a treaty obligations, is worrisome notion for people who might rely on us in the future and so i wonder, i just wonder allowed to the members of this committee -- aloud to the members of this committee what signals we are sending when we don't come down very hard on violations of the territory of some of our treaty partners. . let me shift, in the time i have, i'm glad to know that senator reid, the distinguished leader on this committee, has asked you about our amphibious capability and i believe you said that you had asked for addition ap ships for your area of respopsability is that correct, admiral? >> that's correct. i mean as part of the ongoing dialogue about the rebalance and he priorities of how you

rebalance and part of that discussion was about amphibious shipping. >> i think you probably have some people on this committee and in the congress who would ike to help you on this. hy do you need more amphibious capability, and would you elaborate on the role of our marines, the expeditionary marines and your air responsibility tissue area of responsibility, the effect -- would the effectiveness of the marines be diminished if there were insufficient amphibious ships or if we don't correct the ensufficient number of ships, and how would this affect your abilities as the combatant commander? >> well, certainly i'm not the

only combatant command whore deshire -- desires amphibious ship thoring marines on them. there is a competition among us as the world's situation moves around and we -- we need different types of forces and generally the capabilities that the marine corps bring with amphibious groups is applicable almost every scenario from humanitarian assistance, disaster relief all the way to high end contingencies. command signal today -- demand is greater than what we can resource. we have to make tradeoffs. we only have so much money. i think the navy and marine corps have teamed together to take a look at that. but in my particular area of responsibility, not only do i have forces out and about in the

western pacific, predominantly, but also amphibious forces i train and maintain and then i send them to other combatant commands. i send them to central command and to europe and so in the pacific, though, it is my view that as the marines come back, that we should optimize the capability of the marines, particularly in the area west of the date line and to do that we have to have adequate amphibious lift to do that. >> well, let the just leave you with this request, tell us what you need and why you need it and what we won't be able to do if you get less than that and i would hope that members of this committee would do what we could to make sure that we're ready for contingencies in your area.

thank you very much, thank you to both of you. >> thank you, senator wicker. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, i'd like to begin with a compliment. i was fortunate enough to spend the last weekend on the u.s.s. new mexico, virginia class submarine, doing exercises under the polar icecap. the machine, the device, the hip, was extraordinary but the overwhelming impression i had was the quality of the sailors on that ship, from the commander to the mess folks, it was -- they were dedicated, patriotic, passionate about what they were doing, you have an extraordinary organization and i think sometimes we talk about it in a kind of general sense but to see these young people and their level of knowledge, i was particularly impressed by enlisted people who had come up

through the ranks that have real re-- real responsibility on that ship. it's an indication of the quality of the military that we have and i sometimes feel we don't adequately acknowledge and reward those people for the extraordinary and uncomfortable, by definition on a submarine, work that they do. it was a riveting experience in termings of the admirg for those young people. so your organization is to be complimented. secondly, i want to associate myself with the comments of senator sessions. i worry that we're whistling past the graveyard in terms of the debt service requirement that's looming as interest rates inevitably rise, interest rates now running at about 2% which is a world record of low, that goes to 4 1/2%, then interest charges, just interest charges will exceed the current defense budget. that's dead money.

it doesn't buy any ships, personnel, park rangers, pell grants or anything else. edge it's something we really need to pay some attention to while we're in this interest rate lull because when they go up, it's going to be too late. third, in terms of a comment, general, you mentioned that we have an asymmetric cyberadvantage but it occurs to me that for the same reason we have an asymmetric seener vulnerability buzz of the advanced nature of our society and the extent to which we depend upon the internet and interrelationships for everything from the electrical grid to natural gas to financial services. so i believe we do have, and i've observed that we do have an advantage because of our advanced state but several of my folks have pointed out to me that it's also -- it also can be

a significant disadvantage. admiral, turning to the -- to your responsibilities, what do we need to bolster the security capabilities of our allies and partners in the region, assuming we can't carry the whole burden, especially where we don't have a permanent military presence. is there more we should be doing in the area of foreign military sells, foreign military financing, training and those kinds of things in the pacific region? >> well, in general, i'd say that foreign military sales are an exceptional tool to be able to do a couple of things. one is to bolster the capacity and ability of our partners and allies so that they can be more supportive in the security environment and we are certainly doing that with our key allies.

