tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 31, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
addressed. while some would rather avoid a discussion of our competition with china, this relationship will be a serious challenge for our navy. and yet while worldwide challenges like these grow, the defense department has grown larger but less capable, more complex, but less innovative more proficient at defeating low-tech adversaries, but less at defeating high-tech adversaries. now more than ever, a strong navy is central to our nation's ability to deter adversaries assure allies, and defend our national interest. and yet by any measure, today's feet of 237 ships is too small to address these critical security challenges. the navy's requirement is 308 ships. the bipartisan national defense panel calls for a fleet of 323
to 346 ships. and our combatant commanders say they require 450 ships. with continual high operational tempo, we will continue the downward spiral of military capacity and readiness until congress acts. i look forward to discussing many of these today. first, each forward class aircraft carrier has experienced more than $2 billion in cost growth. this program continues to be plagued by technology immaturity and a lack of reliability test data for critical systems. this is unacceptable. i repeat. unacceptable. and i fully expect the navy's ongoing study of alternative
aircraft carrier designs to provide real options. in all three of the lcs mission packages most overcome major technology integration challenges to deliver the promised war-fighting capability. building the first ohio class replacement submarine building the first flight three destroyer with the new missile defense radar, radar, radar. in naval aviation it will take strong leadership to oversee the smooth and timely integration and ensure the right requirements for the
surveillance and strike system. we must also maintain our advantage in the capacity of our munitions munitions. improving existing ones like the family of standard missiles will continue to be essential. our ships and planes have been operating at a sustained high operational tempo for over a decade and it shows. clearing maintenance backlogs and restoring the navy's readiness will be a priority. finally, we cannot forget about our members of the united states navy. high operational tempo and and lucrative opportunities outside the navy continue to drive some of our best talent to leave the service. i'm interested in your plans to manage operational tempo and views on how best to provide a competitive and modern compensation package that provides the right retention. no matter how many dollars we
spend we won't be able to provide our military what they need with a broken defense system. this committee has embarked on a major effort to reform this system, including ways to empower our service leaders to manage their own programs and take on greater accountability. admiral richardson, we're interested to hear your views based on your many years of service. thank you. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming admiral richardson and his family. no one serves alone in the navy or elsewhere, so thank you very much. you have an extraordinary record of service and we thank you for that. you have a remarkable record as the director of navy nuclear program, the current assignment.
in that assignment, you are familiar with many of the issues that senator mccain raised. how do you design a program that is not only effective but affordable? you'll be asked to ensure that we have a quality force. that's recruiting training. we have a world that is full of crises, and the navy is one of the major ways that we project force. it remains that way. as the chairman has pointed out, one of the issues you'll face is affordability. how do we afford all the ships that we need? how do we bring on the next
class of ballistic missile submarines? and these challenges are exacerbated by sequestration or temporary arrangements to get by another year rather than a long-range plan. all of these challenges will be before you. i'm confident that you'll able to face them and look forward to your testimony this morning. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> admiral, before we continue, let me ask you the standard questions that we ask all of all military nominees. in order to exercise your responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other committees be able to receive testimony, briefings, and other communications of information. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> yes.
>> have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? >> no, sir. will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> will witnesses be protected from reprisals for their testimony and briefings? >> they will. >> do you agree to testify on request before this committee? >> yes. >> do you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communications in a timely manner when requested by a committee or to cultonsult with a committee in providing such documents? >> yes, sir. >> welcome and please proceed. >> thank you, chairman mccain, senator reed and distinguished members of the committee. i am honored and humbled to appear before you.
i'm grateful of the confidence of president obama, secretary carter, and secretary mavis. they have been tireless and superb advocates for our sailors, their families, our navy, and our nation. i'm grateful to have my family here with me today. chairman, as you recognized have they have been throughout my entire career. my dad is here with me today. my dad is a retired navy captain who served with distinction for 25 years during the cold war. my dad would come out in his service dress blues and his sea bag. we could say good-bye for six months, and then we would carry on supporting each other until my dad came back home. i got my start in the navy from my dad, and he continues to
advise me sometimes vigorously and make me proud. my wife dana is here. >> i had the same experience. >> yes, sir. my wife dana is also here. dana and i met as classmates in york high school in southern maine. we married after i graduated from the naval academy. dana has raised our five children while i was away at sea. she's always been there with me challenging me and adding perspective that i long ago grew to depend on. our daughter rachel is here representing the richardson tribe. tribe. she's a student at the university of virginia. our oldest son nathan is a navy lieutenant. he and his wife are serving overseas in naples, italy. our other son is doing research
on renewable fuels in hawaii. if you ask dana she would say we're just a typical navy family. we have moved 20 times. our kids have attended dozens of schools. today the richardson family, like so many other navy families, is ready to continue to serve our nation. i am also conscious that i'm here before this committee for the very first time and i want to thank you for your leadership and keeping our nation secure and keeping our navy the strongest that has ever sailed the seas. if confirmed i work forwardlook forward to working closely with you to continue that. i hold some core beliefs about our navy that guide me. the navy must be at sea underway. it must be present around the world protecting american
interests, enabling access to international markets and trade, responding to crises, and to provide security. we're at our best when we operate with others, including our fellow services especially the marine corp, as well as our partners and allies. the muscle and bones of the navy are our ships and aircraft exercised frequently and well equipped and ready to operate at sea and far from home. but the heart and soul of our navy are our sailors. they can be found on over, and under the sea. they are smart, resourceful committed americans who want to be a part of something special. they are rightly proud of what they do and they are a formidable force. despite a growing set of challenges and some significant strains, they continue to go to sea to do what must be done
today. it is a privilege to work with and especially to lead such a capable and resilient team. america sends us their sons and daughters, their brothers and sisters, their fathers and mothers to go to sea with us potentially into harm's way. in return for that sacrifice our navy must provide them a positive and respectful environment where they can thrive and achieve their highest potential. the american people demand that we execute our mission in a prudent and responsible way. the bottom line is in any situation, any competition, and certainly any fight america expects their navy to find a way to win and we will. if confirmed, i will give everything i have to honor and strengthen the bonds of confidence that your navy has with our nation's people. >> thank you, admiral.
admiral richardson general dunford made a couple of statements in his appearance before his committee. one was he said we cannot execute the 2014 defense review with the budget cuts as a result of budget control act known as sequestration. he continued stating ongoing cuts will threaten our ability to execute the current defense strategy. do you agree with that? >> yes, sir, i do. >> do you believe as other witnesses in uniform have stated that continued adherence to sequestration will put the lives of the men and women serving in the navy at greater risk? >> yes, sir, i do. >> you do. are you seeing what i'm hearing that there is becoming a morale problem and possibly over time a
retention problem because of the effects of sequestration on the ability to plan, ability to train, readiness of deployments, et cetera? >> when i get around the fleet morale remains high, but there is a degree of unsettledness and uncertainty that arises from uncertainty in the fiscal environment. so as we manage our way through continuing resolutions, the looming sequestration -- sequestration looming always over us and manage our ways through these times of reduced resources, there is an unsettlementun unsettling feeling in the force as this uncertainty clouds the air. they remain committed to doing the job they've been given. they want to be trained properly. >> which sequestration is a hindrance to.
>> yes, sir. >> while we are conducting air operations from the carrier in the middle east, does that concern you? >> sir that does concern me but i would say that the overriding message that i hope is clear is our firm commitment to naval presence in that region. we've been there for decades. >> the absence of a carrier doesn't really authenticate a commitment. >> sir i think the commitment does remain strong and we'll work to mitigate -- >> so does this impair our ability to carry out operations, the absence of the carrier? >> i think we'll mitigate any absence of the carrier through other capabilities. >> tell me what replaces an aircraft carrier admiral.
>> you can replace it with other equipment. >> like what? >> landthere's no question about the value of an aircraft carrier in the region sir. >> that doesn't comport with what you just said. >> i was trying to make a point about our commitment. >> i'm talking about a two-month gap in the short term. >> that two-month gap is a reflection of the earlier strains on the force, long-term commitments. >> my question was is that going to hinder our ability to carry out the needed operations in a region where obviously there's conflict taking place. >> without that carrier, there will be an effect on our ability, yes, sir.
