tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 26, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EDT
scheduled seven weeks of summer vacation, something that is not enshrined in the constitution, but schedule set by the senate, if we leave for our scheduled seven weeks of summer vacation, without having fulfilled our responsibility, the american people should demand that wet return to washington and do our job. it is pastime for my colleagues to meet with judge garland. to hold hearings on his record and to give the american people an up-or-down vote on this judicial vacancy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. >> tonight on c-span2 senators patrick leahy and orrin hatch on the senate's role in supreme court nominations. then debate between u.s. senate candidates from florida. senate armed services committee holds hearings on software glitches that delayed development of the f-35 joint strike fighter.
today primary voters went to the polls in five states, connecticut, rhode island, maryland, delaware and pennsylvania. we have live election night results and analysis and live candidate speeches beginning in a half hour on c-span. today two senators discussed the constitutional role of the u.s. senate in confirming judicial nominees including nominees to the supreme court. democrat patrick leahy and republican orrin hatch, both members of the judiciary committee, discussed their views on judicial nominations and supreme court nominee merrick garland hosted by the edward kennedy institute. this is just under an hour.
>> good morning. on behalf of the edward m. kennedy institute for the united states senate, i welcome all of to you the kennedy caucus room. for this timely and important discussion of the senate's role, its advice and consent role in connection with the president's lifetime appointment of individuals to the supreme court of the united states. the mission of the kennedy institute is to educate the public about the important role of the senate in our government, to encourage participatory democracy, to invigorate civil discourse and to inspire the next generation of citizens and leaders, to engage in the civil life, civic life of our communities and our country. to that end, in addition to our
hands-on senate experience in boston, we host a series of public programs that highlight the role of the senate and that focus on the issues of the day. well, i think you will agree that the senate's advice and consent role in confirming nominees to the supreme court certainly qualifies as an important issue of the day. we know however, that the public doesn't fully understand the senate's important advice and consent role. indeed in polling just completed by the kennedy institute we found that only 36% of americans understand the role that the senate plays in confirming in confirming supreme court nominees. we have a understanding, all americans will, about that important role. so it is my great pleasure to
introduce our speakers and our panelists here today. we have our dear, my very dear friends, first, president pro tem of the senate, former chairman of the senate judiciary committee, orrin hatch, republican from utah. the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, former president pro tem of the senate, patrick leahy, democrat from vermont. they will be both making remarks in just a few minutes. we're also pleased to be joined for an important panel discussions by marti goge, partner with capital counsel llc. jeff gahner. marti worked in many senior positions in the senate, culminating his role as counsel for senate majority leader howard baker. jeff served on senator kennedy's judiciary staff for many years
and became his chief counsel in 1992. during his time with senator kennedy, jeff was lead staffer on six supreme court nominations. if anyone understands the role the senate plays in the supreme court justice nomination process it is all of the gentlemen we'll be hearing from today. the moderator of our panel today is chris geithner of buzzfeed. without further adieu, i will turn the program over to chris. thank you all for being here. we're all looking forward to learning a lot today. [applause] >> thank you all for being here this morning. i believe we're going to start with comments from our esteemed senators who joined us today, beginning with senator hatch, so i call you up first.
>> i am certainly delighted to be here today and vicki kennedy is one of my favorite people in this world. i remember what a difference she made in the lives of my really dear friend ted kennedy. ted was a we did a lot together. we fought each other regularly. we got into awful battles but we also agreed on a lot of things too. when we agreed we said to everybody get out of the way and we would be able to get a lot of things done. we would get things a done. he would be yelling and screaming on his side of the floor as only ted kennedy could do in his booming voice of his and i'm standing over there ready to punch him in the mouth. he was getting on my nerves. when the debate was over, how did i do? how can you get mad at somebody like that?
i'm glad to be with you for a few minutes. i served with senator kennedy on judiciary committee for 32 years. in fact he is the only senator who served on the committee longer than i have. i know this makes me sound older than i am, half of all life tenured federal judges since i joined the judiciary committee. the judiciary appointment process is an example of how america's founders sought to limit government power by dividing it. the president has the power to nominate, but can not appoint without the advise and consent of the senate. debate continues how robust or assertive the senate's role should be. three significant events, three, occurred in the judiciary committee on january 1979. senator kennedy became chairman. senator leahy joined the committee and the first hearing of the 96th congress focused
on confirmation of federal judges this is front and center following the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia. the kennedy institute's poll earlier this year found only 36% of americans know that the senate has a role, or has the role, of advise and consent in the appointment of supreme court justices. raising that awareness however will do little good if americans aware of but misunderstand the senate rule. using the scalia vacancy as example i will make three brief points. first the constitution gives the senate power of advise and consent but does not specify how the senate ought to exercise that power the claims that the constitution dictates when and how the confirmation process must occur, immediate committee hearings or immediate committee hearings and timely floor votes
are false. in fact the judiciary committee was not created until 29 years after the constitution was drafted. second, the senate has conducted the confirmation process in different ways at different times under different circumstances. the judiciary committee held its first public hearing on supreme court nomination in 1916, but the nominee did not appear. the regular practice of nominees appearing publicly before the committee did not begin until the 1950s. earl warren, for example did not appear at his 1954 confirmation hearing to be chief justice of the united states. and in a 2014 report, the congressional research service said this. quote, neither the judiciary committee nor the full senate is compelled to act on nominations which come before it, unquote. our former distinguished colleague, robert byrd made the
same point in 2006 speech, when he said, quote, there is no stipulation in the constitution as to how the senate is to express its advise or give its consent. the senate can refuse to confirm the nominee and by saying nothing and doing nothing unquote. why the senate has standing rule providing nominations that are neither or approved nor rejected are returned to the president at the end of two-year congress. nearly one quarter of nominations were never confirmed. another crs report present ad different scenarios for how these nominations were hand i would. some were referred to the judiciary committee but never reported to the full senate. some came before the full senate but were never considered at all. simple matter of historical precedent the senate has never
confirmed a supreme court nominee to a vacancy occurring this late in a president's tenure. the constitution does not mandate one size fits all confirmation process but leaves these judgment calls for the senate to make. we tend to focus on the supreme court but the same issues apply to the confirmation process for lower court judges as well. as pat and i both know by experience for example, judiciary committee chairman of both parties have often decided for different reasons not to conduct a committee hearing for various nominees. the committee likewise has not always voted on each nominee who has had a hearing. to suggest otherwise is to misstate historical fact, and misrepresent the meaning of advice and consent. now my third point is that the senate majority has made its judgment call regarding the scalia vacancy. for two greens we have decided
that the confirmation process should take place after the presidential election season is over. first, conducting a heated, divisive confirmation fight in the middle of an ugly presidential election and that is certainly describes ours, our presidential election, or should i say season, it is well underway would do more harm than good. harm in the confirmation process to the nominee and to the country. the second reason to defer the confirmation process is that elections have consequences. the 2012 election had consequence for the president and his power to nominate. the 2014 election had consequences for the senate and it's power of advice and consent and the 2016 election will have consequences for the american people because they can have a voice in the direction of the courts. the issue is when and how, not
whether the senate should consider a nominee for the scalia vacancy. i don't want to throw off the schedule right out of the gate so i will leave it at that the senate plays an important role as check on the president's power of appointment. as senators of both parties have noted over the years the senate does not play a rubberstamp. opinions differ about how differential or forceful the senate should be, but the constitution leaves that judgment to us. james madison wrote that a well--instructed people can be a permanently free people. that is the kennedy institute's mission. it is a great institute. i've been happy to support it. i'm happy to support vicki in any way i possibly can. all i can say the kennedy
interstate's mission is a great mission. i want to thank you all for all that you do. thank you very much. i appreciate being with you this morning. [applause] >> and now to voice his complete agreement with everything that was just said i believe we have senator leahy. [applause] >> thank you very much and you know being here, vicki, it is always great to be here with you and on here in the kennedy caucus room, and just around the corner, from where ted's office was i love because my office is just above here. we used to go over to votes
together all the time and i so often recall we would start of and he would say, pat, did you hear the one as we're walking through the halls? and then you had that booming laugh, it was of course with marble halls it would echo through, everybody would look around, what was the joke. ah, we forgot, but we had a wonderful time. i also learned so very much about -- the kennedy name is synonymous with public service. ted of course did indicated his life to the people of massachusetts but just as important to the people of america especially disempowered and disadvantaged is inspiration to all of us and i wish we had more of the senator kennedy's commitment to the constitution. i hope that this event might remind us what it means to be
true public servant in the kennedy mode. it means having government work for the people. understanding how our lives affect the people we serve. so awesome responsibility of u.s. senator, there are only 100 of us to represent 300 million americans. it means rolling up our sleeves and setting aside partisan bickering finding ways to get done. with today's event i will give you one of the most recent examples. of course we had numerous, numerous supreme court nominees confirmed in election year. every time there has been a vacancy in the supreme court, in a election year, we confirmed them. there aren't that many vacancies that occur in election year. but every time it has happened we confirmed the nominee. the most recent, just and, my good friend from utah may have
forgotten this, most recent event when ronald reagan was president. the democrats were in control of the senate and we unanimously confirmed in a presidential election year president reagan's nominee to the supreme court. it would be kind of nice to follow the most recent precedent. now i know serving on the judiciary committee some of the most pressing issues are there and ted kennedy made those, those front and center to the american people. immigration, civil rights, two of the most important ones but also the nomination of supreme court justices. let me just quote senator kennedy because i totally agree with him. he said, few responsibilities we have as senators are more important than our responsibilities to advice and
consent to the nominations by the president to the supreme court. nobody disagreed with him at that time. some of those who were serving with him at at that time now take a different view. ted understood momentous nature of supreme court nominations. he understood the historic constitutionally mandated role of the senate. it is important that today's event focuses on the senate's undeniable and irreplaceable role in providing advice and consent to the president's nominees. senator hatch and i disagree on this because we know this exactly what the judiciary committee should be doing this very week. if we followed the normal course, once a president makes a nomination, members of the senate judiciary committee review the nominee's records, we hold public hearings.
we have done this and we vote on the nomination after careful deliberation, if we follow normal, normal routine, we would be holding those hearings this week. this is what, how it has been for the last 100 years. in fact, when i became chairman of the senate judiciary committee in 2001 during president bush's administration, i, then ranking member of the committee, senator hatch, memorialized how the committee would continue in this tradition to consider george bush's supreme court nominees. he and i sent a letter to all senators and we wrote, these judiciary committee's traditional practice has been to report supreme court nominees to the senate. once the committee has completed its considerations, this has been true even in cases where supreme court nominees were
opposed by majority of the judiciary committee. senator hatch and i agreed on that. we gave our word to the u.s. senate. that is way we would do things and republican leader, trent lott, agreed. he took our letter. put it in the record and said, the senate has a long record allowing the supreme court nominee to be given a vote on the floor of the senate, close quote. all of us, republicans democrats agreed to this. because that is what we in the senate have done for a century. democrats agreed to that. even with a republican president. republicans agreed to that with us. i want us to keep our word. i want us to keep our word. and do it in open and transparent manner. now the kennedy institute as vicki indicated release ad national poll that only 36% of the american people know the
senate confirms supreme court nominees. our reaction to this should not be, to deny judge merrick garland a public hearing and a vote which would break 100 years of tradition. it would mean we're failing to do our job. instead our response should be to engage with the american people, show them through our actions, have a public hearing. you know, a solid majority of the american people does know, by two to one margin, that chief judge garland deserves to have a hearing and, we should do our job, follow our constitutional duty. some claim that there are unprecedented obstruction against chief judge garland is based on principle. not the person. balderdash, that is not true.
some dared president obama to nominate chief judge garland. they praised his bipartisan support and his consensus building style. some of the same people object to hearing for him now, this would have been a good person for president obama to have on the supreme court. others have attacked chief judge garland's record. they have used some of the dark money groups to attack him. well, at least allow him a public hearing where we can respond. you know, it is not a principled thing to attack him, knowing that he can't respond. and by not voting what they're doing, is voting maybe. they can take any position they want. say, yeah, i met with him. of course i met with him, knowing that they will never have to vote with him if they can keep brocking it. they never -- blocking him. they never have to be on either side. we're elected to vote yes or no,
not maybe. you will hear a lot about some of the senate's most memorable confirmation debates. the senate has considered controversial nominees but in every one of those instances the nominee received a public hearing and a vote. what would be historic is to deny chief judge garland a public hearing and a vote. that would be historic. well this senator does not want that to be part of the history of the united states senate. you should demand your senators do their job by providing this nominee a public hearing so we can respond to the his record. i believe that is what ted kennedy would be doing. it is easy in politics to appeal to self-interest but senator kennedy appealed to the best of us. he appealed to our sense of justice. to our sense of responsibility. to our uniquely american belief in hope and possibility. he appreciated the role of the
senate. sometimes you have to be instigator, sometimes defender, sometimes compromiser. we're called to lead. we need to do our job. it is my sincere hope that we'll follow ted's example, uphold the finest traditions of senate. what i would like to do, vicki, if you could come up here, i just have a personal thing i would like to do this is something i inherited when i became chairman of the committee. it is ted kennedy's gavel that he had when he was chairman. let me hold it up. the gavel, the, it says, senator
edward kennedy, u.s. senate judiciary, 1963 to 2009, chairman, 1979 to 1981. and i saw him wield that gavel. [applause] this is so beautiful it is unbelievable, unbelievably beautiful and so meaningful. ted kennedy loved the united states and he said the greatest honor of his life was to serve people of massachusetts and united states senate. the judiciary committee, along with what became known as the help committee were his first two committees. this meant so much to him.
he fought for what he called the march for progress. that is what the judiciary committee meant for him, constantly fighting to make america, america. fighting to move us forward. fighting for the march for progress. he believed that is what the judiciary committee did. he was proud to serve on it. he was proud for his entire time in the united states senate. as it says here from 1963 to 2009. we will cherish this always. it will have a place of honor at the kennedy institute and in my heart as do you, pat. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much.
