respectful

environment where they can thrive and achieve their highest potential. the american people demand that we execute our mission in a prudent and responsible way. the bottom line is in any situation, any competition, and certainly any fight america expects their navy to find a way to win and we will. if confirmed, i will give everything i have to honor and strengthen the bonds of confidence that your navy has with our nation's people. >> thank you, admiral. admiral richardson general dunford made a couple of statements in his appearance before his committee. one was he said we cannot execute the 2014 defense review with the budget cuts as a result of budget control act known as sequestration.

he continued stating ongoing cuts will threaten our ability to execute the current defense strategy. do you agree with that? >> yes, sir, i do. >> do you believe as other witnesses in uniform have stated that continued adherence to sequestration will put the lives of the men and women serving in the navy at greater risk? >> yes, sir, i do. >> you do. are you seeing what i'm hearing that there is becoming a morale problem and possibly over time a retention problem because of the effects of sequestration on the ability to plan, ability to train, readiness of deployments, et cetera? >> when i get around the fleet morale remains high, but there is a degree of unsettledness and uncertainty that arises from uncertainty in the fiscal

environment. so as we manage our way through continuing resolutions, the looming sequestration -- sequestration looming always over us and manage our ways through these times of reduced resources, there is an unsettlementun unsettling feeling in the force as this uncertainty clouds the air. they remain committed to doing the job they've been given. they want to be trained properly. >> which sequestration is a hindrance to. >> yes, sir. >> while we are conducting air operations from the carrier in the middle east, does that concern you? >> sir that does concern me but i would say that the overriding message that i hope is clear is our firm commitment

to naval presence in that region. we've been there for decades. >> the absence of a carrier doesn't really authenticate a commitment. >> sir i think the commitment does remain strong and we'll work to mitigate -- >> so does this impair our ability to carry out operations, the absence of the carrier? >> i think we'll mitigate any absence of the carrier through other capabilities. >> tell me what replaces an aircraft carrier admiral. >> you can replace it with other equipment. >> like what? >> landthere's no question about the value of an aircraft carrier in the region sir. >> that doesn't comport with

what you just said. >> i was trying to make a point about our commitment. >> i'm talking about a two-month gap in the short term. >> that two-month gap is a reflection of the earlier strains on the force, long-term commitments. >> my question was is that going to hinder our ability to carry out the needed operations in a region where obviously there's conflict taking place. >> without that carrier, there will be an effect on our ability, yes, sir. >> in the glaring example of cost overruns schedules, de delays, what extend would giving the chief of naval operations greater responsibility help reduce cost overruns, scheduled delay, and fix this problem which at least in the view of

many of us have difficulty justifying to our taxpayers? >> sir, i share your concern about the cost overruns of the carrier. i agree with you that they are unacceptable. from my experience controlling cost and schedule while delivering capability really resides from adhering to a few fundamental principles. one is clear command, and control that is lean and agile. we've got to have a definition of requirements that is informed by available technology and available resources. you've got to have a stable design and a build plan before you begin production. and finally, you have to have informed and close oversight. i think the chief of naval operations is involved in every one of those four steps. if i confirmed, i look forward to being very involved in acquisition. >> unfortunately, the last chief

of naval operations testified before this committee he didn't know who was responsible for it. i hope you're aware of the changes we're trying to make that would make the chief of naval operations more involved. and finally, do you believe that it's appropriate or would you be supportive of a provision in the aa which calls for examinations of alternative platforms for aviation as opposed to what is basically right now the only game in town? >> mr. chairman, i look very much forward to supporting that study completely and seeing what information it produces. >> thank you. senator reed? >> thank you mr. chairman admiral richardson. following on the chairman's questioning, the biggest new program coming online is the ohio class replacement. you talked about getting it

right from the beginning, which is requirements. and you're in a very significant position right now with your participation in the nuclear action program. are you satisfied with your requirements as they exist today? 16 missile tubes on the ohio class, one of the most significant aspects. >> the current requirements are exact what we need to continue do deliver that capability. >> you'll continue to look closely at those requirements to ensure that they're necessary and sufficient? >> yes, sir. >> what other requirements with respect to the ohio class replacement do you think are critical besides the tubes? are there any other game-changers that you're looking at? >> yes, sir. certainly, as i look at the ohio

