determined, we will work hard. i talk to people and i know the sentiment. in relation to sanctions. i'm sure that they are discerning but the central bank , the government needs to pass this with minimal costs. can we do that yes. it is about patients. we have to take advantage of this time and we can do it. >> what about the new threats that can emerge this year? president putin: well, there are so many threats, we cannot forecast, but if we maintain the domestic situation presently, if we still have our society, there are no threat that will be dangerous for us. host: i still want to ask about

negative aspects, the situation -- a set of measures taken by the government, but frankly speaking, at this point we don't see how this is supposed to work. it seems like the primary strategy is to wait for oil prices to rebound when oil prices go up, we will have more money and that will take care of all problems. president putin: well, this is an overly critically -- critical account. surely you must always criticize the president and government when you have criticism it makes you look at things with a fresh look. you need an outsider opinion nevertheless the plan to

stabilize the economic situation is something that takes a lot of professional professionalism. we cannot waste money. certainly the government needed time to understand what should be done, what kind of resources could be used. and what i'm mentioning, this plan, was adopted last september and it is now rolled out. nevertheless the steps provided by this plan are well thought out and they reflect the state of our economy. on a large scale, this is a

blueprint and we have 2.3 trillion rubles earmarked for this plan 900 billion will be channeled to support the russian bacon system -- banking system. that is the lifeblood of the economy. and of course everybody criticizes the central bank. these are the right steps. we need to look back at the 2009 crisis. we also have 250 billion rubles we will spend for the real sector of the economy. this will first go to the banks, then the banks will help. then we will send 100 million rubles to support aviation, aircraft construction. we will also have 2 billion to support employment.

200 billion guarantees for certain projects. the central bank has a number of steps that are being implemented. it is critical to kickstart economic growth. we are at adjusting pensions to inflation. and also we have steps to take in taxation. i'm sure we will talk about that during the session. in terms of agriculture, we have added just did a new plan in terms of logistics and transportation systems. we have a plan that is coming the plan will be made for commuter traffic. and -- will be cut 10% for passenger traffic.

so, a whole range of issues which are being implemented. there -- it is not fair to say that there are no results. prices are up. but not in all regions. the average prices are down. the ruble has strengthened. so we cannot see -- you can't say that nothing is being done that is not fair. maybe the expectations were higher, but that is why i am urging everyone to be patient. we have to find the right way forward and the government has taken the right way forward. host: but the ruble note -- the ruble is strengthening for a different reason. president putin: what is the reason? host: people convert their money to rubles because interest rates

group. president putin: but why did you say the interest rates grow? host: -- president putin: there is a link with oil prices. the ruble has strengthened so much, there must be other factors. i mentioned the most -- that we could see. we have survived the peak of the problems, also the russian banks and russian cooperations -- corporations have paid off debts. and we are also adjusting the russian ruble. the central bank does not control the exchange rates. unemployment is still 5.8, it is

an odd that much in europe. in europe it is 11%. >> mr. president, we have people representing businesses. we will take a question from a businessman. >> mr. putin hello to all of russia. i have the first question, so -- is effective and we launch our firm two years ago and this year we are now the best young business project this year. but we have our problems with human capital. when young people graduate from university they do not know what kind of talent they have, so they don't know how they can

help russia. so maybe the government can help us. can help young people to understand what type of session they want to work. we are ready to share our expertise. president putin: what do you manufacture? >> we teach and help children. president putin: this is the best way we can do things. personal training especially and productive segments, that is one of our priorities for the near future. production is getting complex and we need skilled workforce for that. we work a lot in this area with industries representing the bigger companies, and we have agreed to take a number of

measures, competencies and different areas, working together to organize internships and so on and so forth. we can't proceed without that obviously. at the government has a special program for that, but you are also right, it is better to start at an earlier stage when they are still in school. yesterday, i had a discussion with colleagues in moscow almost 40% of young people want to go to university. it is good that they are hungry for knowledge, but it also indicates that we do not have this kind of vocational training in school, so we will keep working on that through the years. and so let's have another question. >> we will give the floor to alex, finance minister.

he is being recognized as the best finance minister in the world. >> hello mr. putin, my question will be on the economy, so your first presidential term sought a 7% growth annually. and what prices -- prices were around 130. but if you take this presidential term, even if oil prices are 65, then the gdp will be around 1.5%. so it is lower then the world average and the share of the russian economy and global economy will shrink, so we will not have enough investment in

high tech sectors, so we won't be lagging further and further behind. that might have an impact on the defense industry and of course the defense industry heavily depends on the state of the economy. and the state of technology at home. so, the figures i mentioned will -- we will have these until 2018 . it means we will lag behind from the world average within these next three years. he said that the government is making adjustments, but i think adjustments are not enough. the old development model is now -- it has matured and it is insufficient, but we do not have a new development model so what

is needed for you to develop a new development model? president putin: we work together for a large number of years, and we are good friends you might say, i know your position very well. i know your forecast, it is accurate, very close to what is likely to happen in a reality. first of all, you were one of the authors of the development program for our country until 2020. this is well known, the 2020 program. basically we have not changed radically. so if we could not foresee certain things in the program together with you, then part of the blame is yours. of course we have to consider the current situation of what is happening with the economy

today. we know what we need to do, we have to build and create better conditions for businesses. we need to create better conditions for private investment. we need to improve our monetary policy. we need to submit -- for the system as a whole. i mean in the government and various sectors, we need to improve our law enforcement and the judicial systems. it is a multi dimensional task, of course it is easier said than done, but we deftly have to do it. so even though it may look scary , somebody has to deal with this. and definitely there are certain things which are well known to everybody, like you know it

requires political will. like they say. as you know, in spite of are difficult to -- conditions, we still take certain efforts in the direction recommended by you and other people who share your views. for example, this year the government throws some of the social benefits, did not index them. i know that your colleagues that share your views say this is insufficient, we should lower the social benefits further cutting back salaries, they say we should raise retirement age as soon as possible, otherwise

we will not be able to balance the pension system where we have to take money out of the ledger. a lot of money. and it is stated -- stands in the way of development. theoretically, all of those things sound right. but to have a healthy economic policy, you definitely need the brain. but if we want people to trust us, we also have to have the heart. you have to be able to feel how people live, how an ordinary person lives. if we have people's trust, people will support everything we do. and sometimes they will be able to suffer, like he said. but if we disregard how people feel and what happens in real life, i'm afraid that very soon

