week, will we demand a handover? a compensation or what? what about military cooperation with europe and france, what is the future cooperation? >> the decision not to deliver under an existing contract is certainly a bad sign. to us, in terms of our defense capabilities, frankly, this is absolutely significant. we signed the contracts in the first place in order to support support our partners. we make sure they are building shipyards -- there shipyards are busy.

we have plans to use those helicopter carriers so they are not critical to us, but still i believe the french will give our money back to us. we don't even plan to insist on them making extra payments, some fines, penalties. we just 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 the reliability is questionable. we will certainly take this into account in our future defense contracts of them.

>> everyone would relax if you say, no penalties are needed. announcer: next, u.s. koreans forces. then russian president vladimir putin's annual college program. then, washington journal. a look at how congress and the administration is addressing women and family issues. announcer: the united states takes over as the chair at the arctic council next week read today the center for strategic and international studies hold a discussion on u.s. agenda, focusing on climate change pollution, and climate change safety. we will join lisa murkowski and others at this event live at 9:00 eastern on c-span three.

announcer: today the chinese minister of finance speaks in washington dc. he will discuss the impact of china's economy. that is live starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. announcer: at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows of the colony, in her mid-40's she was considered an enemy by the british who threatened to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first lady at age 57. martha washington, the sunday night on "first ladies image." from martha washington to michelle, sundays at 8:00 eastern on c-span three.

as a complement, c-span's new book, "first ladies the lives of 45 iconic women." it creates an illuminating entertaining, and inspiring read. it is now available as a hardcover or e-book. announcer: this weekend is full of live event coverage. historians discuss the end of the civil war on american history tv. c-span beginning at 10:00 eastern, live coverage of the first in the nation leadership summit area speakers include ted cruz, scott walker, john kasich, and rand paul. saturday at 1:00 eastern on c-span two. book tv is live from the university of southern california from the -- for the

l.a. times festival of books. some of the authors you will hear from include scupper, tavis smiley, the radio talkshow host, hewitt, our lives coverage continues sunday afternoon at 2:00 with panels on crime and u.s. history. authors will be taking your phone calls throughout the day. on c-span3, saturday morning and all-day event on the end of the civil war. speakers include caroline jenning, james mcpherson and barbara gannon. sunday at 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 eastern, the anniversary of her ham lincoln's assassination. we will take it to her of peterson house, where the president died. for the complete coverage -- for the complete schedule, go to

c-span.org. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winners of the student cam competition. it is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create a documentary based on the theme the three branches and you. they discussed how it has affected them or their community. madeleine bown has an entry about student loans. >> in the words of benjamin franklin, the education of youth is the surest foundation for happiness. good education provides americans with the grounds for success. federally subsidized student loans has made college more

accessible for student. by offsetting the expense of higher education, federal student loans allow students to invest in their futures. yet such lending created $800 billion in student debt. student loan debt, including private loans, is approximately $1.2 trillion. surpassing credit card and on a debt. in 2013, the higher education act expired and congress has yet to act on this topic that affects so many of the nations and people. college tuition continues to increase three times faster than the rate of inflation. for many young people, colleges is an investment. but to what extent does the investment become a burden? >> if someone was to go to -- want to go to college they , should be able to go to college without having staggering debt. >> students are forced to finance their education with more and more debt. >> my family and i have visited several colleges. as a junior in high school, they are considerations i had to when

making a college decision. i'm here at the university of pennsylvania. one of my first choices because of the digital media design engineering program. but if i get accepted, there is a 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 greatly over the last decade. increasing the demand for higher education. but to what extent should students burned themselves with -- burden themselves with debt? >> i should love to say that students should ignore the money and go after their passion. but in the long run, it depends on where your money is coming from. you have to think about the money. >> have to make money to pay it off before i can make money to work. to just live a normal life. >> i can tell already that loans will affect pretty much everyone in here. >> as of 2013, 55% of full-time

four year college student have a federal loan. on average, students borrow about $30,000. federal student loan debt has increased an average of $100 billion each year since 2007. it is theorized that similar to the housing crisis, higher education is valued higher than its actual worth, a bubble that will eventually pop. >> outstanding student loan debt quadrupled from 260 billion to $1.1 trillion in 2014. if that's not a bubble, i don't know what is. >> even as the financial risk of attending college continues to rise, so does the demand. >> my dream is to graduate college. >> my dream is to get into a good college and go to medical school. >> over the past several years the demand for higher education has increased significantly. the supply is inelastic, an increase in demand yield a high increase in price. congress implemented the higher

education act in 1965. it was the first to establish broad-based loan and grant programs. in 1972, federal student loans became available for students with financial need. in 1988, the federal guarantee student loan program was renamed the robert t stafford student loan program. along with federally subsidized student loans, the federal government also offers grants and financial aid under the title iv program. >> today, more than 9 million students are pell grant recipients. >> economists believe that these grants have caused colleges and universities to raise the tuition. this idea as known as the bennett hypothesis. the ideas that subsidies lead to easier consumption, which leads to increased demand and subsequently higher cost. yet many economists argue that there is not enough empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. curious to see what my peers would think of this hypothesis i opened it up to a classroom debate. >> they drive up the college

prices, start with that. >> instead of seeing the federal aid pushing up prices, i think that colleges have made our society believe that we have to go to college. >> federal financial aid increases the ability people to go to college, so more people will take that ability, and that artificially drives of demand. it makes sense why the bennett hypothesis to be true. -- premature. >> to make a rule that applies everywhere, i think it's pointless to argue for it. >> there has been a lot of research as to what the effects are having on the college crisis. a lot of them are not conclusive. >> i don't think there's a lot of merit. we can point to reasons why we see college tuition rising. >> government subsidies has impacted tuition costs.

it's a conundrum. if we went with your view of the free market, what we would've done is we would not done that we would not have increased held -- pell grants for example, and there would be 9 million fewer students in college. >> in 2013, the higher education act expired. as tuition continues to rise the question remains, is congress remaining accountable to its citizens? >> we can't keep continuing on with politics as usual while more and more students and families are priced out of being able to own a home or start a business, or by a car to drive to work. >> interest rates have increased from congressionally fixed to marketplace fixed. a bill that would allow students to refinance, was blocked. forgiveness programs have been enacted, potentially encouraging colleges to increase tuition. obama recently proposed two years of free college, but many

speculate that's only a talking point. there are no signs that the student loan debt crisis will slow down anytime soon. >> we have to work 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's important to remember what benjamin franklin said. an investment in education pays the best interest. the quote is true, so long as the investment is wise and carefully planned. announcer: to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. also tell us what you think on , facebook and twitter. announcer: u.s. pacific and u.s. forces korea commanders

testified in front of the senate armed services committee on thursday. witnesses 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 is 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 many years of distinguished service. in the past three months this committee has 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 and complex 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. 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 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