>> in the glaring example of cost overruns schedules, de delays, what extend would giving the chief of naval operations greater responsibility help reduce cost overruns, scheduled delay, and fix this problem which at least in the view of many of us have difficulty justifying to our taxpayers? >> sir, i share your concern about the cost overruns of the carrier. i agree with you that they are unacceptable. from my experience controlling cost and schedule while delivering capability really resides from adhering to a few fundamental principles. one is clear command, and control that is lean and agile. we've got to have a definition of requirements that is informed by available technology and available resources. you've got to have a stable design and a build plan before you begin production. and finally, you have to have
informed and close oversight. i think the chief of naval operations is involved in every one of those four steps. if i confirmed, i look forward to being very involved in acquisition. >> unfortunately, the last chief of naval operations testified before this committee he didn't know who was responsible for it. i hope you're aware of the changes we're trying to make that would make the chief of naval operations more involved. and finally, do you believe that it's appropriate or would you be supportive of a provision in the aa which calls for examinations of alternative platforms for aviation as opposed to what is basically right now the only game in town? >> mr. chairman, i look very much forward to supporting that
study completely and seeing what information it produces. >> thank you. senator reed? >> thank you mr. chairman admiral richardson. following on the chairman's questioning, the biggest new program coming online is the ohio class replacement. you talked about getting it right from the beginning, which is requirements. and you're in a very significant position right now with your participation in the nuclear action program. are you satisfied with your requirements as they exist today? 16 missile tubes on the ohio class, one of the most significant aspects. >> the current requirements are exact what we need to continue do deliver that capability. >> you'll continue to look closely at those requirements to ensure that they're necessary and sufficient?
>> yes, sir. >> what other requirements with respect to the ohio class replacement do you think are critical besides the tubes? are there any other game-changers that you're looking at? >> yes, sir. certainly, as i look at the ohio replacement program, a program that will be defending the nation well into -- for 50 years, potentially into 2080s, there are some things you must build into the shapeip that you must get right for the very start. then there are things inside the ship that you allow technology to mature and advance. a critical component that you must address from the start is stealth. >> very good. one of the things we have done
in the last several years in the national defense authorization act is create a sea-based deterrence found to try to aid the construction of this new class of submarines. the navy is developing plans to use this fund. do you have any notion of when those plans will be forthcoming and available to us? >> sir, first the creation of this fund i think highlights the importance of this program to our nation and also that executing this program will require a combination both of resources and authorities. we are conducting a study right now to both mature the design and mature the build plan. we should get that completed by the fall time frame. i look forward to collaborating when we have that more mature. >> the essence underlying this deterrence fund the same logic,
i presume, will apply as we go forward to replace the air and land-based legs of the triad also. the program is very expensive giving competing demands. is that your logic? >> yes, sir, i agree with that logic. these are critical bills to reconstitute our strategic triad. yes, sir. >> thank you. one of the areas that gives us an edge and we hope an increasing edge and not a decreasing one is the labs and the test facilities and the intellectual infrastructure of the navy. it is all over the country. we have a center in newport, but there are so many critical aspects to this. in particular in this difficult budget budgetary times, will we lose out in terms of their
contribution to national security? >> sir i think it is absolutely critical we maintain this intellectual capital to address your concern that programs like ohio replacement remain attuned and relevant going forward so it is absolutely critical that we fund this so we can remain relevant. also, look forward to participating in discussions that make them more agile and competitive with their private sector counterparts as well. >> i think your comments are right on target. you need an infrastructure of research centers and navy other services, but they have to be much more agile, much more connected to commercial procurement, commercial enterprise and that's a challenge you'll have to take on. >> i'd like you to affirm the finest shipyard on earth is the
port nueces shipyard. is that correct? >> i appreciate you confirming what we all know and the port smith naval shipyard is the finest naval shipyard on earth. we have a great partnership between maine and new hampshire on this shipyard, and i actually know you have a history with this shipyard. certainly have been there before. >> yes, ma'am. i sure do. that's where my wife and i met. that's our -- >> just as i -- >> but we will welcome you back to the shipyard. we'd enjoy that. but i very much thank you and your family for your service to the country and willingness to take on this important leadership position during these
challenging times. but yesterday before the committee on readiness, senator mccain and i had a hearing. i believe my staff provided that testimony to you. >> yes, ma'am. >> one of things that came out that is happening at the port smith naval shipyard is a very strong partnership between labor and management that has driven performance significantly where they are producing -- producing the work they're doing on our attack submarine fleet ahead of schedule, under budget, and a takeaway from the hearing was that some of these best practices that are being put in place, that we need a better mechanism to share those among the shipyards to ensure that we can learn from each other to
make sure that that strong partnership is there for excellent performance between labor and management. and i know that the naval sea systems command partnership forum is an important start in that effort but i think there can be more done based on the hearing we had yesterday so i wanted to ask you about this issue and your commitment and relationships between labor and management among all the four shipyards. >> yes, ma'am. first, i would say they are just a magnificent team up in port smith and all our public yards are absolutely strategic jewels in our nation's capability. even in my current job, we are very involved with the shipyards. it has been a thrust of my time here as the director to do exactly that ma'am. is we can share best practices
and we can share lessons learned as well more effectively so that has been an emphasis of my time here and will continue if confirmed as cno. >> i appreciate it. as we look at the requests for combatant commanders for the support from our attack submarine neat and then we look at -- currently, we have about 54 attack submarines. we're only meeting half of combatant commanders' requests. particularly in the asia pacific region, we know this is very important to have this capacity and yet where we're headed is the number of attack subs is actually going down to 41 as we look forward to 2029. so one thing this committee has done is really focusing on having the navy procure at least two virginia class submarines
per year. what are your thoughts on this shortfall and how we addressed it? overriding everything is sequester and our need to resolve that, but going forward assuming we can work together to resolve that, which has got to be top priority, what's your thought on making sure we have what we need? >> ma'am, i think it's very clear. i can show hard evidence that we currently enjoy superiority in the undersea domain, but that domain is hotly contested and we cannot rest for a minute and remain confident. we have to continue to keep pressing. to address your question, ma'am, exactly as you say, we've got to continue to drop to mitigate that dip in attack submarine force level. we're doing everything we can to mitigate that. one is that the two virginia class submarines per year are a critical part of that program. very highly successful.
continuing to deliver below budget and ahead of schedule. that must continue. we must continue to reduce that construction. as well, we're looking to do what we can to extend the life of our los angeles attack submarines. >> i thank you. i know that my time has expired but i know the chairman would share this concern that we say something about what russia did yesterday in the united nations in terms of blocking a request for investigation into mh17. it shows our concerns we have been trying to address in this committee on russia. i thank you for your willingness to serve in this important position. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i'll try to do that in the future. >> thank you sir. >> admiral thank you. to your family thank you very
very much. like the chairman and like you admiral, my dad was a navy veteran. he was a little bit below decks on the ship, but loved every minute of having a chance to be part of it. when we look forward and we look at the challenges we have in the nuclear area in regards to submarine warfare, one of my greatest concerns is the ability to attack us cyber-wise, to find out our technology, to find out our plans to find out how we plan to map it out going forward, so it is not only on the naval side, but also on the contractor side. so i was wondering what's being done to make sure there's no back doors open with our contractors that other countries can get into. >> i share your concern about
activity in the cyber domain. as we speak today, that is hottest contested domain. we are subject to tens of thousands of attacks per day. attribution is very difficult but just like in other domains, success i think revolves around being properly trained, organized, and equipped and the navy is doing that with cyber mission teams that would provide offensive tools that would be available should our leaders choose to use those. with respect to protecting our networks, we use a variety of tools. some of those exact techniques i would love to talk about in an open forum, but we do maintain from a physical security and cyber security and personnel appropriate measures to prevent
those sorts of intrusions. >> i know you're working hard on it and in connection with our contractors to go over best practices with them to ensure every avenue to technology and intellectual capital is cut off. one of things we do at crane naval warfare center is we collaborate with air force systems on how to save money. how do we make every dollar go a little bit further? how do we work in coordination to see if something can fit in both the nayvy and the air force? i'm sure you would want to continue that effort. >> certainly. i'm very open to that. particularly particularly with respect to the work at crane and their work in fighting in fighting the proliferation oaf counterfeit
parts is a big part of maintaining our security in the cyber domain. >> thank you. i had the privilege of traveling with you to one of our facilities. during that, we had a discussion of our mental health of our sailors. i'm sure you'll continue the efforts in making sure the mental health challenges that our men and women face, you're there to make sure there's no stigma and assistance is available. >> absolutely. we'll remain fully committed to that to help our sailors be fully part of a connected team so that when challenges come of any sort, they can fall back and get support. >> let me ask you this. what keeps you up at night? what is your greatest concern number one logistics-wise? what do you need the most? and number two, what's the
greatest danger you see out there in your job? >> i think the chairman mentioned it. the thing that has my attention is the growing complexity and urgency of our security environment around the world. our nation is pulled in so many different directions not only the indo asia pacific, but also russia and their activity in europe and certainly activity in the middle east. in contrast to that is sequestration is a symptom of a level of awareness that i look forward, if confirmed, to enhancing, to making that message more vivid so we can close the gap in the security environment and sequestration. >> thank you for your service to the country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> admiral, thank you very much for your service. the navy is unique among our
services. we know it puts strains on families. both of what you represent for our sayilors and what you represent for our families, we're grateful for your service. admiral, is china is an adversary adversary? >> i think china is a complex nation. they are clearly growing in every dimension. things they do have an adversarial nature to them. they have a vastly growing nation. their activity in the south china sea -- >> doesn't sound like rosy relationship right now with china between the united states and our allies. but various published reports have speculated our cooperation agreement with china that the obama administration has submitted to congress may
facility the transfer of sensitive equipment and technology to the people's liberation army navy. do you believe that the united states navy has a military advantage over the pla navy, especially regarding nuclear capabilities? >> the details of this are very technical and difficult to discuss in an open forum. i would look forward to discussing those in a classified setting with you. i believe that in the aggregate we would be better with a renewed successor agreement than without it. >> even if you suspected or knew that the pla navy was going to divert that civilian nuclear
technology towards nuclear naval systems? >> senator, the details of exactly that assessment are classified, but i can say with a degree of confidence that we are better with this agreement than without it. >> do you agree with the findings of the 2014 national defense panel which was a bipartisan group of experts that we should have a target force of 325 ships? >> sir, i think the strategic environment we could easily justify an appetite for more ships. our current plan for a 308 ship navy represents right now the very best balance to meet not only the demands of the security environment but to do that with available resources. >> secretary of the navy has
said quantity has a quality of its own. do you believe that is true and if so, is 308 ships going to be enough of that quantity to give us that quality of that kind? >> i agree with the secretary about the quality of the number of the ships. and the current plan does allow us to meet our responsibilities in the defense strategic guidance albeit with some risk. >> in the recently issued national military strategy, general dempsey describes the need to counter certain revisionist states, but he also writes the u.s. military advantage has begun to erode. are there areas in which the u.s. navy's military advantage has begun to erode relative to our addversaryiesadversaries? >> senator this is a very dynamic environment, and the technological environment is challenging very rapidly.
