tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 13, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EST
chairman wittman: good morning, i want to call to order the house armed services subcommittee. thank you to our witnesses for joining us. i would like to recognize a number of our great young airman that are here from langley air force base. i want to welcome you to washington. we appreciate all the langley air force association does. we have a great working relationship there. thank you so much for your leadership. we appreciate that. i know that i have to compete with ms. bordallo. is there anybody here from andersen air force base? >> is there? chairman wittman: we have a little competition going on. wherever we go, there is so always somebody from guam.
i want to make sure that we have the opportunity to recognize them this morning. yes. ms. bordallo: would you kindly stand up, please? chairman wittman: i knew it. [laughter] chairman wittman: i knew it, i knew it. fantastic. she always does, she only does. good morning. i want to think all of you for being here for the readiness hearing on the 2017 budget requests and readiness posture. this is the first of four hearings, and in december and january the services testified on increase readiness risks. heg how the air force budget request enables a readiness recovery plan and where we continue to take risk. welcome all of our experts. this morning we have with this general david goldfein, within a general john raymond, then a general -- lieutenant general john cooper. thank you all for testifying
today. we look forward to your thoughts and insights on these important issues. the purpose of this hearing for the committee to receive clarification on air force choices for its budget request. funding priorities, and gather more detail on the current and future impacts of these decisions on operations and training. , i want to thank our witnesses for participating. i would now like to turn to our liking member for any remarks she may have. ms. bordallo: i would like to thank the witnesses. fein, nice to see you again. of course come all the airman that are here. t that youroub testimony before a subcommittee will prove insightful. i thank all of you for your service to our nation. the air force has been engaged
with constant combat operations overseas for a quarter of a century while conducting global transport and mobile operations. we know, we do know that this has taken a toll on our airman and their equipment. you are accomplishing this feat today with a force that is considerably fewer personnel and aircraft than it did for the five years ago. our forces continue to be deployed throughout the world. countering terror organizations, other adversaries. the requirements placed upon our never beas a whole can understated. because of unreliable and unpredictable funding, resulting from sequestration and numerous continuing resolutions, over the past several years you have had to maintain a delicate balance between readiness and moderation. at times this has cost readiness, the further behind we get behind this cover the harder it will be for our forced to
recover to full spectrum readiness. a better can get understanding of the forces plan to maintain readiness and personnel training. again, thank you all for your service. i look forward to your hearing. chairman wittman: becky so much. i will go now to general goldfein. i understand you will be providing the statement for the panel. all of your statements will be entered into the record. we will have that. if you want to add anything we can do that to the question period. gen. goldfein: thank you, chairman wittman, and distinguished members of the committee. on behalf of our secretary and chief of staff it is an honor to be with you today and sit beside these two great airman. we are honored to represent the 660,000 total airmen serving today. we request our written statement
replaced in the record. over 25 years ago, then captain in served in the opening hours of desert storm. during the ground war that followed the air campaign, the air force along with our joint coalition partners provided the same blanket of air power that had shielded u.s. forces since april of 1953. the last time an american service member was killed by enemy aircraft. in addition to providing top cover, it is a perimeter and refueled and maintained aircraft, controlled air traffic, manage the supply line, tended our wounded, and support of the joint team of global vigilance and power. for many americans, and others across the globe, operation: torm set the standard for airpower and it is what they remember. in the quarter of a century since desert storm your air force has remained in combat
operations without respite. our nuclearover enterprise. however, 25 years of continuous combat operations coupled with budget instability have made the smallest,one oldest, at least ready in its history. relative size in perspective, in 1991 we deployed 33 of our 134 combat coded active guard corps squadrons -- squadrons in support of operation desert storm. the average age of our aircraft for 17 years. 80% of the fighter force was ready for full spectrum conflict. in contrast, today we have just 55 total force fighter squadrons
and approximately 660,000 total airmen. the average age of our aircraft is 27 years, and less than 50% of our combat air force is ready for full-spectrum conflict. rejections readiness -- reduction with a rising china and maligned influence in the middle east. north korean nuclear ambi tions, and you have an air force the is too small for what nation requires the subsample he put, if we will remain the most on theve air force planet, we must take steps to rebuild our readiness now. this, theo accomplish fiscal year of 2017 budget aims to build, train, and equip air capable of air force
responding to today's threats. yorty, intelligence surveillance, rapid global superiority,ir intelligence surveillance, and rapid global mobility. icbms,ng investments in as well as b52 bomber modifications. 35 will change the calculus of any potential adversary and will be critical to success in any future high and fight. force, -- for the air forcing to push the technological limit will lead to failure. our budget request includes the funding required to cover the manpower needed to ensure the health of our nuclear force,
aircraft maintenance scheme, battlefield airman, and other critically undermanned fields. return oft marks the a committed investment to global vigilance, global reach, and global power for america. a return to bca level funding will further decimate our readiness and modernization. it will place a nation at unacceptable risk was that mr. -- unacceptable risk. mr. chairman, these are fundamental to american security and the joint operations. the fiscal year 2017, and flexibility to execute the budget, is an investment in the air force that our nation needs. commanders require it. with your support, our airman will deliver it.
on behalf of our secretary, and chief of staff, and the active guard and reserve airman who give our service life, thank you for your tireless support. we look forward to your questions. chairman wittman: thank you so thank you for your testimony. commitment,r your and the other airman getting our air force back to where it needs to be full stop i want to ask, in that context ,where we are in restoring readiness. we know that the real building point -- rebuilding point is that by 2020. if you can give us some perspective on staying on that glide path. based on with the budget request is this year, and the receiving -- resetting, how far are we go into be able to restoring air force readiness? give us some ideas of the timeframe. along the way, you will have to
make some tough decisions about risk. what core functions will you -- where will risk be placed in this readiness recovery effort? gen. goldfein: thank you, sir. we have stated previously that our readiness recovery plan is dependent on a couple of key variables. the most important is a reduction in deployment. that allows us to have the time to do the training that we need for high-end conflict. that is something that we cannot the globalen situation. we are incredibly proud of the fact that airpower is a requirement in all our contingencies that we face -- both current and in the future -- it has resulted in a demand signal that has reduced our ability to do the high and training we need. believe that we would be able to achieve full-spectrum readiness on a given date, it is
a rolling timeframe. as our chief secretary testified year timet an 8-10 frame. we, the last time we testified was targeting, that was based on assumptions that did not pan out. we assumed we would not be increasing our activity in the pacific, or increasing activity in europe. and that we wouldn't be increasing activity in iraq and syria. as long as that the man the signal is there, you'll see a continual rolling 8-10 year to get readiness going. our goal right now is for the next 2-3 years will probably just be able to hold our own and the current state of readiness. where we currently sit and where i mention in my opening