>> thank you so much to senators hatch and leahy for those opening remarks that clearly frame the two sides of the issue as we find ourselves in today and thank you very much to mrs. kennedy for your time. she informed us that she actually has a noon meeting up in boston and still found her way to be down here this morning, so, we obviously greatly appreciate that. we have a few minutes here to
talk with two experts at this issue over the history of the past 30 years really and i wanted to start a bit with marty gold, former counsel to majority leader howard baker and the well-known author of the senate procedures and practice book. to talk a little bit the history here. what is advice and consent that we talk about in terms of how it actually exists and what is required of it? . . the opportunity to work your 44 years ago years ago.
it is a great honor to be here and to be with all of you. the constitutional convention met between may 29, 1787 and september 17 of that year. there have been a number of wonderful books are written about that constitutional convention, to have them the summer of 1787 by david stewart, and plain honest win by were richard dashmac. they talk about the issues that divided the members of the constitutional convention, but those issues did not involve this power. like the partial body or a body with equal representation for all of the states. so to find studies that actually dissect this power, one can look to an article that was written by adam j white and the harvard
journal of law public policy in 2005. mr. white was testing a proposition from president george w. bush, who in the aftermath of his 2000 for reelection reelection said, the senate has a constitutional obligation to vote up or down on presence of judicial nominees. this was september september 23, 2004, mr. white decided to test that proposition and came to the opposite conclusion. they did not have the constitutional obligation but only a power. how does that happen. you traces to the constitutional convention there's one basic principle of politics that is observed there. nothing is is settled until everything is settled. that is to say, when they drafted the constitutional convention beginning first with the article one powers of the legislative branch and then turning to the level two powers of the and then the level iii powers they understood as they made changes going along it
affects what they previously written. so from the beginning of the convention george washington presided over and said they would have a right to reconsideration of anything that had been voted before could be voted again because as you made adjustments going down the line you might have to rethink what you had done previously. this is what happened in this power. the role of the appointed judges was first advance in the virginia plan to the constitutional convention set up by edmund brandl, in that case you had a house of representatives chosen not as the articles of confederation congress was with one person per state, but on the basis of population port shipment representing the most populous state in the country, virginia, you'll say the house is going to like the senate and together they will appoint the executive and together they will appoint the judges.
others sought to disagree with this. when it finally can be for the constitutional convention of jupiter that your, it was criticized by people who wanted more executive power, principally james wilson of pennsylvania. madison of virginia proposed a compromise. take the house of representatives out of it and have the senate point the judges by itself. but but it is important to understand that when madison opposed that he was not talking about the senate as we know now, he was talking about a senate that was going to be based on population just like the house of representatives. a smaller body but also based on popular vote or at least based on proportionality. well, this went through the senate was chosen by the constitutional convention framers as the body that was going to appoint the judges. they they agree to this on june 13, finally after some other plans were presented the jersey plan by alexander hamilton, the idea of a senate
appointment was finally approved at the full constitutional convention. then we get into the middle of july when the composition for the senate was determined. it was determined not to be as the virginia is wanted it on the basis of population, but as the people of the small states like new jersey and connecticut wanted it based on equal representation. that becomes a very different matter. that that senate appointing judges is different from a senate that is related to the population of the entire country. so causes this question to be revealed. the following day, nathaniel massachusetts proposed a plan that was cute what was used to massachusetts which was the upper chamber of the legislature would affirm were not affirm the nominees proposed by the governor. so this notion that the executive nominee subject to the approval of the upper chamber of the legislature was put before the convention for the first
time. madison had a different idea. he said that, if you say the president cheap executive could make the appointment and it will go through unless within a specified amount of time one third of the senators disapproved it. madison's plan was rejected. the senate appointment was still affirmed, they had not accepted this executive appointment yet and the constitutional convention went on and other processes through august of 1787. finally, after the executive branch was set up it was august august 1787, a committee a compromise was appointed, the committee on compromise at the end of august, beginning of september reports an idea that the president will make the appointments like in massachusetts and the upper chamber of the legislature will
affirm them or not from them. if sent to the committee in september 12 then becomes becomes part of the constitution of the united states final adoption on september 17. now,. >> now not to cut that out, but in order to find a way to get forward to 2016, we are going to have to fast forward to a bit. once we had that system in place , can you jeff, talk talk a little bit about sort of where this went into the path where we see yourself today. i believe you said that is sort of corn signs with your entry into the senate. >> thanks chris. i want to add my thanks to marty
and to the institute for inviting me and for the work that they do to study this great institution. and i think vicki for her kind remarks and working for the senator was a great privilege for me and great fun. all of us who love him and miss him are so hateful to vicki for all she brought to his life. grateful -- will talk about the topics we would address on the panel, chris addressed how did we get here. that billy joel song, we did not start the fire, came to mind. the first first supreme court nomination that i worked on was that the board nomination. you may have heard a little about it.
the only thing i have worked on that has resulted in a verb. i would submit and i will explain i hope, why think that is a bit of a bum rap. over our history and since the founding, about one out of every four or five supreme court nominees has not been confirmed by the senate. judicial philosophy has been considered by senators since the founding, indeed george washington's nomination to be chief justice, rutledge was read rejected in part because of his views about the jay treaty. i do not remember that. >> so i has the situation come to where it has? i would submit that there are two great trends it really that collided in the 1980s.
one is that the supreme court's role in america really began to change in the 1950s with brown versus board of education. with the civil war amendment, thirteenth, fourteenth, 15th amendment, 15th amendment had not really been taken by the court as an engine for equality until the war in court. so the warrant in court upset the status quo in the country. and the feelings of the supreme court as an institution grew exponentially over the intervening 30 years. there are some here and i'm old enough to remember him teach earl warren signs, in part to the country. so the court was becoming increasingly -- the second thing that happened in this is something people do not really admit particularly on one side of the battle which is that
jurisprudence, lawyers and law professors and judges now understand and a great judge appointed by ronald reagan is perhaps most candid about it that be in a judge or justice in its opening the constitution is not as my former law partner said, a matter of being an umpire and calling the balls and strikes. it is instead a matter in which philosophy experience point of view matters. so those those two things collided in the 1980s. in the nomination. in in this room, for three weeks over and during which i gained about 20 pounds, the senate judiciary committee considered its nomination. judge is the views were
controversial, but philosophy matters how one interprets it is important. when doctor martin luther king articulated, that matters. so the senate has taken it into account. i don't know how much time we have, but perhaps we should talk at some point about where all this goes. >> i think the two questions we get into as we go through this is, this issue of duty. there has been a lot of debate, a lot of comments on the comments from senator hatch and implied from senator leahy about whether or not there is a duty of the senate to consider a
nominee. i don't know if you wanted to talk a little bit about that. >> the senate has a duty to consider nominee except how it considers and how it exercises that duty is a matter of dispute here. in a sense in action is also action. there have been any number of nominees, certainly at the appellate level and we can go back president after president, where the nominees were left on the cutting room floor at the end of the administration because the senate did not exercise the right of consent by approving the nominees. sometimes the nominees are bottled up in committee. during 2003, 2004 and into 2005 there are ten bush judicial appointments that came out that were filibustered on the floor. there floor. there is a filibuster on the lido nomination at that president obama and president biden and senator reid, senator
schumer, they all supported that filibuster. so in that respect what they're saying was this nomination should not get to avoid on confirmation. another is of the filibuster had succeeded as they had in the bush appellate appointment in 2003 in 2004, that is thousand four, that is self would have been a disposition of the nomination. when priscilla was resubmitted to the senate by president bush in 2005, president reed said he should not have done that, because a successful filibuster of the nomination of the previous coat chris was a position of that. so at the end of that, there are many ways a senate can exercise the power and advice and consents. certainly voting a nominee up and down as one of them. but as established as established throughout history, there are other ways of exercising it. you get to a situation situation here, this is not the medicine situation
where the president's nomination goes through and the senate disapproves it. this is a completion power. this is like taking the example of a treaty for example. the president proposes a treaty but the treaty cannot be ratified by the president unless the senate consents. the senate can just leave the situation sitting there for years, as it has a number of treaties. so it's the exact same situation here. this power is a power of completion at a power veto. >> it looks like you have some to say. >> marty and i agree about a lot on this question, but not everything. of course the senate has a duty. and i agree with marty that it is a question as as many things are in life to a degree. most situations in life by factual distinctions can matter. but here, the duty is clear, it
really arises from three things. the words of advice and consent, second, very structure, very structure of the constitution, each of the branches has a duty that may be implied from the documents, some like the covenant of further assurances. everyone who works in the senate and every senator, every president, every, every justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution. part of that, implicit in that is the duty to make the branches work. if the president said i'm going to veto the legislative appropriations, we actually used to have legislative appropriations, if the president said i'm going to veto the legislative appropriations bill and we are going to let the voters decide in november whether we want to pay these legislators, you are effectively stopping an institution from working. if if the senate in a fit of peak said the justices
are coming to us, they want security for the institution and we are going to decline that in an appropriations bill because we are mad at them, you are breaching a duty that is implicit in the document, to make the other branches function as intended. finally and there's a certain irony here, many members of a certain party are very upset with president obama for taking executive action on some subjects and not changing the statutory law. whether there's a statue on the book that says there should be nine members of the supreme court. if you want to change it to eight, pass the law. that's not what i think anybody wants to do, everyone recognizes recognizes there's a duty, the question is, i think everyone agrees one of timing and one of
degree, but you have to have a reason. elected officials are accountable. this is not -- it is the duty to the tax payers. ultimately they're they are going to decide whether the reasons being offered for not proceeding with the hearing on this nominee are good and sufficient. >> so you're saying everybody agrees that it is a matter of letting the people decide. it's a question of whether the people deciding, if the senate is doing its job or as the republicans would argue a martyr of the people deciding which direction the court should go. >> that's right. i sat next next to senator kennedy of february 1988, on the floor when he managed justice kennedy's nomination. biden had an aneurysm and was very let the time. that vote went vote went through 97-zero. it did not occur to us, well it's an election year, michael
dukakis could win, and we don't have to go forward. >> obviously there are differences about that nomination, it was a second nomination for the position. it also is obviously a vacancy long before the final year. but a note made when the senate judiciary committee didn't meet and discuss the nominations and this is sort of the final point, obviously there are a lot of discussions about chief judge garland and i encourage everybody to participate in those discussions, but looking beyond that appointment by senator graham on the judiciary committee met was that the eventual endpoint of it is
getting rid of the filibuster for supreme court nominees. the next time you have a non- filibuster philip of the majority, what you have to say about that? >> i can go first. look, the controversy that associate itself with filibustering judges is it deeply divisive matter here in the senate. in the first filibuster of the judiciary was at fortis and eight teen 68. that was a bipartisan filibuster. at the time that was done i can read the words of senator mansfield was a majority leader, phil hart was managing the nomination on the floor, talking about the terrible precedent it was going to set if nominations would result on that basis which was emotion to proceed.
it went down 45 --43, they cannot get 67 votes are anywhere close. then in the early 21st century that precedent was repeated again on the appellate court level. lead to substantial aggravation. it led to the possibility in 2005 of the nuclear option, it led and then having the 14 agreement which i heartily endorse and say think that they did it because it brought the senate to away from the brink. then finally the print was crossed into thousand 13. i cannot say, because he is not tell me why senator reid excluded the supreme court from that, although some might conjecture that it was because you only get the votes for the nuclear option if you do exclude the supreme court. but you may know better. >> so i actually have an unorthodox view about this. and
and that is if you think about it, justice kalil was asked, what provision of a constitution did you like the least and he said it's too hard to them in the constitution. it takes two thirds of both houses, three quarters of the state legislator. why do i bring this up? a justice can change fundamentally the interpretation of the constitution. the degree of consensus require 51 votes, it really is not consistent with the constitutional framework. it would would be better for the court as an institution if two things were true, one is the parties could agree on nominees as they often do, and second that they agree on it going forward basis, that to quote you cannot always get what you want. the present gets to decide, but you have to take account of the balance of power as a senator
hatch said. elections matter. the 2014 election matters. i matters. i was met one last point. merrick garland is reflective of the balance of power. his age, he is even older than i am. is it itself a compromise. if you read his opinions, this is not someone who should be -- >> on that note that we've all come together and find consensus for judicial nominees in the future, as a reporter i will thoroughly enjoy finding a way to see people trying to pursue that but also giving great headlines when it's not the case. i really appreciate everybody showing up this morning. i thank you. [applause].
i apologize, but but i have to run over to the supreme court for opinions and arguments. thank you so much. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact too. coming up on wednesday morning, "washington journal" will spotlight politics our guests include tom, cofounder of real
clear media group and the executive editor. both will join us to discuss how real to clear politics got started. also talk about the role in the media marketplace and the role of the media in the campaign 2016. also joining us is rebecca birth she will review primary results of the pennsylvania, rhode island and others. sean sean trendy senior election for real serve politics will talk about the latest poll and how the public can be smarter consumers of about polls. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states.
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> to members of congress are vying for florida's u.s. senate seat currently held by marco rubio has decided not to seek reelection. they took part in a debate hosted by the open debate coalition, this this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> i had and program director for the open debate. welcome to the first open debate for u.s. senate. were in orlando for the last seven days where the 900 questions were submitted by people across florida nation.
over 400,000 votes were cast on mine. tonight, all questions for republican congressmen are going to come from the 30 question that received the most votes from people like you. tonight we have two cutting-edge moderators and benny johnson. and they they average about 35 million unique viewers every month. we also have maria on hand to deliver one of the voter questions. she she is founder of the blog, linda latino .org. we'll even even have a cameo from the hollywood celebrity. tonight, we have fiery debaters who are each leading in numerous polls and their respective primaries because of their political smarts. this'll be a non-precedented matchup, something people will be talking about tomorrow that you do not want to miss. first let me give you background on the open debate coalition. the coalition is comprised of top progressive and conservative political leaders. and top tech leaders from
silicon valley. this in clues or close tonight, the progressive change led by stephanie taylor and adam green. we also have americans for tax reform. the coalition includes a former strategist for judge w bush, the republican national committee, senate, senate republicans admit romney. it also includes moveon.org, democracy for democracy for america, labor unions, union organizations, civil rights advocates and more. we have media voices like arianna huffington, silicon valley leaders who support this debate in quitting wikipedia cofounder, cindy con for electronic frontier foundation and we also have craig from craigslist. needless to say, the members of the open debate coalition do not necessarily agree on every issue , but we do agree on one core principle. that political debates and must must better represent the will of the people. what that means is asking candidates questions voted on by
the people instead of silly questions. and it also means liberating debate footage and you do not need cable news at all but instead you can see it on an open sea that's on any social media platform or individual that wants to broadcast it. at the coalition we hope tonight's debate serve serve as a model for presidential events later this year. and that is to become the norm for political debates all across america for every office up and on the ballot. tonight, we invite you to spread the word on's social media during the debate letting people know they can open watch it at hash -- >> let's begin. i am proud to announce our moderators at janke and benny. >> thank you, we appreciate. we have an absolutely unique debate
for you guys tonight. you actually ask the question. our job as moderators will be to ask follow-up questions to make sure you get the answers to the questions you ask. there were a lot of questions out there. 900 questions submitted, 400,000 votes which is amazing. i want to thank our hosts, open debate coalition, cohost progressive change institute and americans for tax reform and this event and americans for tax reform and this event is going to last about 75 minutes. there will not be any questions about boxers or briefs, iphones or blackberries or any of that. why, because you did not ask them. nobody propose those questions nobody voted on them. instead we have a lot of substance which you'll see throughout the debate. i want to make sure everyone understands will have one minute for the initial answers for the candidate and the 45 seconds seconds for follow-up. beyond that is moderators discussion. with that, benny, take it away. >> for me, by the way it is briefs. so i had the distinguished honor of producing the stars of the show, this to congressmen who are joining us tonight. the first congressmen that i'm
introducing is congressman david jolly, he is a native floridian. he is a lawyer by trade and practice and he tells me that at one time he was that every major league baseball stadium in america. thank you for joining us. the second congressmen that i'm introducing is congressman alan grayson. this gentleman is known for his fantastic cowboy boots and exceptional pace in american flag ties. what she tells me he even got a brand-new tie on amazon for this debate. it does not disappoint, the beautiful american flag tie. >> so let's get started. we did a coin flip before the debate and carson grayson one and he will do his opening statement first you have one minute. >> thank you. my my job as a member of congress and hopefully next year as a senator simple one, to make sure that every floridian, every american can be
all that he or she can be. unchained by poverty, by poor health, by lack of education, or or by discrimination. that is my job. mormor we find that people are struggling to be able to accomplish that. inequality is rising in america, few people have a have a job, have a home, your people have a car or any sort of savings for retirement or health coverage. that has to end. i want to see in america and make it america where everyone can see a dr. with their sick and get the care they need to stay healthy and alive. i want to see in america where compensation for work is actually a fair day's pay for a fair days work. that means health coverage for you and your family, it means a much higher higher minimum wage, it means paid sick leave and pay vacations. above all i want to see a new deal for seniors. seniors deserve a raise, it has been 40 years since there's been
any increase in social security benefits. i'm working hard right now the house of representatives to change that. to make sure that seniors get the rays they deserve if they were denied this year and to get the race they deserve in the future as well as extending medicare to cover your eyes, ears, and teeth. a lot of it may sound like common sense but the system has been created to frustrate, and i have been named the most effective member of congress because all the good things i've gotten done for people time and time and again, i want to do more than the senate. thank you. >> of next, congressman joe. >> thank you to the open debate coalition, think it teach one of you submitted questions. thank you to my colleague alan for agreeing to this format as well, think this is a very good thing. i've been in congress for two years. i have made it a point every day to fight for the people of florida. to put it it all on the line every single day.