replacement program, a program that will be defending the nation well into -- for 50 years, potentially into 2080s, there are some things you must build into the shapeip that you must get right for the very start. then there are things inside the ship that you allow technology to mature and advance. a critical component that you must address from the start is stealth. >> very good. one of the things we have done in the last several years in the national defense authorization act is create a sea-based deterrence found to try to aid the construction of this new class of submarines. the navy is developing plans to use this fund. do you have any notion of when those plans will be forthcoming

and available to us? >> sir, first the creation of this fund i think highlights the importance of this program to our nation and also that executing this program will require a combination both of resources and authorities. we are conducting a study right now to both mature the design and mature the build plan. we should get that completed by the fall time frame. i look forward to collaborating when we have that more mature. >> the essence underlying this deterrence fund the same logic, i presume, will apply as we go forward to replace the air and land-based legs of the triad also. the program is very expensive giving competing demands. is that your logic? >> yes, sir, i agree with that

logic. these are critical bills to reconstitute our strategic triad. yes, sir. >> thank you. one of the areas that gives us an edge and we hope an increasing edge and not a decreasing one is the labs and the test facilities and the intellectual infrastructure of the navy. it is all over the country. we have a center in newport, but there are so many critical aspects to this. in particular in this difficult budget budgetary times, will we lose out in terms of their contribution to national security? >> sir i think it is absolutely critical we maintain this intellectual capital to address your concern that programs like ohio replacement remain attuned and relevant going forward so it is absolutely critical that we fund this so we can remain

relevant. also, look forward to participating in discussions that make them more agile and competitive with their private sector counterparts as well. >> i think your comments are right on target. you need an infrastructure of research centers and navy other services, but they have to be much more agile, much more connected to commercial procurement, commercial enterprise and that's a challenge you'll have to take on. >> i'd like you to affirm the finest shipyard on earth is the port nueces shipyard. is that correct? >> i appreciate you confirming what we all know and the port smith naval shipyard is the finest naval shipyard on earth.

we have a great partnership between maine and new hampshire on this shipyard, and i actually know you have a history with this shipyard. certainly have been there before. >> yes, ma'am. i sure do. that's where my wife and i met. that's our -- >> just as i -- >> but we will welcome you back to the shipyard. we'd enjoy that. but i very much thank you and your family for your service to the country and willingness to take on this important leadership position during these challenging times. but yesterday before the committee on readiness, senator mccain and i had a hearing. i believe my staff provided that

testimony to you. >> yes, ma'am. >> one of things that came out that is happening at the port smith naval shipyard is a very strong partnership between labor and management that has driven performance significantly where they are producing -- producing the work they're doing on our attack submarine fleet ahead of schedule, under budget, and a takeaway from the hearing was that some of these best practices that are being put in place, that we need a better mechanism to share those among the shipyards to ensure that we can learn from each other to make sure that that strong partnership is there for excellent performance between labor and management. and i know that the naval sea systems command partnership forum is an important start in that effort but i think there can be more done based on the

hearing we had yesterday so i wanted to ask you about this issue and your commitment and relationships between labor and management among all the four shipyards. >> yes, ma'am. first, i would say they are just a magnificent team up in port smith and all our public yards are absolutely strategic jewels in our nation's capability. even in my current job, we are very involved with the shipyards. it has been a thrust of my time here as the director to do exactly that ma'am. is we can share best practices and we can share lessons learned as well more effectively so that has been an emphasis of my time here and will continue if confirmed as cno. >> i appreciate it. as we look at the requests for combatant commanders for the support from our attack submarine neat and then we look

at -- currently, we have about 54 attack submarines. we're only meeting half of combatant commanders' requests. particularly in the asia pacific region, we know this is very important to have this capacity and yet where we're headed is the number of attack subs is actually going down to 41 as we look forward to 2029. so one thing this committee has done is really focusing on having the navy procure at least two virginia class submarines per year. what are your thoughts on this shortfall and how we addressed it? overriding everything is sequester and our need to resolve that, but going forward assuming we can work together to resolve that, which has got to be top priority, what's your thought on making sure we have what we need?

