tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 23, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
clicks the report from the institute has concluded that it is a multifactor combination exposure to high humidity clicks how do you describe the southern california death? quakes that is why we are continuing to look into the issue. we have experts from penn state georgia tech and are working with a vast array and are continuing to try.
clicks would you want your daughter to drive a vehicle quakes would you replace clicks are placed in the passenger side clicks is just a driver-side design. it is purely a driver-side quakes the batwing design is attributed to the defect quakes all of the fatalities and most of the serious injuries have involved those deflator's which is why we have agreed to get them in the field quakes i i did not get your answer that you
jumped to the passenger side quakes you asked me -- maybe i misinterpreted your question quakes driving the automobile that you had replaced that design clicks i would i would have no issue at all senator. how do you feel the consumers can think this is fixed quakes that is why we have agreed to place everyone. a lot of people have talked about the adversity that we as an industry and government need to concentrate we need to get
mr. chairman clicks senator blumenthal clicks thank you. thank you for being here today. you have been with takata for about three years clicks just over ten years quakes you were with the company in 2005 quakes december of 2005 quakes i would like you to commit that takata will establish a confirmation fund. >> i have not been involved in the recall so i cannot do that. i will take it to our chairman and get back with you on that but i am not in a position to commit to that >> do you not run the
company north american operation? >> i have responsibility for certain aspects, customer activity including sales and marketing engineering, program engineering, program management, core engineering not related to insulators but other projects as well as it and communications. >> i am just a country lawyer, but it sounds like you run the company. >> i report to a committee a committee and the president of north america. i do not run all aspects. clicks -- >> the fund you should
experienced issues with. >> you have not experienced issues because you have not finished testing. >> they have been in the field for a number of years using a number of different vehicles and it is an alternative design that have not seen issues. >> why are you continuing to use ammonium nitrate when it was very likely a contributing factor if not the factor in causing these exploding fighters? >> i would respectfully disagree is the issue causing the inflator ruptures. one of the potential factors in it. the materials we were using it is highly, highly toxic. some of the other materials we have used issues with handling and manufacturing
because they were energetic in a normal state stabilized ammonium nitrate, if you put it on the table and put a torch on it you cannot even lighted. safe, clean, burns efficiently which addresses the concerns with previous propellants causing respiratory issues. >> but the problem is it becomes unstable when it becomes moist or accumulate moisture, correct? >> it is not a phase stabilization issue. it is an issue with the phase stabilization of ammonium nitrate. the conclusions of the institute has come to is this is not a phase stabilization issue. we
cannot measure the loss of phase stabilization. it is not a phase phase stabilization issue. it is a much more stable issue that takes many years and sometimes in certain vehicles, sometimes vehicles, sometimes in one able perform well. the same exact area will have issues. there are there are a number of things. we were trying to act so that we could continue the analysis. >> you are continuing to use ammonium nitrate with a different design? >> we have many designs that use phase stabilized ammonium nitrate. there are of the six involved in this, most -- five of the six are out of production. the ones involved in this particular issue are not in production any longer. >> looking forward are you replacing the batwing propellants or inflator is out there now with
insulators that have ammonium nitrate. >> a completely different design but they still use phase stabilized ammonium nitrate. we are 50 percent of the inflator kids our competitors outside of leaders. >> have you tested these designs? quakes yes. >> how rigorously? >> for years. >> have a a shown signs of moisture? >> not to my knowledge. >> you are continuing to use ammonium nitrate? >> yes.
>> and that is one of the reasons you are going to ammonium nitrate? >> as i stated the path provided me with confidence, the most confidence that it would be a permanent solution. >> that is a genteel and a genteel and nice way of saying that you want a safe propellant, and you are going with a company a company that does not use ammonium nitrate, correct? >> that is accurate. >> mr. kennedy, your company filed for a patent in 2006 that in effect demonstrated the knowledge of moisture's effect on ammonium nitrate, correct?
>> i am not involved in the path of our insulators insulators, senator. if you give me more information i may be able to comment. >> i will give you information available to all which is that your company explained that moisture could seep into the inflator and might cause the propellant to become more unstable. i have said that numerous times. filed for a times. filed for a patent in 2006 the demonstrated it was aware of the problem in that year we have addressed that in our designs manufacturing process. >> are you familiar with the chemical nun's desk can't?