as the chairman mentioned we've got to become more agile in our acquisition systems to stay competitive in that realm, but i'm confident with the support of this committee and with congress and the innovation of the navy, we will do that. but as you said, some of our readiness is -- we're still recovering from the effects of the 2013 sequestration to build our readiness back up. >> the flip side of what you just said is without adequate support from this congress then our military advantage as it relates to our navy may begin to erode? >> yes, sir. >> i hope we provide you and the sailors you represent the resources you need to project american power. >> thank you, senator. i look forward to working with you. >> we might now here from the
newport news naval shipyard and norfolk as well. >> thank you mr. chair. thanks admiral. you've got a big day saturday. the launch of the uss john warner virginia class sub at a base. that's a great program actually to exemplify the issue. are there lessons from that acquisition strategy that we can replicate on ohio class or other
platforms? >> we hope to bring to you a design that is very mature. that was one of the key successes to the virginia program. we hope to provide you a stable build plan that if funded with predictable funds, will allow the team of shipyards at newport news and electric boat to allocate risks and deliver those submarines along with the virginia class at the lowest possible price. >> another aspect of the uss john warner is it is obviously a nuclear sub and you are the commander of navy nuclear propulsion. when we talk about sequester and the effects of sequester on the defense mission, sometimes i think we have to make sure we're broadening our view. in your current role, you work very closely with the department of energy around nuclear reactor
work as well don't you? >> yes, sir. >> and sequester doesn't just effect defense by effecting the department of defense the non-defense accounts, department of energy being one that are effected by sequester also, have a significant effect on our national security. isn't that correct? >> senator, that's exactly right. we have been very clear about the national security mission in the department of energy not only for naval reaektctors, but also in the nuclear weapons business. >> things like nuclear research through the doe that has a direct impact on national security would still be compromised, correct? >> that's true. yes, sir. >> senator ayotte and i are on
the committee. normally, the navy would have about a third of its ships deployed to support regional commanders but have an additional component like three args in a surge status trained up and ready to deploy within 30 days. talk to us about how sequestration and budgetary uncertainty effects that surge capacity, the readiness to respond? >> certainly our priority has been we will not deploy forces unless they are fully ready. those forward deployed strike groups will be ready in every respect. but to meet our responsibilities in the defense strategic guidance, we also need that surge force to respond to contingencies once those deployed forces have done their mission. currently, our requirements are
that we have three strike groups ready to deploy in the event of contingency contingency. right now, we're at one of those three. we're on a path to recover so that we've got full readiness in both of those areas by 2020, but that also is contingent on stable and reliable funding to get us there. >> and so from the earlier testimony, even the forward deployed, we end up with this two-month carrier gap. the forward deployed is effected by budgetary uncertainty. we hope to get back to that surge capacity that we think is optimal. >> yes, sir. >> last item quickly. senator king and i were in india in october and visited the shipbuilders in mumbai. there was a great deal of pride there and a great desire to partner with the united states.
i like that you mentioned the indo asian region. i think there's a strong desire to partner with the united states participate in naval exercises. they do more joint exercises with the u.s. than any other nation. i would like your opinion on that as my final question. >> i agree. there's importance to that region. if confirmed, i look forward to getting involved in making those ties stronger. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, admiral for being here today. i want to thank your father, your wife, dana, and your daughter, rachel, for accompanying you today. rachel a special shout-out to you right now for serving at walter reed. admiral, in reference to the iran nuke
agreement, the obama administration has said the alternative to the iran nuclear agreement is war. the president has made it clear in his statement that the only alternative is war. as i'm out visiting with other people, that's been the response. if your best military judgment do you believe that the only alternative to this nuclear agreement is war? >> senator, my way of answering that would be a major mission of our armed forces the joint force and certainly the navy is to use all means necessary to deter that type of war not only through preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but also by deterring any kind of -- many of the other tools that
they use to disrupt activity in that region so we've got considerable forces, ballistic missiles, surface forces. they support terrorist organizations throughout the region. we need to use the full set of capabilities that the joint force and the navy can deliver to deter that. and that military contribution is also just a of government approach along with our allies in the region. >> so a whole of government approach, and i think that's extremely important that we remember that that we do not have to sign this agreement, and that does not necessarily mean that we will be going to war with iran. is that your assessment? >> ma'am, i do support the whole of government approach and -- >> admiral, you were just asked to give your personal opinion if asked for it. the senator is asking for your
opinion as to whether there are other options it besides going to war with iran. >> i think that there are other options besides going to war. >> thank you admiral. thank you. and iran, since we're on that topic topic, iran's military budget is approximately $11 billion per year on defense. its posture, however, is bolstered by a variety of asymmetric and relatively low-cost capabilities and tactics including swarming at sea, artillery rockets ballistic missiles and uavs, and as you know, through this agreement, iran will gain about $150 billion due to sanctions relief, and the ability to purchase more advanced weapons and equipment through the lifting of the u.n. arms embargo, and even if a small portion of the sanctions relief money is directed towards their military capabilities in iran,
what types of weapons and equipment do you believe that iran would purchase to improve its ability to project force within the persian gulf? >> well, ma'am i think that we would, as we have been throughout be sensitive to the proliferation market and weapons and so i would be very concerned about them increasing their ballistic missiles, fleet force, as well as their anti-ship cruise missiles, the mines and the surface combatants that you mentioned as well. >> okay and well, i appreciate that, and i do think it is something that we have to be ever vigilant about. this is a very serious matter that we are facing today with iran, and its potentially increased military capabilities in that region. this is not an american problem. this is not an iranian problem. this is a worldwide problem, so i appreciate your attention to the matter, and i do look forward to supporting you in your confirmation.
thank you, admiral. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> senator king. >> thank you mr. chair. admiral, in this kay and age where people move around so much, service families it's hard to determine where someone is from. my definition is where you went to high school so i claim you as a proud son of the state of maine and delighted to have you here today. second point i spent some time a year ago under one of your submarines under the ice in the arctic. my wife expected to hear about the marvelous technology and amazing command center and all of that, no, what really impressed me was the young people on that boat and you have extraordinary people. the officers of course, were excellent, but what really i noticed was the spirit and dedication and pride of the enlisted people, of the sailors.
it was their boat and they were so engaged and proud of the work that they were doing. i just want to commend you and pass along the observation that you are taking command of an extraordinary group of people and of course, the technology which we've talked a lot about today is important but ultimately it seems to me it's the people that are going to make the difference. >> senator, thank you for that recognition. i could not agree with you more and i'm so privileged for the opportunity presented here today. >> one of the questions the chairman asked you at the beginning, goes through a set of standard questions is will you give your personal opinion. you're going to be in the national security council. you're going to be in the oval office. you're going to be at the upper reaches of the decision-making process at the pentagon. you've got to speak up.