>> ma'am, i think it's very clear. i can show hard evidence that we currently enjoy superiority in the undersea domain, but that domain is hotly contested and we cannot rest for a minute and remain confident. we have to continue to keep pressing. to address your question, ma'am, exactly as you say, we've got to continue to drop to mitigate that dip in attack submarine force level. we're doing everything we can to mitigate that. one is that the two virginia class submarines per year are a critical part of that program. very highly successful. continuing to deliver below budget and ahead of schedule. that must continue. we must continue to reduce that construction. as well, we're looking to do what we can to extend the life of our los angeles attack submarines. >> i thank you. i know that my time has expired but i know the chairman would share this concern that we say

something about what russia did yesterday in the united nations in terms of blocking a request for investigation into mh17. it shows our concerns we have been trying to address in this committee on russia. i thank you for your willingness to serve in this important position. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i'll try to do that in the future. >> thank you sir. >> admiral thank you. to your family thank you very very much. like the chairman and like you admiral, my dad was a navy veteran. he was a little bit below decks on the ship, but loved every minute of having a chance to be part of it. when we look forward and we look at the challenges we have in the

nuclear area in regards to submarine warfare, one of my greatest concerns is the ability to attack us cyber-wise, to find out our technology, to find out our plans to find out how we plan to map it out going forward, so it is not only on the naval side, but also on the contractor side. so i was wondering what's being done to make sure there's no back doors open with our contractors that other countries can get into. >> i share your concern about activity in the cyber domain. as we speak today, that is hottest contested domain. we are subject to tens of thousands of attacks per day. attribution is very difficult but just like in other domains,

success i think revolves around being properly trained, organized, and equipped and the navy is doing that with cyber mission teams that would provide offensive tools that would be available should our leaders choose to use those. with respect to protecting our networks, we use a variety of tools. some of those exact techniques i would love to talk about in an open forum, but we do maintain from a physical security and cyber security and personnel appropriate measures to prevent those sorts of intrusions. >> i know you're working hard on it and in connection with our contractors to go over best practices with them to ensure every avenue to technology and intellectual capital is cut off. one of things we do at crane naval warfare center is we

collaborate with air force systems on how to save money. how do we make every dollar go a little bit further? how do we work in coordination to see if something can fit in both the nayvy and the air force? i'm sure you would want to continue that effort. >> certainly. i'm very open to that. particularly particularly with respect to the work at crane and their work in fighting in fighting the proliferation oaf counterfeit parts is a big part of maintaining our security in the cyber domain. >> thank you. i had the privilege of traveling with you to one of our facilities. during that, we had a discussion of our mental health of our sailors. i'm sure you'll continue the efforts in making sure the

mental health challenges that our men and women face, you're there to make sure there's no stigma and assistance is available. >> absolutely. we'll remain fully committed to that to help our sailors be fully part of a connected team so that when challenges come of any sort, they can fall back and get support. >> let me ask you this. what keeps you up at night? what is your greatest concern number one logistics-wise? what do you need the most? and number two, what's the greatest danger you see out there in your job? >> i think the chairman mentioned it. the thing that has my attention is the growing complexity and urgency of our security environment around the world. our nation is pulled in so many different directions not only the indo asia pacific, but also

russia and their activity in europe and certainly activity in the middle east. in contrast to that is sequestration is a symptom of a level of awareness that i look forward, if confirmed, to enhancing, to making that message more vivid so we can close the gap in the security environment and sequestration. >> thank you for your service to the country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> admiral, thank you very much for your service. the navy is unique among our services. we know it puts strains on families. both of what you represent for our sayilors and what you represent for our families, we're grateful for your service. admiral, is china is an adversary