we will end up in a situation that we had in the early 1990's. that was where the government lost the trust of the people and we will have to spend much more money then we can do now. when we modestly move afford but make progress. when we monetize the benefits, we took a step, eventually we had to spend a lot of resources to take care of this problem. so to avoid this situation, we will take the plan described. as the government recommends, this is sufficient at this point. will this cause the country to lag behind others let's wait and see, because the public debt of the u.s. is actually higher

than the countries gdp. this is alarming not just for the u.s., but for the economy in general. what will happen for the situation there. we do not know. in the euro zone, the situation is very bad. what will happen to countries which have their public debt at 174% of their jeep dp -- gdp? will they be able to tackle the situation? we do not know that. so we will certainly be guided by the considerations of higher growth rates, but we will do this in a way that will not put too much burden on our people. you all know, i don't know if you all know this, he is a member of the expert counsel

working with the president of the russian federation and you know that we always respect your opinion, including me. and i mean it. we always listen to your recommendations >>. >>a follow-up question, one of the reforms is a reform of the social sector, but you know we don't propose to stop the growth of real wages, no, we just want to start to make target payments maybe some categories might need a higher salary. while some of the categories do not need their salaries to be adjusted so high.

so we believe this targeted approach is more efficient especially in a crisis situation that we are facing today. also, our proposals are meant to tackle inflation. currently 70% in april -- 17% in april, so we could avoid a jump if other measures were taken, then wages would not fall too much. so as i said earlier we cannot have real wages growing van -- higher than productivity gains. now we have seen the adjustment. of course the presidential council has been working not too hard, i think we need to step up our activities. and also the 2020 strategy was drafted, but not adopted.

it is still on paper. and only 25% of its potential has been employed, has been leveraged. so i think we need a quicker program with the targets that we can reach regardless of the sanctions. president putin: the 2020 program is a guideline for our development, we still use it. and i completely agree with you on the point of selective approaching, offering social benefits. i have told the government to work on that. and you mentioned salaries growing ahead of productivity. and i have presented my position to you. i agree with you to a certain extent, but in reality this is easier said than done. when you talk -- it is easy to talk about such things, even on

hotline, because salaries incomes, especially for school teachers, this is too low. you cannot expect to achieve real results. of course, this can create difficulties that you mentioned. on the whole we should do our best for salaries to grow and come up the productivity level. you are right about that. today iranians show flexibility and we have reached a, demise on the iranian issue. now stakeholders confirm that the deal has been reached and there are technicalities that just need to be finalized. that is why we have taken this

decision. i did not see the statement by the chancellor of germany. maybe our counterparts are not aware of the fact that the u.n. sanctions did not include military equipment like the s 300. that was our goodwill decision and i see positive trends, so where there are no grounds to continue with this unilateral -- as for the sanctions the resolution of the council, it is a considered effort with

partners and our contribution has been significant to the resolution of the iranian nuclear deal. also there -- their enterprises have produced this equipment, it is very expensive. the cost is $900 million and no one has compensated these losses. the indicated -- the indicated some time ago that they might buy from us, but nobody has bought it. so, it is not part of the u.n. ban list. the situation is changing. maybe it is better to encourage our iranian counterparts. so that they continue to move along this path. you also mentioned the reports from israel.

when we supply military equipment to a certain region, we take into account things, especially in the middle east. we are not the biggest supplier of equipment to the middle east. the u.s. supplies far more equipment to these parts of the world. and just recently israel voiced their concerns about the supplies going to another region. they said it could lead it to political shame in the region. because, some of my colleagues said no plane would be able to lift them in the air. we have consultations and one of the partners understood our

concerns and we canceled the contract altogether. and we even paid back the advanced payment, the installment for 400 million u.s. dollars. in iran, totally different issue. it is not a threat for israel, again the 300 is an offensive equipment. it is only used for defense. and even if you talk about situations unfolding in yemen it can only be a deterrent. when we help, we help the people of ukraine first and foremost. number two, we want to see the ukrainian cut -- ukrainian economy come out of the crisis they are our neighbors, our partners and a are interested in having a stable situation at the

borders and developing economic relations with our neighbors. the reason we offer them a lower price and gas, is it because we know that their economy will not be able to pay the market price but we are willing to do that. the same goes for electricity, coal, and so on. at the end of the year, before the last one at the end of 2013 we made an agreement with ukrainian leadership that we would offer ukraine a lower -- ukraine a loan. $15 billion a year. we would give them $15 billion a year, like a loan. and $5 billion more for road construction through banks. and what did ukraine get further

$75 billion for four years. we offered them a reduced gas price, as long as they pay regularly and they settle their debts. we reduced the price of natural gas and now it is 300% higher. we would keep our cooperation ties, but now they are severed. of course our situation is not so good, but their situation is really bad. they have lost in missile construction, shipbuilding, and so on. i think the consequences are severe and it is not clear why they had to do all of that. still, this is the situation we are in. we will do our best to rebuild

relations with ukraine. this is in our interest. >> so more questions from guests in the studio. >> mr. president joseph gretzky is the famous poet, he once said that -- i heard a poem on ukraine independence and he wrote about the nationalists in ukraine. but apart from nationalists, there are millions of simple and ordinary ukrainians living there. they are now under threat. there are many examples, we have -- so people, the locals, the security agencies act -- ask people to frame other people.

one of the former mps was killed gunned down. there were also lots of threats from nationalists. and all of those laws that take -- by the ukrainian parliament on a victory day, so i think they are trying to impose the opportunity -- against russian speaking populations. ukraine says that russia is an enemy. they are asking for discounts or natural gas. if you look realistically how and under what conditions can we normalize the relationship? president putin: this is not a simple question even though we

could talk about russians and ukrainians being one nation. actually, it is quite simple. today, russia does not accept anything from the cuban authorities except one thing -- the key of -- kiev authorities except one thing -- treat as a vehicle partners in every way. of course, it is respect the legitimate rights of russians living in ukraine and people who consider themselves russians regardless of what it says in their passport. people who consider the russian language their mother tongue and who think they belong to the russian culture. any country is interested in

people like that. including russia. there is nothing extraordinary about that. i repeat, we are interested in normalizing our relations with ukraine entirely and we will do all we can from our side. of course, the situation is a big problem. we expect the ukrainian authorities will abide by all agreements. first and foremost, they have to set up a working group as part of the process. they have to start working on several areas -- political reform, constitutional reform committee economy, border issues, and so on. they have to start doing those things. not talk about these things but

start doing them practically. at this point, unfortunately, we only see attempts to continue to exert pressure and it is my understanding there is no other solution except for a political one. i hope that everybody will come to the same realization. >> another question from the studio. >>she is well-known in russia. she has a question on ukraine. >> mr. president my question is about the tragic death of boris nemtsov. it shook me as a person. we have operated with him.