if you have extensive experience wisdom and background to, judgment to be brought to pear on these questions, and i hope there will be that, we all experienced that moment in a meeting where you say should i say something or not. i hope you'll remember this moment and even if it's the president of the united states say mr. president, i have to respectfully disagree. we need that from you and i think that's one of the most important things that you brick to this position. will you give me a commitment that you're going to be you're going to be just this side of obnoxious in making your case at the highest levels of the united states government? >> sir i specialize in going well beyond obnoxious and i look forward, if confirmed, to participating in those discussions and i will use -- >> if you need practice in that senator king will help you out. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chair, your confidence is overwhelming. i mentioned about the arctic. i see the arctic as an area of
tremendous both opportunity and challenge and characterize or structure and capabilities in the arctic, vis-a-vis russia in particular ice breakers. >> senator, the united states is an arctic nation and the security environment in the arctic is changing as access to natural resources opens up as well. we must remain engaged in the arctic. has developed a road map to increase our capability in the arctic to pace this changing security environment, we are partnering closely with the whole of government and other sister services particularly the coast guard in this area. >> isn't it true that in terms of icebreakers which are the road builders of the arctic, we have one little country road and they have a bunch of interstate highways or something like 40
ice breakers we have one. >> yes, admiral zuke from the coast guard testified we need to address this ice breaker situation. >> i think it's a serious problem that we have to really put some attention to it and i understand it's in the coast guard's jurisdiction but it certainly affects your ability to operate in the region. >> we're absolutely closely partnered, no daylight between us on that. >> in your advance policy questions you believed it was in the natural interest we accede to the law of the sea treaty. could you expand on that a bit? >> senator, i do believe that. particularly as it pertains to the unfolding opportunities in the arctic, this provides a framework toed ajude indicate disputes and participate as everybody, you know moves to improve their capability and
posture. >> because we are members of that treaty we are literally losing ground in the arctic. isn't that correct? >> i think that becoming part of that treaty is an important part of our movement into the arctic, yes, sir. >> thank you admiral thank you for your service. >> thank you senator. >> thank you admiral, for that testimony on the arctic. i know that senator sullivan will have more on that, but it seems to me that just the ice breaker situation is indicative of the difference in emphasis that russia and the united states seem to place. would you agree with that? >> sir if you just look at the resources, they've been very focused in the arctic for a long time. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chair admiral richardson. thank you for being here. congratulations to you and your family and thank you all for your years of service. i also want to thank you for the time we spent in my office answering a range of questions.
one general question i have here and would appreciate your personal opinion and your candor is it relates to the current advantage that we enjoy with our adversaries like russia and china, and the specific threats to those gaps being narrowed as a result of sequestration, if you have to deal with that in 2016. >> yes, sir. as i said the pace of technological change is just picking up and so -- >> can you talk to specific areas your greatest concern. >> i would say in particular the ability to use a long range precision guided munition, to target greater and longer distances, the anti-access area denial capabilities that we've talked about many times, are a
particular concern. >> what advice would you give us as we're sitting here and trying to conference the defense authorization? we're trying to get an appropriations process going. if you're kind of guiding us through what we need to do to help you do your job, what do you need to tell us? what do we need to stop doing? what do we need to start doing? >> senator i think that we've proposed a solid plan and we've mentioned already the effects of sequestration and uncertainty in the fiscal environment, the budget environment and perhaps the greatest thing that we could do together is put in place a long-term and predictable stream of funding. >> thank you for that. i'm going to get a little bit more parochial now my marines down in north carolina, and i know the comment out of the mafof
commandout out of the marine corps the requirement for amphibious operations exceeds 50. i think the minimum is 38. yet we're at 30 operating today, and it doesn't look like we'll obtain an amphibious fleet of more than 34 across 30 years of shipbuilding plan. are you concerned with that and what more do we need to do, what can congress do to help you overcome that ship shortfall? >> senator this is an area where navy and marine corps have been discussing and again have realized together although the requirement, the military requirement is 38, the current fiscal environment is going to drive us to 34. i appreciate the assistance of congress to getting us to 34 to address those that gap between the requirement and what we can resource, we're looking at
augmenting our lift there with other platforms besides gray hulls. gray hulls are absolutely the requirement that's needed for the high end threat but there may be applications and opportunities to lift marines using other platforms. >> thank you and again i want to tell you, i look forward to you, your confirmation. i wholeheartedly support it. i would ask some questions about concerns in the arctic, but i have a feeling that my colleague here is going to do a better job of that than i can, because he's got a bird's-eye view but i think it is an area that we all share a concern and would appreciate your support in addressing his and all of our concerns. thank you, mr. chair. >> thai,eir mr. chairman, thank you mr. ranking member. thank you, admiral for being here. thank you for your service. i'm grateful for your family service as well. we're very pleased to have you in front of this committee. i want to talk a little bit about combat integration.
i strongly believe that we should have appropriate standards that meet the needs of the positions and that allow anyone who meets those standards to be able to do those jobs. according to your advanced policy questions, the navy will provide a written report to the secretary of defense in september of 2015 with validation of standards as gender neutral. 95% of navy jobs are already open to both men and women, and my understanding is that the remaining positions are special operations positions. can you tell me how you will work with special operations command to assess if you will need to ask for an exception and what if anything, would lead you to ask for an exception particularly with regard to the navy s.e.a.l.s? >> ma'am it's true that currently we have more than 95% of the jobs open as you said to women already. i was privileged to be the commander of the submarine forces we ingrated women into the submarine force and that
integration has gone spectacularly. they've really done a terrific job. those discussions i think must begin with mission effectiveness and i'm interested in any plan that would improve our mission effectiveness in those areas. we have really just the special operations forces that remain to be evaluated. i'm not familiar with the details of those discussions at this time, but if confirmed i'm looking forward to getting very involved with special operations command to make sure that we give everybody a fair opportunity. >> thank you. and a related issue, prevalence of sexual assault in the military still remains quite high and one of the biggest concerns this whole committee shares is the rate of retaliation, that in fact of all those who reported 62% were retaliated against, and that's the same rate as it was two years ago, and retaliation takes many forms. 53% experienced social retaliation, peer-to-peer.
35% experienced adverse administrative action. 32% experienced professional retaliation, and 11% received punishment for an infraction. so arguably more than half of that retaliation is coming from their chain of command or from some command structure. so i would urge you to look very heavily at this issue of retaliation, because unfortunately the effect of it is less survivors come forward, and if you have less survivors coming forward you have less cases to investigate, and you will convict less rapists, and i want to just give you a thumbnail sketch of data that we got from one naval base and this is for the year of 2013 at camp pendleton, there were 15 cases considered, two court-martial charges preferred, two proceeded to trial, two convicted of sexual assault. so two out of 15 went forward.
what we know about the crime of rape it has very little false reporting. some estimate between 2% and 5% are false reports. so in those cases, you are only able to get about 10% cases to move forward. so i think we have to do better in terms of doing the investigations assessing viability of witnesses and credibility of witnesses and bringing more cases to trial, because two out of 15 is not a great rate. so those are challenges that you will have. this committee is very interested in it. i hope you will make a commitment that you will work with me and the rest of us on trying to end the scourge of sexual violence, because it does result, unfortunately, in a lot of people leaving the military, and so a lot of your women a lot of your men are leaving because they are experiencing assault within their own ranks. >> ma'am you have my full commitment that i'll spare no effort to eliminate -- we can't rest until sexual assault is eliminated from the services. i can't think of anything more toxic to teamwork than that
insider threat that preys upon the confidence between team members, and i'm fully committed to eliminating this. >> and one of your challenges will be in lower command structures where in the last survey women responded to experiencing some form of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. 60% of that harassment they reported was from their unit commander. so there's an issue with some commanders that they really need to be trained better to eradicate sexual harassment and sexual discrimination because again it creates a negative climate that perhaps is more permissive toward sexual assault. >> yes, ma'am i think that is the most productive battleground. if we're going to solve this, we solve it with the deck plate leaders, the chief petty officers who are in the spaces and elimb national not only sexual assault but the precursor behaviors that start us down the road. >> exactly. for the record i will submit a question about cyber. i'm grateful for your interest
in cyber, and my question for the record will be what career path do you see for members of the navy who want to make cyber their career. >> yes, ma'am, i look forward to that. >> thank you. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you mr. chairman, and admiral, good to see you again. great to see your family. my father was also a navy officer, also a father of six kids when i joined the marine corps he reminded me on a daily basis that the marine corps was a department of the navy. is that true? >> that is true yes, sir. >> i'll make sure he knows that. i do want to touch on the arctic. the actual numbers are as senator king mentioned, one icebreaker for the united states, about 40 for russia they're building five to six new ones, some of our nuclear powered, i mean we are completely just not even in the game, and you know the importance, i must admit i was a little disappointed by your
answer to senator king because what i see is happening is the arctic and ice breakers are becoming kind of a bureaucratic football so for example, four months ago i asked assistant secretary of the navy stackley to just give me a straight up answer on the arctic, on ice breakers. he kind of did the same thing. well, it's a little bit in the coast guard realm. well, the question is is it in the national interests of the united states to have more than one ice breaker when the russians are trying to own the arctic. what's your answer? >> i think my answer is clearly yes. >> so i think what we need to do is not keep talking about -- you've never gotten an answer from the assistant secretary to the navy four months ago. i never got an answer. we just need to know do we need it? how many, and how do we get there. no more kind of well it's the coast guard's problem, not really the navy's. in the '70s the navy was the service that supplied ice breakers to the country wasn't it? >> sir yes, sir, i believe so. >> yes, so i think we need to get through the bureaucratic red
tape. it's clearly in the national interests. you just stated it. everybody states we need to move forward and quit doing the football back and forth between the navy and the coast guard. would you agree with that? >> senator i am not interested in a bureaucratic approach to this. we need to have a plan of action, and i look forward, if confirmed, to working with our partners in the coast guard to address this in real terms >> and it would be good to hear back from assistant secretary stackley. i asked him a question on this four months ago, he said he'd get back to me he never has. just a real quick question just a yes or no answer. we had an amendment in the ndaa supporting the pacific rebalance that said there was a sense to the congress that the services should increase force posture to give credibility to the rebalance. is it, should services be free to ignore the defense guidance of the congress just yes or no. in the ndaa?