adversary? >> i think china is a complex nation. they are clearly growing in every dimension. things they do have an adversarial nature to them. they have a vastly growing nation. their activity in the south china sea -- >> doesn't sound like rosy relationship right now with china between the united states and our allies. but various published reports have speculated our cooperation agreement with china that the obama administration has submitted to congress may facility the transfer of sensitive equipment and technology to the people's liberation army navy. do you believe that the united states navy has a military

advantage over the pla navy, especially regarding nuclear capabilities? >> the details of this are very technical and difficult to discuss in an open forum. i would look forward to discussing those in a classified setting with you. i believe that in the aggregate we would be better with a renewed successor agreement than without it. >> even if you suspected or knew that the pla navy was going to divert that civilian nuclear technology towards nuclear naval systems? >> senator, the details of exactly that assessment are classified, but i can say with a degree of confidence that we are

better with this agreement than without it. >> do you agree with the findings of the 2014 national defense panel which was a bipartisan group of experts that we should have a target force of 325 ships? >> sir, i think the strategic environment we could easily justify an appetite for more ships. our current plan for a 308 ship navy represents right now the very best balance to meet not only the demands of the security environment but to do that with available resources. >> secretary of the navy has said quantity has a quality of its own. do you believe that is true and if so, is 308 ships going to be enough of that quantity to give us that quality of that kind? >> i agree with the secretary about the quality of the number of the ships.

and the current plan does allow us to meet our responsibilities in the defense strategic guidance albeit with some risk. >> in the recently issued national military strategy, general dempsey describes the need to counter certain revisionist states, but he also writes the u.s. military advantage has begun to erode. are there areas in which the u.s. navy's military advantage has begun to erode relative to our addversaryiesadversaries? >> senator this is a very dynamic environment, and the technological environment is challenging very rapidly. as the chairman mentioned we've got to become more agile in our acquisition systems to stay competitive in that realm, but i'm confident with the support of this committee and with congress and the innovation of the navy, we will do that. but as you said, some of our readiness is -- we're still

recovering from the effects of the 2013 sequestration to build our readiness back up. >> the flip side of what you just said is without adequate support from this congress then our military advantage as it relates to our navy may begin to erode? >> yes, sir. >> i hope we provide you and the sailors you represent the resources you need to project american power. >> thank you, senator. i look forward to working with you. >> we might now here from the newport news naval shipyard and norfolk as well. >> thank you mr. chair. thanks admiral. you've got a big day saturday. the launch of the uss john

warner virginia class sub at a base. that's a great program actually to exemplify the issue. are there lessons from that acquisition strategy that we can replicate on ohio class or other platforms? >> we hope to bring to you a design that is very mature. that was one of the key successes to the virginia program. we hope to provide you a stable build plan that if funded with predictable funds, will allow

the team of shipyards at newport news and electric boat to allocate risks and deliver those submarines along with the virginia class at the lowest possible price. >> another aspect of the uss john warner is it is obviously a nuclear sub and you are the commander of navy nuclear propulsion. when we talk about sequester and the effects of sequester on the defense mission, sometimes i think we have to make sure we're broadening our view. in your current role, you work very closely with the department of energy around nuclear reactor work as well don't you? >> yes, sir. >> and sequester doesn't just effect defense by effecting the department of defense the non-defense accounts, department of energy being one that are effected by sequester also, have a significant effect on our national security. isn't that correct? >> senator, that's exactly

right. we have been very clear about the national security mission in the department of energy not only for naval reaektctors, but also in the nuclear weapons business. >> things like nuclear research through the doe that has a direct impact on national security would still be compromised, correct? >> that's true. yes, sir. >> senator ayotte and i are on the committee. normally, the navy would have about a third of its ships deployed to support regional commanders but have an additional component like three args in a surge status trained up and ready to deploy within 30

days. talk to us about how sequestration and budgetary uncertainty effects that surge capacity, the readiness to respond? >> certainly our priority has been we will not deploy forces unless they are fully ready. those forward deployed strike groups will be ready in every respect. but to meet our responsibilities in the defense strategic guidance, we also need that surge force to respond to contingencies once those deployed forces have done their mission. currently, our requirements are that we have three strike groups ready to deploy in the event of contingency contingency. right now, we're at one of those three. we're on a path to recover so that we've got full readiness in both of those areas by 2020, but that also is contingent on stable and reliable funding to get us there. >> and so from the earlier

