>> 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 nuclear here.

we have seen indicators of how they are advancing nuclear capabilities. and then within their missile force, they have more than several hundred ballistic missiles. the predominance of those are close range and short range missiles that affect or influence the peninsula. they have also deployed both medium and intermedia range that influence the region, and of course the development of the intercontinental ballistic missile has impact here and homeland security in the united states. they have not slow down at this. we have seen as you have seen, this past year they demonstrated their capabilities. they conducted testing. they had more missile-defense and launches in 2014 and they had in the previous five years together. each of these being in violation of the unsc. we have been taking steps both in material capability, in terms

of our missile-defense, to counter that. as well as work with the republic of korea and their ballistic missile defense. they just recently funded an upgrade to their pac-3s, which is important. we are working with them closely in terms of interoperability. we are working on their material solutions, particularly their air missile-defense center and system that they have recently established, we are working closely on that. finally, as the admiral just noted, we look at' our force the preparation of our force, and our plans, and all of those things in the last couple of years, it has been rather dynamic in order to change our thread and north korea changes. senator fischer: as a talk about missile defense, had you interpret china and their vocal

opposition to placing a fat battery investment? general scaparrotti: personally, i think this is a decision for south korea having to do with the defense of their country and for my perspective as a commander, the defense of our troops. senator fischer: but do you think that they are narrowly focused on missile-defense or d you think they are trying -- or du think they are trying to exert greater influence over the republic of korea's defensive strategy as a whole. general scaparrotti: i think it is a greater influence. the fad system is focused on the defense of the peninsula. that is what it is specialized to do. it does not have any influence be on that. -- beyond that. senator fischer: so that would improve defense against north korea, correct? general scaparrotti: yes.

senator fischer: do you think that south korea and the united states would push against the chinese reaction to that? general scaparrotti: well, this is -- the decision process is underway right now. it is -- i can discuss on a military perspective but from a political and strategic perspective, i think both countries are taking that into consideration right now in terms of the other impacts that have to do with the deployment of fad on the peninsula. senator fischer: as you look at north korea and their missiles, are they looking away from more traditional conventional forces which they have -- what is it -- the fourth largest in the world? are they moving away from that? general scaparrotti: i would not say they are moving away, i think they have changed their strategy. it is the fourth-largest military in the world. it is a very large conventional sort -- force that is postured

along the dnc. it is still a very present in dangerous threat. they are not resourcing it in the same way that they have in the past. we have seen a reduction in their capability conventionally. senator fischer: >> thank you. >> we had fascinating testimony on the suspect. i commend the record to you when the pieces of testimony was the historical record of the confrontation between a rising power and an existing power. graham allison from harvard called it the lucidity's trap where in 12 and 16 instances in history we have a rapidly rising power confronting an established power ending in war. obviously, that is a daunting observation. there has never been a power

that has risen as far and as fast as china and the last 25 years. do you see military conflict with china in any way inevitable given the lucidity trap, how can we avoid it? admiral locklear: i do not think that conflict is inevitable. i think that the world we are in today is different in the world's we have been in before in a great power rose. the effects of globalization and economic globalization and the move for people, the interconnectedness of banks and industry, of all of these things that you know very well about, i think have made it imperative that we understand the rise of china and that we, to some degree, accommodate the rise of china. where we can to age attempt to shape the rise of china.

i have said on many occasions that a china with the military that would come forward as a net provider of security rather than a net user of security would be beneficial not only to the region but would be beneficial to us as well. i think that is an achievable goal. i think it has to be looked at as had a we deal with china globally and global institutions from their role in the united nations to how they are behaving and conducting themselves in other regions of the world. and how we interact with them there. i think it will require us to have focus on how we see their influence in this region. we have been talking about today, the primarily southeast northeast asia. and to understand -- we have to try to understand what percent of the equation is. it to be honest with you, some the things they have done are not really clear today. so, we always have a debate

about whether we should continue -- if we are on -- build engagement. i am a proponent -- bill to bill engagement. there is benefit to us continuing to have dialogue, to establish those types of framework that allow us to communicate with each other during crisis. we have had good work with the prc lately in building some confidence building measures that allow us to understand how to operate with each others in these constrained water rates of that we do not have a bunch of lieutenants and captains and commanders of ships out there making, you know, bad decisions that might escalate as to something that we didn't -- escalators into an acidity trap. we need -- a lucidity trap. i think we need to be forthright about how we feel about these things in what the united states position is on behavior where does not match what our allies and our partners and our value system support. >> clearly the thrust of the

chinese has been economic, but an even more recent years, it has been military, as he testified today, tremendous growth and subsurface everything else. what you make of these actions which can only be characterized as aggressive, building islands off the shore and increased patrols in the south china sea. what do you read into that in terms of china's military or expansionist intentions? admiral locklear: i had the chinese communicate to its pretty clearly what they are doing. they see themselves as a renewing power, they have the assets to build a military. they are building specifically in the navy and air force. because they understand the importance of protection of the global areas and you start to see them operate globally in

different places, which the not operate years ago. they told us over and over again that they believe that the south china sea is the historic territorial waters. they have, as far as i understand, refused to participate in international legal venues -- you know, the filipinos have a case at the u.n. law challenging the line. as far as i know, the chinese have refused to participate in that. so what they are doing is they are through what they articulate as peaceful means, they are building these land reclamation's, they are establishing their position in the south china sea, which opens their options down the road as this thing conditions -- as the situation continues to unfold. >> i'm at a time, a one-word answer, do you believe it would be beneficial to the united states to a seatbelt law of the sea treaty? admiral locklear: yes. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. take give for your testimony and service. general locklear, think you for hosting me a couple of weeks ago. i appreciate your time. please send my regards to your staff. three hours on a saturday is above and beyond the call of duty for anybody, so let them know how much i appreciate that. i have been critical in many aspects of the president's national security strategy in part because i think we have lacked credibility when we say something that we are going to do as a country, we need to do it, and i think that there are certain areas in the world are we have not done that. i think it undermines our national security we do that. one area of the president's strategy that i have been supportive both militarily and economically is, as the chairman sir stated, the rebalance of the asia-pacific, i believe we need to make sure this rebalance and optimization of our military

forces in the region is credible . we are saying that we are going to rebalance, we need to actually do it, do you agree with that? admiral locklear: yes sir, i do. i think that the rebalance goes far beyond just military though. i think we have to also get our economic house in order as well, otherwise all the military rebalancing that we do will have the effect of he wanted admiral locklear: to have. >> i agree with that. i appreciate the map. i wanted to talk briefly, you know, alaska is no longer in the por. -- ao are to it -- aor. a robust air force presence, those troops are still there any event of contingencies, aren't they? admiral locklear: that is correct. >> have critical d.c. these troops, general scaparrotti please comment.

in the region but also in terms of contingency forces with regard to your plans. general scaparrotti: the forces in alaska, you know, if you take a look at the global -- they are as far west are made even farther west in some cases than hawaii. so, the response time that those forces would have in any significant contingency in northeast asia or southeast asia is quite good. an important, that is why the forces have been -- for a long time. there is a variety of forces up there that are important to us. the fighter squadrons that are there, the bcts that are there, including the range complex as we have in alaska are very important, because that is where we get our training for our hardest active environments that are aviators have to fly in. >> how about you, in terms of korean contingency issues? general scaparrotti: i agree.