>> yes, i am aware. >> at what time did takata begin to add desiccant? >> it was in the timeframe you mentioned, 2007 until 2008. >> and 2008. >> and the reason was to reduce the effect of moisture in making the ammonium nitrate more unstable. >> there were a number of changes made to my number of design changes that were made in that time. the propellant formulation was changed. desiccant was added to a number of components were updated. it is part of what in japan they called kaizen, continuous improvement looking at ways to improve parts. in those particular parts on the passenger side we were able to shrink the size by 10 millimeters which saved weight and space health meet requirements and
customers meet goals of weight reduction and performance improvement. >> continuous improvement? >> yes, sir. >> kaizen in japanese? it sounds like a you -- euphemism for trying to avoid exploding airbags. >> no sir. not at all. i disagree. it was a. it was a continuous improvement on the product. every manufacturer -- >> how did it improve the product? the propellant exploding as a result of moisture. >> a number of changes were implemented into the inflator's. the addition was one which allowed us to make the inflator smaller lighter. those were all things that we are always looking to do. >> is it not fair to say one of the reasons was the presence of moisture inside the inflator? >> moisture is a problem.
every inflator has leak paths. it is full of holes in order to let gas come out. so out. so it is an issue that every manufacturer deals with. >> your new insulators, have they shown evidence of moisture? >> i don't -- i am not sure if i can answer that completely because i do not know that we have gotten parts of that from the field on these newer ones and looked at it. >> i i thought your testimony was they had been rigorously tested. >> they have. >> but you don't know whether moisture has been found? >> i i don't know the answer to that specific question. >> where i am going is
essentially there is a lot of evidence that ammonium nitrate is a root cause and that there may well need to be a recall of the recall and continuing problem. gm at least redesigned and manufactured the defective product that caused gas on the road as a result of the defective ignition switch. the continued use of ammonium nitrate leads me to believe there may well need to be a recall of the recall >> as part of the consent order we have agreed to continue to test the remedy parts all of our efforts internal and external with the consortium individual oem, automakers doing their own testing. we have not stopped anything
in relation to this issue and are continuing to look everywhere to make sure that we understand this issue. >> have you issued 25. >> we need to keep moving. >> i knew my colleague would be here. >> you are so kind. >> let me ask, would you commit to supporting a bill that i have offered the requires used-car dealers to repair outstanding safety recalls prior to selling the lease? >> we support that concept. we expect those to be taking care of. they may have a product from
another manufacturer. similarly a chrysler dealer in their independent used-car dealers. we would like to discuss the need to ensure oem. most definitely we support the concept. >> i know you reached out to the honda owners affected that could not contact them because they bought the car used. they died as a result. >> indeed, the unfortunate indeed, the unfortunate aspect of fatalities older model vehicles that tends to change hands. we have not been able to contact the appropriate party. we support the concept. >> thank you. i will be brief. last november as evidence
emerged airbags might be susceptible i call on an expanded recall. responding to the responding to the recall request letter stating he believes the data currently available did not support a nationwide recall. what information did takata have last month that it did not have earlier? >> that is a great question that i would i would be happy to answer. we have much more test data now and have completed over 57,000 deployments most of the last six months that have helped us understand where these issues are and what is causing them and do not have definitive root cause. also we have had a two day meeting where we brought the people in and their experts
and had our third party offer report directly to them not filtered all and did the same thing with oem and have continued to work with a number of other outside experts that i mentioned earlier, penn state, georgia tech. >> this goes back to 2006. it seems like a long time and we have heard so many explanations about why the different explanations and why it took this long and nearly ten years to get done. >> there has been a lot done a number of recalls that have been issued starting in 2008 the first one. we have anticipated and supported multiple recalls in that timeframe. it was on this latest issue that got started in 2013. the end of 2013 was when the
first incident outside of previous recall population occurred. >> go ahead. >> now with this recall and it will involve a lot of vehicles, how do you prioritize in terms of -- is it geographically, the age of the vehicle? >> again a again a very good question and one that was contemplated and it varies by design. the drivers side where we had the most issues are
being prioritized based upon location. a location of where they are currently registered, originally registered or ever registered. the others are prioritized by age. as the administrator mentioned, that is administrator mentioned, that is part of the consent order. we will be working with k2 and the automakers to do the prioritization and get the right parts to write owners of the right time as of a couple days ago we are right now -- this -- this month we will produce close to 700,000. >> how many total. >> the total replacement is elusive but somewhere in the 32 million range vehicles that were ever manufactured. kaywun how long do. >> how long do you think it will take to do that? >> 1 million units a month shortly. 32,000,002,000,000
assumes that all of those vehicles are still on the road. a a number of them are not on the road. it will be somewhat less. >> one last question. how many affected honda and chrysler vehicles have received replacements? >> have received replacements? on the driver side just side -- just shy of 50,000 units and have implemented a recall of the inflator. maybe 1,000 units. >> okay. >> we have replaced nearly 2 million. >> it sounds like there will be a lot more. all right. thank you very much. >> senator nelson has one question to ask. let me ask you
manufacturers if your companies or other auto manufacturers are looking into what role if any the vehicle design may have played with regard to persistent high humidity of affecting performance and if so what have you learned? >> mr. chairman, i will answer that first. you are referring to a report recently that takata is mentioning a theory about vehicle a theory about vehicle design mainly on the passenger side not the driver side with theory is grounded. we have not received much information and when we do we will be happy to look into it but have not begun a study of our own. >> i would reiterate that we are not doing our own study.