testimony, even the forward deployed, we end up with this two-month carrier gap. the forward deployed is effected by budgetary uncertainty. we hope to get back to that surge capacity that we think is optimal. >> yes, sir. >> last item quickly. senator king and i were in india in october and visited the shipbuilders in mumbai. there was a great deal of pride there and a great desire to partner with the united states. i like that you mentioned the indo asian region. i think there's a strong desire to partner with the united states participate in naval exercises. they do more joint exercises with the u.s. than any other nation. i would like your opinion on

that as my final question. >> i agree. there's importance to that region. if confirmed, i look forward to getting involved in making those ties stronger. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, admiral for being here today. i want to thank your father, your wife, dana, and your daughter, rachel, for accompanying you today. rachel a special shout-out to you right now for serving at walter reed. admiral, in reference to the iran nuke agreement, the obama administration has said the alternative to the iran nuclear agreement is war. the president has made it clear in his statement that the only alternative is war.

as i'm out visiting with other people, that's been the response. if your best military judgment do you believe that the only alternative to this nuclear agreement is war? >> senator, my way of answering that would be a major mission of our armed forces the joint force and certainly the navy is to use all means necessary to deter that type of war not only through preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but also by deterring any kind of -- many of the other tools that they use to disrupt activity in that region so we've got considerable forces, ballistic missiles, surface forces. they support terrorist organizations throughout the region. we need to use the full set of

capabilities that the joint force and the navy can deliver to deter that. and that military contribution is also just a of government approach along with our allies in the region. >> so a whole of government approach, and i think that's extremely important that we remember that that we do not have to sign this agreement, and that does not necessarily mean that we will be going to war with iran. is that your assessment? >> ma'am, i do support the whole of government approach and -- >> admiral, you were just asked to give your personal opinion if asked for it. the senator is asking for your opinion as to whether there are other options it besides going to war with iran. >> i think that there are other options besides going to war. >> thank you admiral. thank you. and iran, since we're on that topic topic, iran's military budget is approximately $11 billion per

year on defense. its posture, however, is bolstered by a variety of asymmetric and relatively low-cost capabilities and tactics including swarming at sea, artillery rockets ballistic missiles and uavs, and as you know, through this agreement, iran will gain about $150 billion due to sanctions relief, and the ability to purchase more advanced weapons and equipment through the lifting of the u.n. arms embargo, and even if a small portion of the sanctions relief money is directed towards their military capabilities in iran, what types of weapons and equipment do you believe that iran would purchase to improve its ability to project force within the persian gulf? >> well, ma'am i think that we would, as we have been throughout be sensitive to the proliferation market and weapons and so i would be very concerned

about them increasing their ballistic missiles, fleet force, as well as their anti-ship cruise missiles, the mines and the surface combatants that you mentioned as well. >> okay and well, i appreciate that, and i do think it is something that we have to be ever vigilant about. this is a very serious matter that we are facing today with iran, and its potentially increased military capabilities in that region. this is not an american problem. this is not an iranian problem. this is a worldwide problem, so i appreciate your attention to the matter, and i do look forward to supporting you in your confirmation. thank you, admiral. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> senator king. >> thank you mr. chair. admiral, in this kay and age where people move around so much, service families it's hard to determine where someone is from. my definition is where you went

to high school so i claim you as a proud son of the state of maine and delighted to have you here today. second point i spent some time a year ago under one of your submarines under the ice in the arctic. my wife expected to hear about the marvelous technology and amazing command center and all of that, no, what really impressed me was the young people on that boat and you have extraordinary people. the officers of course, were excellent, but what really i noticed was the spirit and dedication and pride of the enlisted people, of the sailors. it was their boat and they were so engaged and proud of the work that they were doing. i just want to commend you and pass along the observation that you are taking command of an extraordinary group of people and of course, the technology which we've talked a lot about today is important but