>> no. >> okay, finally i want to draw your attention to the chart and some of the handouts here. this reels to china's reclamation activities in the south china sea. this is an example, 18 months before and after of the fiery cross reef. i'm sure you're familiar with it, admiral. it's actually 2.7 million square meters, 505 football fields 3,000-meter airstrip long enough for any prc military aircraft. it's just a huge one of their large reclamation projects. we were recently in singapore, a number of us, at the shangri-la dialogue, and secretary carter gave a speech that i thought was
quite strong on what our policy is, but there seems to be a confusion in the policy. so secretary carter stated "we will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows." he then stated "after all, turning an underwater rock into an air field simply does not afford the rights of sovereignty or permit restrictions on international air or maritime transit." however, paycom commander harris two weeks ago at the aspen security forum stated "it is u.s. policy to afford a 12-minute limit around all of the islands that are in the south china sea and it's been a longstanding policy not because they're occupied by china or built up by china but just in general." he later clarified his statement to include islands and formations. do you think first of all to me that's very confusing policy.
do you think that we need to clarify that and do you think that admiral harris' statement is just a de facto recognition of china's recognizelamation strategy and is it in your best professional judgment, should we be sailing within 12 nautical miles, and not allowing the facts on the ground strategy to be changed by china, to essentially recognize fiery cross reef and other places? it's a really important issue, and there's no clarification from the white house state department, or department of navy. i think secretary carter and admiral harris' statements are actually very contradictory. that kind of uncertainty can create miscalculations. >> senator, i think it's absolutely important that the navy continue to be present in that region for a number of reasons to provide our continued
presence. we are there as a matter of routine in international waters. we do have to respect the legitimately claimed territorial boundaries. i think that secretary carter and admiral harris would agree with me there. >> but does that mean respecting that, in terms of a 12 nautical mile radius? >> sir i'd have to look at exactly which of those claims are legitimate. it's a dynamic situation. there's competing claims down there, but the bottom line is we need to get down there, understand the truth, make that very clear, and be present in that area, so that we don't get shouldered out of the south china sea. >> mr. chairman, i'll be submitting questions for the record to make sure that the policy of the united states is clarified on this important issue, because right now it's very murky. >> good luck. senator blumenthal? >> thank you mr. chairman. i join senator sullivan in
hoping that this issue is clarified, because i think it is so important to our national security and i'd like to work with him in seeking additional answers, and i recognize that those answers will involve more than just your input and contribution, but on your contribution, thank you so much for the great work that you've done throughout your career to assure that our submarine force is unmatched in the world in its power, stealth and strength and i want to thank you and your family for your service and ask you first of all whether you can commit to coming back to connecticut to visit our sub base there as one of your first official visits after you're confirmed, as i expect you will be? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. on the subject of our submarine force, the ohio replacement program you probably know more about it than most anyone else
in the navy and in our department of defense, and i believe that you are committed to it personally and professionally, is that correct? >> absolutely, senator it's our number one modernization priority. >> and in that regard as the number one priority of modernization in the united states navy the price tag is likely in the range of $100 billion, which seems staggering, and obviously has to be met, even though the navy has other programs, other modernization efforts, and other shipbuilding projects. have you given any thought to how that will be possible to do? >> senator, as you and i have discussed, this is an absolutely critical program for the country, and we are doing everything in the navy to make sure that we not only get the requirements right and stable, but that we treat our cost targets like any other performance parameter for that program, and we are driving and
on a good track to achieve all of those cost targets. having said that as you said, it will be a significant investment for the nation, one that i believe must be done. if we absorb that entire cost within the navy, that will come at a tremendous price in terms of our other responsibilities and ships and aircraft. i don't want to leverage that on our sister services and so i look forward to working closely together with the department and congress to address this. >> really it should be seen as a challenge for our entire national defense, not just the navy, because its ramifications and contributions to our defense range well beyond just sea power. >> yes, sir, i would agree. >> let me move to another aspect of the navy's combat capability, the f-35, which according to
analysis i've seen will be six times more effective than legacy fighters and air-to-air combat five times more effective in air-to-ground combat, six times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses again, another investment a good word and appropriate one i think to use in our national defense. i noted that the fy 2016 budget request from the navy included 16 fewer f-35 aircraft in the last three years of the future year's defense plan than were anticipated just one year before. can you shed some light on that request and also i'd appreciate your assurance that the f-35 is still a priority for the navy. >> sir, the navy remains committed to the f-35 lightning as an essential part of our future air wing. it is the aircraft that is
designed from the ground up to address the fifth generation challenges in information warfare, so we do remain committed to that. the adjustments in the president's budget request for fy '16 again just reflect some of the extremely difficult choices that we're making to balance the best way to address the national security challenges within the resources provided. >> and the f-35 like the ohio replacement program is really essential to all of our national defense. obviously the other services share in the costs and the benefits of it, and i'm hoping that the strategy here will be a combined department of defense commitment to the investment that's required. >> senator, if confirmed i look forward to exploring all those options. >> thank you. i look forward to seeing you in new london as the chief of naval operations. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> and again, thank you to your family as well. >> sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, and admiral, we appreciate the opportunity to have you with us, and i believe you have the background and the dedication and the character to lead the navy. and this congress i believe and am confident will support you. i hope that you understand that you have to give us the straight facts, tell us what you believe, and if there are problems, bring them forward to us and i believe congress will respond if in any way possible. will you as you've committed i think in your written answers but will you give your best judgment to the president of the united states and to congress on all issues of which you're inquired of? >> yes, sir, i will. >> thank you for that. i see you've had, background is
a submarine development squad ron and other submarine effort, other commands. do you feel that that will assist you as we deal with the ohio class development? >> yes, sir, i do. >> give us some of the ideas that you bring to bear on the development of the ohio class which we all know which is important and essential but also we know we've got some budget constrictions out there that are going to place that program in jeopardy, if we don't watch it, and i think more than a lot of programs, failure on the beginning to get it right and the procurement process could endanger that program. so give us your thoughts about what you think needs to be done as we go forward. >> yes, sir, i think you've got it exactly right, sir, that you've got to get that the
requirements set and the navy has done that. we are working towards providing a mature design, so that you've got to have a mature and stable design before you begin production, so that you're not dealing and managing costly change orders after you've begun production, and then i hope to provide a program, a build plan that would allow for stable and predictable funding, that allows us, the navy to work very closely with the shipbuilders to provide a production line that results in the lowest costs per unit. >> i think most of us have come to understand how unpredictability and uncertainty and alterations of schedule can drive up cost and sometimes that's congress. sometimes it's the department of defense's fault. other times, the contractors have to be held to account but are you -- will you help us