statement, we are approximately 50% ready across the total force for a full-spectrum conflict. gen. goldfein: chairman wittman: does that reflect maintaining the necessary effort and core functions going forward? secondly, does 2017 budget -- does that help you in setting the conditions for restoring readiness? if not, where of the shortfalls, or things we need to consider as we develop the policy? we. goldfein: so, when submitted this budget, we worked to get the best balance we could. see in the will readiness account is that we funded our readiness account to the capacity that we can generate. so, that, with the addition of funding on top, we are able to fly to the capacity that we can
generate. you asked before but the core functions, where we're taking the greatest risk. spaceo are in air and superiority and global strike. the reason for that is that is what we have to train to the high-end. are not gettingwe the down time to train to the level. only talk about combat air forces and maintaining air superiority, that requires training at a very high level. that is where we are struggling to be able to find the time to do that. chairman wittman: thank you. thank you very much, mr. chairman. the air force is facing a modernization bubble with several major projects competing for budget space. as evidenced by the f35
procurement decrease in the coming years. what is the one thing the congress can do to improve readiness while the dressing the modernization changes? gen. goldfein: first, let me will hear a consistent answer from me. that is repeal bca. when we take a look at what happened in the united states air force in 2013, it devastated our readiness. quite frankly, we are recovering. now, take a look at the budget we submitted. we did have to make some strategic traits between modernization and readiness for stub funded to capacity our current capacity and the readiness accounts. to do that, we had to take risk in modernization that we did not want to do. c130 procurement, pushing to the right modernization of our fourth-generation aircraft all
required for that high-end fight. those are all risk trades that we had to make and keep our readiness account at capacity. ms. bordallo: thank you. another question i had, the air force has been a leader in advocating for the total force concept. you see inunities do willand future years leverage in cost saving nature of the national guard? where can congress play a role in facilitating these engagements? gen. goldfein: thank you for the up 30 to showcase our guard reserve. we are one force, one air force. all the components are actively participating. air component commander, i traveled around the region. it never ceased to amaze me the cockpitinto and ask which one is reserved, i
could have all three in the same cockpit performing that mission. one gives you vignette of how integrated we are across the force. where we can for leverage the hiring experience level in the stability in the guard force and our reserve force as we look to continue to associate in ways that can bring more and marketability to the fight. -- capability to the fight. one of the activities we are looking at is how to we take the active service codes out there and combine them to make it easier for folks to come into the guard active reserve. they can chant between those components. we can leverage the most that we can from individual components. that is one quick vignette. our chief came back from a visit
up in washington, he noticed a young senior airman driving to work in a tesla. he said, ok, talk to me. how is this? the nationalin guard. when i am, i'm the director of security for a fortune 500 silicon valley tech company. [laughter] chairman wittman: gen. goldfein: but, i also want to serve. when i'm not working security for this particular company, i am a senior airman and doing cyber business. we want to make that easier. can do tohat congress help us to make that continuum easier would be extremely helpful. that is what we want to leverage. ms. bordallo: thank you very much. i have one final question. i was that we, as members of guardss, travel -- the
is there for us. the budget request indicates that the air force will continue to take risk in facility assisting restoration and modernization. reduced,cts will be and what impact will it have on the day-to-day quality of life? >> the simple truth is there's not enough money to go around. it does take risk, that is where we take the risk at the expense of modernization. as you divel see into the budget is that we have constructed our installations around military construction and around facility sustainment modernization. 2013, we have to get at construction.
we have to get more money into our military construction. ourut less momney in restoration, or modernization. we have to keep the buildings moving. that does push us into a strategy of worst first. with a backlog in full billion dollars in modernization projects. we are addressing the worst first. that focuses around the mission. quality of life is competing against mission requirements. we are opting for our mission requirements. we are working processes on those core services to make sure we can get the best we can give them. child development centers and gymnasiums, and dining facilities. we are using transformational efforts. at the funding level we
are at we need to focus on readiness. ms. bordallo: thank you for your candid answer to our question. i yield back, mr. chairman. chairman wittman: i will now go to mr. scott. gentlemen, thank you for being here and for your service tonight. is that plane still flying? what we're flying 25 years ago? it isoldfein: i am told now being used for unmanned drone. i'm hoping not. it probably still is in the air. mr. scott: we had a many decades edge 25 years ago. adversariesen our an opportunity to get closer to us. platform flights out of warner
robins, there is some money in the budget this year for it. there was more money last year. i am concerned about the reduction in that. fleet has has continued to push a year that were a year there when i look at the chart that shows what is going to happen with our current planes that are flying -- when they go in for maintenance we will end up with a capability gap that will force us to keep very old planes, much older than the ones that you are flying 25 years ago, in the air. or not be able to provide that moving target indicator on the battle management platform to the forces on the ground. the other aspect that i see is the new system would save a
tremendous amount of money on an annual basis. it is much more efficient. we can gather more data at one time. understand whyt uses existing, isure technology -- that relatively inexpensive compared to the other platforms -- has taken so long to deliver. my question is -- what are the plans for the capability gap that will exist when the current planes -- which are many decades maintenance? for what plans would you have for accelerated the timeline to make sure that we don't have those capability gaps? beengoldfein: as we have in discussions about j stars,
part of the discussion has been do we shift to an unmanned platform? the combatant commanders -- every combatant commander. the qualification as a critical component of their war plans. that was validated across all of the combatant commanders. that is important because often we talk j stars and talk about the sensor. the most important thing they bring his airborne battle management. as the air component commander i will tell you i use that platform in a number of ways. the is in addition to traditional uses. wefirst and foremost, validated that airborne battle management is a critical
requirement for the combatant commanders. we need to move out on them. now the challenge becomes a technology discussion. at what point do we transition to an unmanned platform of the future, versus a manned platform? the reality is, the technology an unmannedd on platform doesn't currently exists to get the same capability that we provided to commanders today. it is just not miniaturize enough. enough.turized the air force's position for two reasons, one we don't have the technology. two, airborne battle management is the critical requirement. we need to push forward with a manned platform. we have the funding in this budget to do that. tt: but that dialogue has turned us down. the j star isr:
an old airplane. we are having structural issues. really ourimetic of larger fleet. -- emblematic of our larger fleet. we just have to keep recapitalizing our fleets. mr. scott: thank you for that. fleet is relatively small. the cost is relatively less than for most of it other fleets. it seems to me if we could push forward with an aggressive process, we could get newer planes, better technology, that will save us money on an annual basis. instead of spending so much money on maintenance, why not push this thing up?