ultimately it seems to me it's the people that are going to make the difference. >> senator, thank you for that recognition. i could not agree with you more and i'm so privileged for the opportunity presented here today. >> one of the questions the chairman asked you at the beginning, goes through a set of standard questions is will you give your personal opinion. you're going to be in the national security council. you're going to be in the oval office. you're going to be at the upper reaches of the decision-making process at the pentagon. you've got to speak up. if you have extensive experience wisdom and background to, judgment to be brought to pear on these questions, and i hope there will be that, we all experienced that moment in a meeting where you say should i say something or not. i hope you'll remember this moment and even if it's the president of the united states say mr. president, i have to

respectfully disagree. we need that from you and i think that's one of the most important things that you brick to this position. will you give me a commitment that you're going to be you're going to be just this side of obnoxious in making your case at the highest levels of the united states government? >> sir i specialize in going well beyond obnoxious and i look forward, if confirmed, to participating in those discussions and i will use -- >> if you need practice in that senator king will help you out. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chair, your confidence is overwhelming. i mentioned about the arctic. i see the arctic as an area of tremendous both opportunity and challenge and characterize or structure and capabilities in the arctic, vis-a-vis russia in particular ice breakers. >> senator, the united states is an arctic nation and the security environment in the

arctic is changing as access to natural resources opens up as well. we must remain engaged in the arctic. has developed a road map to increase our capability in the arctic to pace this changing security environment, we are partnering closely with the whole of government and other sister services particularly the coast guard in this area. >> isn't it true that in terms of icebreakers which are the road builders of the arctic, we have one little country road and they have a bunch of interstate highways or something like 40 ice breakers we have one. >> yes, admiral zuke from the coast guard testified we need to address this ice breaker situation. >> i think it's a serious problem that we have to really put some attention to it and i understand it's in the coast guard's jurisdiction but it certainly affects your ability to operate in the region. >> we're absolutely closely

partnered, no daylight between us on that. >> in your advance policy questions you believed it was in the natural interest we accede to the law of the sea treaty. could you expand on that a bit? >> senator, i do believe that. particularly as it pertains to the unfolding opportunities in the arctic, this provides a framework toed ajude indicate disputes and participate as everybody, you know moves to improve their capability and posture. >> because we are members of that treaty we are literally losing ground in the arctic. isn't that correct? >> i think that becoming part of that treaty is an important part of our movement into the arctic, yes, sir. >> thank you admiral thank you for your service. >> thank you senator. >> thank you admiral, for that testimony on the arctic. i know that senator sullivan will have more on that, but it

seems to me that just the ice breaker situation is indicative of the difference in emphasis that russia and the united states seem to place. would you agree with that? >> sir if you just look at the resources, they've been very focused in the arctic for a long time. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chair admiral richardson. thank you for being here. congratulations to you and your family and thank you all for your years of service. i also want to thank you for the time we spent in my office answering a range of questions. one general question i have here and would appreciate your personal opinion and your candor is it relates to the current advantage that we enjoy with our adversaries like russia and china, and the specific threats

to those gaps being narrowed as a result of sequestration, if you have to deal with that in 2016. >> yes, sir. as i said the pace of technological change is just picking up and so -- >> can you talk to specific areas your greatest concern. >> i would say in particular the ability to use a long range precision guided munition, to target greater and longer distances, the anti-access area denial capabilities that we've talked about many times, are a particular concern. >> what advice would you give us as we're sitting here and trying to conference the defense authorization? we're trying to get an appropriations process going. if you're kind of guiding us through what we need to do to help you do your job, what do

you need to tell us? what do we need to stop doing? what do we need to start doing? >> senator i think that we've proposed a solid plan and we've mentioned already the effects of sequestration and uncertainty in the fiscal environment, the budget environment and perhaps the greatest thing that we could do together is put in place a long-term and predictable stream of funding. >> thank you for that. i'm going to get a little bit more parochial now my marines down in north carolina, and i know the comment out of the mafof commandout out of the marine corps the requirement for amphibious operations exceeds 50. i think the minimum is 38. yet we're at 30 operating today, and it doesn't look like we'll obtain an amphibious fleet of mo