we rely on those forces for quick response that were written need in times of crisis -- that we need in times of crisis. >> if you removed one or two ecgs from alaska -- bct to alaska, with that undermine our balances commitment. this goes to credibility. general scaparrotti: i think from her perspective of what the other outcomes were of that from a regional perspective, there are be questions about the lost troops -- >> and the credibility of our rebalance strategy? general scaparrotti: i think you have to look at it holistically. not just take it from one perspective here. i would have to understand the remainder of the changes we are taking place in fact that have happened. >> admiral locklear, what that undermine our rebalance credulity? in the region? -- our rebalance credibility in

the region? admiral locklear: any significant force structure move out of my aor in the middle of my rebalance the have to be understood and explain because it would be counterintuitive to rebalance to move significant forces in other directions. >> i agree with that. i think it is an important issue as we look at the because as you as a successful rebalance that is credible. >> i want to also command you for what -- commend you for what you stated on the strategic lift issue, i think that was something i saw my recent trip that was a concern, moving forces to different parts of the region, but the strategic lift seems to be lacking, both air force and our capacity, but to get there, we need to have a successful they don't -- are you confident that the realignment of forces from okinawa to guam and australia and other places

is going to be on schedule in terms of cost and timeline that the department has laid out. i know that something this committee has been very focused on. admiral locklear: yes. in the last three years, i have had a lot of time to take a look at this and work through it. in my overall assessment is that we are on plan at this point in time. >> thank you. >> admiral in march, there was a report published on operational contract support and i am dirty enough about operational contracts that i pay -- nerdy enough about operational contracts that i pay attention to this stuff. we did not embrace trading on contracting is a core capacity in iraq and afghanistan, or command engage in a contingency and in that report, it indicated that your command is the furthest kind in incorporating

operational contract support in this joint training exercises and operation plans. i know that you noted the you have taken some recent positive steps to address this, i would like you to lay out, if you would, briefly the steps you are taking to include operational contract support in your command joint training exercises. admiral locklear: thank you. not to make excuses, but the reason we are trailing behind, is because we have not had the command signal that was put on the commanders in the middle east during the last several worse and we have not had that type of massive rapid buildup to support a war effort anywhere. that said, we've recognized it after that report as a deficiency. we are looking hard where are those contracting decisions made ? how is the commander held visibility to those decisions

during the execution of a crisis or the execution of the campaign because, when a crisis occurs, stuff just starts coming, and as was good, that's what makes a strong, but when it starts coming, at some point in time, you have to decide, was enough that go with not enough? who is going to be the steward of it down the road? we are trying to understand the command and control of those contracts and how much the leadership knows and what they need to know and when. >> i think it is so critical that we never lose sight of this contracting oversight in planning and training as a core capacity, because we are never going to go back to the day, my father peeled potatoes during the second world war, we are not going to have trained more fighters peeling potatoes ever again, and all we have to do is look at the long, ugly saga of contracts to see what happens when contracting is not considered a huge priority. i appreciate your attention to that. on another note, i know that you

are the primary provider in the navy for dod. can you speak about the role of airborne electronic attacks and how critical they are and how critical is the asset of our only electronic warfare capability that is provided by the growler? admiral locklear: i have been a huge supporter of growler for my entire navy career, the transition of the squadrons that were so significant in many of our conflicts and provide us with what i thought was a decent advantage in our airspace because of the capabilities. i was glad to see that those capabilities and jim are keep abilities transitioned to, you know, basically a four+ generation air craft that can operate -- in any campaign i can envision

that would be a higher and warfare in my aor electronic warfare provides me battle space then i may have to go fight for. those growlers and to some degree the other higher-end capabilities that we have our critical to allowing this to have that access. >> finally, i wanted to touch on the stresses that we are feeling on remote piloting of aircraft. as you know, wightman is the home to the 20th reconnaissance squadron, and as pilots and as operators and is intelligence personnel along with the airmen who were operating the predator in the reaper are very important. we are putting incredibly high demand on these, so, they are not getting no more rest, they are not getting time for training, we can't even rotate some of them into a training capacity, because the demand is so high. could you briefly talk about

what steps can be taken to alleviate what i think is a critical problem, and these guys -- they are working round the clock and getting very little break, i don't know that we would do this to a traditional war fighter, but we are doing it to these rpas. admiral locklear: well, the advent of the systems in the past couple of decades and the obvious benefit that they brought to the battle space have put pressure, i think on the air force to be able to produce and the types of people and to be able to man them. unfortunately, the demand is goes up and up and up. one of the asymmetric strengths of the united states is our ability to sense and understand what is going on. we have the best isr in the world but it is overtaxed for the number of demands we have globally. that shows in the faces and working hours of these young people. we need to rationalize number

one, the platforms we are going to vest and in the future, and then build a structure of man training to acquit that is sustainable. >> i worry because i think we have a tendency to figure these as machines but don't realize the human component of this and the stresses they have, i mean, these guys are manning these things for 10-12 hours and then going there families for supper and homework and then getting up quickly and going back at it. it is unique kind of role and certainly nontraditional as we look at the history of our military, and i want you to share with your colleagues that talking to some of these folks you know, it is clear to me that we need to be thinking about their well-being and whether or not we are over utilizing then and what kind of stresses we are going to see in that personnel. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you, admiral locklear and general scaparrotti for being here today and for your men and women that serve, as well.

as you know, the dod is planning to transfer operational control of south korea forces to the south korean government in the event of another conflict on the peninsula. this opcom transfer has been discussed for many, many years. i was originally supposed to take place in 2007, it has been delayed many, many times in the past number of years. it does appear to be currently and indefinitely postponed. so, can you describe some of those challenges that we are being faced with and those that the south koreans are facing in their efforts to create conditions which would allow us to successfully do the opcom transfer? general scaparrotti: this past october, we agreed upon a conditional approach to opcom

transition. in the past, it had been a focus on a date with capabilities. i agreed with the change that we made to focus on capabilities and conditions as opposed to shooting for a date. three general conditions. the first is that south korea develop a command and control capacity to be able to lead combined multinational forces and high-intensity conflict. the second is that they have the capabilities to respond to the growing nuclear and missile threat in north korea. the third condition is that this transition take time and take place at a time that is conducive to a transition. now there is specific capabilities i mentioned that are listed in detail in part of this agreement. i will cover generally the main

areas. the first was command and control computers. in terms of their capability there, which i mentioned earlier. the lithic missile defense generally and their capability there. the munitions that they have to have on hand for us to conduct a high-intensity conflict. finally, the intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance assets necessary in an environment that is very challenging forisr and particularly with the acids in the asymmetric assets that north korea is developing. in a nutshell, those of the things that are the challenges that we have as an alliance and the republic of korea is focused on enhancing. >> thank you. admiral, do you have any thoughts? admiral locklear: i think the dynamic that is most changing in the dialogue about opcom

transfer is the behavior of kim jong-un. that's a part the calculation, as well. >> thank you. i do agree absolutely about capabilities versus calendar. we have to looking capabilities. realistically, do you think moving forward with opcom transfer it is that in the foreseeable future. if it is, what are the benefits to us, then, of doing the opcom transfer? general scaparrotti: i think it is foreseeable. i don't think it is an the short term. i think it is a benefit in terms of, you know, over presence in the alliance that we have with the republic of korea i think is very important for regional security. it plays into global security, as well, because they have been a very good partner of ours for a number of years and they are developing the capability and they have actually employed forces around the world and they

have deployed in support of us as well. in some of the conflicts that we have been involved in. so i think, and a long-term, the alliance and its development in this regard is good for both countries. >> i do know the south koreans were engaged at an air force base when trucks for rolling through that area. we appreciate those efforts. have very little time left, but i want to thank you gentlemen for being here today, as well as the service of your men and women, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i think you to the witnesses for your testimony today. i appreciate the way you are doing these hearings, i see the method in the badness to have the strategic hearing a couple of days -- i see the method in the badness -- madness -- three quick questions.