for veterans who pays the healthcare crisis, introduce legislation to empower them to choose where they receive their healthcare. for seniors for seniors i've introduced legislation to create a new index for how you calculate cost of living adjustment that reflects the true cost to the elderly. for our young people, i have championed early childhood education, student nutrition, student readiness, for homeowners and business i have championed flood insurance relief and reform. yes i believe the president has overstepped or is wrong on issues from form policy to economic security, i have challenged the president on behalf of the people of florida. at the end of the day the most part reform that we can make is to reform congress. that is why many of you have seen in the last 24 hours my fight to change washington forever by enacting the stop act. to prohibit members of congress from directly soliciting a contribution from you. regardless of what your priority is, balanced budget, border security, immigration reform,
early childhood education, the recent advances will not be made as congress is spending too much time asking you for money and not do your job. it's what i've introduced the stop act and i will fight every day to get it done. >> now let's get started with our question, as promised the first one is from young american and you will see this is unlike a lot of debates, he asked that in new york his name is logan and i got voted almost to the very top and that is why we are presenting first. it's on campaign finance reform. remember everyone of these questions is in the top 30 based on florida votes because it's for the florida senate seats. logan, take it away. >> 90% of americans believe that money needs to get out of politics, so how are you going to work with the president to create a viable campaign system that people can trust? >> congressman charlie, you brought this up, first question
so goes to you. >> i appreciate the question. one of the things we can do is get congress back to work, get them off the phones asking people for money. that's a congressional reform. i'm a republican who can tell you there's too much money in politics. let's talk about transparency and accountability. let's make sure any political message we know who it comes from. we have to balance a constitutional privilege of any individual to participate in the election of jews with reasonable regulations. let's start by passing this top act. let's stop asking the american people for money, that's one way. let's address how do we get to a better campaign-finance system that we have now. i was elected and at the time was the most expensive congressional recent history. most were 2,000,000 dollars in a little over ten weeks in one county. imagine what that 40,000,000 $40 million could have done for the county instead of being spent on tv. we can do better. i will work with alan and any republican or democrat to try to get to a better police
>> we will do follow-up after each person gets a chance to respond. >> win this campaigner created a new paradigm for campaign finance. it is a revolution. i am the only member of congress out of 435 of us that finance most of the 2014 successful campaign with small donors. i'm the only member of congress that did that in 2012 as well. twice in a row, one out of 435. i'm dealing member of congress hundred 35. i'm dealing member of congress running for senate right now was finance campaign through small donors, the only one. we have had over 125,000 people make a contribution. this is the revolution. it is happening right in front of their eyes. there are two ways to raise money you can go to the billionaires and multinational corporations, you go to impacts of special interest, and you can beg for cash in terms of her
favors. you know those favors are, their bailouts, they're no good contracts. their due contracts. there do regulation as they call it. their tax breaks. it is quid pro quo. the people come to my website, senator with guts.com, all 125,000 of them contributed they want thousand of them contributed they want nothing in return for money except the government. that is the way forward. that's you do it. i was in the courtroom when the citizens united decision was determined. i was the only public official in front of mitch mcconnell two seats to my left, you and i discussed this on the air, and i said at the time on msnbc, if we do nothing, you can kiss his country goodbye. i'm doing something. >> okay. so first of all the stop asked what i understand involves representatives not calling the donors anymore. but to someone still call them, to someone on their's on your
staff call them and if so, do you still have the same private financing issue it at hamsters that you're not making the call? >> we'll know about the amount of money in politics, this is about the amount of time it takes to raise the money. it doesn't apply to challengers, the stop act. it only applies to sitting members of the house and senate. it says, you are cheating the taxpayer if you spend 20 or 30 hours a week raising money instead of doing the job you ran to do. hopefully this will give a breathing room to my colleagues on the left and right to fight for what they believe in. get back to work, get off the phone. does libyan place the current finance campaign-finance. we could get the stop act on this year, campaign-finance am afraid with all the complexities is a multiyear effort to actually get it done. i'm willing to work with anybody on campaign-finance reform but i do not want that to distract from something we can accomplish today which is the stop back. >> i want to show your graphic it to your response. this. this is something based on the
princeton and northwestern study for two decades they look at it and even before citizens united. >> high on mark. >> no, not yet mark. what they found out is a public policy is not related to public opinion. that is the flatline. in an ideal democracy you and have you have that diagonal line like using their that if 100% of the american people wanted a hundred% chance of success that would and the flatline is what it is for% of americans. no effect on public policy as all. the yellow line is for the economic elite special interests. they're much closer to the ideal, they have a democracy, but we don't. it is because they have the money. so congress the money. so congress segment, how do you sell this and specifically are you in favor of a 20th amendment for the united states constitution to make sure that you put an end to money and politics?
>> we live in an oligarchy. i'll let you do decide. the. the fact is if you're a member of congress, on most committees you have someone it comes to your office with a bundle of checks before a vote from lobbyist who are voting in favor of that bill, you vote for the bill and you get another bundle of checks afterward. it's that bad. i'm not just talking about two or three, or for five members, i'm talking about 434 of them. it is pervasive. that is how it is done. frankly, nobody nobody can even conceive of any possibility until now. now there is an alternative and it is called power to the people. the kind of constitutional moment that you're talking about would be a great thing. is it really necessary? what if every american woke up tomorrow and said, i'm going to choose the candidate, i'm not going to let the party bosses choose the candidate. i'm not good to let the lobbyist choose the candidate. i'm going to choose. i'm going i'm going to put my money where their mouth is.
it would be overwhelming. in fact it has been overwhelming. i raise more money my 2012 campaign than any other member of congress and i did it mostly was small donors. >> but if i could, would you be in favor of the mm a? >> yes. >> congressman jolly, jolly, yes or no. >> i think it depends on what's in it. let's fix what that says if your registered lobbyist that says you are a lobby in the banking committee then he cannot contribute to anyone who sits on the banking committee. we could do that in congress today, we would need a constitutional amendment for that. >> and do support the stop act? >> yes, but i'm done more than that. i've introduced a bill's, for which i introduced for the citizens united because i can see something bad coming. and in for after. a call to save democracy platform. we post as a democracy.net.net got more than 100,000 cosponsors for the bill and three of them were
incorporated into the stop act and pass the house. they're they're filibustered in the senate but they passed the house. so i am already getting good things done in this regard in addition to completely destroying and re-creating the idea of how you financing medical campaign. >> our next question comes from david in new york city. it has been voted up thousands of times, nearly as 5000 votes of people really want to hear the answer to this question. it follows along a very unique line for this 2016 cycle concerning the finance system. the question that david has is, what would you do to finally put an end to the big too big to fail banking systems?
>> i take a different approach to this. too big to fail can be sought by transparency, by capital requirements on the large banks and by routine stress to make sure that we do not have vulnerable big banks. you know of was know was created too big to fail? president obama brock obama. he has has created a regulatory structure that has translated to too small to survive. too small to be competitive. dodd dodd frank, 12000 pages of regulations, 400 new rules has reduced access to community banks. we lose community community banks at the rate of one per day. the lending for small businesses have evaporated because of the regulations on local community banks. the fiduciary rule which is a new service or new regulation to address financial advising is actually going to reduce services to low-income investors, low dollar investors and new investors in communities throughout florida. the over regulation has so crushed the small and medium institutions that yes, we are left with too big to fail.
>> i must respectfully disagree. i do not think brock obama was responsible for the economic crisis of 2008. and the economic. and the economic crisis was a function of too big to fail. if not for the fact that we had a small number of huge institutions there were no worse and instead it was like a heart attack and almost killed america and almost killed the entire world economy. the answer has to be more dramatic than that, if you as an institution if you're too big to fail then you aren't too big to exist. you need to be broken up in the same way that a long time ago the trust busters broke up the steel mills, they broke up the telephone company, they broke up any conglomeration of capital that was a threat to the rest of us. that is the way it has to be with the banks. anything short of that is not suspicion. right now the big banks, because because they are no not to be at risk to feel and up borrowing much cheaper than the small banks, not because of regulation but because essentially uncle sam will pick up the tab if they are in any risk. that is something that will never change must we break them
up. we take in execution with a chilling dollar balance sheet and we divided into $200 billion, they will survive. i swear to you, nothing bad will happen to them. but what will happen to us is will no longer be at risk of an economy could collapse any day because some wild trader, probably sniffing cocaine and set making a trade that could bring down an entire institution and maybe the world economy at the same time. >> and based on wall street. >> let me tell you, there are 1 quadrillion outstanding shares of derivatives right now. one quadrillion. you know you know that is, that is 1000 trillions. that's how much is on the bank balance sheets, implicitly or explicitly. $1 quadrillion. we produce in this country 16,000,000,000,000 dollars of of goods and services per year. if someone makes mistakes that 60 years with our production,
that's 20 years years worth of the world's production. we can afford to be playing russian roulette with our economy every single trading day. >> saw a follow-up to that, it it seems like both of you, if i'm hearing you correctly are against the proposition that something is too big to fail and that is a negative on the system. so how do you define that? where do you do you draw the line when something needs to be trusted and someone needs to be broken up? on biggest too big. >> i would ask the question, how does government break up a financial institution arbitrarily? what does that mean for the current customers? their? their ways in which we can protect investors. take variations of the role that's in place to prohibit proprietary trading in certain products. if we exempt small institutions from some of the requirements but perhaps apply
the rule, we can protect the vulnerability than what we saw ten years ago. at the end of the day, if we insist, we can do this through regulation, we insist on sufficient, capital requirement to back investments, we insist on transparency of the large bank and then on transparency of the large bank and then routine stress testing, to ensure those banks actually can make their commitments. we can prevent things. with respect to alan, wire community banks feeling at a rate of one per day? why are there less community-based lending services to communities from florida? why are there fewer services and investment advising from small firms throughout florida in your community, the person, man or woman you go to church with an they've been your financial advisor for years and you get a letter last week saying sorry, because of the new fiduciary rule of this administration, i can no longer service your account. that is evaporating in our local communities and it's empowering too big to fail.
>> again, i have to disagree. there is why you why you have smaller institutions having trouble competing is simply because the big institutions have basically what amounts to a government guarantee. their cost, therefore for that very reason much less of the borrowing cost of the smaller institution. the economy has failed basically forward bailout. i want to point out that we have done every single thing that was just recommended, 2008 or before that we still would've had a crash. the only way to avoid this happening and way to avoid this happening and it will happen sooner or later is a question of when, it's going to happen unless we take control of the big banks, break them up, and make them safer us. >> just a follow up quickly, it sounded like all of the prescriptions that you mention, the stress tests etc. are what dodd frank does. are you print happy with dodd frank in that regard and you think it's sufficient to maintain these banks order so they will not cause the kind of class
speemac.think it went way too far with the amount of regulations and rules, 12000 pages, for new rules, even alan joined with me and others on providing relief on auto loans. we tried to do the same, some of us on mortgage loans. on exempting or at least raising the asset level of small banks to have relief under dodd frank. dodd frank has hurt services to the people who need it very most. so what we see through stress testing is the vulnerability of a system that yes we can precisely address, again, it is this administration that has driven up the small lenders. >> so from what i gather you like some of dodd frank and you want to do all the things you described in dodd frank does do, you think it just is too much. so your for less regulation of the bank, am i getting it wrong. >> less regulation under dodd frank, absolutely, yes. >> so your for breaking them up in europe are less. >> but i would ask how to you
break it up? on his government inject itself into a private institution break it up? >> how do we break up the telephone companies? that's within my lifetime, should people remember there used to be mom and my bell another dozens of other providers, including through your cable company. you can get internet service and phone service through your internet company. we've done it over again stretching all the way to the sherman act in 1890s. pretty sure if there's one thing government has mastered it is how to do this and how to do it right. it's not that complicated. we had a rule until recently that said you had to separate investment banking from other banking. that rule is now out the window. all we have to do is restore that rule and that's a big step toward eliminating the problem too big to fail. >> as you can tell we're diving into issues more in depth to make sure that you get the answers that you wanted. let's move onto the next question. social security. gloria from tampa, florida asked.
it was number three nationally in the voting number one in florida and the voting, what will you do in your position to keep social security and medicare strong? >> i'm one of the republican's who has regularly voted against the budget presented by my side of the aisle because i believe some of the changes that makes for people under 55 are too aggressive. i'm 43 years old, i'm not too young for the government to honor the promise of social security and medicare that has been made to me. the way i approach reforms as this, if you have been in the system for 40 quarters, that's how you invest, i think we should treat that is so you're vested in the rules apply will apply, no changes, let's recognize the out year of that obligation because congress has been so bad at the math last 30 years it has created an out your debt. put it on the balance sheet and on it as debt.
if you're new to the workforce, you are still going to have the best social security medicare system in the world. it might look different than what today's look like. but if you're currently vested in social security or medicare, but secure that promise, it has been made, let's honor it no changes in benefits but then recognize the out year. we have $19 trillion in debt if we don't camp out your obligation that number goes up threefold if you can't bout your obligations. we need to be responsible about pin it down. >> as you're answering the same question tells the difference between your two positions would be helpful. >> the difference between night and day. what you just does described as a cut in benefits, i am completely, adamantly opposed that. to that. in fact i wrote the note cut that hundreds of congress and
millions of americans signed against any and every cut in social security medicare medicaid benefits. we have not had a rate for seniors in 40 years. seniors deserve a raise. deserve a raise. we should not be looking at how we should cut social security and medicare, either for current or future beneficiaries, we should be looking at the fact that it's time for a raise. we have had three generations of seniors passed through the system. in those 40 years, the per capita income of the united states has increased by 97%. while during those 40 years the purchasing power social security benefits have decreased by 3%. that is why i have proposed citizens deserve a raise act which give a 2.9% increase they were cheated out of of the cost of living adjustment this year. that's why proposed with seniors have eyes, ears, teeth act which extends medicare coverage of eyes, ears, eyes, ears, teeth and has a hundred 47 cosponsors today. that is why i've introduced the
packet which is the social security administration have scored and said it will eliminate any problem with financing for social security from now until the end of time. these are things that need to be done. we need need to move or not backward. we don't need cuts, cuts cuts are hurting seniors who desperately need the benefits. >> weather is really a nine dare difference in whether you're willing to expand social security not. >> it is because the greatest would be of the collapse of the social security system because there wasn't a leadership in congress that recognize it was feeling actuarially. if we don't change the accounting medicare won't be there. it is neglect by members of congress the greatest driver of national debt is programs that have been earned. just because washington is bad at math does not mean we get to look the other way. i applaud alan for working on the cpi issue, i've introduced legislation myself that would adjust how cost-of-living increases are for seniors. to recognize seniors have unique
needs. where the cost or hires than others in the population. we can honor every promise that has been made to our seniors. nobody's trying to cut it, i promise you if we fail to address the long-term impact of the application so skinny medicare, the the greatest cut of all will happen and it will happen at the hands of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. >> i have to follow up there because in 2010 social security had a $2.8 trillion surplus. so, are you concerned that surplus is not enough? are you say met your already spent that surplus question. >> we know the benefits that will be due in the out years over the coming decades, there will be of sufficient resources in the trust fund to pay for. so what i have said, is let's let's secure the benefits for everybody that has earned them. let's as a nation we are going to honor those earned at benefits and we are going to put it on the better on sheet as a
nation. the actuarial system of the current system will ensure failure by the time of the x generations get there. that is where we need to look at appropriate reforms. i voted against male parties budget because i wanted to make changes for anybody under the age of 55. i think that's too aggressive. let's look at reforms but do it under a longer cost curve and protect the financial planning of people were in the middle of their careers. >> since these are covenants between one generation another's important to me. my master thesis at harvard was on gerontology a public policy. i start in an organization called the alliance for aging research. i was an officer of that organization more than 20 years. longer than my political career by quite a large factor. i will tell you that it bothers me to hear this idea that we have to cheat seniors in order to make the budget, budget out. that is wrong to me. there's only one small change you have to make, you have to make sure
you treat every dollar like every other dollar and then it would sell the forever. talk about lebron james. he stopped paying social security taxes in the beginning of second quarter of the first game of the season. rest of game pays nothing, rest of the 81 games, pays nothing, off-season, pays nothing. that's ridiculous. if we simply made everybody pay the same percentage of their income, the system would be sell forever and ever. >> i say met about lebron james because he left the heat? [laughter] >> so very important question for both of you, do you like and have you ever watch the avengers? >> yes but it's not as good as pc, ex. running out of the school at 3:00 o'clock going over to the candidate show and bind the latest issue of batman,
superman, you can't match that with the avengers but i still love the avengers. >> we have the first ever perhaps question for by the avenger. the hulk is here. >> hi i'm mark ruffalo, signed to say that a rapid transition to 100% clean, renewable, wind, water and and solar power in florida will create 140,000 jobs. it will eliminate 3000 premature air pollution deaths and over 50000 illnesses in florida per year. it will increase energy independence, reduce terrorism risks and reduce both the the direct and social costs of energy. with that in mind, here's the question from jen in rhode island. that got thousands ovotes. >> do you accept that climate change is the single greatest threat our world faces? if yes, then then will you support or put for the legislation that
keeps it more possible fields in the ground and greenhouse gases out of our atmosphere? >> climate change. >> it is the biggest crisis man kind faces at this time. >> the answer is yes. i cannot think of anything else that could literally destroy the planet other than climate change. we run the risk not just of higher ocean levels or more storms, we run the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. no one knows whether that would happen or not or when it would happen. so were playing dice with planet earth. that's very disturbing to me. we have names for things like killing a person, killing a nation, you don't even have a name for what it means to kill a whole planet. that shows you how serious this is. i work very hard to play this. i'll give you examples. for two years in a row i passed years in a row i passed extensions on conservation efforts in people's home. this means reduced greenhouse
gases, each year i've had the government handout credits of $1.3 billion in a 20% tax credit and i have done every two years in a row. a total of 2.6 billion green energy tax credits have been handed out to people all of across the nation including in florida and it resulted in 13,000,000,000 dollars of investment in clean energy. in addition to that, passed an amendment a few months ago that helps claes our estuaries clean with a 9% increase in funding for that. i've been there. i have been fighting this battle and making sure that my children and grandchildren inherited good, green earth. >> carson jolly. >> the challenge for climate change are real. but as climate change is the greatest threat to our nation as alan just said no. >> and mike >> ..