>> senator nelson. >> one quick question. do you think rental car companies should be prohibited from leasing vehicles under recall until fixed? >> thank you. i am aware of s2119 the rental car recall act. act. we are in support of that concept and support the concept. the young woman who lost her life was driving a rental vehicle. i understand from i
understand from our business model, honda we don't sell to fleets companies like hertz, avis, so forth but there are vehicles that end up in rental car inventory. dealers might sell to one of the large rental car companies. small rental car companies also might buy a vehicle on the used market. we strongly support the concept that they should be fixed. if that had fixed. if that had happened in the case of the young woman southern california who we notify the auto auction there on around the vehicle for the rental car agency bought it and notify the rental car agency and neither of them took the repair it is to our everlasting regret that it had an impact gleick's just
to.out that the hearing record will remain open for two weeks during which time the senators are asked to submit questions for the record. witnesses are asked to submit their answers as soon as possible. i want to thank our panelists and witnesses. it continues to shape the record we build. we want to make sure we are doing everything possible to give accountability and provide the solutions that will prevent this thing from happening again. with that, the hearing is adjourned. thanks. [inaudible conversations]
believe most of these people should be able to psychoanalyze people on the other hand when i meet people i i meet people i do not judge them in terms of whether they have a firm handshake or contact. i listen to what they say. place one of the many tragedies not very self-aware. endless ironies. he did have a psychiatrist. not technically a psychiatrist and he was careful not to have makes nixon think he was analyzing him. psychosomatic. he could not sleep and he was given mild therapy. even though he went he hated psychiatrists and was afraid in a way of looking at himself in a realistic way. i do not carry grudges.
one of the greatest grudge carriers of all time. he could be on self reflective which hurt him. lashing out at enemies is what destroyed him >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out oorder. quirks for what purpose this purposes is gentleman from
south carolina seek recognition?mpore: clicks i ask unanimous, in a consent to speak out of order quick's mistress stand h beeker quick mr. speaker i will request a moment of silence. before i do i i stand with c other membersly of the south carolina delegation to save our colleague who is back home visiting with the families. we will be going back this week to visit with the same lik families e scott and others, will be going back during this week to visit with those same families. i'm joined as well by members of the black caucus and members of this body who have been deeply shaken by the events of this last week in charleston, south carolina. i rise with this group on behalf of the nine families who have been impacted back home, on behalf of the people of the first district of south carolina, and on behalf of the people of south carolina who have shown a whole lot of heart and a whole lot of love here over the last week. i say this because less than a week ago, as we all know, a
young man with incomprehensible malice came into the mother a.m. church and did the unthinkable, as he joined the bible study and he gunned down nine of the members, the parishioners there at church. but fortunately our story doesn't end there. because the family members of the victims also did the unthinkable. i say that because they're at the bond at the bond hearing they did the imaginable in showing human grace, reflecting god's grace, not repaying evil with evil, the bond hearing, the first family comes up and says,
i mean, incomprehensible pain but i forgive you. next family comes up, incredible pain, but i forgive you. and those are the words that were repeated by each of the nine families. i for and i forgive you. cha last weekrl and joseph. amazing things than amazing chch things that a the church andtand the committee large. we all stand here we all stand here to remember the names of the non- victims and pause for a moment of silence. a let let me read the names of victims which will stand for one moment. the reverend mira thompson
daniel simmons senior middleton doctor middleton doctor and jackson. join us in a moment of silence quakes friday pres. president obama is in south carolina to deliver the eulogy at the funeral for the pastor of the manual ame church in the nine victims of the charleston shooting. he will shooting. he will be joined by vice president biden and first lady obama quakes next
remarks by republican congressman and house armed services committee mac thornberry in a speech at the atlantic council outlining five keys for national security success and addressing the current state of the us russian relations. this is just over an hour. quakes thank you for joining us. that is the one giveaway. it is a privilege to have the representative here to share his prescriptions for american strategy from his vantage.on the congressional armed services. this is one of the most important jobs on capitol hill and really the united states and it is an honor to have you here and thank you
for your service. today's discussion goes to the expanding work on strategy and congress' role in american foreign policy and would not be possible without the support and vision of george, who will be here a little air for your presentation. atlantic council is one of washington's premier platforms for a range a range of defense and security strategy discussions. the commanders theories with four-star generals and captains of industry and ceo defense industrial policy have welcomed leaders to lay out their visions. we are delighted thing
addressing critical challenges about an array can challenges that we face the same time and you cannot decide on who we named this go cropped center of international security hosting this event which tells us during the cold war over time one develops the strategy and containment of the soviet union and the communist ideology and any complaints too much tactic and not enough strategy. we have devoted ourselves and you will help us with that. we need a strategy driven
budget and not the other way around. a time a time when our country's challenges seem to be growing congress wrestles with the budget constraints and away the united states consequently decides to invest in the future is going to help write our defensive security strategy at home and abroad. this effort works abroad. this effort works across the council. we have a strategic foresight initiative working years into the future, long-term trends to identify opportunities and challenges from a middle east strategy task force cochaired by secretary albright and steve hadley. looking at challenges across the middle east and the ones the defense challenge initiative working at the intersection of defense and industry. we are delighted that the chairman is here. for the defense budget