as our military lead in pay,, describe why p --aycom -- paycom -- admiral locklear: i will speak about it from the military side. there are aspects i will not comment on because it is not my area to do. first of all, it is widely accepted after years of deliberation by meeting many countries in my aor it provides a framework that most countries who look at it believe is useful for a determining who is particularly in these spaces and theseeezs and things are not quite clear provides a proper

framework for going about how to deal with those disputes, so it is a rule of law and a rule of a process, that is a good thing. by not being -- to be honest with you, we have directed by numerous presidents to comply with the law at sea, at least as it how we interact with other countries and partners. that said, we are not a signatory, it reduces our overall credibility when we bring it up as a choice of how you might solve a dispute of any kind. >> second question, the lucidity trap, you indicated that the united states should do what we can do reasonably that is in our interest to accommodate the rise of china within the network of global institutions and i think you may not a pretty good rationale that the more they are engaged in a global institution that can have an effect. one matter coming before congress's

matters to the imf that will enable china to have more of a role, more voting power, but also more of a financial obligation in terms of how they work with the imf. i wanted to comment on imf reform, it is reform. that is the kind of thing we are to be taking a look at if we are going to accommodate china's growing influence, having them are engaged and play more of a leadership goal in global institutions like the imf is one way to accomplish that integration that can be ultimately a pro stability move. would you not agree? admiral locke there: i absolutely agree. if china's inevitable rise to be a world power in the different venues, the it -- they notably have to participate in those institutions and have to take

some responsibility for these things. senator kaine they end of being harsh competitors. it often holds them together. it seems like that is the basic analogy that we see a lot in human situations. i would hope that we would take that seriously here because while they have nonmilitary dimensions, i do think they bear directly on some of the military issues that we might have. the last thing i would like to commend you on an as he one final question, i like the that some of our witnesses the other talk about and asia-pacific. -- about indo-asia-pacific.

now they are significantly engaged in u.s. and u.s. companies. they do more military exercises with the united states than they do with any other nation your i think there is an opportunity under par mr. modi. as i conclude, can you comment on india-u.s. policy at this time. adm. locklear: part of it was to develop a strategy for security with india. i think we have a tremendous opportunity here as the leadership changes in india and the world changes for them to be a growing partner with the united states. not necessarily an ally and partner, but a growing partner.

some of the defense trade initiatives we have with them will bring us together in a more productive way for many years to come. senator kaine: think you, -- thank you very much. general scaparrotti i believe that our work in south korea is important. i think it is an important relationship. they have been goode allies as have been the japanese and others in the pacific. add that long-term umbrella relationship, partnership we have had remains important i think to the world and to the united states interest. so i appreciate the work you are doing, the importance on the

pacific. it is undeniable it seems to me. strategic subcommittees dealt a goode deal with nuclear weapons. our relationship with russia the drawdown under the treaty and nuclear weapons systems admiral locklear, but we don't talk enough about china's position. they built a nuclear weapons capability and i assume they have the ability to surge that at any point they choose to. they have the finances and technology and the capability of doing that. is that correct? adm. locklear: we have observed them doing a modernization of their nuclear voices -- nuclear forces, both land-based and surface base.

they have ballistic missile submarines in the pacific. with no they are pursuing missile systems, missiles to be able to put on their bank that would extend -- in their -- to put on there that would extend. it is growing and i think it will be a continued consideration for us as war planners. sen. sessions: we and congress, policymakers in washington need to understand that the reality of a nuclear armed summary. -- submarine. how many missiles with those chinese submarines payable to handle? how many warheads could they launch? adm. locklear: to get an accurate answer, let me respond to that for the record. but it would be multiple.

sen. sessions: would it compete with our capabilities? adm. locklear: i wouldn't say, sir. sen. sessions: one of the strategies that china has used has been to create a zone outside the nation to make it difficult for our ships to and have it and put them at risk. is that part of the df 21 missile plan? do they have other plans designed to make it more difficult for our ships to be within hundreds of miles of the shore? adm. locklear: across the board, the chinese have improved their ability to build missiles of all kinds, cruise missiles, ballistic missile defense, air missiles. so i think they have a quite

credible technology. but the df 21 missiles that they are fielding and testing of producing that could potentially , if employed properly and worked right, it would put u.s. forces at sea at risk at greater and greater distances. that it is one of those things that we are dealing with and trying to answer. sen. sessions: i think you are correct. i think the navy is thinking clearly about that. and in a wise way. what about the capabilities we have? army has some potential land-based missiles that could create also a zone around our interest, our country, our territories, that could protect us. as an eighth been given -- i believe secretary hagel nation using some of those capabilities from a land, to provide a better

save zone around our bases and territories. adm. locklear: i would know exactly what secretary hagel was talking about weird but i would be glad to get specifics and to answer it. sen. sessions: thank you both for your service. believe we have a fabulously capable military, well led by talented leaders and we thank you for that. senator donnelly: admiral locklear i apologize i have not been here the entire time. when you look, the two biggest challenges you look at in your command? adm. locklear: the biggest challenges making sure we can respond effectively to what i think is the most dangerous situation, the north korea: sola

-- the north korea peninsula. so i work with the defense of hawaii guam, and follow forces that would support general's cap ready -- general scott roddy. so that is a number one problem. the second i think is just ensuring that the rebalance does what it needs to to ensure that the u.s. is properly positioned in the pacific for the rest of the century. and under that folly a lot of things. ensuring that the alliances are strong as they can be. building new partnerships. in some cases, ensuring that the rise of china doesn't turn into a trap.

senator donnelly: would you say there is a chain of command or a general structured way when decisions are made or you are not usually certain as to which way something is going to go with kim jong-un? general scaparrotti: if you look at the three years he has been a leader, he has changed his senior leadership more than his father and his grandfather put together. for one -- from one perspective the use of the carrot and the stick, of brutality in some cases, to ensure loyalty to him undercuts -- he has a group around him that will be frank with him, that won't only tell him what he wants to hear. i think that is i -- is a dynamic that gives me concern. senator donnelly: it appears

that there is somewhat of a move toward russia, toward creating an additional strengthening of bonds between them. do you think that provides more stability for them or just makes them more dangerous? gen. scaparrotti: the outrage by russia is to get around sanctions and would provide trade and funds to them. their economy is very tied, particularly given the percentage of it that he puts into his military. so i think that is his attempt. we don't see a lot of return on those efforts at this point. sen. donnelly: when the north koreans start to make a lot of noise, oftentimes, your command brings a presence into the area

and helps to change the discussion. do you have fears or concerns about any plans they might have to come after your fleet in particular? adm. locklear: certainly, we are talking in the context of the north koreans. you cannot out that you cannot rule out any unpredictable behavior. it is not just a ballistic missile capability but a cruise missile capability that would have to be considered when forces are put in the area. they also have a submarine force that could be quite unpredictable. but they are locally contained not far-reaching. at this point, i am not really

concerned. sen. donnelly: general, what are you most concerned about? gen. scaparrotti: i am concerned about a provocation, which north korea commits to her three in a year and one of those escalating into conflict. sen. donnelly: thank you. senator: do you believe that china's increasing aggression in the south china sea represents their capability to challenge them in the south china sea? adm. locklear: you would have to ask the chinese up that is the