it is really a painful event. what is your take on the investigation. will we know who order that contract killing? it looks more like a terrorist act. what about political competition -- will your political opponents be ready? will they be conditions for them to take hard in parliamentary elections? maybe that will stabilize the situation and stimulate the private sector and draw in a private investment. during the funeral journalists came up to me. there are also online reports

that boris nemtsov got information on the presence of russian troops southeast of ukraine and also during the funeral, western journalists asked me about it. can you clarify -- can you give us more details? president putin: let's start with the opposition which had the right and the possibility to participate officially and legally in politics. number one, they can and they should. number two, if they make it into parliament come if they have people's support, we will have an official sentence and they will certainly be responsible to a degree for these things but

you are an experienced person. you have been in the government. it is wanting to be in the opposition and it is size everything -- it is one thing to be in the opposition and to criticize everything. there is not too much responsibility involved. this brings you to the forefront, brings you out of the shadows. that is something positive, i think. in the long run, the bottom line is is up to the people to decide who should be in the parliament. i think this would be a positive element. on your question regarding the assassination of boris nemtsov we were his friends. he was in the opposition. he criticized me and the government even though i used to have a pretty close relationship with him. like i said, in the past, it is

a tragic and shapemeful event. about the investigation, i can tell you that one day or 36 hours after this happened police investigators knew the names of perpetrators and the only question they had was how to arrest them. let's give credit to our law enforcement agencies. this was objective data. it is not just footage. they have many different technical capabilities available. i don't want to say too much because i don't want to dive old -- diebold's -- divulge the methods they use.

on the whole, this matter was taken care of within a few hours. whether -- they did a very professional job quickly. they used several channels simultaneously. different agencies worked simultaneously and they all achieve the same results. whether they will find a mastermind behind this association and whether there is such a person, i don't know yet. it will become clear with time. they are working. finally, you asked whether our presence in ukraine -- i can tell you there are no russian troops in ukraine. >> actually, during the recent conflict in southeastern ukraine , the head of the general staff of ukrainian army openly and publicly said one meeting with

foreign politics, our war is not against the russian army. what else can you answer that? >> as a follow-up question, what is the reason why russian foreign-policy failed in ukraine? russia invested up to 33 billion u.s. dollars. the u.s. only $5 billion. president putin: it is not our failure. it is the failure of ukraine domestic policy. yes, we help ukraine. even when it was a very difficult time for us ourselves. we supplied them with things at

a much lower price than market lay's -- price. it translates to dozens of billions of dollars. this is no exaggeration. we had very close cooperation and i hope it may be recovered somehow in the future. we also had all sorts of trade relations. what happened? president putin: people were tired of poverty from of fraud embezzlement greed of government officials, corruption of oligarchs in the government. people got tired of all of that. when the nation is in this kind of condition, they start looking

for ways out and unfortunately sometimes they turn to people who take advantage of the current difficulties and offers a simple solution, including nationalists. this happened in russia as well in the 1990's. we had what they called the sovereignty parade and nationalism. yes, we had very similar situations in russia. this is what happens in ukraine. all of these nationalist forces took advantage of the situation and as a result, you have the situation we have today. it is not our failure, it is the failure of ukraine itself. >> perhaps we missed that alienation process. there is a threat in other posts audit countries -- post-soviet

countries. if you look at the number of nonprofits financed, their financed why the u.s. -- by the u.s. how much does russia spend on the activities? it is much lower. president putin: there was no alienation of ukraine. it has been an independent country, a sovereign country. you should respect that. in the 1990's, when we declared sovereignty of the russian federation, it was quite a step. we liberated them from ourselves. . we did this ourselves. since we made this decision, we have to respect their independence now. this is the church the people of ukraine have made. it is up to them to decide how

to build this relationship. during the previous ukrainian crisis, how did this happen? they had been third round of elections. this was totally unconstitutional. we turned a blind eye and we kept working with them. now, we cannot. we see this upsurge of nationalists and this is unacceptable. we have to respect other countries, we have to build our relationships with them. other than that, it is beyond our control. what i mean is these are independent nations and we cannot meddle in their affairs we cannot interfere. this would be wrong. we build our relations as part of a -- our economic union with

kazakhstan, these alliances it is not to make those nations closer to us. the significance is to create better conditions for all the people living in our countries to have open waters. we don't care if a russian person lives here on this to s territory or cross the border. we care about their rights not being infringed upon, they are allowed to speak their mother tongue. if that is the case, we don't care if people have a good life in those countries and they are treated fairly -- this is the kind of relationship we have with kazakhstan and armenia. we would like this growth -- this is the main thing -- it is

not that the want to keep those countries under our influence. it is not our goal to rebuild. this is a natural integration process. the whole world is thinking this way of integration. in north america also, we see the u.s. and canada, europe asia, everywhere. when we do the same thing, they tell us we are building an empire. why can't we have integration? it is not our goal to build an empire. we don't have an bureau aspiration -- imperial aspirations. we want to make sure russians living in neighboring countries have a decent life by developing our cooperation with them. >> russia is a country where thousands of the ukrainians found refuge. take the town on the border of

the ukraine. we have our reporter working there. reporter: we are at a hotel. refugees from ukraine live here. most of them injured two weeks ago and they are deciding where to go and whether they will find a job. there are 19 people in this hotel including several children. conditions have been created for them. all of the children go to school. younger children have therapy sessions. we spent a few days here and got to know them. we left introduce you.

how old are you? >> 4. >> where did you come from? tell us about your hometown. can you tell us about it? >> it was bombed. when we were there and so now it has been destroyed. reporter: let's go to the living room now. while we are underweight can i ask you where do you come from? >> my grandmother is there. reporter: when was the last time you talk to your friends, your classmates? >> it has been a while. i sometimes talk to them on social networks. reporter: do you miss them?