history's judgment will be harsh and rightfully so. i will now hand the floor over to vice president of the atlantic council: directive barry pavel who has a lot of experience in these fields himself. you can use the account, and we are using the #. thank you very much wax. >> thank you very much. i want to hear the center is focused on the longer-range global security threat to the particular attention to emerging talent the chairman focuses on the
same to ensure our military and other defense institutions are adequately prepared for the challenges of today and tomorrow. very often focus on today and the future but it is important as to how they want to solve the problems. in my opinion as a former pentagon official has been the forefront of many of public conversations about our most pressing defense and security challenges than i am i am sure he will do so again. it is my honor to introduce the chairman before his speech and subsequent discussion which i am looking forward to. the chairman has been in government for some time working as a capitol hill
aide and then became the chief of staff for texas republicans. in 1988 he republicans. in 1988 he began the deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs. after taking a break from politics to work for a law firm while helping run his family's cattle ranch which helps to develop similar skills he won the race for the 13th district of texas to become its representative, district he has diligently served. in january he became the chairman of the house armed services committee the first texan to assume this position. some of the longest standing challenges including defense acquisition reform the united states maintaining technological edge and a number of a number of other important issues and headlines which include russia isis, and asian defense challenges as well i i greatly look forward to
your remarks. [applauding] quakes thank you and i appreciate the chance. i am grateful for all that has been done over the years to help shape security policies. we need clear, realistic, thoughtful thinking about national security challenges now as much as ever for we have had witness after witness, for us on the armed services committee and say we face more serious, complex national security challenges than we ever have at least since the end of
world war ii. this emphasis on looking ahead and trying to see the bigger picture is something we desperately need in all branches of government. the emphasis on that while we grapple with the day-to-day of getting bills passed we are also trying to keep at least one i've focused on the longer-range but we need your help. it is also true as you look ahead you have to look behind. time and effort has been spent marking a 7,570th anniversary of world war ii. it is ii. it is interesting that the thrill of victory of 1945 gave way to more somber realizations that we face a different kind but serious threat as we move into 1946. it was a remarkable time
because we learned the hard way the consequences of withdrawal and weakness in world events and now have to navigate our way through this new world of being the indispensable world power and the responsibilities which it entails. looking back from the perspective of 70 years there were two well-known warnings which were given to us in early 1946 that seem from this perspective even amazingly prescient but perceptive, and they continue to enlighten us today in the new face of tyranny that we confront. as this audience while those there was a a clash with superiors who were not ready to hear. in response to in response to inquiries from the state and treasury in february 1946 is famous telegram in which he wrote
at bottom of kremlin's kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional instinctive and handling to seek security the foreign politician that an opposition came to the united states where sugar of sick of public opinion about our former wartime ally or. winston churchill told the audience the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of power doctrine. from what i have seen during the war i am convinced there is nothing they admire so much strength and nothing for which they have less respect than weakness, especially
military weakness. they knew that we were threatened by this entity that kennedy said would only find security and the total destruction of rivals. most of us also thought and hope that without the ideology of communism in russia russia would enter in as a constructive, responsible participant. just as churchill and roosevelt were misled we have been disappointed and
perhaps underestimated something deeper that was being pointed out clearly. so despite warning signs as the obama administration took office that took a different approach. the vice president said it was time to set the reset button in the secretary of state was often actual if mistranslated button. the president canceled the missile-defense plan surprising our allies. next year the president announced included the situation in georgia longer needed to be considered an obstacle to reach agreements with the russians and there is the famous incident with the microphone when the president was advising that he just needed more time to get past the election. meanwhile, while i was going on we decided to cut defense spending and a new government in the ukraine that does not want to live
under moscow's lead to an invasion and annexation of crimea invasion and occupation parts of ukraine, ukraine, and many ways the most significant breach of borders's is the end of world war ii. we dealt with that with economic sanctions, but so far the administration and our european allies have refused to provide the ukrainians were lethal assistance lethal assistance that they have asked for to defend themselves. women is often quoted as saying probe with bayonets. if you encounter much proceed. if you encounter steel withdrawal. his themes that mr. putin do mr. putin do not see economic sanctions and training exercises steel. what is happening today is the russian defense budget is going up by 10% while limits on strategic watches and warheads are equal under the new start treaty. modernizing both they
continue to crank out new nuclear warheads and maintain advantage on technical warheads. russian military openly discussed optional changes their launching a campaign you hear a lot about that. email that. even on the political front they help finance green protest and an side -- anti-cracking anti- cracking movement while providing employment for former european officeholders. the dominant topic of this year's munich security
conference was hybrid warfare which is a blend of tactics and deception designed to hide the advances you're making into complicated responses of an adversary. the russians are not the only ones using these tactics but are particularly problematic. the next president will have sitting on his or her desk a situation in which the one country that could pose an existential threat to the us growing military capabilities and increased willingness to use them to mustering a provocative actions and outright aggression along with brazen deception as a matter of government policy without much of an effective response of four. and that is just one of the national security challenges that will be on the vice president's desk. it is truly daunting. what should we do?