but what it also does is that when you have f.m.s. sales, it puts you together with a relationship for sometimes 20 or 30 years, depending on the life of the system that you have. so you share training, you share schools, you share common experiences, you share part -- park supply, all those types of things. i believe if that f.m.s. is a very, very valuable tool for eing able to help us shape the security particularly in my area of responsibility. >> senator mccain and i were in the mideast and we observed how they come here for training, it serves training value but it's also an america 101 kind of process is that an aspect that takes place in the pacific at the her >> it is.

we rely heavily on funding to be able to do that, i think we it's use more imet, the -- not just our partners and allies coming this direction, it's also our officers and enlisted going in their direction. any time you build trust and understanding, that lasts for years. it builds an inherent ability in the security environment, when you have senior officers at my level that have known each other in different countries, known each other 20, 30 years, went to school together, it makes a difference when you have to deal with a crisis. >> question for both of you gentlemen, the president's 2015 budget requests to retire the u2 manned aircraft in favor of the unmanned tpwhrobal hawk for high altitude reconnaissance. will the global hawk provide the capabilities you need or will gaps be created by the

retirement of the u? do you feel the air force request is appropriate given your needs and the needs in your region? >> senator, first of all, given the budget constraints, i understand the service's and air force's needs to reduce platforms and aging platforms, but in my particular case in korea, the u2 provides a unique capability that at least presently the global hawk won't provide. it will be a loss of intelligence that's very important for us. as we look at this, look at the retirement of the u2, we have to look at the capabilities of the global hawk and perhaps building those capabilities so i don't have an intelligence loss. >> sit the case that you're dealing with a potential adversary that's so unpredictable, can act so rapidly that intelligence is of utmost importance? >> it is. i look for persistence because

of that indicator and a warning that i need in a short timeline. >> a follow-on question, very briefly, the air force is requesting a reduction in predator and reaper combat air patrols from 65 to 55, is that a problem? admiral, why don't you tackle hat. >> in our a.o.r., and i think the general will have his own perspective on it, the type of capabilities that the reaper brings are, we live in a contested environment and so, you know, you can't equate the success you've had with those platforms in areas of the world where you had -- you had air supremacy or air superiority. what we have to have is survival platforms, survivable, you know, capabilities, and so the reduction in those platforms, i

think, is less important to us in the asia-pacific than in other parts of the world. >> general, any thoughts on that question? >> no, aagree with admiral locklear. given the conditions we have in korea and high intensity potential crisis, high intensity, we would have to gain air dominance before we employed those. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator ayacht. -- ayott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of you for your service and leadership and also thank your families for the sacrifices they've made. admiral locklear, i want to follow up on the question that my colleague, senator shaheen, asked you with regard to the submarine capabilities of our country and i believe you said that you are an advocate for greater capabilities for our attack submarine fleet, if that's right? >> that's correct.

>> certainly you talked about the importance of the virginia class submarine and particularly with our capability in the asia-pacific region. one question i wanted to ask you is, what percentage of your combatant commander requirements for attack submarines are being met? >> let me provide you an offline exact percentage but they're not all being met. >> they're not all being met. in fact last year i think it was about 50% in terms of combatant commander requirement requests for attack submarines, so i would appreciate an update on that, but my sense is, it's probably not much better or even -- may not be any bettering may be lower soism look forward to those numbers. so we're not meeting all our combatant command requests for attack submarines and as we look forward to the los angeles class submarines retiring in the coming years and we are

replacing them with virginia class submarines, as i look at the numbers, our attack submarines will decline from 55 attack submarines in fiscal year 2013, to, we go fwrd to a low of actually 42 in 2029. so we're seeing it diminishing tra jeblingtry, despite the fact that there was obviously inclusion of two virginia class submarines, productions over the depths but i'm seing a disconnect in terms of our needs not only in the asia-pacific region but this is where i think we see it very much and the declining capacity we will have under the current predictions for attack submarines. so if we're rebalancing to the asia-pacific region and really as we've heard today, it's an