multi-billions for a lot of platforms. is costing one that anywhere close. with and the done other platform. thank you for your service. chairman wittman: we will not go to mr. courtney. courtney: last year we came up with a pretty good arrangement for the c130 modernization with a new approach will stop hopefully some ofl short-circuit the problems that existed before. on page 14 of your testimony, you mentioned the modernization. i wondered if you could talk about what is in the budget. it seems like a relatively small number for 2017, and 2020 is
coming up fast. could you elaborate? gen. goldfein: we have broken up the program into two increments. which makes it capable of flying in international airspace -- the previous budget we had that completing a 2022. we were able in this budget to 2020, whichthat to allows us to be an expectation with the faa. that is the first -- we can also fully fund implement two. that is physical upgrades to the c130. that will now complete in 2028. led anef of staff has effort and our total force to talk to all of the states that have c130's. all of the generals are part of
this plan. we have that dialogue with them. they are part of the process. we feel pretty good about the program. we courtney: i am sure later will have more conversations about this. is there any space or possibility that congress can help in terms of accelerating it more? by flexibility in the 2017 budget to help push this along? >> right now, we feel that the program is pretty well-funded for what the industry can support. we could use your help where we had to take take some decisions to delay critical modernization to pay for readiness. one of the decisions we made was jo the first some c130
procurement. any help to get that that would be a great improvement. mr. courtney: i yield back. chairman wittman: lobiondo. mr. lobiondo: in procurement the air force requests and state next had a delivery schedule -- an expedited delivery schedule. can you please update the subcommittee on how the research design and evaluations is progressing? what phase are you currently in? how will this be completed? when do you see that coming? gen. goldfein: sa you k -- as you know, the department
originally pursued a joint operational need to. the supportive combatant commander. to procure radars for those f16s that we use. it allows us to speed up the acquisition process. that was not supported. we are now in a competition for those radio -- radars. the air force fully funded 24 of those sets to take care of those aircraft. now we need to have an that allowsstrategy for those 24. the money has been put in for that. the remainder of the fleet will be able to go into a full and open competition. we can continue to modernize the
remainder of the f-16 fleet. we do have a strategy although the cannot go full source at this time. do: you are attending to expedite -- attempting to expedite? gen. goldfein: yes. mr. lobiondo: i recently received word that the basing decision criteria has been pushed back to later in the spring of 2016. can you update the subcommittee on how that is progressing? gen. goldfein: yes, sir. know, we build our basing process so that we can be fully open and transparent. to ensure the not only do you see the criteria, but that you see each base in that criteria. what we are looking at right now now do we needa
to make sure that we have ready to go? as soon as that is ready, we will let that out. we will then start the process that goes through setting the criteria. then scoring asserted number of bases against that criteria and showing how that scoring occurred. then we make of the final decision in terms of what that basing will be. anylobiondo: do you have timeline on that? gen. goldfein: but macy we have that. we will get that -- let me see if we have that. we will get that back to you. iondo: i have a great interest in that. i like to think i represent one of the premier bases in the country. strategic our locations to new york and washington, we think fair and objective transparent we score well on that. try toldfein: we will
give an answer to you before this hearing ends. chairman wittman: thank you. we now go to mr. peters. to expand on want training a little bit. i would like you to explain why it is that a delay in the annual budget -- or diminishment to -- last beyond the year. i think people understand there is a lasting effect to underfunding training. also, what is your sense of additional challenges for the training budget? gen. goldfein: first, on the lag effect that goes into training. the way that we do our program is we budget in two year cyckes. -- cycles.
given the capacity of any weapon system, take the f16 as an example. it is designed for enemy air defenses. very high-end fighting, we look at all the capabilities. to produce flying hours. that is a fixed capacity. then we project how much that could be flown down range. that becomes part of it. you can't go up, because that is the fixed capacity of the weapon system. that itonly project doesn't pan out and the projections change. the blockat means in 50 f-16 is that fair crew that are trained and designed to do -to-peer conflict
in a contested environment are focusing more and more of their training on the lower end. peters: so they lose their skills over time? gen. goldfein: you can't build those back immediately. wingman, andbe flight leads, and certified for all of those. it takes you more and more time to build that the back. when it comes to bringing the f thethe challenge for us and asymmetric up dirty it we approach joint warfare from a network perspective. f-117, i washe
the last pilot. it was a closed system approach to using it. i had a switch that would turn everything off. i would lower my seat and go to work. doing f-35, iyt starts machine to machine collaboration at startup. talk into air, space, ciber, and is doing this full spectrum look. it is doing a human machine collaboration at places symbology on the aircraft. it is a very networked approach. when we bring the f 35 and the f-22 on a, it is about the network approach to warfare. that's makes it its own training challenge. we have to simulate that whole training.
peters: how short are we, given that we have been lagging a little bit already? gen. goldfein: as i testified earlier, we are at 50% or less in overall. from readiness across the air force. spectrum readiness across the air force. we are using that weapon system so much in the fight against isil. challengesiness, the -- if you look at what our secretary of defense has laid the violent extremism will have to do with the next decade. that covers the potential spectrum we might face. we are 50% ready. that is against the higher end
threats. been on my that has mind the sense i have been in the subcommittee. emphasis on the that. i hope we can be responsive. thank you again, for your testimony. chairman wittman: we will now go to mr. bishop. hop: general, i appreciate you up dirty to be here. i appreciate you having a meeting in the morning. i realize you think there are no other issues that conflict with ress.there is 1 -- my matt general, can i also just say one thing. your complaints about the bca are accurate, but too narrow. there were four other cuts. you had all of those things
together. don't just marriage to that one aspect. there are other things that have screwed you up. can i ask a question? you mentioned the written testimony. i do have some concern over the transition going forward. is going intowhat the future -- is there any concern? have with theu reserve unit, will they be tasked more? >> the reserve component, like all of our components, are critical to our force. their great partners. those f-16s will be transitioning. will fund that transition by making sure those aircraft can be flown while waiting for the transition.
bishop: but the maintainers will still be a problem. >> yes, they are problem in our air force. have taken great steps to make sure we will transition well. i'm concerned with any f-35 efforts. we are 4000 maintainers short. we are focusing on hill right now to make sure we can get the maintainers for ioc. we have moved the fighter squadron that came back recently. we moved those over to begin 35 and have six airplanes there. the reserves are taking care of the f-16s. >> those maintainers will move over to f-35. bishops: that indicates that
will be a greater focus on capacity. we will at the: reserves work on those aircraft. that is until the transition in the following year. i have a concern about hiring practices. some of them are taking up to 160 days. is the air force looking at trying to dissolve some of that authority. opm's goal is like 80 days -- which seems outrageous. if you can't hire those people i understand you have to augment them with contractors. is air force moving and something to try to deal with civilian hiring practices? >> our secretary is leading the effort herself. she has asked the director -- director of
personnel to see how we can speed up the process of hiring when we need to hire. she is also having us take a continuum of service between the three components. and allowing civilians to come into the air force especially where we need critical skills. the challenge we have, as you know, most of the rules don'tated with civilians reside within the service. most of those are above the surface. whi -- service. while we're wire brushing all of our policies, it is really above us. that is where we could use your help. mr. bishop: we will try to do that as best as we can. i appreciate your comments about fourth-generation modifications. i am just saying it to -- i have
concerns about how it is affecting contracts and workloads. thank you for your presence here. i think i will be awake so i can understand what you are actually saying. chairman wittman: we will make sure that when we have an opportunity we convene at a later time. [laughter] chairman wittman: we now go to mr. o rourke. mr. o'rourke: i wanted to ask the general about nuclear cruise missile part of this budget. i will tell you my limited understanding and some concerns. i will then offer you the remainder to answer. my understanding is that this is a $30 billion price tag. that is for a weapon that will be carried on the aging b-52
platform. i want to know what would happen, should we not pursue this strategy? two, what are your thoughts on the british decision a few years back not to pursue this as a strategy because of their concern that it would produce miscalculation? departs from traditional nuclear deterrence where each side has a good understanding of the others capability. there are conditions for using them. so, if you take the remaining four minutes to answer those concerns. what would happen if we did not to do this? where can we apply the $30 billion? just to talk: about the funding. the long range weapons that