truth in advertising, 535 members of congress are not going to devise or implement a national security strategy which is not what the first branch of the government can do. what we can do is help clarify thinking and ensure the next president has all of the tools he or she will need in order to defend the country and protect our interests around the world. i suggest that there are five elements that are key for us to focus on over the next several months. speak the truth. historic changes came about because churchill and others were willing to speak the truth. domestic political calculations and spin are too often the enemy of the truth. americans and others need to know facts about russian involvement in ukraine. i i think that we americans tend to undervalue the battle of ideas and seemed
to take it pretty seriously during the cold war. but whether it is the struggle against radical islam or european aggression, the fact for the truth to be heard is especially important in a democratic world to let the allies know they are out in it by themselves. we need organization, capability we need organization, capability and political will to fight, and we are not doing well. we need we need to strengthen defenses and that starts with how much we spend. as was mentioned, next year's budget is the subject of a variety of political movements in capitol hill and the white house. both the house and both the house and senate have passed budget resolutions and defense authorization bills which provide as much money for defense exactly as much as the president requested
and the chairman of joint chiefs have said this is the lower bracket edge of what is needed in order to defend the country. the president has the president has threatened to veto the authorization of appropriations bill of both unless he gets more money for some domestic programs such as irs nepa. last friday the president told a group of mayors that i will not sign bills seeking to increase defense spending for addressing any needs at home. history has a way of of turning iranians a tragedy. today secretary of defense carter is in europe working to bolster the nato alliance commitment to spending more money on defense and stiffened spines against the russians and does so is the president is holding hostage our own requests his own requests to increase funding
for defense. at my suggestion is nothing within the stronger single and bolster the secretaries message than for the president to agree to sign the defense bills with the money that he asked for. increasing money in the overseas contingency account is not the ideal way to fund defense. we need higher, consistent, predictable funding. holding defense spending hostage for the epa is not the way to achieve it and does not make our country safer. defense spending is is been cap new copy effective inflation 21 percent over the past four years. the world is not 21 percent safer than it was four years
ago. famously noted that the client is choice. we have a choice to meet the lower bracket edge of what it takes to defend the country or play politics and end up with significantly less than required. i think this choice will say a lot about what the next 70 years look like. as far as how we spend that money to strengthen defense our nuclear deterrent requires special attention. ..
we all have to put our heads together to insure our defense system is as agile as it needs to be in the world where the threat moves literally at the speed of light. the fourth key is to stand strong without bias. weld denied is states has the ability to stand on our own but whether it in europe or asia or the middle east allies must pull their share of the weight the only ford nato allies meet 2% of gdp target is not only unfair as seen by moscow as much u.s. has to lead by example what the defense budget is so important to stop the decline in her own budget but we have to demand our allies meet the targets as
well. also we have to be willing to defend our country with the means to do so with the house and senate defense authorization bills to provide legal assistance it is disturbing people want to sit on mount olympus about who is worthy or not to defend their country against invasion. if ukrainians receive assistance that putin will up the ante but they have a right to defend themselves and putin will pay of price they he is nervous about paying we also need a concerted effort we had
successes or failures one thing is we will try to learn the lessons but we will have to work with allies around the world to understand how we can better enable those allies to meet their security challenges. lastly to use all instruments of national power in 2007 i served of the commission of smart power out were a matter of common sense before they were devoted to the political realm. read the full range of capabilities and a judgment for which tool to use and secretaries of defense are the strongest advocates for funding of other government agencies but the day-to-day frustration with a stove top
bureaucracy means that more more task is assigned to the military and department of defense they will do whatever they are asked but i worry if we ask our military to do too much because of the inability of agencies to pull their weight as well. >> one example is to end the results would be lower fuel prices from consumers higher prices for energy producers and a step towards to read themself of russian energy and we live in an unstable new world with important parallels at the end of world war ii.