environment dominated by maritime presence, and -- how can we justify a 24% decrease in the size of our attack submarine fleet? doesn't this suggest that we are not adequately resourcing this rebalancing? as we look at the time, as you said in your testimony, that in fact, china has increasing capability with regard to their submarine fleet and has continued to invest in their submarine fleet. ? could you help me with that >> i think you accurately represented what the future will be based on even building two a year. >> right. >> of course, you know, when the cr c&o, i won't speak for him, but he has to manage putting all the requirements in the top line so it come down to managing risk and finding where we can absorb

risk inside the budgets that we're given. and unfortunately, i think that the best that they've been able to do, even at two a year is what you just outlined. >> thank you, admiral. i think that people need to understand that this is going to be a significant decrease if we stay where we are with regard to how we're resourcing the overall defense budget but also in particular, our submarine fleet, when there are going to be greater needs where countries leek china are making greater investments and where the value of our attack submarine fleet is paramount in terms of testifies to of the nation and also our presence in the asia-pacific region so, you know, i think this is an issue we have to pay careful attention to and it's one that we need to focus on. i also fully agree with my colleague about the value of our work force, that maintains those submarine fleets but also the work forest that has the technical expertise and

background, i'm very proud of the workers at the portsmouth naval shipyard but this is something that is a treasure we need to continue to invest in if we're going to have that capacity going forward. general, i wanted to ask you about something in your testimony, you talked about missile defense shortfalls. in terms of your responsibilities, what is it that are our missile defense shortfalls and what are your concern there is? >> senator, first of all, we have a challenging environment in terms of north korea's development of ballistic missiles and they continue apace at that. it is both a u.s. and iraq concern that i have in terms of the alliance. and it's developing along with layered,lic of korea a interoperable missile defense system that has the right components and also has the

sufficient munitions. and i've made, you know, the specific requirements known. >> it seems to me with the often erratic behavior of the new lead for the north korea, this is an important investment for us if we have needs in missile defense that in particular for protecting south korea and our troops that are there, i look forward to working with you on this issue because i think this is critical with the threats we face in the region and also i think with what we seen is, as you say in your testimony, troubling actions by north korea in terms of proliveuation of -- proliferation of weapons as well, i think this is another issue we need to watch and it's of deep concern to us and our allies. admiral locklear, i wanted to ask you about a specific system and its value to paycome and hat is the -- to paycom, the

jalen system, you've already testified about some of the activity already in the asia pacific region and surface moving targets as well as forming boats. i wanted to ask you about the fact, in fact, secretary hagel has said that four combatant commands, including your command, has expressed an interest in the capability provided by them. jalins toeployment of better provide missile defense, i wanted to get your thoughts on the system and second, are you aware that there actually is a second jalins that stands in reserve right now? it's not to put it in more civilian terms but it's kind of in the closet right now in utah and not being deploy and can you help me understand why that is?

>> well, first of all, you accurately portrayed, i have asked -- i september a letter to secretary panetta, at that time, asking for the capabilities that a jalenz like system would provide in relation to the sophisticated integrated air defense scenarios we face in the asia pacific. so it would be important. it is important. and it's important i think since it's real tyly a new technology to kind of get it out and test it and get it into -- you can't just breeng these thing -- bring these things in overnight and expect them to be properly integrated, we have to work our way through that. i was awear that there is another system. the decision was made by the jonet force buzz of the uncertain -- the capabilities of the system and the uncertainty of other regions of the world, to keep one in reserve just in case we need it system of i

don't -- i don't fault their decision. i think that it probably was given the fact that we only have two of the systems and the fact that the world is pretty dynamic, keeping one in reseven may be the best solution for now. >> thank you very much, both of you, appreciate it. >> thank you very much, senator ayott. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to first associate myself with the comments of senators king and ayott in recognizing the comp tegs tense and dedication of the men and women who serve. admerle locklear, it is always good to see you. i want to commend you reason releasing paycomm's energy strategy tarks precise, clear-eyed assessment of the challenges and opportunities the u.s. faces with regard to energy matters in this region and clearly access to affordable, sustainable forces is a key part of security and stability in the region. to my question, admiral you