>> yes. reporter: you can address them directly. say whatever you want. >> i just want to say hello to all of my friends and my grandmother and grandfather and my father. reporter: they will see you. take your seats now. currently in this region, there are 38,000 refugees from ukraine. they have a lot of questions. let's start. >> hello my name is alexander. we want to know what will happen to our regions in the future. what will happen to those territories? what are the prospects of becoming separated? even though many people like the ukraine, because of this

conflict, there is no way for us to live together. can you give me the status of those territories? the future of our regions together. president putin: first of all, we need to get life back to normal. all of the people must go back to their homes. i know that people who live in done boss -- dunbas, i know that you are all patriots. people stay there because they love their homeland.

you must create conditions for normal leaving, you must earn money, raise children. got to have conditions for that. we need to revive economic times. our generation in ukraine is based on coal. it is ridiculous to buy coal from south africa or australia. that is silly but we see it. there are other types of attempts to revive economic

times. we are seeing this happening -- the first steps. the start of the minsk agreement , we might find some provisions that were held to restore the single political space but of course, it is the people of the republic that have the ultimate right to decide and will depend on the flexibility and wisdom of the cranium leadership -- ukrainian leadership. >> we have people working at this hotel with us, people who live here, and they have many difficult questions.

>> mr. president, my name is tatiana. we live on the border. we are very much afraid for our children and grandchildren during the hostility. it was very close to where we live. we had our suitcases packed. do you think the war will start? president putin: i think it is impossible. so, don't worry. there were some instances. some of the shells ended up on russian territory but i still think it is just an accident, not an intended attempt to attack russia or to damage russian infrastructure.

>> mr. president, we have received tragic news from kiev right now. this is one of the brightest well known ukrainian journalist. he was just killed. he participated on talk shows of russian channels more than once. this tragedy just happened hours ago. just the other day he was skilled. president putin: this is not the first political killing. there was a series of assassinations. i said it is a disgrace to russia and the law enforcement will do anything to find those

executed, those who ordered it. ukraine wants to be a democratic state. it has to do the same. but nothing like that is happening. europe and the u.s. turn a blind eye to it. we will to express condolences to the family and his colleagues. >> i also offer my condolences. regardless of local convictions there is one subject on which we all agreed in russia. in every family, they have their own hero. this is why any attempt to rewrite history of the great periodic war gets rejected in our country.

now, the red army is no longer regarded as liberators. it is on the same board as nazi germany. what do think about that as the son of a person who was in war? president putin: i have met feelings. -- mixed feelings. a very difficult issue. i will try to be brief. you cannot compare not cease -- nazis, simply because not seized openly publicly said that they were going to destroy jews, gypsies. stalin was not an angel. entire nations were exiled and there were purges. stalin never wanted to destroy

entire --- it doesn't make sense to compare these two figures. secondly maybe not as pleasant for us, there was still some ground for these allegations. after world war ii, we tried to make many eastern european countries live like we lived. it was done by force. it is not good and of course, we here the echo of those today. the same with the u.s. they try to impose their developments around the world and they are doomed to fail. >> mr. president, i have a question on isis. we know there are some russians

who fight alongside isis. we have special camps where they drop people in central asia and there are russian citizens. so, how serious is this threat in your opinion and is russia capable of withstanding this organization? are we taking any preventative measures? president putin: first of all, i would like to say that isis first emerged in iraq and then syria. i like to point out to you that in iraq, there was this very undemocratic regime. there was no terrorism at the

time. then after they killed saddam hussein, and he actually cooperated with the u.s. to a certain point and they supported his war with iran. iran has not been at war with anyone for the past 30 years. anyway, after they destroyed the country and after some of the people there, a solid part of the population still part of the former elite was sidelined and lost their offices, their jobs. they had no way to survive. they joined extremist organizations and they set up isis. a large number of former

military officers from the iraqi army joined it. this is what makes them so effective, they are professionals. they began to attract other radicals and extremists of all sorts to this region. of course, there is no direct threat for us from isis. the thing you mention, we are really concerned that our people appearing there as well. they can get training and come back to russia. there are people from countries who get their military training there and come back. we are aware of that. you are taking necessary steps. i cannot tell you that we know all of their names but we do know the approximate number and

places where they get their training. we do know certain names. our security agencies are working very well in this area. actually, they cooperate with other serious countries -- with other countries on this issue. >> i would like to go back to political assassinations. you just mentioned the killing in ukraine and the killing of boris himself -- boris himself. sometimes, investigators cannot question someone. someone might hide in one of the russian regions and they cannot

get it. a person is still diluted meters away -- still 200 meters away. investigators know who killed but can't find the person. you have hundreds of people that lay flowers. they put up russian flags. they want to have some kind of memorial. no, they are not allowed to do it. plastic bags -- flags are put in plastic bags and stored away. i would like you to make a statement on that. you knew boris.

my second question, you are from st. petersburg i have from moscow. but the president might make a proposal and then the moscow government might rename the street to vladimir visclosky street and maybe we might have the bridge named after four boris themselves -- after boris nemtsov. pres. putin: i don't think there is any need for me to repeat myself. it is up to local and regional authorities. there is a law according to which flags can be set up at a

place where someone was killed after 10 years since his death. but i repeat, moscow authorities can and should make an appropriate decision as for flowers and other things. i don't know why there is a need for such restrictions and i don't welcome that. on the contrary, i don't think there is anything wrong with that, with people laying icons or flowers. i will definitely talk to the moscow mayor and make sure that they don't interfere with that. you mentioned discuss the -- v iscosky street. i think vladimir visclosky

deserves to have a street named after him in moscow. and i will also talk to the moscow mayor about that. >> i studied the laws and it says that the russian president has the right to propose it and any decision would be taken. please introduce that proposal. pres. putin: and maybe i will actually use this right. but it doesn't necessarily mean i should immediately. there are other ways to do this. i can talk to the mayor and we can sorted out, don't worry. host: another question from the audience.

>> either question on mistrials. -- i have a question on mistrials. the helicopter carrier, will we demand a handover, a compensation, or what? what about military technical cooperation with europe and france? what is the future of such cooperation? pres. putin: the decision not to deliver the ships under an existing contract is certainly a bad sign. but to us, in terms of our dependence capabilities, frankly this is absolutely significant for us. we signed those contracts in the first place in order to support our partners, make sure that

their shipbuilding, shipyards are busy. and we plan to use those helicopter carriers in the far east. i believe that the french will give our money back to us. we don't plan to insist on them making some extra payments, some fines, penalties and so on. we want all of our costs covered. this certainly indicates the reliability of our partners who are part of nato and give up part of their sovereignty.

this means their reliability is questionable and we will certainly take this into account in our future in contracts with them. host: will everyone would relax if you said no penalties. >> coming up on c-span, u.s. korea force commanders talk about risks in the pacific region from north korea. then the u.s. house talks about repealing the estate tax. later, another chance to see the calling program of russian president vladimir putin. corrects the next washington journal, chris young and erin quinn from the center for integrity talk about legal loopholes that allow companies to add new ingredients to food without safety reviews.