the past give some examples to follow also some mornings -- warnings. as britain was losing of superiority in the air over germany church show lamented when the situation was manageable was neglected now that it is out of hand we have of remedies that might affect a cure there is nothing new in the story with the unwillingness to act when it was simple and effective in the lack of clear thinking and tell self preservation strikes. those of the features that constitute the daedalus reputation -- repetition of history. we must ourselves as to many others before us have we have the opportunity to
learn from mistakes and benefit from their example those who did meet their historical moment to set up the institutions that enabled us to win the cold war and also have the opportunity to kraft a security structure and 70 years from now generations can look back to say they did their job pretty well. i would suggest we must not let them down. thank you. [applause] >> thank you congressman and. with the of comprehensive things here that two of the particular to talk about the
need to prepare for the unexpected with the international system and you mention in your last element for national power from general jones with that very title including the energy and strength. with of language to resources and to have that as a hallucination it is important to marshal the resources that we have it is quite sound also to recognize those from around
town that i would love to hear from the audience the important issues that you raise. but with your strategy there are so many challenges that are out there today that we know are coming soon. have you prioritize the national security priorities? it is declining that makes it more dangerous over the long term. with global capacity and reno china's powers that could impinge on the vital interest to prioritize those
types of challenges in particular and what do you recommend we do under your strategy? to say one or two or three can not have been it is a follow tile world but the relatively simple prioritization from the past they will have different priorities senior military men and they say they worry most about russia and china is way down on though last with a sense of decline it
gives a sense of urgency the iranians as they continue to extend their influence with the nuclear talks, we have to be ready for your competitors for investment on our part. with those who are more capable and with the challenges but we don't have the luxury to say this not this. talk about russia a little bit. about whether we should provide legitimate defenses
would impact that was caused escalation does it depend on putin intentions a couple of books have ben held those that support the bill assistance to ukraine that there is a strong support for that if you send that ill bet the ante and people will die but to be dead judged on high when they can defend their country and when they can't maybe it is
escalation and to be well enough to defeat russia and from those populations maybe he thinks though world to ratchet up the cost is a good thing if the ukrainians are willing to do that. there are some simple systems to make a difference and they should be given that opportunity. so something the national security establishment has not exercised since the cold
war is it a different era where that the crisis could be a blip once it is resolved? i am under the influence and i am wondering if that blood bin history was 9,130,000 or whatever date. that day comes through overtime. not that we should not try to engage in those ways and i am all for that. but real looters else if putin will bay's satisfied.
decline and the oil revenue goes down it seems they put greater emphasis on the nuclear weapons that they have been much greater saber rattling then the investments and ours are atrophy the delivery systems and for those who built them so with that assessment you look at both sides. it is not a good outlook right now we are considering a considerable amount of time but most of my colleagues on the hill don't know to have the delivery
systems and weapons it is very expensive but that means roughly 5% of the defense budget. from which all other activities are based but with expertise that is why we try to get a headstart on the next administration. want to start with questions please identify yourself. >> date you for your thoughts. i am from raytheon will there is some amazing technology developments taking place on the of
military side the hypersonic and directed energy. if you look for were the next 15 years, how do you see those technologies play out in terms of how they affect the strategy or how reduce the the future or the impact of the of technology? >> we will not have exclusive rights to them. with intensive government investment to stay within government to give us a superiority it isn't
happening anymore. there are some areas where the military does need to make investments but we just had a discussion last week on the internet of things as your refrigerator will be connected to the internet or some sort of network connection. or the machine that test will not be connected and will be less vulnerable to some sort of nefarious actor. so that is the short answer there will be helpful but they will pose news threats. to benefit from commercial technology to deal with the
department of defense to say i don't bdo part of the reason reordering acquisition reform. >> it is so nice to see you. as your members know about the complex and the american people understand the nature of the importance cahan - - been to get the money or the votes in to get a national consensus that we still have
he expects to go to zero but nine in his lifetime through persistence. and with the russians then doing the rules what to read you about a deterrent that is of life and working? how do get the investment dollars to do that? >> we have a tremendous education campaign within congress not to mention the rest of the country. we had a couple of votes whether to set a separate fund. if you don't have a separate account to replace the ohio class were most of the deterrent is based so at
least we are beginning to let them know with the long-range bombers there is some progress but what we're asking is the weapons themselves i hate to say gone so well but people have sacrificed since the manhattan project the nuclear deterrent has ben reliable that we have come to take it for granted. and those who'd make it possible. so those people who made it possible are retiring out. it is not the desirable area for scientists to go as it once was. we try to give the other tools to keep the weapons
safe and reliable and get in the nuclear complex for the energy industry. and with what he is working in and i still worry that we're asking labs to do the impossible which is to keep complex machines running and that didn't happen to have a national conversation about a new ones. that is something we cannot even have a conversation about. >> to have that proposition.