would replace our cruise missiles is currently scheduled to be integrated not only on the b-52 but also on the b-2. it has to do with 21st century strategic deterrence, and what the nuclear aspect is. theas an air force, like say we are responsible for three of the four legs. it is almost a leg in and of itself to make sure we have assured communications. it is about how to you sure that we are -- assure that we have a deterrence to hold targets at risk. we can show that we have that capacity. there is a number of ways that you do that. you can do that through the bomber force. you can do that to the ground base force. thelso do that with
submarine force. for us, when you take a look at the long-range standoff, you can have the right standoff to actually go into service targets that the commander-in-chief may ask us. we need to have that capability, plus gravity capability, plus penetrating capability. that is why we are putting money into the b-61 as well. then we need to modernize the nuclear missile field. that is why is he an increase in this budget. we would tell you we believe that is a critical component of the three legs of the triad. in terms of risk that we would have in employment -- modernization of a particular
weapon system does not indicate that you would have more susceptible use. that is a commander in chief decision. we would say as the employers of the nuclear enterprise that we don't think it increases risk. we will need help from congress in looking at the nuclear enterprise. most of it was built in the 40's and 50's. it is agency that the government. we have some bills that will come due in the 2022 time frame that are significant. we are working within the department to look at all aspects of the nuclear enterprise. we are making sure we are part in the best dollar forward. nuclear deterrent for the 21st century. o'rourke: you do not share
the british concern about the miscalculation? you think this is the wisest use of the $30 billion? gen. goldfein: yes sir, i do. o'rourke: where could that money go elsewhere? gen. goldfein: to be honest, we would take a look first at our stewardship of the nuclear enterprise. the first place we would look is where do we place that within the nuclear enterprise? after that, we would look at it like everything else. we would look at the trades we need to make. the first place we would look would be within the nuclear enterprise. we now go toman: mr. gibson. gibson: thank you for your
service, and your sacrifice. my question has to do with the joint interoperability of training and readiness. specifically with regard to the budget. theou could lay out where commitments are in terms of entry, exercise, how many commitments and rotations do you see this budget year? also, the commitment to the national training center, and the scope of that. out where the budget is? years offein: 15 continuous combat had actually produced the most to join the in our- joined force history. that oure found is forces who are down range are not only training, but executing
jointly everyday. when we come back, all of our major training venues, if you take a look at red flag, green rotations, flag, ntc you will a joint element of every one of our exercises. the directors of operation work that hard every day. we are proud of the fact that when it comes to training for we united states army, provide the lift they require. working with general abrams and working with our marine corps and special forces, what we in sure is we understand the requirement for a number of jumps that we have to support. our we look across
enterprise to ensure we have a 860s to support those. n: i appreciate that. comesole piece of it together with electronic warfare and fighters. specifically, the question is, how many joint forcible entry exercises are in the budget for this year? gen. goldfein: we have really focused on putting resources to the training effort. in this program, the budget that was just submitted, we had over $398 million going to this. $235 millionver to make sure those ranges are high-end. erhe have spent on live
training. looking at how you do that better in the simulator. gibson: it may be my failings and not framing the question right. i will lay out a few points. over the years, as we were working to sustain the joint piece of this, we can have anywhere from 8 or 10 joint forcible entry exercises. last i looked i think we are down to about four aa year. the war plays a big part in that. reasons why ithe would say i'm concerned about the decision the air force has taken with regard to that. we are all managing risk.
all the joint forces are managing risk. among the things that the 440th can do is allow for smaller units to sustain. you are proud of the fact that you do help the joint forces maintain their readiness. todayespecially difficult to keep up on the requirements. knowing that the four major packages that we have is important for exercising higher levels of integration. it is getting tougher. people go to school, then come back. that was managed by the 440th being in the fort. at fort bragg. >> we met with general townsend readily agreed our objective is
that when the soldier walks off to get on the c-130 for the junk, he does not know -- what we have done is put an aircraft there to get the training needs. that is the objective. do that for a number of bases around the world, in italy, across the world. we have a good template for that, we think. the army agrees. if we get this right, it will be transparent to your soldiers. >> my time is expired, thanks chairman. >> we will now go to ms. gabbard. ms. gabbard: you spoke a little bit about the investments and the necessity of increasing cyber capabilities. and i am wondering if you can talk and a bit more detail about two things -- recruiting and retention. we look at the talent that andts, and the innovation how quickly evolving this world is in the private sector, what
kind of accretive efforts are you taking to be able to bring those folks in? to be able to work with us you well as to retain them once they are there? >> yes, ma'am. thank you. we are working, quite friendly, very hard with the force of the future, and one of the elements is that is permeability. allowing easier access to the ingenuity and innovation that is in the private sector, and the public sector coming into the military when we need it. and vice versa. right? sharing what talent and expertise we have the private sector. those continue to look at right now, asand an air force, our contribution is 39 teams force that representing about 30%. it is about right for our contribution, 3019 spirit we have laid out three keys --
dissemination, defend the networks, and support the combatants. we have teams that we are building to support each of those requirements from each of those areas. so 13 times three equals 39. we have about 2016, and we are on track to come late hour complete our bill. we feel pretty good. i want to you that we can never stop looking at managing this talent. because we have got to have the incentives in place, for not only them to want to join us, more than just patriotism, but because we are a good place for them to reside. because of how we take care of them in the value of their service. total force continuum measures that we are working on are incredibly important. >> the other thing, as i connect, we have done a review of retention across the cyber
portion. retention not saying issues with the cyber force. the retention level mirrors the rest of the air force, as general cold fiend mentioned earlier, the air force been driving the tesla. we are not seeing that right now. ms. gabbard: that is great. someone connected on that, really the broader scale is, as you talk about the total force and integrating the guard and reserves, how are you integrating those elements in dwell ratio,ent to and a way that is suitable for the future? >> thank you for the question. we are completely integrated. as the chairman mentioned earlier, look at the cockpit, you will not feel a difference. there we guard, reserve,
active-duty altogether. that is across a service. if you look at the readiness levels across the service, we mirror each other. because we operate together. looking at deployment as well, the same concerns are there -- with a total force and the active-duty force -- they about mirror each other in readiness levels. and we watch that closely. but we are the most integrated service with our critical partners to us. ms. gabbard: what is the deployment ratio now? >> on average, across the board, about 1% to 2.5%. >> at some point of you do get to a capacity. so, regardless of how integrated we are, we still only have 55 squadrons to do the nation's work. at that point, you actually cannot get any more than what you are to have. that is why i go back to the point that we are too small, and you are seeing us build up our capacity to do with the nation
needs. ms. gabbard: thank you. gabbard.you, ms. when you spoke about the shortage, i would like to get your perspective and a little bit more of a drill down as to the nature of that. you talk about needing to use contract maintainers for your a-10s and f-16s and c-130s. in order to get people transferred over to maintain the m 35. there seems to be another aspect to it, though, when you look at the nature of the shortage. and that is, many of the shortages are occurring with senior ncos, indeed your trainers for airmen coming in. tell me, how do you address that? because that is a long-term issue. the short-term issue his contract maintainers. with a long-term issue is that you bring air force personnel in. how do you get them to stay in the air force, so they can
become a senior nco, that is a master maintainer, but also the trainer for the new air force coming in. that, becauseu do that was the related her testimony. >> chairman, like answer that. so, we are 4000 maintainer short across the air force. and the issue is that we are in, and each 35s requires maintainers. we added that deficit every single month. as we go forward, next year it f 35s.e three we are growing our fleet. but we are balanced as much as we can safely do with our legacy fleets, even with our large airplanes, because it is most acute with the large fighters. we have moved crew chiefs from c-130s to f 35s.