and then issues related to women including patent quality, family leave policy, and pregnancy discrimination are discussed. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> friday, the chinese vice minister of finance speaks at the atlantic council in washington dc he will discuss the impact of china's economy on the asia-pacific region and u.s.-chinese relations. that is live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest windows in the colonies, and during the revolution, during her mid-40's, she was considered an enemy by the british who threaten to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first first lady. martha washington, this sunday

night on c-span's original series, first ladies, influence and image, examining the public and private lives of first ladies and their influence on the presidency. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. as a couple meant to the series, c-span's new book "first ladies." it is now available as a hardcover or an e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> u.s. pacific and u.s. forces korea commanders testified before the senate armed services committee thursday. when this is warned of north korea's nuclear capability and the potential for a ballistic missile capable of reaching the u.s.. this hearing is about two hours.

sen. mccain: good morning. the committee meeting today to receive testimony on u.s. pacific command and u.s. forces korea. i want to thank both of our witnesses for meeting here today and for their distinguished years of service. we have received testimony from many of america's greatest statesmen, thinkers, and former military commanders. these leaders have all told us that we are experiencing a more diverse array of crises since at any time since world war ii. as we confront challenges in europe and the middle east, the u.s. cannot afford to avoid the asia-pacific region. if the 21st century is to be

another american century, the united states must remain an asia-pacific power. our natural -- our national interests in the asia-pacific are deep and we seek to extend free trade, free markets, and free air sea, and cyberspace. we look to put forth democracy, rule of law, and other values that we share. we seek to defend ourselves and our allies by maintaining the capability to prevent, deter and, if necessary, prevail in a conflict. achieving these objectives will require sustained american leadership. we must use all elements of our national power. in particular, i am hopeful that congress will pass trace from -- trade promotion authority with the transpacific partnership. this would open up new possibilities for trade and level the playing field for

american is this is and workers whilst sending a powerful strategic signal about error -- about america's commitment to the asia-pacific. we must member that our soft power is the shadow cast by our hard power. that is why the united states must continue to maintain a military balance in the region. the department of defense will need to combine operations with new technology in order for our military to operating contested environment. in projecting power over long distances and the undersea domain, to develop precision guided munitions and to build the resiliency of our foreign deployed forces, we have a great deal of work to do if we aim to sustain our traditional military advantages in the asia-pacific region. none of these will be possible if we continue to live with mindless sequestration and a broken acquisition system.

as we build and posture forces we must remain clear eyed about the implications of china's rise and its foreign and defense policy. as director of national intelligence james clapper told this committee in february, china is engaged in a rapid military modernization, deliberately designed to counteract or thwart american military strength. i believe china can and could play -- can't and should play a constructive role in the asia-pacific region. unfortunately, in recent years china has behaved more like a responsible stakeholder and more like a bully. in the south china sea we have seen a -- we've seen the most recent examples of this behavior. construction activities on multiple islands across the chain and military capabilities that can bring to bear from these new land features are a

challenge to interests of the united states and the balance of the asia-pacific region. such unilateral efforts change the status quo through force and then -- and intimidation. and threaten the peace that has extended across the asia-pacific for seven decades. the united states must work together to develop and employ a comprehensive strategy that aims to shape china's coercive peacetime behavior. this will not be easy and will likely have impacts on other areas of our bilateral relationship. but if china continues to pursue a coercive and expiratory approach to maritime disputes, the cost to regional prosperity as well as american interests will only grow. i am also concerned about a recent assessment from the head

of norad and northern command. if north korea has an option racial -- an operational missile that could carry weapons to the united states, general scaparrotti, i look forward to hearing your views on this potential breakthrough in the implications to our national security if the erratic and unpredictable regime of kim jong-un receives the capability to carry out a nuclear strike against our homeland. i think the witnesses and look forward to their testimony. senator reed. sen. reed: i appreciate your service and your forces for what they do every day. we had a hearing about some of the challenges that we face in the asia-pacific region.

the consensus from the panel is that we face some serious challenges especially in light of china's increasing military budget and destabilizing activities in the region. one of the biggest challenges will be to continue to provide security stability, and free transit in the pacific as we have done for years. senator mccain said that with sequestration we have declining resources and i echo his call to end sequestration. admiral locklear, we would be very interested in your views about the activities of china. that is something, as the chairman has noted that we have both objected to, or at least criticized. what more, also, must we do to build the capacity of our partners in the region to build maritime awareness and encourage all regional actors to seek legal redress to problems and

not invoke lethal threats with respect to sovereignty and stability in the region. at the chairman indicated, the admirals comments this week, and i will quote him -- " north korea has the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a k908 and shoot it at the homeland." during your comments please let us know the dimensions of this threat as it exists today and how it might evolve in the future. again, we thank you because the north koreans appear to be not only well armed, unfortunately but very difficult to predict. your views and insights would be very important. if you could comment on the possible deployment of missile defense systems and its

importance to our allies in south korea. we are looking at all of these challenges and please indicate to us the impact of sequestration on your operations. thank you mr. chairman. adm. locklear: thank you for the ability to appear before you today with general governor romney. let me -- general scaparrotti. i have had the pleasure of reading the united states pacific command. these volunteers are skilled professionals dedicated to the defense of our nation and serve as superb ambassadors to

demonstrate the values and strength that make our nation great. i want to formally thank them for their service and their families for their sacrifices. we continue to strengthen alliances and our partnerships maintain -- and our partnerships maintain stability in the region. when i spoke to last year, i highlighted by concern for several issues that could challenge the security environment across the pacific. those challenges included responding to humanitarian assistance with disaster relief, dealing with a increasingly dangerous and a printable north korea, a challenge the general scaparrotti and i remain resolved in addressing. increasing regional transnational threats, and the complexity associated with china's rise. in the past year, these challenges have not eased. they will not go away soon.

but the asia rebalance strategy is taking hold and achieving its intended goals. the greatest challenge remains the physical uncertainty that results from sequestration. if the budget control act remains in force, the biggest challenge in the asia-pacific will be dealing to the consequences. i echo the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and others before congress. in the asia-pacific, we are accepting more risk, not less. sequestration will hurt size structure, and readiness. it will reduce options to the president and the spanish -- and diminish united states prestige and influence around the globe.