>> i saw a question over here. >> human rights first. i am curious your strategy to reconcile for the house and the senate? >> the house has passed its version of the bill so starting this week we will be meeting to work out the differences. there isn't a lot. they're largely along the same track and i was heartened to see the senate bill passed 71 / 25. so overwhelming bipartisan support. >> and traditional they the way it has been by congress of both party for 53 straight years.
so for those who choose to veto that is a hard question to workout the house-senate differences to get the final conference report and pass it out to give him the opportunity to hope he will do the right thing. >> a little more short-term question but also with propaganda and other things simultaneously we are holding back to add 5,000 people tear cyberkorea and by way of contract right now. but what do you envision as the cyberstrategy in the military space? is there something else you have in mind?
>> we have made a lot of progress for develop being cyberexpertise to help operate in that space. and in 2011 the first hearing i had to ask the question what is the responsibility of the military to defend private networks? settled think we have to answer that question yet of a fleet of bombers come to the channel to damage the refineries we know we would expect the military to do. so i feel very good about expertise and organizations.
the one funding where it has gone up but what i don't feel good about that high on my list is what is the responsibility for private networks? but we have lost valuable years with information sharing with the manipulation of those things at home. it gets worse and so far received personal information in idaho if anybody says that is the end of the story. with our nuclear grid. we have not worked that out.
>> good morning. and other relatively short-term question over the next 18 months over afghanistan and iraq, said do you visualize this administration hitting over the situation into its successor with the troop presence so the next administration will have some options for either zero or boast with a residual presence and that the
administration is running out the clock. we had a hearing panel think there is a the strategy for success. i think they are trying not to lose and a similar thing is afghanistan although the situation in seems to be deteriorating. to keep them in the four quarters to have the presence that basically all lay a couple of locations but rather than have a total withdrawal to keep a handful of folks not enough to make a difference positively but basically to put it in the next president's lap.
ties that make them less willing to speak the truth about what is happening in ukraine to confront the russians had if we allow that strategy to prevent us to take action because one ally has economic ties, we will be handicapped to protect our security interest in the future. i am convinced the russians don't do anything that is not in their interest. to they have an interest? absolutely. so where does that ring given their priorities? i cannot tell you but if it is in their interest to cooperate for other
terrorist organizations which think they will do it. the what has happened is in chechnya that you have basically that seems to idolize petition and is an internal and an external vigilante force on his behalf. to that situation has changed a fair amount. we have to do the right thing and failing to do the right thing because of the year to lose some information seems much. >> thank you. >> as a quick follow-up and
my right you expect the deal will come to the white house in a few weeks? >> i think if we provide what is it would go to the newly elected government of ukraine and it would be used to help defend against of another territory that includes russian troops. that is how they would be used now. and talk about greater autonomy but the government of ukraine should preserve and protect the integrity that committed this
conflicting interests budget going back to the fate of the day looking at all of these things happening at once in the world today presents enormous challenges. and this is just an added wrinkle to those challenges. >> thank you for speaking to us today. so even to provide to portray everything as the nato base aggression is not a hard sell.
how as three provide weapons but also true turnaround and tell the citizens we are doing the right saying -- think it to spread truth to that? >> one of the most important messages we can say or that can come from our action is with our allies to resist aggression and they ought to be consistent with our words. the problem is if you don't follow up with action you end up with the red lion inn in syria that only end up causing people to discount what you say to these to further aggressive action. so it has to be consistent. the rest of the story is the russians have an amazing
internal and dexter no propaganda machine. where they even tonight their troops are involved and this is hard for us to do to be better engaged whether it is to do it is battling the spread of the radical islamist ideology through the internet and other ways. we just did not very good. is not all up to us adams
smith then i have passed a provision that the smith act that few people probably ever heard of but that is an obstacle that prevents us from the engaging in the battlefield with vogel told network to reach citizens just as easily as other people he would not believe the flak we have got to read gauge truthfully but much more aggressively in this space than we have. but the problem with the appropriations bills is the
secretary said he thinks a compromise of sequestration is possible. what is your view? that they can get another agreement in two years with the sequestration or budget control act? >> sure. do they see it to their political benefit to have a confrontation? so that is the uh hardest part to know the answers to but the defense authorization bill is the policy bill. so to threaten to veto that
is the only reason to do that with the appropriation bill gets a little more challenging but politically a president to veto the appropriations bill by the amount of money requested a of what it takes to defend the country to veto the bill to leverage to get more spending on a domestic priority is a risky political strategy with a dangerous world we have been talking about. rates still have a hard time believing that is what it comes to. >> we have time for one more
question. you alluded to do strategy but i know when president eisenhower became president one of the first things he did was establish the sumerian initiative so what are your views on that? >> it would be very helpful but the question i have struggled with is how can reimposed strategic thinking i have looked at several examples including eisenhowers project if a president doesn't want to do it it doesn't make much difference. i think there are a number