to 36%s authorized us up because beginning of asking for the fighting force, as well as the maintainers. we split the difference and move the maintainers to f 35s. we do the best we can there. we offer numerous retention incentives to our older maintainers, our tech and master sergeants. retain that will expertise, and we have seen some 1000h there -- up to maintainers have taken the retention bonus and estate" which is good. we are digging a continual hole as we go forward, because we are not able to diverse and we are 35s.ng f we under assessed our air maintainers. so our new airmen coming in, it was a challenge. we had an $8 billion challenge after sequestration going in on how to close that gap.
the easiest place to go to get dollars that quick, that soon as the personal account. theunately, we understand maintenance. we did it in 2015. at the expense of other critical airfields. we are doing it in 2016 up to 1000 f-16s, at the expense of critical air force. in the budget asks for a growth of budget maintainers, in the 17 budget, and that is part of the overall growth -- a large part of that is maintenance. the initiative we just started was looking at the contract maintenance in areas across the are note, where there combat units, mostly training units. they don't have a deployment requirement. if the market is ripe for wiki like we can contract in those locations, take those
maintainers and move them to f 35. but that is just a short-term challenge. we need to continue to grow. and really, the only gets about two years. we will have the same problem. >> just seems like a cascading effect, especially across the maintainers at every level of experience there. >> it is. we are challenged with especially our fighter fleets, we have six career fields that dwell, slightly at home longer than the boy. >> i would just add it only look at readiness and the impact of that we have critical skills as a key piece. and it is not just the numbers of people, the right level of people, as you mentioned mr. chairman. that is why takes time to grow that. we made an initial investment, and we bring new airmen into the air force. but it will take five years or so to grow that the level that we had to build a backup.
>> i just want to make sure that we reflect the proper policy so you can continue to grow, both at capacity and in the can ability to have to be grown on both of those levels. let me ask you a quick question about a comment you made your testimony regarding infrastructure. and capacity, excess capacity. as you know, we look at that. there is a requirement from last year for each of the service branches to provide a report back to congress, concerning capacity issues, overcapacity, excess inventory, those kinds of things. as well as those things we have hearings on earlier, what are we doing to support the critical infrastructure and facilities support? which is one of the elements we used to generate readiness. one of the concerns i have going forward is to make sure that we do not get too shortsighted. everything we have done recently has been shortsighted. what we do it to make it to the next budget year, to move money around? and i understand the immediate
need to try and generate some dollars and the dollars that come out for older facilities. and i think there is a logical way and a risky way to do that. my concern is this them on the other side too, the air force with his access is going to continue to grow. you have new fighter aircraft and new long range strategic bombers, under tanker fleet that lists capacity of their. even a few more c-17's and modernized c-130s. there is infrastructure to support that. concern going forward is let us reduce base structure, we need that to generate readiness as it comes on, but i want to make sure that those two curtain across each other. we come back and say, guess what? we have more aircraft then facilities necessary to maintain them. in my idea, how do you find the right balance in saying we need
-- in light of saying we have to be building more aircraft? >> circum-of things. i will start it over and turnover to general cooper. regarding infrastructure, a couple of key points. first, it will be no surprise to you that, as airmen, we project airpower from our bases. they are actually part of our fighting platform. we actually talk about infrastructure, we are talking about part of how we fight. so we should not be surprised that we are going to put significant amount of resources against our infrastructure. in this budget, we made a strategic trade and a decision to emphasize combatant commander sions,ements and new mesh anis because as you stated, as you bring on new weapons systems there are new capabilities that you have to be able to bed those down. you will see those priorities.
as we testify previously, we have taken risk in our facility monetization accounts to do that. so that transition to general cooper, what i will tell you, we over,bout 30% right now in terms of the infrastructure versus our capacity. and so right now today, we would tell you that we are keeping a number of facilities on these large bases up and running because we are not going to tear them down. and we do not have the four e structure. we could use a reorganization to get more right sized. but we also look at the lens of where we are going to be when we get the new missions, right? and you take a look at the tanker trade, as you will see, we will actually build up to about 479 before he actually start coming down to keep it balanced. we think that 30% over capacity we have now what actually continue to exist, as we make the trade of the future.
so let me turn it over to general cooper. general cooper: thank you. too much, too all, too expensive. i am on the business side of the air force, and i responsible for trying to -- trying to make sure we have from your readiness so we can give general raymond and the operations the most the air force can give america. our infrastructure is too big. we know that. so, i mean, i have a litany of testimonials here at the air force base, where he trained our pilots. we have a 50-plus-year-old drainage system that gets rid of water off the flight line that cannot handle large rains. so about three times a year, if lot and wt floods we cannot conduct pilot training. we lost 370 because it rained. that facility project is still competing for funds because
there are other, more critical -- you know facility project. we avoid $2.9 billion in expenses. every year. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i does have a couple of questions i would like to ask. the first is, to what extent are weapon shortages affecting munition inventories. consequently, readiness to address potential conflicts around the globe? >> thanks, man. in this budget and are actually funding munitions to the capacity that the industry can produce. the challenge we are facing is that, while we have the munitions we require for the current cycle, it takes is upwards of four years to replenish what we drop, based on how we do a budget cycle in the
we working to do is you worked project future expenditures based on historical averages. we have at this for 15 years. we think we temperature what we're about to drop two to three years from now and in the will to replenish those so we can keep our stock high. >> thank you. if the current operational temple or to increase, saying budget constraints, whatever else you about the what would be the real effect on the total air force and of course, readiness, most importantly? whatever the case might be.
whatever you can do to answer that. before, the one element we cannot control his demand. demand of the things we get to generate and sustain readiness. it is the demand signal is keeping us from doing high-end training. goes up withd cassidy we currently, if we don't get bigger, if we do not bring maintainers on, if you do not bring our capacity of, we will be less and less ready overtime for the high-end site. -- high-end fight. if i need this many sorties over generate fulle to spectrum readiness, and reality is the nation calls on me to do this, i'm going to have less to do high-end trading, and i'm going to be less ready. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we go to mr. scott. brief.ll be
i want to go back to the last points you made. , we call it m of. -- ammo. our private sector partners that provide a lot of those things for us when we are not able to consistency in their production, that creates tremendous amount of turmoil on them, and in many cases we have lost our partners in the private sector and have ended up with in some cases, having to go to other countries that are not friendly with us to do certain things. i do want to encourage you to do one thing, the people on the committee, the armed services committee, i think they will support you regardless of what department therein. we had a story able to work together on these issues.
i would ask that you expand and meet with members that are not on the armed services committee. patch, if you will, that is going to temporarily stop the reduction in readiness from 50% down, this is a patch. assist.all the i think that members who are not on the armed services committee, over who are not on the appropriations do not understand the current situation. some of them are very anxious to cut spending, nevada where those cuts come from. my concern is, not with any of the members here, or of this committee. my concern is with members who have not had the opportunity to listen to people who respect as much as we respect the three of you. i would encouraged you to speak to all the members as well.