mentioned the value of multilateral engagements within the region specifically you were talking about this with regard o senator wicker's comments. as secretary hayes -- hagel's, excuse me, invitation, the defense ministers meeting will be held in hawaii next month. what are your thoughts about the significance of this meeting? are there plans for other meet offings this sort with countries who are partners who are below the alliance level as you noted? >> well, one of my objectives as paycomm commander is to be as pport i as possible of the asean nations and the asean organization. beyond secretary hagel's hosting the beginning of april in hawaii, which i will assist him

in hosting that, and we'll talk about many aspects of multilateral cooperation. i also make it a point every time i go to jakarta, to stop in and see the permanent reps of asean, to see the secretary general or the deputy while i'm there, and to show generally u.s. support for gring multilateral organizations such as asean. so there is a place a growing place, i think, particularly in south asia, southeast asia, for these multilateral organizations that when they come together, they -- they're consensus organizations, they're probably not going, we have to set our expectations to a certain level. but certainly they should have a voice and they should have a voice together. >> and as you know the kind of relationships we build in these areas and with these countries, are beneficial to our national security interests also.

with rehe balance of the asia-pacific, i'm having a bit of trouble understanding a new air force plan which would move tankers force kc-135 from the joint force base to the mainland. it seems to me that keeping the tankers forward deployed in hawaii would make the most sense. would you leek to schaefer your perspective on this proposal? >> well, i have not yet seen the formal proposal by the air force but as you know, the proposal would have to come through me for my comments. the decision on whether to move co-commed toat are paycomm or under my command would have to be authorized by secretary hagel. there'll be a dialogue about this enge there will be a lot of perspectives as we look at it.

i believe those four earps were the result of an niche tiff -- niche tiff a number of years back. what i understand is that there are some maintenance -- maintenance efficiencies that as we look at, across the service efficiencies that are being forced on us by the -- forced is probably the wrong word -- that we're being driven to because of the realities we're in, this is probably the reason the air force is pursuing the consolidation of these assets. but we have not made a decision yet. >> i would have an expect eags that the national guard, the air force, and you would be very much engaged and of course i don't want to -- i want to be in touch, also. the department has proposed a 36% reduction in milcon funds for fiscal year 2015. it is my understanding that these cuts remain to help operations and readiness

accounts because of the impact of sequester. how will these budget changes affect your ability to carry out your missions and paycomm from the milcon and operations and readiness standpoint? >> well new york general, slowing of milcon that we had anticipated in our program, to this degree, 36%, will impact the service's ability to -- throughout the world put particularly in my area, to be able to move forward with some of their initiatives. in hawaii, i think there's been a milcon reduction, we are moving to move b-22's there, new cobras, new apache helicopters, those type of things. so it will slow the pace at

which we are able to integrate these forces into the a.o.r. >> my hope is that the deferred milcon items within restore as we go along and assess the needs you have in this aeroyasm you mention the cyberthreats that impacts the pay cohn -- the aycon a.o.r. would you support a strong ?yberteam >> generally speaking the more cyberexperts we have the better refer uld recommend we that over to cybercommand to ake a look at how those forces

o, because as we've seen, that kind of crisis goes forward, we have to understand how they'll be manned and trained and maintained to be relevant when they show up with the active forces and a contingency. >> it's clear we ought to be working in parallel, right hand, left hand, all of us should be working together. that's where i'm going, certainly not ja -- advocating that everybody does their own thing in this area because it's very complicated, i realize. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator gramm. >> thank you both for your service. general, is it a fair statement one of the rea is dangerous nation stites? >> yes, sir.