remain committed to main taining the kind of schedule that keeps costs at the lowest level? >> absolutely, sir, and what we found is that we've got tremendous commitment on the part of our shipbuilders. they are as committed to driving costs out as we are, and there are ample opportunities to deliver high-end war fighting capability at the appropriate price, delivers the capability that's required for the nation, and provides businesses a chance to thrive as well. >> you made reference earlier to the triad our nuclear defense triad aircraft, submarines and land-based icbms. do you believe that remains a critical part of our defense structure? >> yes, sir, i do. >> some have questioned that, and i guess you're familiar with those concerns. i believe you're correct. i think congress believes you're
correct, but i hope you will keep us informed on that because some would suggest otherwise. i think that would be a big mistake at this point in time. you and i had the opportunity to discuss just efficiencies. i serve on the armed services committee, and the budget committee. i feel the tensions there very intense ly intensely. it's been said in that the defense department in and around the defense department but each service is committed to maintaining personnel levels. they fear that if their personnel levels drop, they'll be diminished in their influence and power. tell me are you committed to maintaining the defense, the navy fleet at the level it needs to be, but at the same time
maintaining personnel levels like private businesses have to do, lean and productive. >> senator absolutely. we must maintain -- what we deliver is capability and as the technological environment changes there will be new opportunities that open up for our people. we want to make sure that we keep our people employed in the best possible way doing things that people do best, and so i am committed to making sure that we do that in a lean and agile fashion as possible. >> and sometimes rules that we pass in congress make that difficult for you. i hope that you will keep us informed on how we can help you achieve that goal. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, admiral, we thank you for your testimony this morning and we thank you for responding with your personal opinion when it's requested. you're taking on a very difficult task and very difficult times, and i'm sure
>> friday an c-span3, defense secretary ashton carter talks about educating the children of members of the armed forces. live coverage of the military child education coalition begins at 8:55 a.m. eastern time. and at 10:00 eastern a look at how new defense technology also change how wars are fought. live coverage from the brookings institution on c-span. >> book tv is television for serious readers. and this sunday at noon eastern on "in-depth" code pink co-founder madea benjamin is the author of several books including "stop the next war now," "the greening of the revolution" and her latest "drone warfare." join our three-hour live conversation. we'll be taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweets and
then on saturday september 5th live from the nation's capitol for the 15th national book festival and followed by senior fellow at the >> friday an c-span3, defense secretary ashton carter talks about educating the children of members of the armed forces. live coverage of the military child education coalition begins at 8:55 a.m. eastern time. and at 10:00 eastern a look at how new defense technology also change how wars are fought. live coverage from the brookings institution on c-span. >> book tv is television for serious readers. and this sunday at noon eastern on "in-depth" code pink co-founder madea benjamin is the author of several books including "stop the next war now," "the greening of the
revolution" and her latest "drone warfare." join our three-hour live conversation. we'll be taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweets and then on saturday september 5th live from the nation's capitol for the 15th national book festival and followed by senior fellow at the american enterprise institute lynne cheney. that's some of the upcoming live programs on c-span2's book tv. >> senator and presidential candidate marco rubio made an appearance in the early primary state of south carolina tuesday to give a talk on national security at furman university in greenville. he answered questions about isis, border security and the iran nuclear agreement. this is an hour. [ applause ]
>> thank you all for being here, and brett, i tell you, i believe, senator that 2016 is about electing a commander in chief who was prepared to do what it takes to keep this country safe so that we can remain free. you've been a very vocal and outspoken in your criticism of the iran deal. let's say that there's a president rubio in january of 2017. how do you deal with iran? >> first, let me tell you why the deal is no deal at all. second i'll tell you how we'll reverse it and third i'll tell what you we'll do instead. it really is no deal at all. the first thing about the iran deal that we need to understand it releases billions of dollars of frozen assets into the hands of iran. so what will iran do with that money? are they going to build roads and bridges and schools and consider that charities? no, they'll invest it number one in terrorism sponsorship of hezbollah, sponsorship of shia
militias in iraq sponsorship of the 14th of february movement in bahrain, sponsor of the houthis. second, they're going to develop their conventional capabilities their ability to destroy for example an american aircraft carrier by buying chinese technology to do it and thereby posing the risk of a blockade for example of the straits of hormuz or in the persian gulf, and third, they're going to develop their long range rockets and ultimately their nuclear weapons program. why would you build long range icbms? there's only one reason, to put a nuclear warhead on it. they're not trying to put a man on the moon or send a probe to mars. the only reason you build long range rockets is to put a nuclear warhead on it and that alone should tell us everything we need to know. the u.s. congress imposed sanctions on iran and on individuals and banks and on other sectors of their economy and those sanctions are in the books today. what this president is going to do is he's going to use the national security waiver in that law to lift those sanctions. when i'm president of the united
states, we will reimpose those sanctions. we will remove that national security waiver and countries around the world and there are companies that do business in iran will have a choice to make. they could either have access to the iranian economy or they could have access to the american economy but they will not have access to both and not only will we reimpose those sanctions, i hope we can add additional banks and additional entities to the sanctions list and we will continue to do that until iran realizes that they have a very simple choice, they can have an economy, or they can have a nuclear weapon program, but they cannot have both and that's the position that we need to find ourselves in here over the next couple of years. >> you talk about the nuclear threat and the intercontinental ballistic missile threat from iran. here in greenville south carolina, and on the east coast we have no land missile defense system. >> i think missile defense against the iranian threat begins in europe the first opportunity for to us intercept a launch and that helps us not
just against the threat of iranian weapon, but also the existing threat of a russian attack, which today as ludicrous as it may sound, we are on the verge of a second cold by vladimir putin's choice, not because of ours so i think the ability to protect our allies in the u.s. begins with a missile defense system in europe as the first line of intercept. ultimately i do believe an east coast system is important for our country as well. we are living in an era where the proliferation of long range missiles is going to move rapidly. north korea now possesses them and is increasingly improving their targeting capability. russia has them. china has them and iran is trying to get them so this will also be an era of missile defense and we need to be prepared for it. >> russia bears back with vladimir putin. how do you work with our key allies like great britain and the germans to confront putin? >> it's important to understand that economically russia is not a global power. they are militarily. 90% of the world's nuclear
weapons are in the hands of the united states and russia so that alone is a reason to be concerned and we have to understand that our quarrel is not with the russian people. it's with vladimir putin who has decided that he is going to, the way he's going to reposition russia once again is a global power, at least in his mind is to split europe, undermine europe, try to undermine nato and ultimately challenge the united states. he has made a decision that the way he's going to become prominent in the world is by obstructing or being against us everywhere in the world, in essence the other thing he's begun to do is create problems only he himself can solve in order to position himself as this great global leader. he arms and equips the syrian regime and then when they conduct these chemical attacks only he is in a position to broker a deal to get them to abandon their weapons which by the way they haven't done. they're still using chlorine gas against their own position. this is the way he positions himself and this president has fallen into that trap. >> we went out on social media asking people to send their questions in what we wanted to ask.