>> thank you. i think that completes our questioning. thank you for joining us. i want to thank not only you, but all of your colleagues, our airmen who have joined us today. a great opportunity to see how the process works. we appreciate your perspective. it is very important as we develop the policy this year to make sure that we get it right. restores not readiness as we can with this particular window. gentlemen, thanks again for your service. we appreciate the sacrifice to your families, and our subcommittee is hereby adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
>> on the next washington reporterclimate policy talks about the decision this week to block the epa's regulation on carbon emissions from power plants. u.s. andok at the international response to the ona virus, with an expert global law from the georgetown law center. also, the role of superdelegates in the democratic presidential primary. we will also look at your comments on facebook and twitter. live everyjournal's day at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. on friday, the house passed a
bipartisan bill that would impose new sanctions on north korea, and hold officials there accountable or cyberattacks and human rights abuses. justin was the -- tone to representatives were the only one to vote against it. here are some of the debate. mr. speaker, for three years the foreign affairs committee that i chair has worked with great determination o build support for this north korea sanctions legislation. i want to thank my democratic colleagues, and i especially want to thank our ranking member, mr. eliot engel of new ork, for his support on this legislation. i want to thank senator corker
and garner for their support in the senate and for the strong additions, particularly on human rights and on cyberattacks by the brutal and hostile north korean regime. today, congress, democrats and republicans, house and senate, unite to put this north korea sanctions legislation on the president's desk. last month this bill passed the house with 418 votes, and this 96-0. passed the senate mr. speaker, these overwhelming votes reflect bipartisan frustration with our north korea policy, a policy of strategic patience that isn't working. today, congress unites to say it's time for a new approach. mr. speaker, last month north korea conducted its fourth known nuclear test, and last weekend it concluded a long
range missile test. and on tuesday, our director of tional intelligence, james clapper, testified that north korea has restarted a plutonium reactor and expanded production and expanded that production of weapons grade nuclear fuel. the threat to the united states and our allies is real. the tyrannical regime of kim jong un has developed increasingly destructive weapons. its miniaturized nuclear warheads that fits on the most relyable missiles. we cannot stand by any longer. the legislation we consider today, this h.r. 757, is the most comprehensive north korea sanctions legislation to come before this body. my bill uses targeted financial and economic pressure to isolated kim jong un and his
top officials from the assets they maintain in foreign banks and from the hard currency that sustains their rule. these assets are gained in part from illicit activities on the part of north korea, like counterfeiting u.s. currency and selling weapons around the world. and they are used to advance the north korean nuclear program. luxurious ay for the lifestyles of the ruling elites and the continued oppression of the north korean people by their police state. in 2005, the treasury department black listed a small bank in macau called banco delta asia, which not only froze north korea's money in the bank but also scared away other financial institutions from dealing with the government in north korea for fear they, too, would be
black-listed. unfortunately, this effective policy was shelfed for ill-fated negotiations. but this can get us back to a winning strategy. equally important to the strong sanctions in this bill are its critical human rights provisions. north korea operates a brutal system of gulags that hold as many as 120,000 men, women and children. and if a north korean is suspected of any kind of dissented opinion, even telling a joke about the regime, his entire family, for three generations, is punished. north korea is a human rights house of horrors. two years ago, the u.n. commission of inquiry released the most comprehensive report on north korea to date, and their finding was that the kim
jong un regime and the whole family regime has for decades pursued policies involving crimes -- and this is the words of the united nations' report -- crimes that shock the conscience of humanity. and this amended version requires the administration to develop a strategy to promote north korean human rights, including a list of countries that use north korean slave labor. the implementation of this bill subsidy sever a key for their weapons of mass destruction program for only when the north korean leadership realizes that its criminal activities are untenable, the prospects of peace and prosperity in
northeast asia improves. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this measure, and yumeds. -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i'm proud to be the lead democratic co-sponsor and i'm glad we're almost to the finish line. just over a month ago we passed this bill and sent it to the senate. the senate acted quickly to make minor adjustments, and today we'll pass this bipartisan legislation and send it to the president's desk. this process is a great example of what we can accomplish when we work in a bipartisan way to advance american security. and as i said many times before, i'm proud of the members on both sides of the aisle on the foreign affairs committee because we have worked in a bipartisan manner. i would caution all members about leveling political charges when it comes to north korea.
i'm reminded of the old adage that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. we all know north korea is a problem, but let's not kid ourselves. this problem has grown under many administrations, both parties, and congresses of both parties, so when we talk about how we got here, we need to really focus in a bipartisan manner. that's what we're trying to do, because the regime is dangerous. nuclear program threatens regional stability and global security. it worries me to think what north korea's leaders plan to do with their nuclear arsenal or who they might be willing to sell nuclear material to. and while it's bad enough on its own, north korea's nuclear program is just a top item on a long list of dangerous and illegal activity by that regime. from cyberattacks to money laundering and counterfeiting, from human rights abuses, as
chairman royce has pointed out, to the regular attacks on south korea, the kim regime runs roff shod over the norms -- roughshod over the norms. and the near universal condemnation of a global community or the deepening isolation of north korea from the rest of the world, so we're left to tighten the screws even further. that's what we're trying to do today. we need to work with south korea and japan on a tough coordinated response. we need to take every opportunity to collaborate on his issue with the chinese who wheel considerable influence over north korea and we need to dial up our own sanctions and tighten sanctions enforcement and that's what this bill does. north korea is always looking for ways to get around our sanctions. the sanctions in this bill would focus especially on north korean elites who conduct shady
transactions with shell corporations and then cover up the money trail. in pyongyang, the capital, these cronies of the kim regime pocket the cash while the rest of the north korean people suffer. i've been to north korea twice, and it's just sickening that the regime and its friends profit from these crimes while the rest of the country is literally starving. on that point, this bill includes important exceptions for the humanitarian aid that benefits the north korean people. our anger is not with the people of north korea. in fact, the united states does a great deal to provide aid to this oppressed population, but they deserve better from their leaders. that's why we should send this bill to the president and that's why we should continue to make north korea a top foreign policy priority. the kim family has ruled north korea for many, many, many kim jong un seems to
be the worst of a lot. the oppressions, the assassinations, the political strangle hold that he keeps the -- stranglehold that he keeps the whole country in and the fact that many people get caught, as chairman royce point thed out, in the gulag -- pointed out, in the gulag, families are oppressed. they are horrors. that's why we should send this bill to the president and why we should continue to make north korea a top foreign policy priority. so i'm proud to support this bill. i'm proud to be the lead democrat on the bill, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, before recognizing our next speaker, i also want to note that this bill effectively re-authorizes and extends the north korean human rights act of 2004, which i worked to support for more than a dozen years.