way they feel about it. as they always do, they listen carefully to how the u.s. feels about things, lovely and in that region. where they have a clear understanding of a u.s. position, they have a tendency to understand and respect it. sen. cotton: do you think the power is shifting where they think they have a power over us in the area? adm. locklear: i do not think so. i think they believe that their ability to build and produce the military they have has provided additional decision space for them in their local region. sen. cotton: one point you mentioned is the importance of clarity. deterrence works past. the lot -- deterrence works best. i have had press reports

recently that during president abe's trip to the u.s. later this week, do you think that would be a wise step to take for the purposes of stability? adm. locklear: my understanding is we have made it clear our position in the east china sea as it relates to this -- they suck up to islands. we maintain that we do not take a side in a territorial dispute. it is for them to figure out. but what we have said and it has been said at numerous levels, the islands do fall under administrative control of japan and do fall within the mutual defense treaty with japan. and i believe that alone has provided a level of stability to the issues in the east china

sea, northeast asia. sen. cotton: i appreciate and understand the points you have made. press report suggest that we would be reducing that. could you comment on your military-to-military relationship with thailand? adm. locklear: we maintain contact with thailand. we do it at a lower level post-coup. we were on a very god glide slope, a very positive good glide slope. thailand is our oldest ally. we love the thai people. we have similar value systems. but post-coup, we have truncated

a number of military-to-military activities, reduced them in scope and are managing those in an interagency process. what we are hopeful for is that the current leadership in thailand will move actively and aggressively to restore rule of law and civilian control of the government. sen. cotton: one to speak briefly about cluster munitions. we will no longer use such munitions. can you -- can you describe the effect this will have on current operations and maybe the challenges that we will face achieving that rate? gen. scaparrotti: the clustering

munitions is an approach a part of the inventory that we have because they create for me. there are plans, work being done for replacement munitions that would meet the requirements of lesson number 1% dead rate. we would use other munitions. those available do not have the same effect. sen. cotton: thank you for your service. senator: in your testimony, you pointed out the modernization efforts.

we heard experts on east asia about china's modernization and house with lee that has happened. what do we need to do to respond to what is happening in china can you also talk about how, if we go back to the level of funding that is required by sequestration, what that does to our efforts to make sure we are technologically ahead of where the chinese are? adm. locklear: first of all, we need to continue to encourage the chinese to be more transparent and to be more forward-leaning in how they respond to their neighbors, how they respond to the international community, to be a responsible leader in the region. if they are going to have a military and use it as secrete,

they should use it as a global security. that is a true septa make. we also have to make -- that is a choice they have to make. we also have to make the choice to accept them. as they rise as a power, it will be collaborative on one hand and competitive on another. there will always be friction. managing that friction so it doesn't escalate into a large contingency is very important for all of us, particularly between the united states and china. sen. shaheen: before you answer the sequester question, how important is the effort to rebalance -- i use that term in parenthesis -- to asia that has been set out in doing those kind

of things with respect to china? adm. locklear: the rebalance is not about china. china is one of many issues around why the u.s. should be in the asia-pacific. but they are a big concern. the rebalance on the military side is insuring we have the right assets, to understand the environment and respond accurately is critical. in sequestration, what happens is that, in general, you have less force structure that is less ready less technologically capable. so when we get under fiscal pressure like we are now, one of the first things to go is technological advances because we've got to keep a got because nobody wants to change. so the things that we need to

stay relative in that part of the world and globally in the technological arena in war fighting gets pushed off the table and pushed to the right. and he gets pushed into timelines that make us start to lose our technological advantages in war fighting. sen. shaheen: one of the things we heard from former admiral rough head earlier this week was the importance of continuing the carrier lunch uav's and that program would become even more important as we look at what we need to do in the asia-pacific. do you share that view? and how do see that affecting what we need to do in that part of the world? adm. locklear: i think in general, whether launched off of carriers or anywhere else, in my particular area, the unmanned vehicles, both air and surface

and subsurface, are a significant part of the future. anytime you get take the man out of the loop, you operate in environments a lot easier. there are all benefits to it. to the degree that a uav would be from a carrier, the carrier for me is just a very flexible airfield that can operate widely through the theater. so i would see huge benefits and being able to operate long-range isr, long-range strike if necessary from those platforms. sen. shaheen: general's cap or roddy, -- general's cap roddy -- general scaparrotti, do you see this as something that would be beneficial for you in the? theater gen. scaparrotti: yes man. senator: where you said iran has built its robust nuclear infrastructure and advance its

ballistic missile systems with materials that have passed through a, can you help us understand how they are getting these materials and also could you describe for us what you understand is the cooperation between iran and north korea, in particular on their missile programs. adm. locklear: it is pretty well known that there has been a movement of proliferation of activity from north korea into iran, in this case the types of technologies that iran has been looking for. sen. ayotte: do you think that is how they are advancing their icbm program, with advice from north korea? adm. locklear: i wouldn't discount that as a possibility. sen. ayotte: in addition to that , you have also noted that north korea continues to procure for its nuclear and ballistics

missiles program, from the region and a network of individuals in the region. as you know, that violates un security council resolution 1718 in terms of the ability of member states to directly or indirectly supply to north korea these kinds of materials. obviously, there are many you resolutions that apply to iran as well. as i look at that testimony, what more can we do to isolate north korea in terms of those that are supplying the country things that we don't want them to have and are against u.n. resolutions? and who do we need to be tougher on in the region in that regard? adm. locklear:gen. scaparrotti: primarily in terms of proliferation security, we have a proliferation security

initiative that is global in nature and multinational. that is an important key because we have to bring in and deal with other nations to provide intelligence and forces that may help us in interdiction, etc. and continue our training in that regard, which we do. and terms of the nations that i think we have to be concerned about, i prefer to answer that actually for the record in a classified document instead of here the open form if i could. sen. ayotte: i appreciate that. i also wanted to follow up, admiral lockley are -- admiral lockley are, tooear, in light of china's military buildup, what is your assessment of the current balance of military capabilities in the taiwan strait between the

pla and taiwan? and where does taiwan have an advantage and where is the pla advantage? what concerns are you hearing from the taiwanese? and what platforms, weapons, assistance and training has taiwan requested from the united states that we haven't yet provided? adm. locklear: we have a robust interaction from pay come headquarters with taiwan. in fact, we have ongoing right now with their man u -- their annual exercise where we purchase a pit with them. we send advisors and we sent general thurman, who used to be scaparrotti's predecessor advising him. in general, over time, the capabilities of the pla, the prc will vastly eclipse what the

taiwanese could produce on their own. it's just a matter of magnitude of size. if the prc stays on the corset is on now. my task is to support the taiwan relations act and to provide my advice up to the ost end up to the president for him to decide what kind of things we provide. i know they have requested our assistance in simmering programs. we are contemplating that at this point in time. but have not committed them one way or the other. they are particularly interested in us helping them in cyber security areas that allow them to pursue asymmetric capabilities that will improve their defense and improve their competence that they can make decisions on their own and not become worst. sen. ayotte: thank you.