we received one question from sweden. >> from sweden? >> from sweden. >> okay. >> we've gotten some interest on national security here the question was this. how do we stop the expansion of isis? >> well first of all, you stop the expansion of isis the way you stop the expansion of any radical jihadist group, you deny them a safe haven from which to operate. in order for jay hadist group to grow prosper recruit and train and conduct operations they need somewhere to operate from. al qaeda needed the sponsorship of the taliban to plan 9/11 and isis need syria, the instability there, now iraq, increasingly libya and other places as an operational space. we have to deny them these operational spaces. the next place isis will focus on is afghanistan and you already see within afghanistan a battle between isis and the taliban to become the predominant sunni radical movement on the ground in afghanistan, and as america retreats from different parts of afghanistan, isis is moving in, and improving their capabilities there as well. so we have to target them and
their safe havens. obviously syria and iraq, but i think that needs to be expanded at some point to include the areas of libya, where they operate from and are using it as a base of operations to destabilize the sinai. i think we have to think about confronting them in afghanistan as well not to mention all of these affiliate groups around the world that pledged allegiance to isis. confronting them means ultimately confronting them on the ground. i believe we have to increase air assaults against them and i think it's been important in degrading their logistical capabilities, their ability to resupply et cetera but in the short term we need to subject them to some high profile humiliateing defeats to reverse this global narrative that isis is unstoppable. that's how they attract recruits. the message they send in social media to jhung jihadists around the world is join us, we're unstoppable. we have to prove that i don't think. i think some special operations attacks in combination with increased air strikes is important in the short term but in the long-term isis must be
defeated on the ground and i think ideally defeated on the ground by local forces including sunnis themselves, who will confront them militarily with our help, including the help of american special operators but also with intelligence support and logistical support air strikes and targeting assistance, that will allow for example a combination of egyptians jordanians, saudis, sunnis in iraq themselves and kurds and others to confront them and defeat them on the ground and take back the territory they now control. >> you talked about social media. how do we fight isis on social media and are facebook and twitter, are they doing enough? >> part of it is defeating this enin the propaganda battle. every war in our history has had a propaganda element to it. you look at the old news reels of world war ii constantly propping up the american people, pointing out the successes we've had and of course the nazis and others invested heavily in propaganda. vladimir putin today invests heavily in propaganda not just in russia but throughout the world. there is a television network
you may or may not have seen called "russia today" it's on some cable systems, basically run by the kremlin, decided to spread propaganda and i think it's important for the u.s. to also win the information battle so it does begin by subjecting them to humiliating defeats and advertising it to the world and i also think we should target them online. i think there's no reason why a country, as a country we should allow isis unfettered access to facebook and twitter and all sorts of other platforms that they use not just to attract recruits but to inspire attacks against us, the west and the world. >> now reported that isis may have as many as 100 youth jihadist camps training camps. what can we do with regards to young people to offer them hope in this country? what can we do to combat that. >> talk for them hope in this country you mean here in the you state or around the world? >> both. >> look around the world we have some people in the united states that have been radicalized online for a lot of different reasons. some of these are disenchanted
quite frankly losers looking to be part of something bigger than themselves and this movement attracted them. others had this weird conversion they've been radicalized and isis in their mind is the most high-profile and successful radical jihadist movement on the planet. they seek to join it or carry out acts inspired by it. the whole incidence i pointed to, the whole idea we need to defeat them in the information war is important, but i think globally it's important as well to deny them the operating spaceis for those camps to take route and ultimately that's why it's so important that sunnis themselves participate in the defeat of isis. isis is a radical sunni movement. it finds its strength from disaffected sunni youth and so it's important for us to work with our sunni allies in the region. people need to see that isis is being defeated by fellow sunnis that this is not just a western crew side as they like to call it against islam. these are sunni, sunni muslims themselves who are rebelling against a radical violent
abhorrent system and i think that's a critical part of this as well. >> historically we have four dimensions of warfare, air, land, sea and space and now cyber, it's like death by a thousand hacks. how do we win the cyber war? >> first we have to improve the quality of our cyber defenses. the truth is that most government agencies simply do not employ 21st century best practices. if you compare the cyber defense of a private sector firm to what most federal agencies have we're well behind. in fact two to three generations behind so i think one of the emerging challenges of the 21st century for the next command commander in chief is to improve the cyber defense agencies and pass a cyber bill which i hope we'll do in the next couple weeks in the u.s. senate that will help us with more information sharing with the cyber sector. cyber is rapidly evolve. once you solve one problem five new ones are created by an innovative hacker somewhere or some new development that occurred. we need to stay at the cutting edge of that and that requires us to share best practices and
information between government and the private sector. but i also think we need to improve our cyber offensive capabilities mutually assured destruction that existed during the cold war on the nuclear front, is something that's important in cyber as well. i think that will be effective when it comes to our relationship vis-a-vis other nation states like china and russia but i also think it's important not that the deterrent themselves will work but i think it's important we have the cyber capability to knock out the ability of a radical group like isis or transnational criminal group for that matter to conduct operations in cyberspace and you talked about some of these other areas critical to that as space defense, because our potential adversaries realize that it doesn't matter how advanced our technology may be, if they can destroy or blind our satellites, our guidance systems don't work, our communication systems don't work. we lose the technological high ground that's so dependent on those satellites and on cyberspace.
>> this recent cyber attack on the office of personnel management by the chinese, it took our government four or five months to discover it how would a rubio administration deal with the chinese? >> well, i think it's important first of all that we admit, this administration has flat out said it's the chinese who are conducting these attacks and that's important. i think beyond it, i think it's important that they be a reciprocal response. if we're going to be attacked in cyber by china we have to show the willingness to do the same and again i don't want to get into a cyber war but i'm tell you, unilateral disarmament only encourages other nations to do more. the chinese today believe that the costs of cyber warfare are not outweighed, are outweighed by the benefits. they think they gain more than they lose and they think they can get away with it. it's great we're indicting senior chinese officials conducting cyber warfare. the truth is we'll never get our hands on them. they're not going to travel here. we need to go further and i think for each cyber attack that we can verify there needs to be
a reciprocal response that lets others know if you attack america in cyber we will respond and also an emergent issue of national importance that we improve our ability to defend against these attacks and be able to improve our data and there exists in the private sector mechanisms to do that that are superior to what our government uses today. >> our top cyber experts at the nsa and cia tell us we need between 20000 and 30,000 real true cyber ex-experts to thwart the attacks in this country and we only have 1,000. how do we have the recruitment campaign we need? >> the good news is that this young generation of americans is the most cyber tech-savvy generation that's ever lived. these are young people that have grown up around technology their whole lives. in fact, they have no notion of what the world looked like before social media or the ability to access instant information. so i think we have the ability in this country to create a cyber defense force and recruit for it much like we've done in
the past for the army, the enoughy, the air force, the marines, and i think there would be millions of young americans who would be interested in joining that sort of effort. of course we're not going to hire millions of people, but the ability to go out and actually begin to recruit people to become part of america's cyber defense, is something that i think will appeal to millions of young americans, and thousands of whom we will find qualified and prepared to fill that role. it will be another way of serving our country the way people have served in the past in uniform. >> king abdullah of jordan recently came to the u.s. congress and complained to members that our state department was putting up bureaucratic road blocks to things he needed to take to fight radical islam and isis. how would you work with king abdullah and what kind of role would he play in your foreign policy in the mideast? >> jordan's challenges are extremely igsignificant. ondan is not an oil producing nation. their economy largely is sustained by foreign aid from the gulf kingdoms and the united states and challenge that jordan needs to confront. they also have a significant
portion of their population that feels disconnected and disaffected by the current system of government and economics, and long-term that's a toxic brew that could lead to rebelling and instability in that country. so those are issues we need to help jordan deal with. their most immediate threat is number one they have a refugee camp on their border that today houses hundreds of thousands of people and just 1,000 of them are radical jihadists, they have a major problem. i think it's important jordan is a willing partner in this effort. i think it's important for us to allow them to improve their military capabilities with unfettered access to the sort of military aid that they're asking for, renew our commitment to that. i think it's important for us to help them deal with the crisis they're facing at the border. the truth is that the aid has been slow in coming not just from the u.n. but from the u.s. about providing what they need to gain control of that border region, that today is being flooded by syrian refugees most of whom are not radical jihadists, but as i said if
just a small percentage of them are infiltrated you suddenly have a major major problem in jordan. >> turkey has been called probably our least dependable nato ally. on one hand they're bombing isis, on the other hand they're bombing the kurds. >> it's a real challenge there. turkey was admitted to nato at a time when their government was behaving quite differently from what it is today. their current leaders have taken them on a more jihadist radical islamic traditional islamic approach that i think has made it harder to work with them on a number of issues. it wasn't longer turkey was an ally of israel and today that's no longer the case the way it once was. it's important to reexamine that relationship and quite frankly put it to the test. either the turks will allow us to use tirkish airbases and air space or not. it's important for them to express a willingness to participate in an anti-isis coalition that simply goes beyond their worries about the kurds, but in fact ex-tebdstends to the need to defeat isis so to come back and say we're
concerned because we don't think 1/2 the challenges in the region will be solved until you roll assad into the mix. unless you get rid of assad and isis you're still going to have a problem and i think there's some relit matcy to that. as long as assad is in power in any portion of syria you'll continue to have the raw elements that made isis possible in the first place. even if we wipe out isis tomorrow, a new group will emerge. it could be jad al nusra, and that was the group a lot of people thawed would be isis, they're also gaining strong. it's important to understand as long as there is instability in syria it will remain a prime environment for radical jihadist groups to take root and grow. today it could be isis. tomorrow it could be somebody else and so when the turks talk about the need to deal with assad i think that is a he will any legitimate point they raise. hopefully we put forward an agenda that includes assad to be part of this situation and