and that groundbreaking law, which was re-authorized in 2008 and again in 2012 by our chairman emeritus ileana ros-lehtinen, emphasized that human rights, the free flow of information and the protection of those who have escaped are not only important to the people of north korea, they also are critical to changing north korea's strategic calculus and trying to force that rogue regime to address the needs of its own people instead of threatening its neighbors. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights and international organizations. mr. smith: i thank my good friend from yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: the north korea dictatorship is a threat that requires significantly enhanced vigilance and response. the north korea sanctions enforcement act of 2016,
authored by chairman ed royce, will ensure that the obama administration takes meaningful action to mitigate north korea's cruelty, human rights abuse and military danger. the u.s. can no longer sit on the sidelines while kim jong un proliferates nuclear and missile technology and abuses and starves the north korean people. north korea's listed by the state department as a tier three country with respect to human trafficking. designated as one of eight countries of particular concern who are engaging in egregious violations of religious freedom. mr. chairman, i have chaired four hearings on human rights abuses in north korea. it is as chairman royce noted a house of horrors. the u.n. commission on north korea recommended the u.n. impose targeted sanctions on north korean leaders responsible for these crimes
against humanity. however, china blocks effective u.n. actions. this in part is why the congress and the administration must act now. north korean human rights abusers must be identified and listed so that sanctions can be appropriately applied. north korea's long range and launch of long range rocket last week re-energied concern over the country's intercontinental ballistic missile program. it was strongly condemned by the u.n. security council which avoyed to apply further sanctions. hopefully the security council investigation under way will include partner nations who purchase north korean missile technology. iran, to whom administration has just released billions of dollars, is one of north korea's nuclear partners. we should be very concerned about that. at some point the iranians will require fiffle material beyond what they are allowed to produce or they may purchase actual warheads from north
korea. or perhaps iran will get enriched uranium, their stash, back from russia. at a foreign affairs committee hearing yesterday, mr. speaker, chairman royce has had well over 35 oversight hearings on iran, president obama's coordinator for implementation of the iran nuclear deal where i asked him, where iran's stockpile of enriched ue ran yum sent? is it in russia? what city? do we or the iaea have on site access to where it's stored for verification purposes? remember reagan, trust and verify? on-site verification? shockingly the ambassador said he didn't in where the enriched uranium is. he did say it was on a russian ship somewhere to a port or to a final destination we don't have a clue. yesterday's revelation was yet another flaw in the egregiously flawed iran nuclear deal, and we know that there is a
connection between north korea and iran. our vigilance must be stepped up. this bill is a major step. the fact that it's so bipartisan and eliot engel, again working side by side with the chairman to make sure a good bill is produced. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, a member of the foreign affairs committee and chairman of the armed services he subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, chairman ed royce, four your leadership on freemed and liberty. i strongly support the north korean sanctions enforcement act of 2016. we have seen evidence that the monarchy in north korea led by an unstable dictator has become increasingly hostile, threatening its neighbors being american allies. sadly just last week it successfully tested a long
range rocket which is capable of reaching california. the recent missile test come after years of ignoring nonproliferation agreements and conducting nuclear test without facing any meaningful consequences. as america continues to fight the global war on terrorism, we should not allow an unpredictable rogue leader to continue unchecked. we must change course to a strategy of peace through strength to protect american families. in 2003, i was one of the few members of congress to visit pyongyang north korea along with ranking member elon engel and chairman jeff miller. i saw farne the struggle and oppression of its citizens which have endured under communist totalitarian rule. the -- compared to the dynamic capital of south korea, north korea is the ultimate example of another socialist failure. the north korean sanctions enforcement act strengthens our nation's ability to sanction the agents, government, and
financial institutions that enable north korea's dangerous activities. i am grateful to chairman ed royce for introducing the north korea sanctions enforcement act unanimously supported in the u.s. senate with bipartisan support. which puts pressure on the regime by restricting them from selling weapons of mass destruction. importing and exporting conventional weapons, and engaging in further cyberattacks. it is also directing the state department hold the administration accountable by creating a strategy to improve enforcement of existing sanctions. this legislation is an important first step to achieving peace through strength in the region. i look forward with my colleagues on the foreign affairs committee and armed services committee to promote positive change and stability in northeast asia for all koreans to have a bright future. i yield the bag of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge ted poe, chairman of the
foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. i want to also reiterate the bipartisanship on which this legislation has been brought to the floor, the work of the chairman, and the ranking member who are experts in foreign affairs and especially countries like north korea. when i had a chance last year to visit with the pacific command, and i talked to the four-star admiral in pacific command, and i asked him this question. of the five entities that are threats to the united states, russia, china, iran, isis, and north korea, which of those concerns you the most? and he quickly said, north korea. because they are an unstable regime. and this legislation will help, hopefully, to have that
unstable dictator that murders his own people, that is trigger happy, that is developing all types of weapons and puts them on the open market to sell them to other nations that want to cause mischief in the world. hopefully stop this conduct of north korea. yes, north korea has nuclear weapons. they are developing missiles to deliver those nuclear weapons. about a year or year and a half ago the dictator of north korea said he wanted that first intercontinental ballistic missile to go to austin, texas. i take that a little personal, mr. speaker. i don't know why he picked austin. anyway, and their delivery capability, they are working on that. and they have no intention of stopping. so, the international community must tell the dictator of north korea you can't do this. you can't be a menace to not
only your own people in south korea and the entire region but the world. so, this piece of legislation is an important step in stopping the mischief making, trigger happy dictator of north korea. i yield back the balance of my tifmente that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. gentleman from new york. mr. engel: we have no other speakers, so i guess it's time to close. is that what we are going to do? ok. let me in closing yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first start by joe wilson who was on the trip with me as he mentioned to north korea. we drove in from the airport on a bus and joe was sitting at the front of it and we saw all these hostile billboards.
and we couldn't of course read it, it was in korean, but we could look at the pictures. one of the pictures had an american soldier on the ground with a north korean soldier with a bacon net -- bayonet right through the american soldier's head. the reason why we knew it was an american soldier because it said u.s.a. on the soldier's uniform. and wilson sat in the front and very carefully maneuvered his camera and snapped a picture. we have that picture. and that was something that if the north koreans had known we were doing they probably would he have confiscated the camera. they didn't. i just wanted to mention that because there were, i believe, six of us on that trip. and it was a bipartisan trip. it was an eye opener. i went back a few years later. i remember the gentleman from south carolina sitting there and very skillfully maneuvering
that camera. that's a good picture. we should probably blow up and let our colleagues see it so they understand the regime that we are dealing with. this was not dim jungune -- kim jungune this was his father. so it seems to be getting progressively worse. the father was known as the dear leader. the grandfather, who was the person who was most responsible for the revolution, was also heralded. wherever we went in north korea there were pictures of the two of them on the walls, whether it was in schools, whether it was in hotel. it's a very eerie feeling. it brings you back to those of us when we were kids read this book "1984." which was in the future now is in the past. those people who read that book to me that sort of describes the korean regime.