senator graham: would you describe china's behavior towards is -- towards its neighbors as provocative? adm. locklear: let's call it aggressive. i guess provocative would be in the eyes of the beholder. senator graham: from the as of the japanese, would you say it is provocative? adm. locklear: they would say yes. senator graham: would you say the regime on a goodie is unstable? gen. scaparrotti: no, sir. i would say they use control. we see no indicators of instability at this time. so you think we don't have to worry of much about north korea? when i say and stable, i mean

unpredictable, provocative danger -- gen. scaparrotti: you willing to be provocative as well. sen. graham: so in your backyard, you've got dangers provocative, unstable with nukes in north korea, right? gen. scaparrotti: yes, sir, within short distance in the capital. sen. graham: the leader of north korea seems to be, like, nuts. i don't know how else you describe the guy, but he seems nutty to me. so under sequestration at the end of the day, how are your ability to defend south korea and our interest from an army point of view? gen. scaparrotti: from a holistic point of view, sequestration would end up with a smaller force, a less ready for us -- sen. graham: if the army goes

down to 420,000, let's say the number we one day hit if we don't fix sequestration, how do your theater operations fair in terms of threats? gen. scaparrotti: in high-intensity conflict, i would be very concerned about adding a force that had enough depth particularly for a sustained operation. sen. graham: so it would be seen as we getting our position in asia, right? gen. scaparrotti: yes, sir. sen. graham: admiral come under sequestration, the navy would have how many ships? adm. locklear: i would have to refer that back to the navy. i don't have the exact numbers. sen. graham: how many do you have? adm. locklear: i have about 150 ships in my or are -- in my or from san diego to the theater. what would be impacted by the

size of the navy is the ability to rotate forces forward to augment the ones that are at dateline all the time. the problems we are having now with sustaining our numbers even with the seismic have today , sequestration would drive that further into the ground. sen. graham: it would be hard to pivot to asia under sequestration. adm. locklear: yes sir. sen. graham: all right, so the likelihood of an armed conflict between south korea and north korea, how would you evaluate that on a one to 10 scale, one being very unlikely, 10 being highly likely, say, in the next 10 years? general? gen. scaparrotti: i caveat by saying that i think he knows that a conventional attack on south korea would be the end. i don't think that is his purpose. i think it is to maintain his regime.

but over a 10-year period, it's above a five. it's a six probably. sen. graham: and the more real -- the more we reduce our forces a less turned, it may go up to seven? gen. scaparrotti: with less deterrence, it becomes more likely that we have a conflict. sen. graham: admiral, from your point of view, if we reduce our forces in your theater of operations to sequestration levels, do you think that encourages china to be more provocative? adm. locklear: i think any signal that we send that we are less interested in the asia-pacific on the security side than we currently are would be an invitation for change in the region and that china would be interested in pursuing. sen. graham: there are allies in the region. are the beginning to hedge their bets? what is there a view toward our

footprint and where we are headed? adm. locklear: i don't think they are honest -- they are necessarily unsatisfied with our military footprint. i think what they are concerned about most is the growing divide between what they see as the economic center of gravity which is predominantly asia and more more around china and the security center of gravity which is around us. that creates a conundrum for them as they have to deal with strategic decision-making. they want us as a security grantor. they see us as a benevolent power and they like how we operate. but they also see us as a diminished economic power in the region and they have to deal with that. sen. graham: admiral and general, i would appreciate it if, for the record, you would give a written estimate to this committee as to the effects of sequestration on your ability to

carry out your responsibilities. and please make it as detailed as you wish. we are going to have this fight again on sequestration ongoing and members of this committee are dedicated to the proposition that we have to repeal sequestration. and your testimony as to the effects of sequestration can affect the argument probably more effectively than anything that members on this side of the dais could accomplish. so i would very much appreciate it if you could give us it's much detail as possible, short-term and long-term effects of sequestration on your ability to carry at your response duties. admiral, is this your last appearance before this committee? adm. locklear: yes, sir, it is. sen. mccain: i want to take the opportunity on behalf of all of us and this committee and the

united states senate, thanking you for your outstanding service. i think you can be very proud of the many contributions you have made to this nation's security. you are one of the reasons why leaders in uniform are so highly respected and regarded by the people of this nation. so i think you admiral. this hearing is adjourned.

host: the u.s. house debating repealing the estate tax. after that, another chance to see russian president vladimir putin's annual: program. later, u.s. forces in korea. on the next washington journal chris young and erin quinn from the center of public integrity will talk about their report on legal loopholes that allow companies to add new ingredients to food without safety reviews. and veronique du ruge and vicki shabo talking about women and family issues. and we will take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter.

washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. host: the new hampshire republican party kicks off its first in the nation leadership summit friday. its speakers include chris christie, rick perry, marco rubio, and jeb bush. live coverage starts at 12:15 p.m. here on eastern -- 12:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span. host: the c-span city tool has partnered with comcast to learn the history of sin are missing, florida. >> they may or may not have been searching for the fountain of eternal youth. a lot of people said he was out for additional property for the king of spain and colonization attempts and gold, which is very decidedly true. we do know that positively on

came ashore looking for god harbor, took on water and wood. this area provides one of the few freshwater springs in the area around 30 degrees eight minutes. and it's also the location of the first location of saint augustine, 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded. >> the hotel constantly on -- hotel ponce de leon was built by hank morris. he is very well -- very little known outside of the state of florida but he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he essentially had been a cofounder of standard oil company with johnny rockefeller. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise. and as it turned out, florida was it.

he realized he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and saint augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently. so fairly the -- so clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler. he was a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary. host: watch all of our events from saint augustine saturday at noon eastern on c-span will to book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year's student can competition. students were asked to create their documentary based on the theme "the three branches and you those quote to demonstrate

how a policy, law or action by one of the three branches of government has affected them or their community. matalin bound from cherry hill high school used in cherry hill, new jersey, is one of our second prize winners. her entry focused on student loans. >> in the words of benjamin franklin, the education of youth is the surest foundation of happiness, both of private families and of commonwealths. go education provides america's youth that the grounds of success and education. federally subsidized student loans for us authorized in 1972 have may cause marks visible for students and provided more options than private student loans. federal student loans allow students to invest in their futures. yet such loans have created $8 billion in student debt. student debt is approximately $1.2 trillion, far surpassing credit card and auto debt.

congress has yet to act on this topic that affects so many of the nation junk people. college tuition continues -- of the nation's young people. for many people, colleges and investment. but to what extent does it become a burden? >> if someone wants to go to college, they should be able to go to college without having staggering debt. >> students will be forced to finance their educations with more and more debt. >> my family and i have visited several colleges to explore different options. as a junior high school, there are many considerations i have to take when making a college decision. i am here at the university of pennsylvania. one of my first choices because of its digital media design program. but even if i do get accepted, there's the question of tuition. the cost of college tuition is increasing three times faster than the rate of inflation. at the same time, the college premium has risen really over the past decade, increasing the

demand for higher education. but to what extent should students burden themselves with debt? >> i would love to say that students should ignore the money and go after their passion. but, in the long run it may depends on where your -- it depends on where your money is coming from. >> i have to make money to pay it off before i can make money to just live a normal life. >> i can tell already that loans are going to affect pretty much everyone in here. >> as of 2013, about 55% of full-time four-year college students have a federal loan. on average, students borrow about $30,000. federal student loan debt has increased in average by 3 billion each year since 2007. it is nearly rise that similar to the has crisis, higher education is valued higher than its actual worth, a bubble that will eventually pop. >> $260 billion in 2001 to 2.1

trillion in 214. -- in 2014. >> my dream is to graduate college. >> my dream is to get into a really great college and go to medical school. >> demand for higher education has increased significantly. because the supply of higher education is relatively inelastic and the increase in demand yields a high increase in price. congress implemented the higher education act in 196i-5 the first two authorized broad-based loans and grants. loans became available to students with financial need. in 1988, the federal guaranteed to loan program was renamed. along with federally subsidized

student loans, the federal government offers grants and financial aid under the title for program. >> today, more than 9 million students are pell grant recipients. >> many believe that the availability of federal loans and grants have caused universities to raise their tuition. this is known as the been a hypothesis. the idea is that subsidies leads to easy consumption and increase demand and subsequently higher costs. yet many economists argue that there is not enough empirical evidence to support the hypothesis is true. i opened it up to a classroom debate. >> we will start with that first. >> colleges have made our society make us think that we have to go to college. >> financial aid increases the ability of people to go to college.