he's wrong. it's people who want to destroy the united states of america tomorrow. let's get to the science. let's have a contest of ideas. what we need to do is continue to invest in tax incentives for clean energies, renewables, wind, solar, you name it, continue to advance research in these areas, continue to have more money to a program to invest in research, but will not work is policies of this
president like the clean power plan that risks putting 300 people in putnam county out of business and increasing utility costs for 1.6 million across the state , going to cost one county between 400,000,002.5 billion. what won't work is a fuel standard that industry can't meet, aa renewable fuel standard that continues to increase cost to industry. the largest beer distributor in the state of florida just went to an all solar roof because the return on investment is finally in a five-year window. they are able to still transition to a cleaner environment. they probably would have had to lay off of their
workforce. we can do this, solve climate challenges through incentives and research, not mandates that can be met. >> ii think we are all certainly for cheaper beer as americans. however, while i agree with that entirely, i myself am not a climate scientist. i am a journalist. and a very reputable journalistic magazine has a graph, chart, i think we can put it on the screen. this is what they have published as a future outline of the state of florida in the year 2100. the year 2,100, sorry. the waterline of the ocean rises by 5 feet. my question to both of you is, is that a realistic view of what could potentially happen to the state that you
want to be one of the two senators for? >> one of the ways we need to address that is what our municipal governments doing to underground utilities, raise elevation of roads and eventually protect life, safety, and property. there are many things that need to be done to deal with what scientists are saying is coming. i am happy to have that debate over where solutions are. i will accept the science. let's have a dove debate over the solutions. we have disagreement on the solutions. grayson: well, i want to point out, this is fortuitous. the map you just showed was off my website. i wanted people to see what this would look like once
the ice caps melt and the sea level rose. you will have a lot of people -- a lot of trouble putting it up on stilts. the only good part of that is rush limbaugh'slimbaugh's house is right on the coast, so his house goes 1st. leaving that aside, it is all tragedy and it is avoidable. the president has been the only person who has done anything about it. the presidents clean power plan actually is a means to cut our carbon emissions and pollution substantially. with regard to the auto mission, who was it that increased the fuel economy standards in this country? it was not the house of representatives, the senate, the republicans, or the democrats. and now with the president's climate agreement i think we
see a way forward. i voted in favor of the so-called cap and trade bill in my 1st term. i was punished for it. $4 million was spent to defeat me. >>moderator: if we can start to keep the answers a little bit shorter on both sides, that would be great. i want to go to a video. it is from edward in miami, florida. >> how will you work to make renewable energy more affordable in florida? a great power project not just for us the potentially neighboring counties and states. jolly: tax incentives that continue to create an industry that employs more people in the state of florida. we do that through tax incentives.
we can also to continue to invest federal dollars in research, which we should. the clean power plan was saved by the supreme court because of its irreparable financial on the states. this has been stated by the court because the president has imposed irreparable harm on states. let's reach consensus on this. let's solve this is a country and get out of this mandate that is destroying communities. grayson: look, unfortunately in public life there are people who are anti- and pro- pollution. that is just a fact. i'm suggesting the reason we have the policies we have is in the same way wall street and the military industrial complex determine policy, it is a fact of big oil determines energy policy, and that must change. what are we doing about it?
what have i done about it? i passed more amendments of any other member of congress in 26 years. signed into law by the president. four of those were what i discussed earlier. 2.6 billion in energy credits for conservation in people's homes to make home screen that would not have existed if these bills had lapsed immigration bill had not been passed. that is what i am doing and what i have done. right now in florida it is illegal for you to put solar panels on your roof and sell that electricity to the electricity company. it is illegal. we need to eliminate that law. >>moderator: next question from someone live in studio. >> politicians all over the country are getting between a woman and her dr. and
taking away her constitutional right to choose. how will you protect a woman's right to choose? jolly: i appreciate that question. i believe life begins at conception, and that life deserves to be protected. andand so for me it is about creating a culture that values life from the unborn to the child facing significant economic or hunger issues to the elderly person who, perhaps, is a shut in. i understand. i understand it is a personal issue, human issue. in the supreme court and its landmark case 40 years ago they recognize the viability of the unborn as a test when they put certain restrictions on it. for me, i believe life begins at conception. for others it might be later, but the supreme court and congress eventually possibly we will have to deal with the fact 40 years after the viability standard was
created viability has changed as a result of medical science. grayson: i think quitei think quite simply the most important right you have as a human being is the right to control your own body. i do not think there should be any shame in that. they should, if anything, be ashamed and the concept of forcing a woman to have a child she does not want to have. therefore i have adamantly opposed every effort by congress to try to restrict a woman's right to choose. i have probably opened the planned parenthood clinic in my district and i have with some degree of pride attended fundraisers and contributed to them. i think it is important women be treated with the same rights as men. believe me, if men could have abortions you could probably --
>>moderator: next we have the founder who will ask a question on behalf of one of the people. >> i have a question from samantha more in pembroke, massachusetts. planned parenthood is under fire for doctor videos. do you support defending or defunding planned parenthood? >> defended. jolly: i willi will say two things. when the videos came out they were shocking. in the process they would have reduced medical care to individuals. there going to disqualify
planned parenthood. the other thing i will tell you is when my side of the aisle asks for an investigation i voted no. i was the only one to do so. should the issue be looked at? yes. we did not need a 4th. the party of less government or not. i vote no. >>moderator: i am a little confused. you voted no on that case, but we have had 12 investigations at the state level that have all said the video was doctored and there was nothing illegal whatsoever, but yet you voted to defund planned parenthood. if there is nothing wrong with the video, why vote that way? jolly: i voted against the investigation because it is already run its course and i don't think my party should spend three months on this
issue. weissue. we can continue to assess want -- whether there is a violation. what my legislation would have done is pending the investigation disqualify planned parenthood as a vendor but continue to provide the maximum level of resources for other -- >>moderator: but why defund planned parenthood? >> did you see the video? >>moderator: yes, but 12 investigators said it was doctored. so you don't agree with the investigation? that there was nothing wrong and they had not sold body parts? jolly: i don't know the outcome of 12 different investigations. >>moderator: okay. grayson: i think it is fair to say that americans by the millions found that practice
-- tweet at me afterwards. grayson: that is what jewish people like me have heard as a blood libel. it takes away people's rational judgment. all it can do is to her hatred and demonize people. essentially that is what you just did. that is not the appropriate way to discuss what planned parenthood is doing. god bless them, barack obama never indulges in that. the strata respect each other. that is meant to make people hate other people. >>moderator: respectfully,
merely the composition of the video and what they were based upon, that was the context and is not something i am making a rule upon. i am saying the context caused outrage because that is how they were sold. >>moderator: and it would be a violation. that was the point of the initial investigation. >>moderator: i do not claim to be an expert in the videos are investigations. >> just for the record so everyone knows, of the 12 investigations, a lot of them were conducted by republicans and one did indict, the ones who made the videos. that is the only indictment that is ever come out of that just so that we are clear. no selling a body parts whatsoever.
okay. let's move forward. the next question comes from james in arkansas. a hot topic right now. do you believe president obama supreme court pictured of a hearing before the president leaves office? grayson: the answer is yes. it is a sad situation. seven eighths of the term. they have the authority to accept or reject. i end up in the same place to get there a different way.
the united states should have a hearing and consider a vote and understand rejecting the nominee is he is wrong on the second amendment and labor unions is not obstructionism but the proper exercise of the science article on authority. if they bring it up for a vote, vote them down. pass the president to nominate someone who could actually meet approval of republicans because with the present has to accept his republicans currently control the united states senate and have the constitutional prerogative to voter nominee up or down. i believe we should have a hearing and would like to see a vote. >> as a senator for the state of florida would you meet with garland? jolly: of course. grayson: yes. >>moderator: voted in favor of citizens united. his advocates would say he
had no choice, but he did further it. he voted against habeas corpus. on those issues, very progressive. the democrat won the election would you ask president obama to end his nomination and let the next democratic president pick a different supreme court nominee? >> the answer is yes, but i wish to point out that i think it is fundamentally unfair to say in most cases, where you on this issue, this issue. you yourself said that was the supreme court decided, that was the law of the land until they decide otherwise. i am pleased for members have already said they would overturn citizens united
with the 5th vote. the president decided not to i want to see those laws changes quickly as possible. the cannot curse the man for simply following precedent. >>moderator: let's move on to the next question about minimum wage. >> they are from florida. now, it is about the minimum wage. are you for a minimum wage increase on the federal level? if so would you bring it up to $15 per hour? if instead, how long until you would make it $15 an hour? >> i am forgetting people off of minimum-wage. there's already one higher than the federal poverty
level and i will be willing to have that consideration. allow for stability of financial planning by employers. the important thing, if you went to the level, a nonpartisan congressional budget office says we would have 500,000 fewer jobs. if you want to hillary clinton you would have 3.8 million fewer. with bernie sanders you would have over 6 million fewer. how do we get people off of minimum-wage and into a growing economy? the more conservative proposals. i would consider an index of the federal level that would kill jobs for the bottom 4 percent of the workforce. the people who actually need the jobs most. i was a small business owner. i went through eight months right not pay myself so wanted to keep my employees
employed. if the government told me arbitrarily you must raise your salaries by 30 percent i already was not paying myself. my only option would have been to lay people off and unemployed people in the name of minimum-wage hike. grayson: 1st, there are parts of the country with lower unemployment rather than the higher unemployment that is being described. >>moderator: i guess areas were the economy can supported. >> explained. >> let me continue. if you calculated out. that means trying to survive on $1,300 a month. no one can do that. i went through the minimum-wage challenge.
i ended up dropping it because i had to take my son to the dentist. it is impossible when you have any kind of health bill, car repair bill, anything that might throw you off track of eating nothing but ramen noodles everyday. this is america. in australia have a $16 an hour minimum wage, and they have had a booming economy for years and their unemployment is less than ours. if they can do it, then so can we. in the same thing is true across the board. in germany by law every worker gets four weeks plus of paid vacation. you have not seen the german economy collapse. there only three countries in the entire world but there is no paid vacation by law and we happen to be one of them. we treat our workers like dirt. out of the 50 largest
metropolitan areas orlando is dead last of wages. we need to be able to properly compensate people who are doing the work that makes everything possible. could not be in the studio today standing on this lectern less on maywith someone made the studio and the lectern, and they deserve more than 1400 month. >> one last follow-up, is there a number that we can go back and say, here is the minimum-wage you think is ideal. >> just like on climate change, there are very few economists as well. why the lawmakers arbitrarily choose a number? that is why i say let's index it. let's get the brightest minds in the room of figure out the number should be, index it, i get the politicians out of it.
have a higher minimum wage and indexes so that employers can plan for increased wages of next year. >> i wasi was an economist for four years and as far as i know the only one which is why can go to the economic data and tell you the arguments are false and misleading. if you gave people a 15 dollars an hour the room wage there will be more customers. they don't want to force employees to rely on food stamps or medicare. what they really want is customers. the whole economy gets elevated. >> how to somebody call employee in and say i'm sorry, i have to let you go because the government has just said ii have to give you a 30 percent raise and i am already not paying myself and they are not funds to keep you employed.
the impact on job losses real. and it hits the small businesses artist. >> before i took up the cause i met with people in tampa. i asked every one of them that question. are you willing to run the risk that you might lose your job? every single one answered yes even though they knew they might be the one. and frankly tall, with a properly managed economy like germany you would never have to worry about that. >> what keeps you from raising it to $87 an hour. >> it has to have some correspondence to value, but there is a value to people's labor and it is $15 an hour or more. the artificially subsidize it, but the only way to people survive is because the government subsidizes it.
walmart is the largest welfare recipient in the country. you look at the amount of money they get medicaid coverage, food stamps, every other form of benefits that they get, this is subsidizing that pay. >> eddie from california has a question that was voted on very enthusiastically, and many people are interested. he asked, what are your plans to deal with out of control college tuition student debt. we are right here in florida , over half of floridians students carry student debt when they graduate. the total amount exceeds a billion. florida has double the national average of student debt loans in default. in the average floridian those both of 26,000.
remunerated basin the performance. grayson: i have introduced an act that includes everything just described. it also makes public college free. there are seven other countries around the world were public colleges free. ask yourself, how can slovenia afford to provide public college in english were florida and california and new york and iowa and new hampshire somehow cannot. if you look at what is being spent, it is a drop in the bucket. a tiny fraction of the states overall budget. a substantial part. it is not a new idea.