>> in terms of their missile program by 2024, do you expect that we will have capability -- missile capabilities that would reach our homeland? >> yes, sir, at the pace they're on. >> do you expect by 2024 they'll have plutonium weapons, not just uranium based nuclear bombs? >> yes, sir. >> admiral. about 20 -- by 2024, if china continues on their present pace of building up their military, what will the balance of power be between china and the united states? in your command? >> well, i think in the region, the balance of power will continue to shift in the direction of the chinese, depending on how much more investments they make and depending on whether we -- what our forces look like going

forward system of we'll continue to shift. >> we're uncertain as to what china will do. it seems they're intent ton building up the military is that a fair state snment >> at 12.2%, that's a fair statement. >> let's look at the pace they're on and what will hah to us over the next -- by 2024. if sequestration is fully implemented, how much longer, realistically, do you have in this command? couple of years? what's a normal tour? >> it's about three years, i'm in my last year. >> as we look fwrd, we'll probably have two or three commanders by 2024, at least. looking down the road what kind of -- if sequestration is fully implemented, what will that mean in term os of the ability to defend this region and have a deterring presence? would it be the sequestration, a mild, medium or severe effect on

future commanders to be able to represent our interests in your area? >> well, i think, assuming that the world other than the asia pacific will not be peaceful in 2024, sequestration will have a severe effect on our abilities. , the now, general transition of leadership in north korea, is it stabilizing or is it still volatile? do we know who is in charge of the country? >> senator, we do know who is in charge. i think recently it's stabilized somewhat. he's displaying a normal -- a normal routine at this pobet, purposely so, i think for his regime. but we don't know yet the stability within his close

regime. seg cant change in a leder -- leder shep recently there. >> do we have any real leverage to stop their nuclear program from developing? at the pace they would dezero? >> i think the sanctions we have used to this point have not tissue have not had the impact in that regard. >> south korea, are they seeking to enrich uranium? >> as you know, there's discussions with civil nuclear capability. >> sit our position to oppose enrichment by the south koreans for civilian purposes or do you know? >> i don't know. >> admiral, you've got a lot of the world to be responsible for. our military budget will be at 2.3% of g.d.p.

do you know the last time america spent 2.3% of g.d.p. on defense in the modern area -- era? >> i couldn't accurately say. >> ok. isn't this dangerous, what we're doing? >> well, i think that we have to tissue you know, the real question as we talked about here today is how do you weigh what appears to be the looming threat to the u.s. economy, the u.s. -- >> let's say if you eliminated the department of defense in perpetuity would it remotely move us toward balancing the budget? >> from what i can see it would not. >> if we assume that's fairly accurate, the path we've taken as a nation in terms of our

defense capabilities, would you say it's alarming? >> i would say that it bears serious watching. > what would you say, general? >> sir, i'd say i'm very concerned about it. >> from our enemies' point of view, do you think it's likely that china will have a confrontation with japan over the islands in question? admiral? >> well, i think the potential for miscalculation if they don't manage it between themselves properly could be high and it could be very dangerous. that said, i don't see in the near term that they're heading in the direction of confrontation. >> when you talk to our allies, do they seem concerned about the

direction we're heading as a nation? the united states? in terms of our defense capability? and have some of the things that happened in the mideast, has that affected at all the view of american reliability in your area of operations? >> well, i think the whole world watches what we do militarily. and you know, for a long time we've been kind of the single guarantor of security around the world. >> are they henling their bets? >> enge they're starting to look at it and they're asking the question of our staying power, globally, not just in my region. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator gramm. senator kain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to our witnesses, thank you for your service and testimony this morning. i don't think anyone has mentioned yet but we should applaud the work of the fleet in assisting trying to find the air ma lay shah flight, just an example of the kind of thing we

do every day. the military does every day to advance humanitarian and other causes and that work is important work. enge many of the questions and comments today have really kind of circled back to budgetary reality, certainly senator gramm's did. we've got two budgetary choices posed to this committee by the president's budget committee, do we accept the president's budget or some version of it, the half sequester budget, the president's budget would absorb half the sequester cuts over the range of the sequester but try to find a replacement for the other half and there's a suggested replacement from 16 and out or do we just accept the full sequester? there's no way we can do what we want if we accept the full sequester, period. full stop. we can't do it. if we're concerned we have a way to solve it but the way to solve t is do what we did in the