we have been able to maintain our forces focused on protecting the homeland, deterring aggressors such as north korea strengthening alliances and partnerships, and developing the concepts and capabilities required to remain dominant in a world that is growing in complexity with threats to continue to increase against a seemingly unending string of constraints. we will be foes -- without resources, we will be forced to make difficult decisions today. i look forward to your questions. general curtis: on behalf of the service members, civilians and families that serve our great nation in the republic of

korea, one of our most important allies, thank you for our support -- for your support. i would like to ask my written statement be entered into the record. last year i testified that the combined forces of the united states in the republic of korea where ready to deter and if necessary respond to north korean threats and actions. due to our compliment in 2014, i report to you that our alliance is more capable. in recent years, north korea has developed asymmetric capabilities such as cyber warfare, nuclear weapons, and ballistic results. to put this in perspective over time in 2012, my predecessor noted north korean advancements in north korean capabilities. a year later, north korea conducted cyberattacks on south

korea's banks and broadcasting stations. in 2015, they used their abilities against sony pictures in the united states to suppress free speech. this example represents a trend has persisted across several north korean asymmetric capabilities. my concern is that we will have a little to no warning of a north korean provocation that can start and -- that can cause a counter reaction that will start a cycle. last year, the alliance took significant steps in improving its capabilities and capacities to deter aggression and reduce operational risk. our work is not done. in 2015, we will maintain this momentum is focusing on my top priority, sustaining and strengthening the alliance, with

an emphasis on combined readiness. this ensures a rapid flow of forces into korea in the face of situations. sequestration would negatively impact these priorities, reduce readiness, and not allow us to have the forces required to defend interests of the united states and the republic of korea. on the peninsula, this will result in more military and civilian casualties and potentially place the mission at risk. the men and women serving our freedoms frontier defending the republic of korea remain for -- remain thankful for this committee's unwavering support and resources that enable us to defend our national interest in korea while advancing values and international order. the troops serving in korea never lose sight of the fact that we are at freedoms frontier defending one of our most

important allies and a vital american interests. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. sen. reed: i mentioned --sen. mccain: i mentioned in my remarks that admiral courtney said that north korea has a missile that reach the united states. do you agree with that? gen. scaparrotti: i think they have had the time and capability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead. they have stated they have an intercontinental holistic missile and i think that as a commander we must assume that they have that capability. adm. locklear: i would agree with that assessment. we have not seen them effectively tested. but as commanders, all indications are that we have to be prepared to defend the homeland from it and we are taking actions to do that.

sen. mccain: and those actions are? adm. locklear: we work very closely with north, to make sure our ballistic missile systems are optimized. forces in the areas myself and general scaparrotti have command of our integral to that. in addition, we have been in discussions about potential displacement of additional -- potential deployment on the korean peninsula. sen. mccain: general, this is rather disturbing, particularly given the unpredictability of this overweight young man in north korea. is that --

is that a disturbing factor? gen. scaparrotti: that is a disturbing factor, sir. i think kim jong-un is unpredictable. he has committed provocations this year. i think it is a great concern given the leadership there as well. sen. mccain: let's talk about china and the reclamation. admiral, from time to time we put a picture up of the areas that are reclaimed from china in the east china sea, or south china sea. the problem is, our pictures don't keep up with their activities. it is my information that they have now in the last year filled in some 600 acres of land and are constructing runways and possibly artillery and missile

defense systems. the congressional research service on april 6, issued a report on this issue and i quote -- " the publicly visible current u.s. strategy from dissuading china to continue its land reclamation activities appears to focus primarily on having u.s. officials make statements expressing the u.s. view that china should stop these activities on the grounds that they are destabilizing and inconsistent with commitments china has made under the nonbinding 2002 doc." do you know anything else about our strategy concerning china's continued expanding and filling in of these areas which are

international waters? how great a threat does that appear to you admiral? adm. locklear: as far as long-term threat to our commitment to freedom of the seas --sen. mccain: as far as long-term commitment to our freedom of the seas. adm. locklear: i only make recommendations on the military side. i would refer the policy decisions -- sen. mccain: and your recommendations are? adm. locklear: in general when there is a clear policy, military or diplomatic solutions become easier. the policy we have on the south china sea as i see it today, as we do globally with territorial disputes, is that we do not take sides with those territorial

disputes. but we do want them to be worked out in peaceful, noncoercive ways. sen. mccain: could that impede our ability to navigate through those areas? adm. locklear: i think that given the fact that, in my view, of all the claimants in the south china sea, they all own different features -- sen. mccain: they don't all fill in areas of 600 acres. adm. locklear: all the claimants except for china are just kind of doing what they were doing in 2002 which is maintaining with the legal processes. the chinese are doing much differently than that. what they are doing has been aggressive. how fast they of been able to do it has been astonishing. they are building a network of outposts to enforce control of most of the south china sea.

the southeast asians are increasingly worried that p.r.c.'s recent actions will allow china to take control of areas like the reef where they're putting in a runway. in the last 10 months it went from admiral locklear: we portray this -- the prc, the response is

generally that this is our sovereign territory, stay out of our business. the implications are if this can activity continues, it would give them de facto control in peacetime of much of the worlds most important waterways, where much of the world's economic energy is created. if they desire, it would give them the opportunity to put long-range detection radars in their, more warships air defense zones. those of the scenarios we have to think about. it complicates a security environment. so far, the nations who have tried to work with china have not produced very much at all.

in fact, it is an effective diplomatic organization, but it is not designed to handle security shoes that pop up. we have to watch the situation carefully. senator reed: thank you. general scaparrotti, we have a complicated relationship with the chinese. to what degree do you have a contingency plan to communicate with them if there is a serious provocation by the north koreans that would introduce the idea of using force? general scaparrotti: even during our exercises where the first priority is communication with china, we exercise that in

communications even in our exercises, it is important for us to understand that and to have them understand our intent. senator reed: that's one side of the equation. the other is the extent to which they are facilitating activities in cyber. do have a sense of the degree of this? the general question is, they have to appreciate the instability this regime, they like the buffer between south korea, they like it because they are not disturbing us. they have to realize there is a danger in looking the other way. general scaparrotti: i think they do. my sense, and those who have had conversations with them, i have not talked to the military directly, they also are concerned and have some frustration with the kim regime.