it's a scary thing. the work we are doing here today is so important. it's so important to send a message. it's so important to let the world know that we haven't forgotten this. that this remains a priority. the u.s. congress and bipartisan priority in the u.s. congress. so the kim regime must understand if it continues to defight global consensus and ignore its obligations under international law, there will be consequences. the elites in north korea must be shown if they try to skirt sanctions, we'll find new ways to go after them. anyone who wants to do business with north korea must be warned we will crack down on those who help sustain this brutal regime. the only way forward for north korea is for its leaders to give us their illegal and dangerous pursuits and come back to the negotiating table. so i'm proud congress is sending this bill to the president. and i hope we will ramp up engagement with our partners and allies and make it clear
that north korea's present course can only lead to deeper isolation for the country's leaders and sadly continued suffering for the country's people. when we went to north korea i think the most stark difference that i have seen in all the years i have been in congress was when we went to north korea to the capital, pyongyang and then travel to the capital of south korea, seoul, where congressman wilson's wife and other spouses were waiting there. seoul is a city that is vibrant much like new york or chicago or any of the big cities in our country. where the people are well dressed, well-fed, and shops are opened. it looks like a real western-style city. of course it's in asia, but it reminds one of tokyo or cities like that. you go to north korea and it's
just like going back into 1950's, east germany. that's just the feeling that you get. you see hotels and buildings that were constructed but were constructed poorly and couldn't be occupied. when we came back about 18 months later, it was still just the way it was 18 months before. you hardly see a car. traffic lights don't work. it's just bizarre. i think that's the word. and the poor north korean people are the ones who are really suffering. but the contrast between pyongyang the capital of north korea and seoul, the capital of south korea, was just unbelievable. it was like night and day. it's on the same peninsula. it's the same people, korean people, yet it's like night and day. and the picture that i think they say pictures are worth a thousand words, there is a picture of the korean peninsula
at night and if you take a look, it was taken by satellite, and if you take a look, you see the south korea is vibrant, there are all kinds of lights, it's lit up. and north korean is absolutely black. absolutely dark. no lights. no energy. no power. what a contrast. two koreas, same people. one is a bastion of democracy in new york and the chairman and i have visited south korea, and one a brutal, brutal dictatorship. i hope that this bill overwhelmingly passes. i hope that we have strong support from both sides of the aisle, and we want to let the people of north korea know that we are with them not with the brutal regime and that's why we are doing this legislation today. so i thank chairman royce for it. i urge everyone to vote yes. and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i would like to again thank ranking member elliott engel for his -- eliot engel for his work on this issue. he's my co-author on this bill, and i would like to concur in his thoughts about the shocking nature of this totalitarian regime, not just in terms of the way it has treated its people but also its hostility towards south korea and to the united states and to the west. and to just share the thought, as he's expressed, this level of struggle that the people themselves in north korea live in under this totalitarian state. when i was in north korea, i had an opportunity to see something that struck me just malnutrition.
and they say that n.g.o. community tells us close to 50% of those children are malnourished. what i saw in terms of the malnourishment -- and they say -- the n.g.o. community says malnourished to the point it affects their ability to learn. the malnourishment can be seen. the average height of the person in north korea is four inches shorter than in south korea. and that is a really stark thing to see as you're in north korea. but the other observation that mr. engel made was the overt hostility shown to the united states and, of course, to south korea and to the rest of the world. corvette. seeing the a south korean ship in which 46 south koreans lost their lives, over 50 were injured.
they -- it was split in half by a torpedo from a north korean submarine and they actually lifted the two halves out of the water. and inspecting that and looking at the letters that some of the -- the last letters that some of those young south korean sailors had sent home before they perished, it's just a reminder, it is a reminder of how brutal that regime can be n its own people but also on hose who -- against who it has ill-intent. so the south koreans have suffered from this. now to see them move forward and expand this nuclear weapons program. each new launch brings them closer. they say they can hit the west coast of the united states. they're claiming they will be able to hit the entire u.s.
with their icbm program. these placards that you see and these posters actually show their missiles coming down on the united states. and so at this point, i think it is critical and our colleagues mountain senate feel the same way and i want to thank our senate colleagues for building upon the house bill which eliot engel and i have authored, and i also appreciate the cooperation of the bipartisan house leadership to ensure this bill's quick scheduling. it's just back from the senate. in the wake of north korea's fourth nuclear test and its recent missile launch, many of our allies also are trying to tighten the screws now on that regime in order to slow its capability to deliver this type of weapon. only days ago, south korea shuttered the industrial complex because as they
observed it was giving the north korean regime the hard currency it needed in order to move forward its weapons programs. and this will end a very important revenue for the north korean regime. japan has issued a new set of sanctions as well, and china and russia should take notice and follow this example. it is time for the united states to stand with our partners in northeast asia as we press china and russia to follow suit and this bill sends the message to that regime in north korea that they must reform and they must disarm this nuclear weapons program. by cutting off kim jong un's access to the hard currency he needs for his army and his weapons, h.r. 757 will return us to the one strategy that has worked -- financial pressure on
the north korean regime. so i urge the passage >> coming up next, presidential candidates hillary clinton and bernie sanders and fundraiser in minnesota. then, washington journal. then, white house budget shaun donovan talking about the budget request for 2017. the minnesota democrat farmer labor party posted the nonfree mondale dinner. included those by barry sanderson hillary clinton. this is just over an hour. [applause] senator sanders: thank you. [cheering]
[cheering] senator sanders: it sounds like some of you are ready for a political revolution. [applause] alright.anders: let me thank you all very much for giving me this opportunity to say a few words. these teleprompters are not mine , i will look down. thanking all of you for doing what too few americans do. and it is because you love your state and your country, you are prepared to get involved in the political process. you understand that many men and women fought and died to
preserve democracy and you are doing everything you can to make sure that we have a vibrant democracy. so thank you all very much. [applause] senator sanders: and as we were driving here, my thoughts went to an old friend of mine, of he and his wife sheila. elected in 1990 at the same time. we became close friends and we worked together on a number of issues. i want to thank the democrats of minnesota for making sure that paul's work and more importantly his vision, is never forgotten. [applause] senator sanders: everybody in
this room understands that no president, not bernie sanders or anybody else, can a loan -- alo ne address the crisis facing this country. the reason for that, which is not talked about very much in the media or congress, is the reality that big-money interests, wall street, corporate america, campaign donors, they have so much power, so much influence over the economy and of this country, that no president can do it alone. that is right. i could sit here for 10 hours and tell you all the things that have to be done, but i will be
wasting your time, because nothing significant gets done unless millions of people come together, including working people who have given up on the political process, young people who are involved, african-americans and whites and latinos and native american, andn americans, gay straight, men and women, young and old -- unless we revitalize american democracy, so that we have one of the highest voter turnout in the world, not one of the lowest. [applause] senator sanders: when millions of people get involved in the political process and a look at washington and say, you know what, our government belongs to all of us, not just a handful of
wealthy campaign contributors. when that happens, we transform america. [applause] senator sanders: our job, the be beatingill republicans, because when you look at what they stand for it is a marginal position. very few americans believe in the republican program, how many people do you know think that it makes sense to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 1%,ks to the top 2/10 of and then cut social security, medicaid and medicare. it is not that it is not right,
very few people believe that. republicans win elections when , when become demoralized they give up on the political process, when they do not vote or get involved, and win big money buys elections. republicans when one voter winout is low, democrats win voter turnout is high. our job is to create a high voter turnout. [applause] senator sanders: this concept of involving people in the political process to make change , that is not a new idea. this has been going on forever. just a few minutes ago, i had the privilege of talking to some of the leaders of the trade union movement in minnesota.
and they understand, and you all workersnd, that when came together to demand to sit down and collectively bargain contracts, that did not happen because employers thought it was a great idea. [applause] senator sanders: that happened, that happened because working people said, you know what, we are not beasts of burden. we have rights. we want to be paid a decent wage. they stood up and they fought for unions and they fall for those rights -- fought for those rights. owes theker in america trade worker movement. [applause]
mr. sanders: and it's not just the trade union movement. does anybody here think that the civil rights movement is simply about lyndon baines johnson signing the voting rights act? up.ge comes from the bottom it comes when people stand up is noy the status quo longer acceptable. years people stood up and fought, sometimes they were lynched, sometimes their homes were bombed. i was in birmingham, alabama.
i went to the church where four beautiful children were killed because of a racist explosion. day,i learned on that there were 14 bombings in birmingham during that month. see byty was under racist trying to terrorize people fighting for civil rights. of birmingham, blacks and white allies said sorry, segregation and racism is going to in an america they stood together -- america. they stood together. they sat in. we made huge breakthroughs. not because of somebody on top.