-- 18 floridians. my father went to the city college of new york, and there is no reason we can't make that same promise to everyone else. you want people to reach their potential in life. talents, skills, interest. at want to make sure everyone reaches their full potential. .. if the voters in florida want it to bend the university system can decide how to pay for it and the taxpayers would have to
accept that and there isn't a role for that. i disagree on this. >> let's move on to the next question from chicago asks a question and then as usual those about. they've been ambitiously mistreated in the system i systd private prisons are at the root she says and if elected will either of you support abolishing private prisons? >> the answer is yes. one way to look at what the government is is the government holds a monopoly on the legitimate force. whether we are talking about killing foreign soldiers or the police arresting anyone were talking about a judgment in court being enforced by the garnishment or for that matter talking about imprisoning somebody. the core function of government is that so it makes no sense whatsoever to contracted out. it's fundamentally irresponsible to say to someone like you make
a buck off of incarcerating samoans in the deal legitimizes the entire system. the reason prison guards do what they do and it's a very difficult and dirty job, it's a horrible job to have. the reason they can do what they do is because they stand there in the place of you and me. they stand at a place the entire u.s. citizens altogether having making the decisions to the justice collectively once you start to say to people we will give you an extra dollar if you cut back on the rations were put three or four prisoners in a cell instead of only two you've corrupted the system and a fundamental way and we cannot allow. >> said melissa and i think privatization as an issue for the elected leadership to decide if that is the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars question is the administration of prisons regardless if it i is public or private is it being done responsiblresponsibly and as hes
violating the law and the way they are administering in prison they should be held responsible for that. a dear friend made mistakes and spend time in a state prison in florida. he faced significant healthcare challenges that i don't believe were being responded to adequately. i don't know if it was a private or a public prison. to me it didn't matter. the issue is that the administration was failing and so, should we prohibit privatization? perhaps there are areas that is working for the taxpayers but if someone is violating the law they should be held accountable for it. >> you mentioned this affect ths african-americans and the question i think is exactly right but it doesn't stop there. 23% of the african-american adults in the state in florida can't vote because their rights have not been restored. it's the highest proportion in the entire country. we have to not only treat prisoners as if they are human beings and not profit centers
with a profit motive but we also have to understand that when they served their time i serve o let it go and have them rejoin the family of american citizens with full rights. >> there've been some studies showing private prisons are not really cost savers in arizona actually cost $1,600 more per inmate per year but to me the larger question was not just the effects that it has and the cost that it has put the fact that we incentivized some companies to take away the freedoms of some americans is there something inherently problematic with that and legislators should be held accountable for that? there may be a model that saves taxpayers dollars and does appropriately administer a prison system and if there's one thathere isone that works we sht preclude it. >> we are going to the voting rights next.
so what would you do to improve the voting not just in florida that nationwide the continues to see the effect break havoc in this country. what will you do to improve the voting and there it is again. i would like to see open primaries everywhere. federal voting holidafederal vor registration in 18 years of age we have joel here to join us. >> you will hear it again. and the automatic voter registration. >> let's start with the congressman on this money and if you can be specific on the primaries of the voting -- >> i think it is a great solution we should have been in the state of florida.
i think republicans should embrace this because we can grow the party by embracing the conservative solutions that appeal to independents and those that are no party affiliations so i would say yes to the open primaries and on the other issue whatever makes the voting more accessible and successful so we have greater participation. >> congressman. >> first i have to introduce legislation for this purpose as i indicated before it introduced more than any other member and i introduced the bill for democracy david makes the federal elections in federal holiday and gives people an opportunity to vote. we have a lot of people in my district that worked one job, maybe two jobs and sometimes even three jobs and they work on tuesday so it makes it hard for them to vote. another thing in favor of is in colorado tintolerant of a meal y single voter a ballot. you can either use it or go and vote on election day obviously you can't do both i think that has elevated the turnout enormously just as it has an
organ which is a mail-in ballot only. beyond that we have to accept the fundamental idea that it's fundamentally wrong. i favor a constitutional amendment that declares the right to vote. apart from the cases of murder or sex crimes. we have first-class citizens into second-class citizens and that's wrong. when you served your time you paid your debt for society should be able to build and protect yourself in the political system and have the same rights as everybody else. >> host: congressman johnny did you find a problem if they disenfranchised a significant percentage of some folks in the country if they don't have the voter id?
>> jolly: personae that reasonably and responsibly wants to do so. i don't think we have time for another questions we will go to closing statements. congressman will go first. >> grayson: and divided to have the opportunity to address the issues of the day. you will notice that paper versus plastic never came u out and the choice of diet coke versus coke zero is not a debate in my house. finally the american people get to see what it's like since there are members of congress. struggling with the great issues of today this is what it is all about. it's the way politics want to be. we shouldn't be talking about how much we are sweating or how big your fingers may be. [laughter] on that issue we have not [inaudible] [laughter] it is florida. we are both struggling with this issue. the issue is rising inequality
in the country. we want people to be at the beginning, that we have economic inequality, social inequality. people are struggling to remain in the middle class. so, the question is whether you are talking about a student loan or social security, whatever it may be. what are you going to do about it and what have you done to fix it? my organization i mentioned for research committee have been awarded a get out every year. they give to the person that stunned the most and i helped name the award. i want to win that one day. i want to be the same champion as claude was in florida for an entire generation or more. florida needs a champion for seniors and workers and for you. >> host: congressman. jolly: thank you. it is warm in here not because of the context of ideas. i tell you what, every single day i tried to lay it out on the
line. when i opened up this debate tonight, i said i've been fighting for florida for two years. i asking for the opportunity to continue to do that again. our veterans need better health care. let's give them the choice where they receive it. when our soldiers don't have an increased its figh let's fight . when we have children ready for school at investing student nutrition, dropout and reintegration programs and making the ged more affordable and accessible for people who want it. and yes, when the president is wrong on issues of national security i and on overregulation that is reducing services and is crippling an economy and parts of florida that need it the most, let's stand up and say there's a better way to do it. i started by talking about the stuff packed. it's probably no better reform that we can do right now. get congress back to work. this context of ideas that we've had tonight is what we should be giving his candidates and members of congress, so i introduced the stuff packed.
it's why we have the site to ask people to join us in the movement more than a campaign. thank you for tuning in and be opening debate coalition and each of you for participating tonight. this has been a great night. thank you. >> host: thank you gentlemen, congressman, so very much. we have so much we didn't get to that that proves the strength and the debate of the questions. i want to thank both of the congressman for being here in the open debate coalition. our partners, americans for tax reform and progressive change institute, and for everybody who submitted questions and for the nearly half a million votes that we got to decide which questions were answered them as a thank you so much to the public that followed along. >> host: if you like the style of debate and want to ask questions going forward at the presidential level and congressional level throughout the country, but in order to do that you have to impress the representatives this is the
right way to do this. you watch and get your family and friends to watch. if you're on facebook right now, share and like it and otherwise, go to floridaopendebate.com and make sure everybody gets the word on this. congressman, thank you and for all of you at home watching, thank you as well. ♪ ♪ like
>> its purpose is not to impair the legitimate law enforcement and counterespionage function but rather to evaluate the domestic intelligence according to the constitution. and the statutes of our land. >> the senate select committee chaired by senator frank church, democrat from idaho is convened to investigate the activities of the cia, fbi, irs and nsa. this weekend marks the 40th anniversary of the final report. over the next five weeks we will look at the portions of the televised hearings. saturday at ten eastern percussion questioning the directorate of the illegally stored biological weapons. >> i cannot explain why the that quantity was developed except that this was a collaboration that we were engaged in with the
united states army and we did develop this particular weapon you might say for possible use. >> in on the civil war at six. >> in 1860 the united states wasn't enough to have wisdom and at the time they had been living in virginia for 225 years. i [inaudible] i think that came forth in 1861. his primary duty was to his family. his family has been here for over two centuries. historian james robertson talks about robert e. lee come his ties to virginia and the various campaigns throughout the state. then sunday at ten on the road to the white house, the film a private decision chronicles the 1968 presidential race from the first primaries in new hampshire
and president johnson's surprise withdrawal for the assassination of kennedy and richard nixon's victory over hubert humphrey in the general election and on the presidency. >> he was one as a result of that because i think on the stability and foreign policy and the head of state of the united states with the chief of the armed forces are the leading power in the world and in the free world is to think responsibly about what one can achieve and to try to define one's policies and to try to understand the geopolitics in that fight. >> jeremy black looks at the origins of the cold war and focuses on dwight d. eisenhower as a military man and president. for the complete history scheduled to c-span.org. senate armed services committee chair john mccain has called the f-35 joint strike fighter program a scandal for the cost overruns, delays and technical problems. the armed services committee
held a hearing on problems with the aircraft logistical software that have caused some of the delay is. witnessewitnesses include the de department officially in charge of the program. this is one hour and 15 minutes. the committee meets today to consider the status of the 35 joint strike fighter program as we preview the fiscal year 2017 budget request. i welcome the witnesses. under secretary defense for acquisition technology and logistics frank kendal, director of operational tests and observations doctor michael gilmore, program executive officer for the f-35,
christopher bogdan and director of acquisition for the management for the government accountability office, michael sullivan. that f-35 joined strike fighter program is the largest acquisition program and the department of defense history. the full capabilities of the aircraft will eventually provide are critical to america's national security. our ability to detour our potential adversaries around the globe and if necessary respond with overwhelming force to any future conflicts that may require military intervention. at the same time, the f-35 performance has been a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance and it is a textbook example of why this committee has placed such a high priority on reforming the broken defense acquisition system. the f-35 schedule for development has now stretched to more than 15 years and costs more than doubled from original
estimates. the aircraft deliveries amounted to no more than a trickle as a result of the original promises of the program. the original f-35 promised 1,013 f-35 . of all variances would be delivered by the end of the fiscal year 2016. in reality, we will have 179. because the air force marines and navy were all counting on the f-35 that never appeared, combat aircraft into the strike capacity shortfalls in all three services have reached critical levels, severely impacting readiness and ultimately limiting the department's ability to meet the requirements of the defense strategy. in the fiscal year 2017 budget request, dozens more aircraft are being deterred from future years defense plan resulting in a situation where the last f-35 will be delivered in 2040. i cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense.
purchasing combat aircraft with a 40-year-old design in my lighf all of the testimony the committee has received about how our potential adversaries are rapidly catching up with and in some cases matching america's military technological advantages. the problems with maintenance, diagnostic software the fuel system problems and structural cracks from the service testing and engine reliability deficits, limitations on the escape system that caused the pilot wage restrictions in the potential cyber vulnerabilities. this list is as troubling as it is long in a long last we are approaching the end of the wrong nightmare known as chemical, the currency. the ill-advised simultaneous testing production of the complex and technologically challenging weapon systems the
department estimates will end up costing the american taxpayers $1.8 billion. many questions remain, such as the total number of the aircraft the nation should buy or can even afford. the cost of the future upgrades to keep the aircraft in the face of an ever evolving threat and the management of the administration of the so-called joint program the general bogdan himself admitted they've 20 to 25% commonality across three variances as compared to the original goal of 70 to 90%. the f-35 a., b. and c. are essentially three distinct aircraft with significantly different missions and capability requirements. the illusion of the joint is perpetuated by the structure of the joint program stifles the proper alignment of responsibility and accountability of the program
that is so desperately needed. there's also questions as to when the system development and demonstration phase will actually be completed so that an initial operational test and evaluation can begin. originally scheduled to conclude in 2017, we have every indication to schedul the schede pressures like the extend sdd well into the fiscal year 2018. i'm very concerne concerned thae department may attempt to take shortcuts by deterring the mission capability content into the leader blocked upgrades and by doing so change the fighter once again by delaying the necessary capabilities. the f-35 was designed to replace multiple aircraft of the services. that's why he operational testing and evaluation must be of such a high fidelity. there can be no question in the mind of the american people that their gigantic investment in this program will pay off with
greatly improved capabilities that far surpass the mission capabilities of all these individual combat aircraft. the congress will not likely allow any more of these legacy aircraft to be retired from service until there is no doubt the f-35 can adequately replace them and nor is the congress likely to entertain a blocked by werther multiyear procurement scheme until the initial operational test and evaluation is completed. in a positive milestone decision is to commence the production both of which i understand are scheduled to occur in fiscal year 2019. the department appears to be considering managing the f-35 follow-on modernization that is estimated to cost over $8 billion for the first block to upgrade within the overall program.
this is incredible giving the department dismal track record on these upgrade programs as the modernization upgrade will show. i see no evidence that the dod process has improved to a level that would remove the need for the separate nature defense acquisition program that would enable close scrutiny by congress. moreover, i expect the department to use fixed price contracts for the modernization effort in order to protect the taxpayers. the program's many stalls there are some positive signs for the f-35. the marines declared a operational capability in arizona and are preparing for their first f-35 overseas deployment next year. air force personnel at the base in utah will fly and maintain aircraft preparing for the air force this fall. david for the latest lots of the
f-3f-35 a war fighting successfy with a reliabilit the reliabilir fighting capability as compared to the earlier aircraft. general bogdan has since steadily pushed down the aircraft procurement unit cost with liability metrics on the rise and each aircraft delivery possessing increasingly effective war fighting capabilities. all of this is a testament to the hard work of military and civilian personnel inside of the program today. they are doing their best to overcome this kind of decisions taken long ago and they are having success in important areas. however, there is a lot of development to complete in the program and when it becomes a potential for more problems and schedule delays and increased cost this committee will remain steadfast in its oversight responsibilities to ensure that the war fighters get the capabilities they need on time and at a reasonable cost. >> thank you very much.
>> hold on just one second. since the koran is now present i ask the committee to consider the list of 920 pending military nominations including a list of the nominations of the general brooks, usa to be commander united nations command u.s. forces korea, general-purpose usa to be commander u.s. european command and supreme allied commander europe commander general robinson, usaf to be commander u.s. northern command or north american aerospace defense command paid all these nominations have been before the committee is required the length of time. time. is there a motion to favorably report these 920 -- >> so moved. >> all in favor? the motion carries. senator reid. >> thank you mr. tremaine. i join you in welcoming the witnesses today. we are grateful for your service. thank you very much. today we will seek a better understanding of the progress that the person is making
fielding the joint strike fighter, wit,, with actions thas taken to inaugurate the problems in the program, what is the best judgment available of how the actions will be preventing problems in the program including additional cost overruns and delays. overall the production program has been delivering unexpected cost reductions and aircraft wants. however, we still have to complete the system developed and the demonstration on the sdd program is expected to deliver in the war fighting capability each of the three variances of the f-35. we may not have seen all the potential schedule changes. since not all of the present difficulties are behind us. according to the testimony although the marine corps declared the additional air force plan to do so later this calendar year, the f-35 system remains immature and provides limited combat capabilities with the start of the initial operational test evaluation just over one year away. doctor gilmore also assesses
that the f-35 program will not be ready until the calendar year 18 at the soonest and these assessments are of concern. several years ago we required to estimate the initial dates for the capabilities as the variances in the marine corps declared them last year in july and the air force is scheduled to declare later this year and the navy is scheduled in 2018. the marine corps was based on a version of the program into the air force declaration will be based on the block three software into the navy declaration will be based on the block three software version. until recently in order to support the dates, the program office has been working on the versions of both blocks three e. and three f. of the software simultaneously. the block free software depends on having a baseline for the block three.