2014-2015. that is ultimately the significant way to answer some of the concerns you've each brought to the table in my view. admiral, i want to ask you a question about this sequester, full sequester or half sequester budget that doles with carriers, that's one of the items that's most obviously different between the two. between the president's submitted budget and the full sequester versionful that's scaling back from an 11-carrier navy to a 10-carrier knave. is the 11-carrier navy a statutory requirement? you said recently that 11 carriers continue to be important to america's dominance. ould you describe that please? >> we debated for a long time

what the utility of the carrier would be in the 21st century and we continue to see it in the forefront of military instruments that leadership have been able to use to be able to maintain the peace, to maintain stability, and in crisis to be able to respond quickly. the benefit of our carrier force today is that it's unequaled in the world. it is nuclear, sustainable at sea for many, many, many, really for just about as long as you could think about it and it carries a credible capability to maintain peace and to be able to prevail in crisis. the downside to the nuclear carrier force, or the opportunity cost, maybe not the downside is that they are nuclear and they have to be mane tained in a safe manner which if you take a look at the history of maybe nuclear power, you've

got to give these young men and women who do this a lot of credit, you've got young 19, 20-year-old people around these nuclear reactors, they've been largely without any incident for the history of the program but to do that, you have to bring them back through, maintenance, they have to come back to the ship yards, they have to be in nuclear ship yards to have that done. and in the kind of day-to-day operations globally to be able to maintain the requirements that i have and the other combatant commanders have, based on the world as it is, about 11 aircraft carriers is just barely making it today. >> what would it mean in paycomm if we dropped from 11 to 10, chamed the statutory roirment, didn't refuel the george washington and dropped back from 11 to 10? >> i'm confident we would still maintain a nuclear carrier forward in the japanese alliance. you know, we announced recently that the ronald reagan would be

that replacement, so we're moving in that direction. the implication would be that there would be greater periods f time, not only my a.o.r. but other a.o.r.'s where a combatant commander would say, a carrier is needed in this crisis or this scenario, and there would not be one available. >> if i could continue, admiral, with you, i want to talk a little bit about china. i think as i was hearing your testimony, you were indicating that china is pretty rapidly chewing away any dominance we might have in the region but that i think you indicated that even at a 12% growth in defense expenditures, it would be many decades before they could reduce our dominance globally. did i understand the gist of that testimony correctly? >> that's correct. >> does china have military bases outside of china? >> not that i'm aware of today. >> does china have significant

military presence today in the americas? >> military presence, no. >> africa? >> military presence, no. >> europe? >> no. >> mideast? >> just in the gulf of aden where they've done counterpiracy operations. >> sit your understanding that china is trying to significantly grow the projected military presence in their row region but is not, at least to this point, significantly growing military presence elsewhere? >> the predominance of their efforts are in the region. >> so that, plains the testimony you give earlier, they're chewing away our dominance in their region but it would take a long time for them, etch at significant growth, to chew away our dominance elsewhere? >> that's correct. i mean, when you combine the u.s. global security capability with that of our allies, with that of our significant allies

from -- in all parts of the world, they would have a to be global. >> i ask these questions, i think most would say china is our principal competitor, we use that phrase new york the next century. they have a fundamentally different business model than we do. our business mod sell a global protection of presence both physical with ticksed assets and fleblingsable assets like carriers. those in favor say aye pursuing a different model, military bases, that's not what we're focused on, it's as if we pull all our resources into the americas, we would be a major force in one part of the world so they have a different business model. and the islands, this is a onfusing one for us, these are

uninhabited islands, is the debate, the argument, between china and japan over the islands, it's not about the islands as an economic source unless there are natural resources there, is it more about national pride? or dominating sea lanes? or just for china creating sort of a buffer in that region they care about? how would you describe it? >> i would se de-scribe it as primarily a sovereignty issue. less economics. and it's not something new. this has been -- this issue has been around for a long time. of course we as a government, we don't take sides of territorial disputes, japan is our ally, we made it clear how we would support our ally in the case of these -- this particular scenario. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, to the witnesses. >> senator kaine, senator blumen