in terms of cyber, we know that north korea has some cyber activity take place in china. i don't know and i haven't seen intelligence to lead me to believe that they have had a direct relationship with north korea in their cyber development. senator reed: not just in a military capacity but a diplomatic capacity, are their efforts to move the chinese government to be more proactive in terms of financial pressures and diplomatic pressures to at least demonstrate to the north korean regime that they cannot do these things? general scaparrotti: yes. senator reed: admiral locklear

you describe the situation in the south pacific where china is exerting -- witnesses suggest that in terms of korea and japan, we are well-positioned against potential operational play out and threats, but that's not the case in the southern pacific, and the southeast pacific, is that fair? admiral locklear: yes. it is a large region. we talked about the beginning of the global rebalance discussion was to try to move ourselves from what had been a postwar to a location in northeast asia to bring that to be more relevant to the security challenges throughout the region. a number of initiatives. one is that with our filipino allies reinvigorating that alliance and looking at the capabilities to help them improve minimum defense, but

also to improve access to the region to improve better security. we have opened partnerships with nations in southeast asia that we would not have considered possible in the last couple decades. vietnam, malaysia, indonesia. they have become increasingly important to the security of the region. senator reed: as the chinese are creating artificial islands in the pacific, there are real geographic islands that our allies control. are we thinking about in conjunction with our allies positioning forces, in effect, using islands as a sort of a way to deny, you know, ocean to the chinese? admiral locklear: i will not go

into specifics, but i would say that we are maturing the alliances we have their set right for the security we are going to see ourselves and in this century. to their credit, most of them are spending money and spending money on defense assets and they want the things that allow them to be able to be complementary to us. we are working hard in that area. senator reed: admiral locklear it was indicated that a clear advantage we have is our submarine fleet. he recommended doubling the number of deployed submarines. is that your view also in terms of particularly with surface capabilities, is that your view also? admiral locklear: yes. we have the best submarines in the world, we continue to

outpace the rest of the world and that capability. they are essential to any operations that i have in peacetime and crisis and contingency. i have concern about the size of the submarine force as we go into the middle of this century and its ability for it to remain relevant globally. plus, will have to figure out their replacement of our strategic nuclear submarine force and the importance of that as we see the modernization of strategic nuclear capabilities in both countries like china and russia. senator reed: finally, the submarine appears to be the only weapons system that so can approach virtually to the shores of china and deliver, if necessary, weapons. is that true? admiral locklear: i would not

say it's the only system. senator reed: ok, that is more encouraging. thank you. senator mccain: let me thank you again for the hospitality you imported us and our whole group. >> on that same trip, we went to south korea. at that time, i recall during some of our meetings, they talk about the use about cluster in munitions, which have been effective. that is probably the place where they were most effective. that you have a policy -- i'm not criticizing it -- we are being forced to discontinue that

and i would like to ask you what do we do in place for those missions who were depending upon clusters? general scaparrotti: the clusters are important to our plans particularly on the peninsula if they were a crisis, there is presently work underway to replace our present munitions with those that will provide the same effects but with less in what would be meeting the requirements, meeting the requirements of for the treaty in essence, less than 1% death rate. >> you both talk about the increase in casualties as the result of the lack of abilities to use some of the equipment we have used in the past. is this something that could expose more risk and more casualties are not having this capability and not replacing it

with something as effective? general scaparrotti: yes absolutely. it is a critical component of our planning on the peninsula. >> i know that both of you agree with the statements made by james clapper's, so we don't need to rehash all of that. one half a century of intelligent would not experience a time that we have been beset i more crises and threats around the globe. i think both of you agree with that. you have stated that in the past. i would like to get into the remainder of the time, admiral locklear, talking about the submarines. without having any details in the setting, they are very busy. we are now down to 10 submarines. in admiral said on friday that we are going to be have to a move one into the pacific. my question would be, and

admiral locklear it was a year ago that you are outspoken and the fact that we should have 11 carriers to carry a commission. do you still feel that way? admiral locklear: i do. yes, sir. >> he would like to get back to that, wouldn't you? admiral locklear: i think the navy is undergoing i call it a bathtub of readiness because we delayed readiness on nuclear aircraft carriers during the war years, they are magnificent machines but you have to take care them correctly to make sure they stay safe. we will be enduring that for the next 5-6 years before we get back to where the level we need to be i think for kind of day-to-day operations. >> maintenance and modernizations of the first two things to go when you are faced with what we have been faced with. in the event that you do move

one into the asia-pacific area, where would it come from? what kind of vacuum would be left behind in other a lars? -- aors? admiral locklear: that decision would have to be made at the secretary of defense level. we have 11 aircraft carriers. out of those, they generate a global presence of some number for day-to-day operations, and another level that would be able to search in times of crisis or conflict. -- search -- surge in times of crisis or conflict. where it would come from, i cannot say, but my guess is it would come out of the middle east, give that that has been the primary demand for carrier presence in the last 1.5 decades. >> and your response to senator reed, a came to my mind that the

carrier capability. that is very helpful. i would like to add for the record something a little bit more detailed, because some of us are not as clear as we should be with that capability. i'm going to nor folk this weekend to try to become a little bit more informed on this. if you could, for the record try to tell us where we might have the capacity where we can afford to move something into the pacific and how busy everybody is at the present time? that would be helpful. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to think both of you gentlemen for your service, the service of the men and women who serve under your commands, and admiral locklear, my best to you in your future endeavors, thank you very much. admiral locklear, i know that

the secretary of defense spent a day with you. where the discussions that you had with him reflective of the priorities as you have laid out in your testimony today? admiral locklear: yes. >> he mentioned that with everything that is going on in south and east china's seas, the provocation of north korea, that we need to strengthen our alliances with our partners and establish new relationships. in this regard, despite historical differences last december, the u.s., south korea and japan signed in information sharing arrangement in what appears to have been a first that in what deputy secretary of state calls a profoundly positive trajectory. please discuss the relationships tween south korea, japan, and the challenges we face in furthering a trilateral

u.s.-japan-south korea alliance. admiral locklear: the challenges we face from my perspective are primarily political and social challenges. on the military side, the military, if allowed, are able to work together for i think the common good of the security of the northeast of asia in particular. the impediments -- what is happened because of the political pressure to not have a true information sharing agreements tween japan and korea , limit our ability to allow us to bring together in a trilateral way that optimizes the forces they have invested in and we have invested in. particularly in critical areas such as the listing missile-defense. i highly encourage both korea and japan to move forward at the

highest level of governments with the tightest of agreements that allow us to optimize the military capability at this trilateral arrangement can bring. >> so the information sharing arrangement that was agreed to, you are saying that that is not enough? it is not what you consider a true information sharing arrangement? admiral locklear: it is a good start. >> again, many countries within the in asia-pacific region are increasing defense capabilities. china is procuring submarines japan, india, south korea, singapore, and australia have been shoring up their military capabilities. malaysia and indonesia have a couple more submarines and vietnam recently announced the purchase of a russian submarine. how were the continued growth of the regions' summary fleets impact the balance of pallor --