the contractor team working on multiple releases of software, the correcting issues and achieving software stability has proven elusive. working on the practice simultaneously was intended to save time at that time was lost in the projec project have to be because of mistakes made in the concurrency. in the past year they lost work on the software until the problems in the block three. the software could be sorted out. we need to understand what effect this may have on the overall program schedule. beyond that we are planning for the upgrades in the capability to the development efforts for the block program that will likely be a multibillion-dollar effort and we want to make sure that we do not repeat past mistakes. beyond the sdd program, there's there isa larger issue of the co sustain. these estimates are that $1 trillion. we need to understand what the department is doing to reduce
these costs. if we do nothing we reduce the risk of allowing the cost to sustain and support the f-35 to reduce the funds available for the investment in the future. the committee has been a strong supporter from the beginning however we must continue our vigilance so that there is a balance between f-35 and other important dod acquisitions. thank you for calling the hearing mr. chairman. >> i welcome the witnesses. >> thank you chairman. minority leader, members of the committee, i'm happy to be here today with the judge to put an executive officer for the f-35 program as well as doctor gilmore and mr. sullivan to discuss the status of the program and the president's budget request for fy 2017. in opening comments i would like to discuss my own involvement in the f-35. it will provide more detail on the current state of the program. my first exposure to the f-35 was in the fall of 2009 as i was awaiting confirmation to be the
principal deputy undersecretary. i was briefed by a member of the staff and my reaction at the time was one of surprise in the long period of opening the reduction of approximately ten years. a very high amount of concurrency in the program as you mentioned, the crazy this case the development of the production. it was one of the highest editor for the riskiest that i have ever seen. the production started in 2007 well before the design could be confirmed in testing. i later called the decision to the acquisition practice phrase that seems to have stuck. in early 2010 also before i was confirmed the program manager was replaced by new program manager was the admirable a very seasoned and competent professional at that time the f-35 went through a review and as a result of the cost increases and as a result of the review the program is based wi
based wind as it is now and has ever since. in 2010 the predecessor ended the use of the contracts for production starting with lot number four. in the fall of 2011 i became the acting undersecretary. one of my decisions was to bring and replace it. he's proven to be a highly competent program officer. in the fall of 2011 based on the early operational report from doctor gilmore's office, i commissioned an independent review of the staff program focused on the design stability of the program. at that time the extent of the open design issues and the currency cost for the retrofitting aircraft that was produced later led me to seriously consider halting the production. based on several considerations i made the decision to hold the production constant for the next few years and to assess progress
before increasing the production at the plant. under the lieutenant generals leadership program has made steady progress for the past four years. the cost of development have remained in the baseline. production costs are steadily decreased making the cost estimate each year. the cost of the sustainment has also been reduced by approximately 10% since the program was based wind. there've been a few months of schedule slips primarily due to software complexity. while i do continue to monitor the program and conduct annual program reviews, the f-35 is no longer a program that keeps me at night. there are some design issues that still need to be resolved and the test program is about 9% complete and i do expect additional discovery. i wouldn't be surprised if the major services at the point. our task now is to complete the program and achieve for the air force later this year an in the navy in 2018 and complete and separate the many partners of
the customers as they become operational over the next few years. we also need to move forward in the follow-on development. appreciate this committee's support for authorizing the funding of the work. the f-35 is a game changing system tha but our potential adversaries are not standing still. current integrated air defense systems, air to air weapons and electronic warfare must be continually countered. we must continuously improve the system to keep pace with emerging threats and i think the committee for its support and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you general. >> chairman mccain, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity today to discuss the program. the purpose today is to provide an honest and balanced assessment of where the program stands today. that means i will tell you the good the bad and the ugly and tell you what my team is doing to reduce cost, improve the
performance and meet our schedule commitments. the lightning is a vital importance to the security of the united states and is the program executive officer and director, i'm committed to delivering an affordable and a reliable and sustainable fifth-generation weapon system to the war fighters and those of our international partners and foreign military sales customers. overall the program is executing well across the entire spectrum acquisition to include development and design for my flight test, production and fielding, base stan they stand , maintenance and support and building a global systemic enterprise. the program is at a pivotal point it is now rapidly changing, growing and accelerating. we will be finishing our development program in late 2017 and begin a transition to a more efficient follow-on modernization program. we will see the production growth delivering 45 aircraft in 2015 to deliver over 100 airplanes and 2018 and up 145 by 2020.
additionally, the next four years we will continue to stand up with 17 operating bases over the world. we are also accelerating the creation of our heavy maintenance and repair capabilities and supply chain in the pacific, european and north american regions creating a truly global sustainment capability. the program is not without risks and challenges as these come with any program of this size and complexity i'm confident the current risks we face can be resolved and we will be able to overcome future problems and deliver the combat capability. this program is not that it has no programs but rather it discovers problems and implements solutions and improves the weapon system and at the same time it keeps the program on track. we've been doing that a number of years now. let me highlight a few confessions. last year we began the training at the air force base in arizona
where a blend of defense and partnered instructor pilots are helping to train u.s. air force and other pertinent pilots and air force is now receiving f-35 at the air force base in utah and training is underway to ready its first combat f-35 squadron to be operational later this year could also the united states marine corps is successfully flying into deeply into the sites for training and droppindropping a shooting lifes with the f-35 be today. in addition, the industry committed to and been have been successfully delivered 45 airplanes last year including the first aircraft produced in the italian assembled -- assembly facility in camry italy. from the production perspective, we delivered it to the 176 of our test operational and training aircraft to date. on the cost front, the price of purchasing f-35 . continues to decline lot after lot of a trend i believe will continue for many years. i expect the cost of a f-35 a
within engine and then dollars to be less than $85 million in fiscal year 19. as i said before, the program is changing, growing and accelerating but it's not without its issues, risks and challenges. let me highlight some of these areas and what we are doing about them. oonon the technical front we haa number of risks i would like to mention. mention. at the top of the list of aircraft software and maintenance system known as the logistics information system. we have seen stability issues in the software however we believe we've identified the root cause of the problems and have tested the solutions in the lab and the flight tests and are now completing the flight testing the solutions. our initial indication of the flight test is positive and have seen software stability improved to two to three times better than what we have seen in the past. at the end of this month i'm encouraged we will have enough data to consider this problem and issue closed.
we also experienced schedule issues of the development of the next version of alice version 2.2. i'm prepared to discuss this issue as well as the topics in the system and the u.s. air force initial operational test and recent u.s. air force marine corps development and the status of the partners and customers during the question and answers. the program is moving forward some times slower than i would like about moving forward and making progress on the last. we are nearing the completion of the development and flight testt in 2017 and revving up the production standing up new bases and growing a global sustainment enterprise and we've also stabilized and reduced the major costs on the program. as with any complex program to new discoveriesthenew discoverid obstacles will of her. the f-35 is still in development and this is the time when the challenges and discoveries are expected. however we believe the combined government team has the ability
to resolve the current issues and any future discoveries. i intend to continue leading this program with integrity, discipline, transparency, and accountability. it is my intention to complete this program within the resources and the time i've been given and i intend i'm holding my team and myself accountable for the outcomes on this program. one day your sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters will take a f-35 into harms way to defend our freedom, delivering them the best possible weapon system is the responsibility that i and my team take very seriously. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the program. i look forward to your questio questions. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i will focus my remarks on the readiness for the evaluation achievement in the full combat capability. my estimate will not be ready to begin operational test and evaluation until mid-calendar year 2018 at the earliest, that's about a one-year delay relative to the objective date
in six months to the threshold date. there's a number of reasons that my assessment. the most complex mission system testing remains as does verification of the fixes to remember significant problems. in-flight stability and mission systems with a new technical refreshing processor has been committed there is recent indications of significant progress in achieving stability although the stability issues while they were being fixed lead to delays in the development that provide full combat capability. nonetheless, there is good news on the stability print. significant ground startup persist however inadequate perfusion of the information on a single aircraft as well as among the four ship aircraft result in the confusing displays that are still a problem. the shifts will be frequently used in combat to enable the applications that are necessary to deal with the increasingly complex stressing integrated air
defense systems into potential adversaries to begin fielding in the middle of the last decade. shortfalls in the electronic attack into the geolocation and countermeasures processed. there are shortfalls in the performance of the system including the situational awareness. the refueling times like those in the legacy aircraft into the lack of a moving target capabilities which is crucial for successful conduct in the other missions. the lack of display in the critical mission systems components which is unacceptable in combat and there's other issues that are classified. regarding the mission systems, the program has been changed its approach from executing parallel schedule driven software releases to the serial capability-based approach which does take longer but that approach has been validated in the recent achievement of improves stability in the processor. that approach, the new approach
allows the time needed to fix problems and as we mentioned it has been validated and the progress recently seen. the aircraft are not invisible. mission systems infusion must work in a reasonable sense of the word. they don't have to be perfect but they have to work to prevail in the combat against the modern and capable and mobile integrated air defense system and potential adversaries since the middle of the last decade. the ability to prevail against the prince is the key rationale for the 400 billion-dollar program. continue with other reasons that there may be a delay in operational testing time is needed to complete and certify the weapons used throughout the whole flight envelope. the most recent estimates on october 2017 for the f-35 and february 1 the end of may or 25 b. and the estimates assume an increase in the rate at which the weapon tests are accomplished that may be a challenge to achieve. as it has been mentioned, there
are problems that continue with the logistics information system which remains immature requiring resource intensive that isn't accessible and under the program's current schedule, the final version of alice 3.0 in full capability production version required in the full combat capabilities will not be released until the first quarter of the calendar year 2018 but the schedule could be delayed by the ongoing problems with version 2.0.2 which attempts to integrate the engine data and incorporate other functionality and fixes. in the currency driven extensive modifications would be required in the early aircraft that it originally had been bought when it was planned to begin in 2013. the current schedule for accomplishing those including those turning out to be very problematic extends the third quarter of 2019 and the program is working on a approach to pull the modifications to the left
and includes taking the production aircraft later for the use and taking hardware from the recently fueled aircraft in the decision on that approach is needed now. there are inadequacies that remain in the programming laboratory that are precluding the ability to generate combat effective mission datafiles enabling aircraft to deal with the defense sites i mentioned and they will only worsen in the future. the schedule shows the upgrades required to handle the current threats in the calendar year 2020. the program can and has delivered mission datafiles but they are not optimized or tested to handle the fridge because off the hardware and software deficiencies. the programs optimistic schedules for the delivery of a validated with publicly inadequate first quarter 2018, 8 this assumes the functional lab version this month which may be problematic. for all these reasons the delay is in the full combat capability are likely and i want to remind
everyone that it will be the most realistic stressing test that will be performed and therefore the discovery of significant deficiencies as was the case with the f-22 is assured. thank you. >> mr. sullivan, welcome. >> thank you chairman, senator reid, members of the committee. i have a written statement for the record i would like to just take this time to briefly highlight what we consider to be the most important challenges facing the program moving forward. in addition to a written statement, the report to the committee and others which was issued on april 14 contains more details on the program's progress today. first, although the program has managed costs very well since its beach in subsequent baselining in 2012, it still poses significant future
affordability challenges for the department and the congress. as the program begins procuring more aircraft, the department is expected to spend on average about $13 billion per year over the next 22 years until all planned purchases or complete in 2040. these annual funding levels will present challenges as the program stacks its funding priorities against other large acquisitions including the b. 21 bomber, the kc 46 tanker of the ohio class submarine placement, the new carrier and many more. second, the department now plans to add new capability known as block for to the f-35 that is beyond its original baseline capability if it is planning to manage that as a part of the existing program rather than establishing a separate business
case and baseline for that effort. this has significant implications as far as the ability to provide oversight and holding the program accountable. the new work as a projected cost of about $3 billion over just the next six years in that price tag alone would qualify it as a major defense acquisition program in its own right. we believe it should be managed as such with its own separate business case to allow transparency and accountability. third, the software development is nearing completion but the program faces challenges in getting all of its development activity completed on time for operational testing as we just heard doctor gillmor talk about. it's completed over 80% of its developmental flight tests and it's now working to close out the flight testing of its final block of software.
the final is critical as it will provide the full capabilities to the aircraft. program officials have estimated as much as they three month delay right now to completing the block three testing in our own analysis indicates that it could be closer to six months and i think doctor gillmor's analysis as he states it happens more than that. getting the development of testing done is critical to getting operational testing do done. with regard to the technical risk the program has some fixes for earlier problems such as the display in the engine and its working now to find solutions for other challenges, the ejection seat problem and the structure. this cracks in the wing structure. perhaps the biggest outstanding risk for the program today as it has been discussed already is the logistics information system
known as alice. as you know, alice is a complex system that supports operations mission planning supply-chain management, maintenance and many other programs. in a companion progra the compal show issues on february on april 142 documented several issues with alis. most importantly concerning the inability to deploy right now and the lack of needed redundancy at this point. that could result in operational schedule risks in the future. finally, manufacturing and production data continue to show a positive trend towards more efficient production and that's good. the amount of labor hours to build each aircraft continues to go down. the engineering changes that are coming out of the test program has been reduced significantly, and the contractors delivering the aircraft on time or in some cases ahead of schedule.
we continue to monitor the measures for the aircraft and for the engine reliability and maintainability while they still fall short of expectations, they continue to improve and there is still time to achieve the required goals in that area. i will close with that and i look forward to your questions. >> i think the witnesses. general, how many military government civilians and full-time equivalent contractor positions are assigned to the joint program office and what are the annual costs to operate the office? >> if you include the tested edwards air force base which are not necessarily part of my program office pla office taipem just like i do support contractors, the numbers about 2,590 and the annual cost to update is about $70 million a year and that includes paying for salaries and leasing
facilities, computers, it, everything wrapped up. >> the information i have is that it's nearly 3,000 into the cost is $300 million a year. 70 million a year to run an office is pretty disturbing. a secretary, last year included a report language that directed them to either be validate the f-35 total by quantity of 2004 4 for all variants submitted new member by may 25, 2016. does the department intent on meeting this requirement on time clocks spin it as far as i know, yes we are. i was interested, doctor gillmor, you said that it's
likely to be delayed. do you have any idea how long the delay would be? >> are you speaking about the ioc for the air force block three fax fax >> yes. >> i think it is unlikely they will be the objective date which is maybe 2017 on may the 2016 but it could meet its threshold date which is later in the fall. >> and this issue mr. sullivan, on the processin perceiving of k by. can you provide any examples of a program pursuing a procurement strategy prior to the full rate production decision? >> you are referring to the proposal right now to buy the
aircraft. no, i don't have any examples of that. the only example i know of the situation is our multitier procurement which require a lot of criteria to show the industrial base is stable and the design is stable and they are ready to produce. usually it comes much later in the production line. so i don't think there is even any criteria for that. >> doctor gillmor, in your statement, yo he said of the sae limited and cybersecurity testing accomplished to date has nonetheless revealed deficiencies that cannot be ignored. can you elaborate on that? >> i would be happy to do so in the appropriate forum and the classified information we treat cyber vulnerabilities as the details that are classified as they are significant in my judgment.
>> general bogdan, doctor sullivan and gillmor said there would be a delay in the ioc and air force version. what's your response? >> there is many things but reports needs to deliver to them before they can declare. all the things that are necessary for them to make the t decision are on track for august, 2016 with the exception of alis that's approximately 60 days behind and therefore, i would put the alis delivery which is a criteria for them at about october, 2016 as opposed to one august. they have until december which is their threshold date so i think they will meet the criteria in the period but not exactly on one august. >> this go here 2016, general,
limited funds for the procurement until secretary james certified that the aircraft delivered in 2018 will have the full combat capability with the hardware to software weapons carriage. have you recommended or do you intend to recommend that she make the certification? >> yes, senator. i'm preparing the package now with my recommendation that she make that certification. i needed a few pieces of information before i could feel confident asking her to certify and one of them is the software stability issues that were spoken about before are behind us. they are now and therefore i believe it will be delivered in the fiscal year 2018 with the full capability so i look forward to that now. >> finally given the size of the cost, would you believe that it
would be treated as a separate program for the nonrecurring purposes were just as a part of the program? >> i would remind you that is into my decision however, in taking a look at the scen fighte in the current programs as i mentioned in my written statement they need to be scrubbed vigorously so anything that will help in that to bring clarity to performance the desired performance and cost would be useful so i think that would be a good idea but i would hasten to say that it is not my decision. >> mr. chairman i would like to yield to the senator. senator. he has an engagement elsewhere. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses. secretary kendal from 96 to 2007 as the f-35 was under development, dod supported and alternate engine program.