that is what drives up demand. >> the lack -- i think it is pointless for them to argue for it. >> there has been a lot of research as to what the effects they are having on the college prices. a lot of it is inconclusive. >> i don't think there is a lot of merit to that. we can point to other reasons why we see college tuition rising. >> government subsidies have impacted upon rising tuition costs. it is a conundrum here. . but if we went the free market route, what we would have done is we would not have done that. we would not have increased pell grants and there would be 9 million fewer students in college. >> in 2013, the higher education

act expired. as college tuition continues to rise, the question remains -- has congress been accountable to its younger citizens? >> have to keep continuing on while more and more students and families are priced out of being able to own a home or start a business or buy a car to drive to work. >> interest rates have increased from congressionally fixed to market-based fixed. a bill that would allow students to refinance their student loans was blocked. student loan forgiveness programs have been enacted reducing burdens but encouraging colleges to increase tuition. obama recently proposed two years of free committee college. many speculate that that will be nothing but a talking point in congress. there are no signs that the student loan debt crisis will slow down anytime soon. >> we have to be working on providing the best information in the best format for students and families. a lot of people do not know the full extent of their options before they sign up.

>> as my peers and i make a decision about college, it is important to remember what benjamin frankincense. an investment in education pays the best interest. it is true so long as the investment is wise and carefully planned. >> watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. also tell us what you think about the issue this student addressed on facebook and twitter. host: thursday, the u.s. house voted to repeal the estate tax. under current law, an individual with an estate under $5.43 million and a couple with an estate under $10.86 million are exempt from the tax. this debate on the bill is one hour 15 minutes. the president has threatened to veto the legislation. om nebraska. mr. smith. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1105, the at the time tax repeal act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to stand here today. i rise in support of repealing the estate tax. repealing this death tax is a top priority for nebraskans, farmers, ranchers, and small business owners. not just nebraska's farmers, ranchers, and small business owners but folks all around the country. agriculture, particularly raising cattle and crops such as corn, is a land and capital intensive process. these nebraskans aren't sitting on piles of cash. their assets are the land and the equipment they use to help feed our nation and feed the world. they pay income taxes on what they earn, and they pay high

property taxes on the land on an annual basis. they take great pride in this work and want their children and grandchildren to continue in their livelihoods. we shouldn't have to jump through the hoops to ensure their descendents can continue their work when they pass on. the death tax doesn't penalize the wealthiest americans. they probably don't even feel that penalty. they can plan their estates and give away their wealth as they see fit. it penalizes those who have worked all their lives and reinvested in their family businesses to ensure their families and neighbors have every opportunity to be hardworking taxpayers. i certainly urge a aye vote to give growing opportunity in the u.s. and support that growing opportunity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, it appears that the -- bipartisan good feeling of the last few weeks are done. after reaching across the aisle to pass important legislation like the doc fix, my republican colleagues are back at their ole

tricks of handing out tax breaks to the few at the expense of the many. today's vote to repeal the estate tax is just the republicans' last attempt to tilt the u.s. tax code in favor of the ultrawealthy campaign donors. this week's target is the estate tax, a tax i would mention dreamed up by and championed by teddy roosevelt, the same guy the republicans like to hold up as one of the greatest the party ever produced. to help the rich has gone too far. this repeal of the estate tax is nothing more than a massive unfunded tax break for a small sliver of the -- of america's wealthiest families. and is usually the case, this repeal would do nothing to help hardworking middle class families. in nebraska, 52 households would benefit while there are 202,000

people living in poverty. the fact of the matter is the estate tax is only paid for by about 5400 families or the top .2% of the states in the country. the estates worth less than $5.4 million pay nothing. and what is the cost of providing a tax break to the top 5,000 families? a quarter of a trillion dollars. $269 billion. these are the deficit hawks that were talking last week about we got to worry about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. they are standing here with a straight face putting $269 billion more on the deficit. instead, we should be using the money to extend the child tax credit. or the earned income tax credit. tax credits that would actually

help main street america. the real drivers of the american economy. or we could fund universal prek or build new bridges and roads or provide free community college to nine million people. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to tell you the estate tax hurts family farmers. and my colleague who began this debate is talking about that, mr. speaker. they tell you the estate tax forces farmers to liquidate in order to pay the estate tax. well pressed to provide examples as we did, family farms being forced to liquidate, my republican colleagues pointed to a 15,000 acre farm they say had to be broken up for the estate tax. let me put that into context. most people live in sitous don't know how big that is. that's 15,000 acres is the equivalent of 23.5 square miles. that's a five by five square mile farm. that's more than the island of

manhattan. manhattan isn't that big. and it's -- which is home to a million people. i think most of the people who work hard are pressed to believe that 23 square miles of the family farm. as a farm at the very top of the income scale experience unprecedented wealth and prosperity, some may call the second guilded age. republicans are helping the rich get richer. they want to talk about we are going to help the middle class and we are going -- what are theying to? shoveling a quarter of a trillion dollars out the door to the richest. repealing the estate tax will surely sow the seeds of the a permanent aristocracy in this country. we learned from britain what a permanent aristocracy gets you. so we are prepared to take this vote, i would ask my colleagues, whose side are you on? are you on the side of working families and communities across this country who are struggling to pay the bills? or are you on the side of the

ultrawealthy heirs who don't feel they need to pay taxes on the millions and billions that they were handed by their ancestors. wealth has never been taxed. that land the accumulation of wealth in it, has never been taxed. now, i vote for the working middle class, and i hope that you-all vote no. i reserve the balance of my time . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to allow mr. brady of texas to manage the time for the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i thank the gentleman from nebraska for his leadership on ending this terrible tax. can you imagine working your whole life to build up a family-owned business or a farm

and then upon your death uncle sam swoops in and takes nearly half of what you spent a lifetime building up for your children and grandchildren. can you imagine in this case, my friend from washington talked about this was a farm that had been in this family since the 1880's, five generations. it didn't start that size. it started small. they built up over years and years and generations and generations. when the young woman went back to texas, she worked up here, went back to texas to settle her aunt's estate. she and her brother were forced to sell off 2/3 of the farm that they had had for five generations. they had to sell off 2/3 of it to pay uncle sam. just to try to keep some small portion of what their family had worked so hard to dofment these are real life examples of how the death tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time and hurts the wrong people. it's the number one reason family-owned businesses and farms aren't passed down to the

next generation. it is at its heart an immoral tax. the and it is a tax ---and it is an attack on the american dream. especially more so for our newest start-ups in america, women and minority-owned businesses, building wealth for the first time hoping that they can create a nest egg, that they can create a business for their children and grandchildren, so they have greater opportunities in this great contry. -- country. i really want to thank my democrat leader, sponsor democrat, congressman sanford bishop of georgia for his leadership to repeal the death tax and his belief that you shouldn't punish success. i want to thank my colleague on the ways and means committee, representative kristi noem, long time champion, congressman mack thorn berrirk and former colleague of mine on the ways and means committee former representative hulshof, who carried this legislation for so long. the superrich they don't pay