that will. >> i want to -- blumen thall. >> i want to gsh blumen thall. -- blumenthal. >> i want to continue with the line of questioning about china's strategic model is foye focused on its part of the world. yet you made the point, very tellingly, i think, that china will soon have its first credible see sea based nuclear deterrent, probably before the end of this year. now, that ability to project nuclear power beyond its area, if it is further grown and expanded, would somewhat contradict the reasoning that senator kaine has just advanced or the model he's just outlined, would it not? in other words if -- it projects

a nuclear the deterrent that could protect interests beyond just its immediate area. >> i think they have a nuclear deterrent, they've had a nuclear deterrent that could be aimed at this country, so putting in a sea-based -- i think for them this adds, just as it does for us or for the indians who are pursuing the same thing, it -- it adds another layer of confidence that their strategic nuclear deterrent won't be compromised. what it does for me and paycomm commander, in the that event you should ever have a crisis, oklahoma a crisis or conflict with china is inevitable, i don't think it is, and it wouldn't be in the best interest of peace and security if the world for that to happen. we have to walk ourselves back from that dialogue, i think. but in general, i mean, what they're doing, if we just add more compleblingsity to how we

would ever -- more complexity to how we would enter a contingency but we shouldn't talk ourselves into one either. >> on the -- on our strategic laydown in the pacific, i noted 2020 stratiegeal exlaydown and i make -- strategic lay down seems to anticipate a 22% ship increase based in that part of -- part of the world is that correct? >> well, i think that, you know, when you define my area of responsibility and the ships and submarines and airplanes are, it extends basically from california to the intersection of india and pakistan so there will be somewhere in that large area, not necessarily west of the date line. >> but isn't that 22% increase based outside of the united

states? in other words, non-u.s. bases? >> not all of it. no. >> what percentage of it? >> i'll have to get you the exact percentage that will be outside of u.s. bases, i can't give you that off the top of my head. >> is there a way that more of those ships can be based in the united states? rather than based abroad? i know i'm putting it in somewhat sim plist exterms but i think the reason for my questioning is, basing more of these ships in the united states means more jobs in the united greater potentially levels of scrutiny and oversight about contracting. >> well, you know, to some degree we're an island nation, when you look at us globally, where we're located. and the value of as an island

nation that's primarily maritime nation, the value of maritime forces forward is why you have navy. otherwise, if you want to bring them all home, because of the vast distances we have to travel, to continually rotate them from home, first of all, very expensive. for instance, for every one ship that i have deployed forward somewhere, it takes about four ships back in the united states to be able to support that rotation. so it's a cost effective solution to be forward. particularly where you have an ally or host nation that's willing to help support you. so i'm always reticent to say, let's just bring everything back to the homeland. it sounds good but it's not operationally a good thing to do. >> well i'm not suggesting, and i'm not in any way arguing with you, so to speak, what i'm

suggesting is an analysis that assesses the potential for creating jobs, for sustaining economic activity at those bases whether it's hawaii or california, rather than abroad and i recognize that it may be more cost effective looking at it solely in terms of dollars and cents in your budget, but i'm thinking about employment and economic activities. if you get back to me with those numbers, i would very much appreciate it. general, i noticed that yesterday there was an announcement that the republic of korea had officially selected the f-35, the conventional takeoff and landing design and announced purchase hs of 40 of them. -- purr which is of 40 of them -- purchase of 40 of them. i wonder if you could tell us how that helps you in terms of

both the common platform with our ally and also the qualitative military advantage of the f-35. >> senator, first of all, the announcement yesterday was one of those that included the global hawk i believe as well. those are commitments that as an alliance the republic of korea has made as part of the commitment to the strategic alliance 2015. the first part is that they've invested in the qualities and capabilities that they bring to this alliance. and both those platforms, in particular the f-35, provides, you know, the state of the art capability, compatible with us, and interoperability and particularly having the same systems, gives us a great deal more agility. an then finally, their air force is building, is getting stronger all the time. and that helps us a great deal. and the plans that we have both in arms and if we go to crisis,