the push for the f1 36 was controversial in later years but i'm interested to hear from you and others have thoughts on this. do you believe that the alternate engine program is a smart strategy in those early years? >> the question of the alternate engine i was in my position for the last couple of years. it was taking some risks and we are getting some costs ou out of that what w but we think that te strategy would be working in their funding some advanced follow ons. if we could fund the program for that it has been a major
constraint overall including on the engines. >> i'm particularly concerned about the performance of the f-35 since it was selected for the engine. i'm concerned but looking back on the history of the f-35, the f-16 and others this performance issues and i quote from the department of defense recurring manufacturing quality issues that he been an issue. can you comment on that please? >> the quality issues that you're talking about are primarily at the suppliers locally and nonetheless it's responsible for the suppliers. in the last few years, we have improved our delivery of engines significantly but early on in the program you are correct we were seeing quality manufacturing issues with them over suppliers and i think at this point in time to
manufacturinthemanufacturing ofs much more mature than it was a few years ago. relative to the performance of the engine, today, the f1 35 engine has about 52,003 hours and it's maintaining about a 94% for mission capable rate. that is a good number in the endgame of the program we were shooting for 95% so here we are less than a quarter of the way through the full maturity of the airplane and we are just about achieving that reliability that we are looking for. however, that doesn't say that there are issues we are dealing with right now and the changes we're making to make it more affordable and more producible and increase the reliability. but from the perspective i've been happy with the performance of the f1 35. >> mr. sullivan, they've talked that their engines have a 2020
requirement, but in your reports last month, the gao wrote that the 35 a and b. engines are about 55 to 63% of where the program expected them to be. can you explain the difference in that assessment? >> i don't know that i can explain the cause of death but we found the engine reliability and the measurements that we look at in terms of coming up to the reliability growth curve for an engine during the development has been pretty consistently below where they expected to be but i would say they've been improving the last two or three years. it seems like they are beginning to retire some of that risk. >> this is to all the panelists. what is the top lesson you've learned through the f-35 acquisition process that can inform future major acquisitions
across the service is? mr. sullivan, i would like to start with you. >> i think the first thing we learned with this is that you shouldn't have a concurrent -- you shouldn't concurrently develop technology with a product and you shouldn't concurrently by aircraft while you are still developing. that is the number one thing. doctor gillmore? >> f-35 was an extreme example of optimistic if not ridiculous assumptions about how the program would play out. the decision to begin the production before much of the development has been accomplished is a very bad one as mr. kendal discussed. although an extreme example but not unprecedented because the department is typically optimistic, very optimistic about schedules and cost which thebenefits of the program manas who are put in charge of the
programs to look like failures from the outside. which is a terrible thing to do to them. >> i would love to hear the other two but i'm out of time. thank you mr. chairman. >> the question i was going to ask me have been answered in the second sentence in your opening statement whe on this f-35 would form the backbone of the combat. we keep hearing things to the contrary. i remember when the secretary that was just in february of 14 he said, quote, american dominance in the seas and the size because -- the sky is. they said september last year and this is his quote, the
advantage that we have from their i can honestly say is shrinking. it's not just a specific problem but it's a significant problem as anywhere. i don't think that it's controversial to say that they've closed the gap in the capability. general, do you agree with that? >> our adversaries today are full speed ahead in accelerating the development of significant military capabilities both air to air and ground to ground. i believe the f-35 is absolutely necessary now and in the future to give you and the nation options to take an airplane and go anywhere in the face of the earth at the time of our choosing and be survivable and hit a target.
i do not believe there's any other in the world can do that today. only the f-35 will do that for many years. >> you're talking about a fifth generation aircraft for both russia and china. it may be right behind a little bit. now when you compare those normally they talk about we will have a better radar once you give us an idea what the opposition is right now and how specifically what areas we are better. >> senator, i will try to do that without walking across the line of the sensitive information and classified. one of the things folks like to think about when they look at those is that they look a lot
like ours. that is a true statement. much of the design of the airplanes came on the outer line from what he developed. >> i understand that. >> what makes us better and specialist with us on the outside of the airplanes. our radar and the multi-centrifuge and into the ability to take information and develop space and provided to the public in such a way that he knows everything that's going on 360 degrees around him. and the weapons to employ the knowledge or what makes it different. >> that's good. recently, they talked about some pretty high facts that are using those a lot more than we anticipated and get in your presentation you talked pretty specifically about the numbers of copies we are going to have
in the abn see. most of us here on this side of the people remember we went through this thing with the f-22. 750, and it' then it's good to 0 some odd than 187 ultimately. now, that's quite a deterioration from the original members. is there a reason you don't believe we are going to experience the same thing? >> i can't assume in the future but the services will do. that's what i will tell you is that the major difference between the f-22 type of program and the 35 are significant in that we have many foreign partners also buying the airplane and if they continue to buy the airplane, the price will continue to come down. >> and that's where you come up
with the 85 million ultimately taking that into consideration. one last thing. we thought we were going to have the model that drove and [inaudible] and of course we didn't have anything in france and paris. are you pretty confident we are going to have -- but it's going to make it this year? >> we are planning a deployment of five f-35, three d. models and one of those being a uk airplane. >> how many will be flying? >> we will fly all of them. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i just want to clarify one of your comments. you were talking about the difficulty of upgrading with four aircraft come and essentially the multi-centrifuge and of the aircraft operating
seems to be the preferred form of operation. is that accurate? >> that will provide information from the aircraft that must be fused in order to provide a situational awareness that general bogdan mentioned it is critical to the threats. >> and there is a current difficulty in making the systems even if they operate in a single aircraft operating together. >> it has been a challenge to make it worthwhile. it will paste on what i consider to be the challenge is a hard problem. it doesn't surprise me that it's turning out to be a hard problem to make it worthwhile because you get information from different sensors on the same aircraft as well as different aircraft. you have to have software to sort through that and this is the signal i got through this sensor is the same target as
this one on the other aircraft. that is a very hard problem. it's not a matter of just simply writing the code for the user interface. it involves a detailed understanding of physics and propagation othe physics andproo forth. so, that will continue to be a challenge and it will require a lot of tests where you guess the solutions and venues for subject matter experts to try to implement them and test them and see how that works and that is a time-consuming process. >> do you really get into that issue or is that just simply the aircraft being able to fly? >> the air force is the one just as the marines did fo bid for tr capability of the air force sets the standards for determining what constitutes the sufficient performance. i can't remember the details of what they said about the fusion
but obviously, the more fusion capability they have come of the better. it will be limited because it provides basic capability to block the new processor and there were fusion shortfalls that the block three was meant to surmount. >> mr. secretary, from your perspective, what do you think the most significant challenges are? i know that we talked about alice as a key issue in terms of resolution. any others that you identify wod identify your focus on to deal with than? >> i think it is the leading problem in the air force on time. the issue that was mentioned earlier on the stability i think was a concern that seems to be getting under control. there are a number of concerns just in the pace of testing and how much needs to be done and i know some of the sets the stepse generalist seeking to alleviate some of that pressure that he
has. so i think that it is a lot of things that have to happen. at the end of the day the air force for make the decision when they think that it's ready. my experience in the marine corps i think that they will be happy to say they are not going to do that. one of the things long-term as the sustainment course which seems to be quite significant. can you describe steps that you were taking to lower those costs? we want to ove avoid the cost oe platform on the maintenance operation. >> we've been able to take about 10% of the cost estimate on the baselining and a whole variety of things to do that. we are looking at various ways to structure the business case if you vote for the sustainment and that is a work that is still in progress. we don't want to remain in this for any longer than we possibly have to sue introducing the competition is a big part of it.
we are looking for creative ways to work with our partners so that we can do things together as opposed to separately. general bogdan i think is a long list in addition to that. can you give me the top two or three, general? >> featured a fully funded reliability maintaining program about three years ago where we look at every component on the f-35 to determine if it was maintaining its performance on the airplane at a pace which we needed it. that has proven to be very cost-effective for us so we are going after those pieces that are not performing well and we also have a cost war room where we look at every idea that comes from the field on how to better maintain airplane. a perfect example of that is the original concept for tires and wheels and brakes on the airplane was to ship of it off a contractor somewhere. the u.s. air force and navy and marine corps have that capability today with the systems with the bases so we are
moving all the work to them that reduces about 40 or 50% of the cost on the turn time of fixing things like that, so we are going about it systematically to get every piece of cost out of e program. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. general bogdan, i wanted to ask you, recently the genital came before the committee and sent the commission capability will be replaced yet the website for the joint strike fighter program sends that the f-35 will replace the a-10. so can you answer this question for us plaques there is an inconsistency and i would like to know is general welsh right for the website? >> thank you for that question >> first, the structure of the u.s. air force and its fighter
inventory is well beyond my purview. so, i won't try to explain what he said or what the decision-making process is for the air force on replacing the air fighter inventory -- >> but i think this is an important question, so if general welsh comes before the committee and says the f-35 isn't going to replace the a-10 can and get the joint strike fighter website says that the f-35 will replace the a-10 and it's pretty important as we think about the capabilities of the a-10. secretary bogdan? >> i can't speak for certain but i think what he was trying to say is that both statements i think are correct. we will replace -- >> both statements can't be correct. >> we will replace the a-10 with the f-35. that is correct. but the f-35 will not do the missions in the same way the
a-10 does. iit will do it differently. the a-10 is designed to be low and slow "-end-quotes to the target that it was engaging relatively speaking. we will not use the f-35 in the same way. so they perform the mission differently. >> select the ask doctor gilmore come if it is going to perform the mission very differently, is it not important that we understand how the two of them compare? so i would ask you how -- will there be comparison testing with other comparative frames that the kendal is going to replace and hobepleased at how will the operational testing comparing the capabilities the conduct of? >> if i could point out i have the operational requirements document for the f-35 and it says that it will rely purely upon the f-22 for the air superiority and will assume the current f-16 world at the low end of the fighter mixed
strategy into the a-10 rules as in the operational requirements. as blix was going to perform the a-10 rule it's a pretty important rule to the men and women on the ground, so what about the fly off to help about go down? >> we are going to do a comparative test on the ability of the f-35 to perform combat search and rescue and related missions. we are also going to do a comparison test is an integral part of the test and evaluation of the ability of the f-35 to perform suppression destruction of defenses with the f-16 and 18. this operational requirement document has numerous citations to the performance expected in 35 and the relationship to the aircraft that it's going to replace. so the operational testing is consistent with the operational requirements document and it's also a comparison testing is
also not unprecedented. there was testing between the f-22 and the f-15 and there's been comparison testing is a purposof thepurpose of the opers including things like tactical vehicles. so, to me the comparison testing just makes common sense. if you're spending a lot of money to get the improved capability, that is the easiest way to demonstrate it to the comparison test with regards to the cash we are going to do it under all the circumstances that we see is conducted including under high-tech conditions in which we expect they will have an advantage in other conditions requiring loitering on the target, low altitude operations and so forth in which there are a lot of arguments about which aircraft might have the advantage that's what the comparison test is meant to show us. >> i think that's important so that we can understand the
capability comparisons. so general bogdan, i asked the question of the general in march as to when do you expect t the d to achieve the demonstrated capability pretty f-35 a? >> the program record has to sdd coming in at the end of block three witches in the 2017 timeframe but a sdd ii is for the provision weapon is planned for the first increment of the block for and that is approximately in the 20, 21, 22 timeframe. >> that is important as well because the sdd provides an ability to kill multiple targets in adverse weather to something that the a-10 has the capability on so i think -- i hope that is taken into consideration as we look at this comparison. >> the comparison testing will be done with mobile targets and
in close proximity to buildings and civilian structures with local targets. as i mentioned, right now, the mobile targets capability is problematic and how much will be corrected and it remains to be seen. in 2022 it will provide a weapon that can actually follow the target. before that in 2020, they may also help in that regard the current moving target capability is limited. >> i know my time is up with one of the things that continues to worry me is under the air force plan they were all retired by 2022 and it seems to me that these are still important questions that remain that very much matter to our men and women on the ground. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and all of you for your service. general bogdan, the report recommends an approach in which new development efforts are
managed and they recommended this type of acquisition program for the block for following the modernization efforts however, the dod hasn't conquered the recommendations and plans to improve the block for the modernization efforts in the existing cost plus contracts so if the dod did not adopt the recommendation would that help eliminate the cost for the block phase of the program? i don't know why any of us don't pay attention to it but by the department of defense does makes no sense at all. >> i'm going to defer to mr. kendal. >> i think we are talking about a distinction that may not have a difference. the label brings with it a want of statutory oversight and what
we plan to do with block for is ensure that it is accounted for and we have an independent estimate and that we match it intensively if there is a transparency to what we are doing. >> all the things that are being asked for will be supplied. but if the attitude of the label of the program that is going to bring a lot to the cost and i was hoping to avoid that. i agree we don't want to put any more cost on top but i would ask mr. sullivan why would they make that report if you thought that it was going somewhere on top of that? >> we wouldn't want to see any bureaucracy on top of it either in fact we did a report last year looking w the kind of cold that our efficiency report for the under secretaries familiar with it and agrees with a lot of that i think. so one of the things we are also attacking when we attack these kind of accountability questions
is let's reduce some of that bureaucracy that they have to deal with. but the reason we think it's important here is number one, the dollars involved are such that even according to the current law that meets the threshold for the program the other thing is on the f-22 program, we saw something very similar when they decided to baseline the new capabilities into the program they did it under the existing program and very quickly a 2 billion-dollar estimate for the development of the new capabilities became about $11 billion there was no track or accountability over it because it was in with the baseline program. >> i appreciate the job that you do and i have to apologize why we don't take your recommendations more seriously. you must have considered
bureaucracy versus the cost versus the contract versus the cost had to be significant savings. >> yes and we sympathize with the desire to not have to go through so many reviews and so many officers and comments and everything else and we did the report on that and it was eye-opening for us to see what they have to go through that to me that is not -- they said if they had to go to a major defense acquisition program it would cause a year's delay in getting the development effort going and i just don't understand why that would be the case. we are doing many things that were required to do. >> yesterday it was announced that we were sending 250 special operation forces too serious. i understand the cost is approximately one to 1.5 million to train one special operator
equaling roughly 375 million for the 250. general, you indicated recently that f-35 costs 1.8 million i know what is going to come down to 85 euros by 2019. if we traded ten jets we could increase the size of the special forces community by over 650. now this is after the general came and said that we are about 220,000 short of the ground troops so we are looking for ways to make sure that we can meet the threats we have. that f-35 costs 400,000 committed his $10 million for 2500. as we look at the cost associated with the f-35, we are facing how most of it is ground threats that we are facing infighting. does it make sense if insomuch or we currently depend on the special forces around the world?
>> what i want for you is the department has many kinds of choices to have to make to try to balance the requirements with the resources they have. i will tell you that the f-35 is a long-term investment in the defense of the nation and our future adversaries are not sitting still in the next ten or 20, 30 years we need the capabilities that the f-35 will provide us to maintain our leadership in the world. so, i consider the f-35 is an investment in the future. >> and i appreciate that. we have 2500 is scheduled to be built, correct? >> they will build 2,243. >> so for the aircraft we could
650 special people on the front lines right now flex thank you. >> doctor gilmore come in your prepared testimony you stayed cybersecurity testing has revealed deficiencies and that the full testing of the logistics operating unit and the just ask information system has not been permitted. can you give an overview of the plan cybersecurity test and whether they are based on the deficiencies discovered so far that you believe the testing will be adequate? >> if we execute the plan my office has been working on in the joint operational test team and the office over the next couple of years, that will be a very rigorous set of cybersecurity tests. the problems that we are running into as you mentioned are the program is reluctant to let us test on the systems for fear
that we might damage them and they haven't made provisions of the system is back now and although they are working on that now. so, up to this point and in the immediate future we won't have to test on the systems and laboratory systems our office is making those available and that is better than if we are going all testing as was mentioned at my annual report and statement. but we need to do more than that. we need to test on the systems and we are also going to have to find a way to do some sort of cybersecurity assessment of the lockheed information systems because the analysts are plugged into the corporate network and we are working through all those issues and over the next couple of years i expect we will have done very adequate testing that we are just at the beginning of it. it. >> and a general, how is the program office working to
address these issues? the doctor mentioned to some accommodations but there's still the need for the life testing. how are you addressing all of this? >> what i will tell you today, alis is operating on the dod networks and in order for me to be able to put the system on the networks, it's gone through over the last three or four years very vigorous cybersecurity testing and certification from agencies outside to include the nsa. so, the idea that the alis today is somehow not tested isn't an accurate statement. however having said that, doctor gilmore is correct. i was hesitant last year to give the operational test community the authority to test into the operational system because we didn't have redundancy in part of the system and of the testing
were to knock off the part of the system, i didn't have a backup. we wer were going to back up toy and as soon as it was in place, we would give the operational test community the full authority to test the system as it operates in the field today and that should happen before the end of the year. before the end of the year. >> i would like to comment that we do operational testing as an integral part of the testing of the systems that have been through certifications and we get into them every time. so i'm not arguing against the certificationscome the feature specificatio, which arespecificf assessments. they are certainly necessary but they are hardly sufficient and commercial organizations such as microsoft have said in the advice they try to provide their customers assumtotheir customeru
have been penetrated and do continue mobile red teaming which is what we do in our operational tests. , said the certification to general talks about are certainly necessary that hardly sufficient. >> mr. secretary, overall, what are the lessons learned in this process? what are we applying to other acquisitions in how i and how ie cybersecurity going to be included in the requirements process? what are we doing to integrate the requirements for the cybersecurity into the hold acquisitions process? >> it is a ubiquitous problem. ..