this tax. they have a legion of lawyers and tax planners they have charitable trusts and foundations. they never pay this tax. these are family owned, hardworking, risk taking determined americans who are building their business, their farm, their ranch. these are not, as we'll hear today, the paris hiltons and robber barons of the teddy ruse investigate days -- roosevelt days. they are often forced back for a loan or cruelly forced to sell their land and business just to satisfy thistist ---the i.r.s. this is about income and equality, but it ourns out according to the federal reserve, former vice chairman, that only only 2% is related to what people inherit. in america, turns out we do build our prosperity. we pull ourselves up in prosperity. some people say, look, this thing generates 200-plus billion

dollars. let me put this in perspective. for all the damage it does, for our family owned businesses and farms, the damage it will do to our women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses building wealth, it generates less than two days of federal spnd spending a year. in a day, this is the basic question. is this your money and your hard work, or is this the government's money? who has a claim over all the years you spent working? and why at the end of the day are we punishing success? so look let's give children let's give our families their shot at the american dream. and a better nation than the one we inherited. that's why today we rise to bury the death tax once and for all. with that mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas proifs. -- reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i remind the gentleman from texas

that 292 households in texas will do nothing for the 4.4 million people living in texas's poverty. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yi thompsonel bo: i rise in strong opposition to this death tax repeal act. whenever you hear someone say death tax, no right a way they are not talking about public policy or tax reform, they are talking about politics. there is no such thing as a death tax. you will not find those words in the tax code. it is partisan jargon. after you die, you do not have to pay taxes.

when you are dead, you are dead. there is no such thing as a death tax. today my republican colleagues are pursuing a repeal under the guise of helping family farms and small businesses. i wish this was the case, the rhetoric is disingenuous when you look at the policy. i agree it is a issue for family farmers and ranchers. the first bill i introduced was a bill to reform the estate tax. my district has farmland values and they are land rich and cash poor. they are middle-class people who work their land every day and pay taxes on their income they earn from network. -- from that work. a full repeal is not the answer, it costs too much money.

$269 billion not paid for. it helps people who do not need the government's help. a more common sense idea would pass -- idea would be to pass the bill i suggested. they could pass the estate tax as long as the family continues to farm the land. if they stop farming the land, it kicks back in. many farmers are facing these problems today. the high volume of farmland we are losing, more than one acre of farmland is lost every minute of every day. it is important that we help farmers preserve farmland for future generations. it will benefit our food supply and environment. it needs to be done the right way. once this political exercise is

over, i hope we can work together on a proposal that is actually aimed at protecting our family farms, and family-owned small businesses. pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: it was repealed three years later, no more gimmicks. i am pleased to yield two minutes to a gentleman who understands the importance of family-owned farms and businesses. angelman from wisconsin. >> i come from america's dairyland. we have small family farms. this death tax, when dad dies

he is gone, but the kids who inherit the farm are the ones who pay be tax. what do they do? they sell to the corporate farm. repealing the death tax is the way to keep the family farm and not transfer the farm to the corporate conglomerate. it is not just farms, i have a family and my community in wisconsin that employees hundreds, they are a manufacturer. they asked me not to use their name. they understand that this tax if two or more of them die at the same time, they cannot pay. what they are forced to do is sell the base -- business. that would mean they would lose these jobs to other parts of the country or world. they love the people that work in their company, many 420 and

30 years -- 20 and 30 years. they will not drive together because if there was an accident, if two of them die they have to sell a major employer. family members do not travel together because of this tax. i hear my friends across the aisle talk about this helping the wealthy guy. i agree with the german from texas, they do not pay this tax. it is the guys in the middle that are employing folks in our community. it means jobs for middle-class americans. i think we should stand up and stand with the middle-class americans and let's work to repeal this bill to make sure we have a vibrant middle class in america. pro tempore: the doma from washington is recognized --

gentleman from washington is recognized. >> their horror -- there are 600 and 18,000 people living under poverty level. when rhetoric gets heated if you die and you have this great big business, you have five years to pay that tax. you do not have to pay it the day they bury the body. you have five years to pay it. it is at 10 years deferred. you have 15 years before that tax has to be paid. it is not like someone shows up at the house after the funeral and says, here is the company or we're taking your property. that is not what happens.

we have laid it out to give people time to figure it out. anyone with that much money, probably has money to hire a financial consultant. i would like to yield three minutes to mr. pascal. mr. pascrell: i have better -- i have heard better stories in new jersey. let me tell you what we're talking about, you see this chart? that is 99.85% that get nothing out of this legislation in the usa. here is 0.15%, they get $270 billion in tax cuts. let me show you with a magnifying glass. you are telling me that this

helps the common good? my friends on the other side of the aisle, and when i use the word friends i mean it. they have recently taken to talking about the lack of wage growth in this country, yet here we are today considering legislation that will add $298.4 billion to the deficit to people who do not work at all. this idea that the estate tax hurts middle-class americans is simply not true. much of this income has never been taxed. repealing the estate tax in full would result in a massive tax cut for the wealthiest of the wealthy.

it hits 5500 households in this whole country. estates are worth more than $5 million, that is the law, i am not making this stuff up. this bill only further exacerbates our upside down tax code. the tax code is stacked against hard-working labor. i sit on the house budget committee as well as ways and means, -- pro tempore: i yield and a dimple -- an additional minute. mr. pascrell: i can tell you these do not make up for the cuts.

it is also worth to note, the budget does not assume the repeal of the estate tax. where are they going to get the other money? it assumes a revenue -- i like it when they say it, a revenue neutral reform. it assumes revenues will be exactly as the projections presume. either of this bill is contrary to the budget, or it is not paid for today, congress will at some point have to sit down, go down the road and pass a tax hike to pay for this massive deficit. you have no choice. i would like to hear from mike goodfriend -- my good friend to

hear what his path will be to make up for the money. pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i would point out we would generate more money by repealing this tax than keeping it. people would not put their money and tax shelters and other things, instead they would put it back into job creation. i am proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman whose father ran to businesses. mr. kelly: it is interesting to sit and listen to the rhetoric. i think if you drink the purple kool-aid long enough, you start to believe it. that chart is great because we are starting to separate america. we are saying because it only applies to this little sliver,

we have to go after these people. the entire produce of a woman or man's life, after they have paid their taxes at the time of their death, i know we did not want to call it a death tax, it is triggered by death, god for bid, these hard-working american taxpayers are allowed to pass on that which they are able to acute and late. -- accumulate. my dad was a parts maker in a warehouse. he married my mother who worked the switchboard. he started a car dealership. he built it into something he was proud of, and was able to pass it on. we want to go after these folks

not because they were successful, but because they died. the government cannot live within its means, so when we go to pay our respects, we say inc. you for all of your help, now the government wants to take some of that produce of your entire life because they cannot live within their means. you tightened your belt when you had to, that is not good enough because we cannot rein in spending, so we cannot stop taxing. in the united states of america to sit back and look at all of those who have done so much and paid so many taxes, and yet to say upon their death, they are not allowed to pass this on. i love the chart because you specify what has been going on. you are dividing the country. rich versus poor.

i yield back. pro tempore: the members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> i hope you would remind the gentleman that the country is already divided into rich and poor, there is no question. in pennsylvania, 1.5 7 million people live in poverty. there is already a bit of a division. it might be more acceptable in this bill recouped all of the money we spent in farm subsidies. maybe when people die they should give their farm subsidy back, like my grandfather did when he died. the state of illinois came back to get the public assistance money he had been given.