of members who believe strongly with that strategy muscle atrophy with too much reactionary tactical to have a strategy to which we can tie resources. but how we advance that cause from the legislative branch is how we grapple with that. we would love to hear your ideas. >> but to have that strategy and collaboration with other think tanks but i cannot thank you enough to come here for your strategy for the country the most important element is to speak the truth to make sure
to endeavor if i could but it involves a challenge to the san diego county policy to interpret an applicant to have a particularly acute need for self-defense the distinguishes themselves from their ordinary fellow citizens from my clients complaint is not with of california statutory scheme because that will be interpreted to the second amendment rights but a good cause to be interpreted to make it much more permissive to get concealed carry permits for self-defense purposes including california county like separate a can to help - - county that is populous. the source of the constitutional difficulty is the the san diego interpretation and its
policy to not invalidate any statute of the state of california constitutional doubt into also emphasized that there is a constitutional right of concealed carry but if there is a constitutional great -- right to exercise to bear or carry arms of self-defense. the answer makes abundantly clear is yes the government cannot complete the foreclose an avenue for exercising important second amendment rights. the government in response would suggest it is somehow homebound and does not extend for arms outside the privilege of the home that extends to keeping it in the
first instance. >> has the share of chose not to appeal and now the state will make an argument here to intervene, is this now a different vehicle that we hold the abeyance baker without the sheriff? >> i think it can be decided the same. that might depend ultimately on the resolve of the state's motion to intervene. we don't have an issue with the state to be here to get involved in the case. but we do take issue with them to be here under rule 24 that justifies to me them because of a federal statute
we don't think the challenge calls into question the constitutionality for the reasons i think i have already elaborated. if my client was fortunate to live in sacramento county there is no objection to what the state has done in the way it interprets good cause. >> to recent denial of the jackson case out of california has any bearing the supreme court doesn't like to talk about the second amendment very often. years go by. cannery read the tea leaves? to read that might make your decision all the more important but otherwise i think they are about the same purpose is important to the client that their case is over but we have been
instructed not to read anything into this simple denial of service. >> and the sheriff require a safety course of completion? >> absolutely, your honor. something like that would be much more tethered to the interests that it is asserted. we are not here to take issue of the regime generally. we don't have a beef the licensing scheme is administered by the majority of counties in california that requires a certificate of trading and other background checks to make sure someone is in the category were they are able but maybe there is a case down the road if the county to have us landed more
restrictive interpretation of koch is. but you only get to show good cause if you have a better reason for the firearm than your fellow citizen with self-defense with the supreme court decision that said every citizen but the people have the right for purposes of self-defense so that is of the basic defense to save the only way you can exercise your second term and to write is to show you have a better basis to exercise that right than your fellow citizens. >> you are unhappy with the comparative nature. but self-defense is the touchstone. so can the county require someone to demonstrate that they require a firearm for self-defense regard this to
anybody else's need? >> i suppose if a county of wanted to take a position that says and to satisfy a good cause is in then to articulate why it is we would not be here objecting to that obviously the supreme court in the heller decision was focused on it self-defense so we take that as our guide to satisfy their good cause requirement. you may need to explain the basis for your desire for self-defense but it should that be the only way to reduce which is if i have an acute need that distinguishes read from my fellow citizens.
>> i don't think so. but with the san diego policy did not give my clients and opportunity beyond the distinct right compared to citizens we were not denied because that was not good enough but because the county has a policy that requires the show ring to rubio extraordinary. >> with a three judge panel decision was a law-abiding citizen has the right to carry in public so as i read that a three judge panel if you were not a convicted felon as a law-abiding
citizen you have a right to carry concealed or open and followed from that. it does not allow the unrestricted open and carry that it had to be permissive du share the promise of the three judge panel? >> we think that is correct. >> when i say promised their argument stemming from their promise any law-abiding adult citizen has the right to carry one or the other. >> -- in a specific showing? >> they have the second amendment right but to have an absolute entitlement but like all constitutional principles is not without limits. >> well limitations into uc? >> i don't know if i see and
the obvious ones in this context. >> that does not help me prepare you can limit the right to carry in public but you don't tell me what? >> as a starting point it is fairly clear the state should have the option how they regulate care if they prefer open carry and another state has concealed carry they have that option also how they go about licensing machines or training courses and to see the policy to understand. >> but to go back historically to baldwin where the court basically said to keep and bear arms
applied to firearms in particular for both. in that context it said you have to essentially have a right to carry this one way or another otherwise your jumping the tracks to the obliteration of the second amendment right so i understand that. >> if we assume for a moment that it applies in this context, why wouldn't it survive the intermediate scrutiny? >> i'm g