>> not all of our systems like the of 35 during development. we have to integrate the design process as we go. as well as and her business practices. it is a pervasive threat. i worry particularly particularly about loss of and classified information and it's more easier to abstract and a tack. it's a problem because you wanted taken to the internet's he can order parts and stuff. were working the problem very hard. it's not going to be cheap to fix it. it's not going to be quick to fix it but we have to. >> thank you. >> i know senator donnelly asked about lessons learned from 35
program and what we might take ford into other programs given some of the challenge this program go back to some members high school years. i think we only got through mr. sullivan and doctor gilmore though. i would like to hear the answer to that question secretary kendall. >> i was thinking as my colleagues were answering, i think it's a combination of thing, at the end of the day having a successful program depends on a handful of things. they are going to be complicated which starts with reasonable requirements and it has to have professional management and power to do his job. you have to have adequate resources, you have to have a system that basically will support people doing their thing. in our system as others have mentioned there is a very strong bias that is built into
were structured toward optimism. it's easier to get a program funded of a cost less. people. people on think faster and cheaper and to do more. most of the problems i've seen in acquisition stem from being in a hurry, and being convinced for whatever reason that things will be cheaper, better, faster than they will actually be. my office was formed in 1986 because this problem was so pervasive. i think we have had a mixed record of success. one of the things i hope i have done to over the last several years is to put more realism into structured programs with more likelihood of success. many of the things we do are incredibly complicated and difficult. when you create something that is never been created before and you do it with cutting edge technology that is a process that has unknown senate. no matter no matter how much risk reduction you do at a time. i think support for sound management, ensuring
professionals are in place, resisting the tendency to spend the money just because it's in your budget, and you will be afraid you'll lose it if you don't spend it which is what happened started production. it has to be reinforced throughout the chain of command started with secretary of defense. >> thank you senator. i will not elaborate the optimism piece, are given, i will give i will give you two other things are. when he set up a large acquisition program like this, you must ensure that the risk between industry and government is balanced properly. if the risk is all on the government, or all on industry, you will get bad behaviors from both sides. so it is very important to make sure you have the incentive structures right and the risk balanced appropriately between the government and industry. we do not at that right at the early part of the f35 program. mr. kendall, under his leadership i've been trying to do that for a number of years
now and it is proven to be helpful. the second thing i would tell you that people do not talk about much is leadership continuity. if you have a very large program a very complex like the f 35, it will do no good to put leaders in place that are there for only two or three years, it takes years, it takes them a year just understand what is going on. i would tell you are bigger acquisition program need stable leadership at the top for many years to help. >> are you talking about uniformed leadership or civilian leadership? >> either once or. government and military personnel are very capable acquisition leaders. you have to leave them in place for enough time to make a difference. to the extent that uniformed leadership is an acquisition challenger personal challenge. >> it is both sir. >> how do you provide the incentives for military person to continue moving up in rank if you leave him in a job for five or six years. >> but that is sometimes what is necessary for very big complex
acquisition problems. >> ever for partners overseas and i just don't mean but our security partners generally were talking about acquiring weapons systems that because they are small compared to the united states they worry about playing with the country instead of a country with the plane. what is the risk that some of the partners in this program face in terms of the cost of this aircraft and the ability to acquire number of aircraft needed to contribute to the program. how many joint strike fighters need a country acquire to have a meaningful to their defense? >> that is an interesting question and i ink it really goes to what each country cares about in terms of its resources and what they care to defend, what i will tell you is even our smallest nations on the of 35 program are looking at two squadrons of f35, the idea that
the partnership will be working together to sustain, maintain and train the airplanes is a huge deal for them. otherwise they cannot afford a fifth generation capability like they are today. >> thank you. >> on behalf of the chairman. >> thank you sir. doctor gilmore, i'm concerned concerned about your testimony that the marine corps found a were not able to achieve aircraft at the unit or intermediate level that would support expeditionary warfare. >> can you expand on this and give your assessment as to whether alice or the automatic logistic information system is mature enough to support the sustained operations of land or shipment based for f 35's at this time. >> at this time, it is not sufficiently mature. there are number of number of improvements in plant as the program was swore to what is
called alice three-point oh, the fully capable version that is meant to be available for operational testing and full operational capability. if those improvements are realized they will address a number the issues mentioned in my testimony. but currently, there are immaturity's in the system, there are there are lots of time-consuming workarounds that are required to keep aircraft flying, there's a heavy reliance on having contractors present again when we move forward to alice three-point oh, the plan plan is to fix many of those problems. there is also concerned that was alluded to when talking about tires that there are still much reliance on sending parts back rather than repairing them closer to the front line. again the program is working on those issues. we will see how alice three-point oh does when it comes to operational testing, my estimate is in 2018. >> lieutenant general, can you comment on doctor gilmer's
assertion that with the current number of aircraft plans for testing, and 80% aircraft availability rate is needed to efficiently test on schedule, what would you assesses the current air craft rate and does the gpo current production right be up to 80% by the time the i/o is scheduled to start. it seems seems as though you're not making that yet you're going to have more challenges between now and then to meet that. how are we going to meet the testing guidelines that are laid out in order to meet the deadlines that you have laid out? it does not appear as though it's possible. can you comment on that give us your thoughts please. >> i'm not quite sure where the 80% comes from but i think. >> in order to have a number of aircraft and the number of tests you gonna do, you have to have 80% operational.
>> to finish i/o to, you need within a year. you are correct sir. i sir. i do not believe we will, by the at time iot gets near 80 percent. today were hovering around 60% aircraft ability. the best we best we have seen so far in the u.s. air force airplane at hill air force base, when they deployed this winter they achieved about a 72% availability rate. what we have seen is our newer airplanes are doing much better, but i will tell you, there is very unlikely that we will get to 80%. what that means is iot may take longer than we anticipated. that would be the major result of that. >> that's interesting we've talked a little bit and i'm good a up on senators questions regarding the a-10. as i look back to the information been provided to us, if you compare the two aircraft today, the a-10, time on station
hour to an hour and half, that f35b, and this is from what i can see the plan operational capability 25 to 40 minutes, on station with weapons, the a-10 floor to air service weapon, under to be software, to air to surface weapons, the fuel burn ten to 20% higher than an f-16, 50 to 70%% higher than in a-10 which would suggest that we need additional capabilities just to service them certain close by those areas. on the gun itself the f35 mrs. the way it was designed in the first place apparently it was not designed with a -- with a 42nd verse. in a-10 with 35 million canted 17 seconds.
in a-10 round is double the weight of that carried by the f 35, five, clearly we talk about having a similar mission were talking about doing the job in a completely different ways, is that a fair assessment. >> doctor gilmore. >> yes, the f35 when you're talking about closer support it will do it much differently than the a-10. we are going to do those comparison tests of the ability to perform between the a-10 f35 as as an integral part of testing. we are not going to say the f35 has to perform task the same way the a-10 does, will let the f35 pilots take advantage of the systems on that aircraft, deals some of the limitations you mentioned as well as they can. and see how all the missions are carried out in terms of the ability to strike tag timely manner and accurately in the report on that.
there are numerous arguments about how well each aircraft will do under different circumstances and threats. clearly the the f35 should have an advantage at a higher threat than the a-10 does. so the comparison testing in our report will eliminate all that. >> i'm on a timeline, but secondary candle looks like he wants to respond and in fairness all give them an opportunity. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm a huge proponent of file of the a-10 i'm an army officer. it was purpose designed to be close air craft. it was a very good design for that purpose. if u.s. it to do in order air, it's hopeless. the f35 design is a multi-aircraft that can do a variety can do a variety of missions. air dominance, strike, and closer support. it does close air support differently, doesn't have the features that you mention, those are all real numbers but what is different now than at the time he was conceived is the munitions.
a wide variety of aircraft to put a small bomb work exactly where wanted it to go. the air force today does like air bombers today. so times of change. if we could afford it, i think everybody would like to keep the a-10 in inventory because it is such a good special-purpose aircraft for that one mission. but given the constraints we have on both the size of our structure in the financial resources we have, maintaining a one mission aircraft in the air force which is not something that could fit into the balance we try to achieve. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for calling this hearing and thanks to all of you, our witnesses for your testimony today. you talk delegation has has had the opportunity to witness firsthand the rollout of the f35 in the air force. as a 388419 fighter wings at hill air force base in ogden,
utah prepare prepare to reach initial operating capacity later this year. we've also been able to see the development of the logistics and maintenance function of the f35 a of the complex which has been so effective that they have been called to assist both the marine corps and the navy and the modernization goals for their respective variants of the 35, we're very proud of that the men and women who are working to train on test and keep these jets in the air are models of american ingenuity and hard work and patriotism it education at its very best. i hope this congress will provide them with the resources they very much need. in order to continue succeeding. in their mission general moan of the main obstacles in the f35 a reach in its ioc goals this year it involves the continued development of alice which is a
force used to manage the logistics and supply chain for maintaining the f 35, five, not just now during the rollout but throughout his lifetime. can you tell me how is a joint program office working within industry to ensure this capability is functional and is fully integrated into this weapons platform in a timely and effective manner. >> thank you senator. the alice system right now at the air force is on track to be about 60 days later than what we had planned. the biggest issue we have right now is getting the maintenance and supply chain and configuration management on the engine, the f135 integrated into the alice system. that it has proven to be more difficult than
we had anticipated. because it requires both the backend erp, to talk to each other and to connect with alice. we have since. >> and we have worked across the whole country as well as some of the other teammates and we are brought in software experts within dod to try over the last few months to see where those difficulties wide. the good news is we understand where the difficulties are, now we just have to go and execute and like i said, i think we're probably going to be about two months late in getting that done. but from a technical standpoint i think we will be a we get it done. >> it's good anytime you can contain a delay and look forward and conclude that because of budget reductions and the inability to retire the a-10, the air force is concerned about
a potential shortfall of experienced uniform maintainers to transition to a 35 units and keep the weapon's save and keep them functional. so general, have the air force been able to resolve the problem in the short term. what long-term complications do you see that might still exist that a generation of maintainers is keeping pace with the process of integrating the f35 into the air force. >> in the short term when the air force was faced last year with a shortage of maintainers for their ioc capability they asked the program office to populate in a terriers quadrant at luke air force base with a contract logistics support personnel and we did that this 62nd squadron on the flight line has maintained
approximately 110 contractors as opposed to blue suit maintainers. that gave the air force the flexibility to take those maintainers that would've been at luke air force base and transferred them to hill air force base from ioc. that's just a band-aid not a short-term fix. in the long term i believe i believe the air force needs the ability to move maintainers around the growing fleet of f35's. we are committed to working with them to increase the maintainers through the schoolhouse and to work with our partners and to work with the garden reserve in the air force who can provide some of that man. i'll defer to the air force on the solution. >> let me ask you one more question. can you tell me did the department of defense originally attend the f35 to be a direct replacement for the a-10 and close air support missions? or was it designed to work with
other air force and joint for systems to fulfill the department's needs as well as closer support goes and what's your assessment of how the services will be able to work together to meet close air support needs through integrated joint operation question work. >> what i will tell you is that over time the evolution of the way we conduct close air support in the department of defense has evolved. it is no longer single airplane out there talking to a ground controller and dropping a single weapon, it it is a much more integrated fight, it is much more reliant on multiplatform and multi- communication systems with ground and air. given that, the f35 in the future, today and in the future will have the capabilities to seamlessly integrate into that network to perform close air support. >> thank you very much. >> senator lee, the the chairman is on his way back to the second vote on also told that senator
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> let me once again on behalf of trimming can call the hearing to order and recognize senator gave her his question. >> mr. gilmore, one of the concerns i have been and it has been touched on in the searing is the length of time this a platform is expected to serve, roughly 20 years mark, 30 plus years from initial inception, i inception, i think back to any product that i may have bought in 2004, i was originally thinking of senator graham's flip phone, i would not want to be flying that in 2040, are we building upgradability into this airplane so that it can keep up
with the times, in other words is it designed with that in mind? >> well, i will defer the details to general bogdan. this aircraft is going to be much more upgradable than the f-22 was. but having said that, we have already identified a need for an upgrade from the current from the now being installed technically fresh two processor which provides additional capability relevant to the processors of the aircraft to this point, we have identified a need to an upgrade for that, technical refresh three process. in this program moving from one processor to another is not
nearly as arduous a problem as the f-22 when there is a lot of software developed that was developed with features that were tied very specifically to the processors in order to maximize capability. it's still not a trivial matter as been demonstrated recently by the stability problem that we now hope have been resolved with a technical refresh two processor. upgradability is being built in but it doesn't mean it is going to be trivial to execute. >> general, quickly what is your thought, are you ever get to be able to upgrade this airplane so it is not going to be absolute in 2025? >> i believe we will serve, there's a few points to make. one is when we do replace the next version of the replace the next version of the computer or the brain of the airplane, we are requiring open standards and
modular open system architecture which will allow for the incorporation of the sensors and new capabilities much easier. second, when we first originally designed airplane we knew many of our partners and customers would want to put unique weapons on the airplane so we have created a system that will allow us to integrate multiple kinds of weapons on the airplane rather, it trivial but in an easier way. from both of those perspective i believe the airplane is adaptable and grovel. the third as many of the capabilities inherent in the airplane today that make it special or software-based. therefore in the future as new capabilities, unlike electronic warfare in electronic attack, will be able to upgrade the software and an easier way. >> i think this is got to be an important part of our acquisition processes were buying 40-year-old assets, the submarine, mr. secretary kendall, was was the attempt at joynes in this project a mistake in retrospect? >> that's a good question
senator. i think the honest answer is, i'm not not sure. i was president at the inception it started out as a technology program, it was instituted by one of my predecessors on the staff. we are now thinking of the fallout aircraft for the navy and air force, i don't think were going to repeat this. first i think the design parameters are going to be different for fall aircraft of the services. we did get some benefit and commonality but there is very little commonality and structure, so i think we could still get some of those without having to have a single program. >> you could get benefits in terms of common? >> common sensor systems and so on. so i think those could still be achieved without have a common program necessarily.
i think you'd have to make that decision as your plans for modernization and acquisition became more real and material as to whether or not it paid off or not. i think it is astonishing to me frankly that we haven't been able to keep this program together for so long, keep the three services fully committed and keep all the international partners committed. we have two that are on the fence right now but at this stage of the game everybody is still inches pulling all that off is not a small achievement. that's very hard to do. i think we have to think very carefully about that. the more complexity complexity you have in a program the more risk you have. i don't know the savings are necessarily worth that complexity that goes with it. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you. i think you all for being here today and for your insights on this very challenging program. it is as complex as it is
critical to our national defense. we should expect on this committee and the american public should anticipate that a weapons platform of this complexity will also have bumps in the row. in its development and research. i take it none of you would disagree with that basic proposition. despite that bumpy road at some point the f35 as as a whole has already made significant advancement in a number of areas and in particular the f135 program provides fifth generational power capability to the fleet. every reverent flow rate contract as i understand it for the 135 has been has been on or below cost. the recent announcement of the lots nine in ten will bring the price down another 3.4% from the
lr ip eight. today the 135 conventional takeoff and landing engine toss costs have been reduced by 47% since the initial flight test engine. the engine cost has been reduced by 34% in the same time. this a real achievement. in addition they have already identified technology and improvement options that will increase the thrust, durability and fuel efficiency that could save billions of dollars for this program. the f135 is meeting the key f fy2020 milestones. again, my again, my understanding or mission capability and reliability. but the fact that are accurately stated.
>> it's very accurate. >> all that said, i know questions have been raised about the f135 performance and i take it from your testimony that quality has not been an issue so far as the supplier performance have been concerned. >> two or three years ago i would've told you i was worried about that. i will tell you that pratt & whitney have done a good job at standing up a quality organization within the military engines that have dug down deep into their supply chain and helped improve that significantly. >> their supply chain is a lot of it based in connecticut and i can tell you from my experience in connecticut