i yield two minutes to the tillman from wisconsin. -- gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: it is a $270 billion cost, no offsets in the federal budget. my republican colleagues want to move forward at least they should show the courage to the american people to tell them how they will pay for it, or admit it will be added to the deficits. it is a irresponsible approach to try to reform the tax code. a larger point, to speak to the last speaker's point that he made, what is troublesome to me is it seems many of our republican colleagues seem comfortable with the idea of income inequality in this nation, which is growing worse.

here is the main point this inequality in our society adds -- absent opportunity, absent mobility, it is a caste system. burst equals outcome. -- birth equals outcome. oren buffett says our fate should not depend on whether we win the birth lottery or not. it has to be the wealthiest 2/10 of 1%, that is what this legislation affects. it affects 2/10 of 1% of the wealthiest. they keep saying, don't worry we will address this later, we have a spending problem in washington. what we have seen from their budgets, where they go for offsets, it is pell grants,

work-study, broadband expansion basic research funding that has to take place, it is the infrastructure modernization we need. those of the things we need to invest in to keep america competitive. those programs help. can i have an additional 30 seconds? >> i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. kind: they have become clever at piling up debt, convincing the american people we have a spending problem, yet the programs they decide to target in their budgets resolutions are those that help the least. those that provide upward income mobility for americans. i am a kid that went to school with pell grants, there is no way i want to be a member of congress that is going to hold the ladder behind me and say tough luck to the lower income

classes. i encourage my colleagues to oppose it. pro tempore: bejewel and from texas is recognized. -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: they will never, this is a family owned farms and businesses, i am proud to yield one minute to the tillman from texas. -- gentleman from texas, mr. williams. >> when a man that owned a car dealership died, he passed along the debt to his son. the irs was three days later, after the fathers death, wanting the money. his son nearly declared bankruptcy.

fortunately he was able to pull resources together to keep the dealership afloat. he still runs the dealership to this day and has more than 100 employees. that sun ison is me. the death tax is a tax on savings that have been taxed before. according to the tax foundation, the repeal would boost gdp create more jobs and increased federal revenue. ironically by killing the death tax, the u.s. government could earn more money and opportunities. my second generation and many other second-generation business owners do not have the means to higher teams of accountants and lawyers to navigate the costly obstacles to save the family farm in business. as a small business owner of 44

years, i have seen friends and colleagues lose, -- we've gains earned from a lifetime of hard work because of washington's greed and failed policies like the death tax. we must repeal this unfair policy that does no good to the federal government and does life-changing harm to american job creators and families. we must make sure this law goes away. i yield back my time. pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. doggett: i rise in strong opposition to this benefit billionaires act. i do not believe it is in our countries interest to borrow money from the chinese saudi's

or whoever we can get it from in order to benefit about 5000 or so of the wealthiest families in this country. that is precisely what this legislation does. if ever are people -- if ever our people get to the point where all that matters is comfort, this nation shall parish. no advantage comes to the country or individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission of the enormous fortunes that would be affected. those are bold words. bold words of a different kind of republican. they are the bold words of teddy roosevelt when he originally proposed the tax that has been mislabeled today as the death tax.

president roosevelt thought it would be the death of our country if we had a permanent leisure class elite of the type that dominated so many european countries. he thought a reasonable tax on inheritance of the wealthiest most proper -- prosperous members of our country would be essential to the future of the country. i think his approach was right at the beginning of the 19th century and it remains true today. this is a billionaire protection act. when he introduced this legislation disturb brady said, what kind of government sweeps and on your death and takes nearly half of the nasdaq you spent your life building -- nearly half of the nest egg that you spent your life building? the death tax does not touch anyone but the smallest fraction of the wealthiest 5000 plus households in the country.

could i get 30 seconds? pro tempore: the gentleman gets 30 seconds. mr. doggett: while this money could be used to address the size of the national debt, inc. about the size of $259 billion and what it could do. we know that our infrastructure is crumbling, that would be more than enough to cover the shortfall that has been estimated in dealing with our transportation infrastructure. think about that money and what it could do for the competitiveness of our workforce. it is an investment to help those. pro tempore: the gentleman from washington recognizes the gentleman from texas.

>> i arise to raise awareness of the livelihood of generations of wisconsin's. many families look forward to a refund, but many families in my home state are reminded of the looming debt their children and grandchildren will face. the death tax jeopardizes the future of 28,000 montana farms. this is not a leisure class. these are hard-working americans that spent their life generations building their future, only to see it threatened. this tax punishes americans that work hard, play by the rules and what to pass of that legacy

to their children. the death tax is a tax on the american dream. i am a cosponsor of hr 1105, the death tax repeal act of 2015 and i urge my colleagues to support this measure to preserve the dream for farmers and rangers. pro tempore: time has been reserved, the tillman from washington -- gentleman from washington. >> i yield two minutes to the tillman from california. mr. becerra: i think the gilman for yielding -- i think the gentleman for yielding.

i see in today's al, a lot of young americans are future leaders they are probably wondering if this will affect them in the future. because i think everyone in america has this dream and hope that our country makes available of making it, we all aspire to do well. i know that my father did not get more than a sixth grade education. i know they are proud of what their children have been able to accomplish area make no doubt we all want to make it in america. we all want to make sure we have what we need to buy that first home, to send our kids to college, to save up enough for retirement. most americans would say i have made it, that is the dream, if i could guarantee those things and know my kids will have a better opportunity than me, that is great. can i do more?

i would love to do more. i would say we have to give a tax break, not to the wealthy not to the ultra-mega-wealthy, but to the uber, super wealthy a tax break that would cost us $270 billion because this bill is not paid for, when at the same time that money would pay for the same amount of coverage for the entire institute of health to do all of the research we expect them to do to help us cure alzheimer's, parkinson's, diabetes cancer. all of that research they are doing with all of those great scientist and all of those universities cost, for 10 years, the same amount this bill would cost to give not 1%, 1/10 of 1% of the wealthiest americans a tax break that cost $270

billion. every time someone comes up and says they want to protect family farms -- could i have 30 seconds? every time they say they want to protect the family farmer, they have to say, we need the 1/10 of the 1% of the wealthiest americans may be a farmer, i guarantee you he will not have calluses on his hands. let's be real, we've have priorities, we want to retire securely. you don't have to be be 1/10 of 1% richest american at the cost of this money to all of the other americans, especially every one of those books sitting in this gallery today. let's not vote for this bill. pro tempore: the chair would like to remind members to avoid references to occupants of the gallery.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> yielding myself 15 seconds. asterisk self, do you want a government that guarantees food stamps or an opportunity to build your american dream? at the end of your life, you want to pass that down to your kids and grandchildren, or should uncle sam swoop in and take nearly half of everything you worked a lifetime for. i am proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: we all love hearing about american success stories. it might be a start up, a couple of dollars, hard work that grows into a business and serves a community and provides for the future. many family business owners ranchers, and farmers hope to keep that success going by passing it on to the next

generation. however, the dream of taking over the family business can quickly turn into a nightmare. while having to cope with the loss of a loved one, relatives are forced to make tough decisions just to make the estate tax obligations under the law. it could mean selling off critical assets. it could mean closing down the business and being forced to sell the entire business just to pay the taxes alone. the truth is average americans can be negatively affected by this tax. not only our businesses not being passed down, they are be also be enforced to lay off other employees. when a small business shuts its doors and lets those employees go, it can have a profound effect. farmers can be impacted by the federal tax simply based on the value of the farmland alone. that does not take into account the buildings, and