the air force and establishment of air dominance is critical. >> and i understand that there are eight other international partners, i don't know whether there are any of those are in the area under your command, but do you know what the state of purchase by those other eight international partners are at this point? >> no, sir, not specifically. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you both ff your -- for your extraordinarily delished service to our country and thank you to the men and women under your command. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. i have one additional question. others, if they have question, will have them addressed as well. in your prepared remarks, admiral you said that it would enhance our security cooperation effectiveness with key allies

the rtners if we had inhority to have $30 million a security cooperation authority managed by the joint staff under the milcon appropriation. i'm wondering whether that request was made of the administration when they put together their budget and whether or not there is something like that in the budget request, we're trying to find out if there is any reference to that. >> the d.o.d. is awear of my dezero to do that. i can't tell you if it's actually in a line somewhere,ville to look, myself, and see if it's in there. the purpose of it is it would give us enhanced flexibility to be able to do some of the things that statute wise we're

prevented from doing today, small dollars, big impact. >> if you can give us that record, i'd appreciate that. a number of other questions for both of you, for the record, other colleagues may as well. are there any additional questions, senator kain we? -- senator kaine? >> did our intention provide us any advance warning that china was going to impose aioc in 2013? >> we had been observing the dialogue, the potential for that for some time. as far as -- as far as the exact date and maybe a day or two warning, we did not receive indications of that. so it was a surprise to the region of when they actually announced it. but we knew for some time there was a con tell place of that. >> so it's the timing rather than that they actually took this step? >> right. we came out pretty firm about

how we felt about it afterwards but in reality, every country should have the ability to look at their own defenses and put these types of things in place. we have more than any other country in the world but it's the method and the extra caveats put on it that made it unacceptable and particularly the way, enstead of being just, let's have a dialogue with our neighbors and talk about how we're going to defend our territorial air space, it was laid on as a, i think a direct issue with japan and others, there wasn't any dialogue among the ve re-on or among the neighbors. wasn't any dialogue with the united states about it. -- so in the end, it did not it didn't sit well with the region in general. >> thank you. chairman, one last quick question. admiral, thank you for being so

forthcoming on the bases abroad. one of the reasons for my question is not only the jobs and economic activity but also the reports -- reports of corruption or waste in contracting and so forth and i wonder whether there have been changes in the systems providing for greater oversight and scrutiny, whether the systems of contracting and procurement have been changed with respect to those bases? >> well, i'd have to dig into specifics of your question, of tor, i'm not sure i know contracting irregularities we're talking about, i think we have, in fact, i know we have, including general scaparotti here, very credible leadership of these alunes and the bases and the dialogue that goes on

about how we share costs, how we share responsibilities, we just finish negotiating the mutual agreement between the -- between us and the south koreans which we hope they ratify as soon as their congress comes back into session. we have very deliberate dialogue with our allies in scra pan about how the money is spent and so i think we are doing due diligence. >> let me be more specific, then, just to, you know, give you a little bit more. glenn defense marine asia. i'm sure that name is familiar to you. singapore-based firm that serviced navy vessels throughout asia, in fact, continued to do so until its chief executive was recently arrested. i wonder if you could provide us

with the records of contracts that the navy signed since 2009 and also, i'm not going to prolong this hearing but perhaps in a written response, an account of what is being done to prevent occurrences of that kind of issue in the future? >> i will, senator. i'll have to get with the navy, with the c.o. this is primary oversight of hose contracts, even in my o.r., i'll try to consolidate with the navy and answer those questions. >> any other questions? if not, we thank you both for your service and your testimony. please pass along our thanks to the men and women with whom you serve. we will stand adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> there was records discovered, edible records and then that let them respond more quickly. to clarify, it is in the a localization that would require extensive knowledge of where it would be. >> are you cooperating with china? >> enge there are 26 nations involved, we fully cooperate with china and other nations. >> china's military declared

they will investigate -- >> i have no comment for that. >> the u.s. supreme court heard oral arguments on the new health care law. the two cases look at women's access to contraceptives to their employers's health care plan and religious freedom. the house foreign affairs passed sanctions against russia. legislation that would end the government's bulk collection of metadata. journal,xt washington the cato institute discusses the president's proposed plan and e