encourage them to be more active participants in the fight against isis. >> our fbi director says he says he has open files in all 50 states with people with connection to isis. they're here on our soil. how do we deal with that and how do we fight radical islam here on american soil? >> well it's a threat that we have not been wholly prepared for. we largely have built our anti-terror programs on the notion that someone would come here from abroad and conduct an attack. and then we were worried about americans who traveled abroad were radicalized and came back and now we worry about people that are radicalized online, local mosque somewhere and as a result take these actions and that's the nature of the threat and its's hard. these are not well-defined plots that involve long time planning. this increasingly involves potentially an individual that watches a few videos online, is inspired to take action, buys a gun or a bomb and goes out and kills ten people at a mall. these are the sorts of things that they're planning and it's a
much harder challenge. i think we need to be vigilant but we also need to understand as the fbi director has said we won't be able to get them all. there will be a taxttacks on american soil by terrorists because of the nature of this. we need a more robust intelligence program that allows us to understand this new threat that allows them to monitor them online before they can organize and carry out these attacks and every one of these plots we were able to disrupt is a major success story. over time of course, it will involve the defeat of isis itself, because that is what is feeding the sort of radicalism today. they're the ones that are producing the videos and the content online that's firing people in this direction. >> his predecessor testified in congress a few years ago that we apprehended i think it's like 59,000 people from countries other than mexico illegally trying to come into this country. these countries included somalia, iran, syria pakistan all the usual suspects. how does a rubio administration deal with border security and
how do you keep bad people and bad things like radioactive substances out of this country? >> it's important to point the majority of people crossing the mexican border for the first time ever are not from mexico. they're coming from the northern triangle of latin america, central america, honduras, guatemala guatemala, el salvador and coming from all over the world. people realized if you get to next we could, you can get into the united states because you can cross the border. the mexicans have begun to realize this as well and for the first time in many years, the next cab mexicans have become serious about security on their side of the border. they recognize people are coming into their country if they can't make it across the border are going to stay in mexico and they don't want to deal with that either. there is the opportunity to work closely with mexican authorities to increasingly secure those portions of the border that remain porous and part of that is to create the infrastructure on the ground, the fencing, the cameras, the sensors that cut off these unauthorized points of crossing and basically narrows down the crossing points to only
those authorized places where people cross the border, because we transact a lot of business across that border every day. there are people that come across that border every day with millions of dollars of goods for trade and economic commerce. we don't want to shut that down but if we can close off the illegitimate corridors of travel, then we can focus our attention and monitoring on the legitimate crossings and improve our capabilities for example of finding a container that has weapons or smuggling people or radioactive material for that matter. and so i think one of the things we're going to have to do is work closely with our partners on the other side of the border in mexico who today have an increasingly of the border who have a vested interest in securing the border because they understand it is acting as a magnet for millions of people to sneak into mexico before they sneak into america. >> does a fence come into effect a sensor technology? >> fencing is effective, like in
san diego. when we talk about illegal immigration. we have to understand half of the people in this country didn't legally cross the border. they came on an airplane and over stayed a visa. so i think an entry and exit tracking system to allow us to know when people overstay their visas. but there is fencing and sensors and cameras and drones and other technology. and what it will do is it will funnel more and more of the traffic to places easier to monitor and control. >> and the ports an the harbors, we have to capability on the east coast or the gulf coast of the country and what would you do to improve port patrol. >> that is a major concern. and it is a matter of debate because the federal government creates the mandates and doesn't offer the funding. we have improved in many borders
but we have live in an era of global commerce. and every day tons of material is sent abroad and coming in. and as always there are efforts to continue to improve our ability to monitor what is inside of a container, whether it is a weapon smuggling in or drugs or something we don't want in this country. it is an ongoing challenge. it will never be 100%. in the history of the world, you cannot seal a country off but you can make it harder and improve our detection and deal with the root causes sending the stuff here so it can diminish the amount of things coming in, whether it is weapons or people or weapon of mass destruction for that matter. >> electromagnetic pulse. there is indication that the russians, the north koreans, how do you deal with the electromagnetic pulse. >> it is a significant threat and it is described to people
and people think it is science fiction but it is a reality. we'll have to harden infrastructure in this country. meaning our electrical grid, our key government operations and over time hope technology allows us to hard ebb airplanes. you don't want them falling out of the sky because of an attack that wipes out the ability of the engines to function. this is a real threat that doesn't receive enough attention. this is like something out of a horror movie but it is available to actors across the world and a terrorist that could create havoc. so i do believe it must become a priority of this country to harden critical infrastructure which we have the technology to do now that would ins lace much of it and -- lins late it and protect it from the attack. >> we've cut the u.s. army to preworld war ii and we have more admirals than ships how does
the u.s. military look under a rubio administration, how big of an army and air force and navy do we need? >> the numbers and the capabilities have to be driven by the threat. so the number of years ago a bipartisan group looked -- of experts looked at long-term defense need and came up with the gates commission the gates funding level. they set a number. this is what it will cost and this is what we should spend it on. we are $40 billion to $50 billion every year. we are underfunding our military every year. this year i tried to pass in the senate to reeve store funding back to the gates number. it would have just been for one year. we need to make that permanent. as president i will make defense spunding a priority. it is by spending it on the right things by developing the research and technology that we'll need to defeat china's anti-access capability. the chinese have developed a
$4 million rocket that can destroy a $4 billion aircraft carrier, we have to have counter measures to defeat that and defend our space assets and satellites and so forth from attack. and we have to defeat the critical infrastructure from cyber attack that could blind our ability to community. it is important to stay cutting-edge. and i describe it as whoever the commander-in-chief is ten years from now when they face a threat and the military officials come to them with options what the options will be are being decided right now by what we are developing. and if we do not develop the cutting-edge technologies that allow us to keep our promise to the men and women in uniform that they will be the best trained and equipped and fighting force on the ground or in the air, and if we don't invest in that capability, we can't keep that promise to them. >> talking about the size of the military and the cost involved. we can train trufly three or four national guardsman for a
active duty soldier. how will that fit into your strategy. >> the national guard is critical. they provide a service to our country that extends simply beyond military. we see them respond to every natural crisis -- natural disaster. i know in florida every time we have a hurricane, we had a number over the last decade, it is the national guard there first. so they provide an in valuable service. what has changed is the number of people in the national guard deployed. and so i continue to believe the national guard is a critical part of the backbone of the ability to -- if we find ourselves in a crisis situation, quickly call up individuals in uniform to provide for national defense. i think they are part of the strategy, included in the gates number as an important critical element of the 21st century national security system. >> over the last years the biological threat has been ranked as the top threat from a security stand.of this country. how would you deal with it and prepare for it.
>> well first of all i think we want to be head of the -- ahead of the curve in terms of developing a biological capability. we worry about a terrorist organization able to develop a biological agent to disburse through the water supply or in a crowded place and this falls in line from the terrorism perspective. beyond it, when you talk about the biological pandemic threats i think the centers for disease control play a critical role in ensuring our country is well stocked with the anti-viral and antidotes necessary to protect us from a chemical and biological attack and to deliver that quickly to the right place. the ebola crisis exposed weaknesses in our system around the country in terms to rapidly respond to an incident should it occur so part of our over all 21st century strategy is the ability to rapidly and quickly
respond to a attack anywhere it occurs in the country by ensuring that the right medicines or the antidotes or responses are there and quickly anywhere that experiences something like this. >> the 9/11 commission said that 9/11 was a failure of imagination and we're responding to the last terrorist attack rather than thinking outside of the box to prevent the next one. how would you a rubio administration think outside of the box to prevent the next terrorist attack and keep america safe. >> this is an in cider conversation but the national security council plays a critical role in that. unfortunately this president has turned the national security council into a hyper state department, and a operational unit as opposed to a strategic one. we desperately need people in our government thinking about what the next threat could be and how it could evolve because around the world there are terrorists constantly thinking of ways to defeat us. i promise you around the world today terrorists are not figuring out how to get a box cutter on an airplane any more
because they know we are looking for that. instead they are trying to develop things we haven't prepared for. understanding intelligence is critical and intelligence has eroded some of them because of edward snowden and some smfl inflicted. and that is part of it. and part is having people sitting around constantly gaining out vulnerabilities and a group of experts constantly thinking if i was them this is what i would do and think about ways to prevent that, and staying ahead of the curve. that is why it is so important to have people in government particularly in the national security who are thinking about future security and trying to think about what the other side might do as opposed to another threat that has existed or exists in the past. >> mr. edward snowdenen, trader or hero. >> devastating. we know for a fact that there enemies of the united states
today that have changed the way they communicate based on the information he has released. if he had concerned about u.s. intelligence programs there were multiple different proper channels he could have raised. he didn't have to go to the chinese or the russians and turn over troves of information. you may agree or disagree with intelligence but the fact is today there are men and women in american uniforms who are in danger -- in danger because of the information he has released. and by the way, some of the things he release ready flat out inaccurate, they are not true. they are flat out lies. and much of the information he has manipulated to turn himself into a heoic figure. he is a traitor and the information he delivered has had a devastating fact about our intelligence. and we know less than we need to know or should have known because of the information he's done. he's done terrible damage to this country and put lives of real americans at danger because of it. >> we talked earlier about thinking outside of the box and
to prevent the next attack and what the security council can do. boko haram has started attack on naz raw and what do they do. >> we need to assist them. boko haram has pledged allegiance to isis and they are part of the global network that isis is extending from africa to the caucuses. and we need to view boko haram in a broader view in the war on terror. and many are doing the best we can to confront it and defeat it. in an ideal world, these threats are best defeated at the local level. we simply can't or won't invade or be involved in every country
on the planet where these things are occurring but cap as tating the local partners and trying to get other allies immediately impacted by it interested in defeating them militarily is important and we can provide that assistance. we have the world's greatest intelligence. even though it has been diminished the ways i've just described but we can improve the capacity of the countries and we need to spend time in the counter-terrorism of the countries in the training and the right weaponry and strategy they need to effectively defeat these insurgencies/terrorist group and armies. >> pretty well documents, almost every time we buy energy overseas some portion goes to finance terrorism. how do you view energy as a national security issue and what would a