power in the south china sea region? -- if growth continues on its current trajectory? admiral locklear: the in asia-pacific region -- the indo asia-pacific region is the most militarized part of the world. most countries there have the resources and the will and the desire to grow their militaries. those that have the military capability to operate a submarine force are pursuing that because they understand the asymmetric advantages that it brings. they understand the ability for access and denial capabilities that submarines bring. and they understand the deterrent value that they bring. my numbers are roughly our there are about 300 submarines that are not u.s. submarines. 200 of them are in the indo-asia-pacific, some of them

are owned by our partners and allies, but many of them are not. the increasing number of submarines that have increasing quieting technology, it certainly does change the dynamic of how we have to operate within the area and the type of tactics and procedures and operational concepts we have to develop to ensure that we remain dominant. i look at it like a fact of life , it is going to happen and we have to deal with it. >> and our dealing with it especially with our allies, this is require us to be much more collaborative and to share information so that we are on the same page so to speak and apart the world? admiral locklear: it does. if require us -- it requires us to share bilaterally under a different -- difficult environment -- difficult

environment, it requires us to share with other neighbors that have the capacity as well. as you know, in the indo-asia-pacific, those multilateral organizations do not exist to facilitate that. we are seeing growth of that but it is a work in progress. >> thank you. >> thank you gentlemen for your service. we have a memo here talking about noteworthy challenges in the pacific area, they list with korea as the most dangerous and unpredictable challenge, as ensure both of you agree with. but also territorial disputes in the east and south china seas, natural disasters including weather and disease violent extremism, transnational crime, russian intent and chinese intent. are there any of these gentlemen, that would not involve a need to deliver our

marines quickly and effectively through amphibious ships? admiral locklear: historically, the marine corps is a cornerstone of the structure that we have in the asian pacific. it is uniquely suited for a large archipelago, see spaces that use the c as highways to move around on. of all the ones you listed, i cannot think of one at the marine corps does not play as a part of the joint force in a significant way. yes, they play in all of those. the question of whether or not they have enough lift, the answer is no. we do not have enough lift. i have said this before, we have got to -- not only is the number of amphibious ships that we can build, we have to look at

connectors, we have to look at the types of alternative platforms that allow us to operate in a more unique -- >> connectors and alternatives. admiral locklear: connectors are high-speed vessels that move troops around faster. a gets into the issue of, during a large crisis, what is your military seal of command? what is the condition of that? >> i want the general to get a crack at this question. let's talk about that, we understand that we have are -- we have a requirement for 50 amphibious ships. is that correct? admiral locklear: i think you have to go to the navy to calculate how many. we have had greater pressure on

amphibious force, particularly on forces in the middle east that require us to put marine units in position to be able to monitor things like and to see safety and extraction -- and the sea -- embassy safety. >> real contingency happens. admiral locklear: correct. >> the information i have is that we only have 30 and a requirement for 50 in our inventory. of those ships approximately 15-20 are operationally available. would you say that is close to be incorrect information? -- being correct information? admiral locklear: 30 is about my understanding of it. operational availability, depending on how they define it, i have a group that is west of the dateline all the time that is available on a greater basis. globally, i would say that is

right. >> general, is have you weigh in on this. how would the effectiveness of marines diminish? general scaparrotti: they are very important to be in the peninsula for rapid response. they are a critical part of all of our plans, operating on the peninsula and the marine corps's ability to be lifted quickly two different places. they provide the agility and the mosys sink away to put it. -- is the most susinct way to put it. >> if we do not have enough amphibious units, the connectors alone are not a solution, are they? general scaparrotti: we have looked at alternative methods

and the use of alternate ships in order to help us with the delivery of marines. i could be more specific. >> thank you. senator heinrich: i want to start on missile defense. if the current security environment is increasingly complex, countries in the region continue to invest in greater quantities of ballistic missiles with extended range and new

capabilities. while i think we should continue to invest in missile-defense programs that are proven and effective, i also think we should be investing in other non-kinetic means of defense. given the vast number of incoming missiles that an adversary could use to overwhelm u.s. missile defense systems, i want to get your thoughts on what steps are being taken in the realm of launch technologies, like electronic warfare, cyber, that could blind, deceive, or destroy enemy sensors before they actually launch. admiral locklear: i agree with your assessment that ballistic missile defense threat grows because of the ability for them for people to produce ballistic missiles at greater distances with greater accuracy and have multiple reentry vehicles and those types of things that complicate the problem in that

you cannot build enough interceptors to take them all out. that said, i think there is a place for a good, solid and not of ballistic defense as a writ -- deterrent. it makes the decision for whoever is going to fire at you to make. when they do, they get your troops that are in the way of them some confidence that they will be able to get through the first few minutes of this thing before we have to take other action. we are working on launch, and thinking differently about how we would attack this problem. one thing, it is not just about cyber, those events are being worked and i will not go into them in this particular form but they are being pursued. it is also more about thinking differently about how you deploy forces, and at what trigger points would you do things like dispersal of your force a

different way. throughout the region. how would you do selective hardening of places and put in place things like rapid one way repair kits -- rapid runway repair kits. hardening some if you'll has and those types of things can make huge difference. lift to launch is a huge priority. >> let me ask question that overlays that in terms of emerging technologies. what is your assessment on the value of directed energy systems to support defeating missile threats and you think that directed energy should be a priority for the research and development community, given the advances in the past couple of years? admiral locklear: we have seen some progress. the navy has some directed energy systems that are employed routinely that have proven

effective, at least in the tactical area. i am in favor of directed energy weapons if they get the job done. if the technology is there. i kind of live in the here and now problem, and i project, and hopefully project in the future what we night -- what we might need. directed energy, if it solves -- if it is a solution set, with the we should pursue it. >> speaking of the here and now are you familiar with the counter electronics high-power microwave dance missile project? admiral locklear: i have familiar with it. >> what kind of value do you think that could bring to this? admiral locklear: i think if it was properly tested and then fielded, it will be something that would be of interest and benefit. >> thank you. i yield back. >> senator fischer.

senator fischer: you talk about asymmetric capabilities and cyber threats. can you elaborate on north korea's illicit missile and cyber programs and discuss what the command is doing to counter then and then can you let us know how do you see their investment in these areas impacting your needs in the future? general scaparrotti: first of all, north korea has focused its resources within its married -- military on their asymmetric capabilities, which are several. probably the most important are the ballistic mitchell -- missile and nuclear. we have discussed