Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

The technical means. The telephone bills, pictures video, records listening devices, they were everything is proven by the material and the elements that people who were arrested were those who killed and reported to president putin. The second level is for the organizers so there were perpetrators and organizers. The investigation delivered defined the people who this is also was proven by technical conversations filming and checking the bills but the organizers some managed to leave the country and some have immunity as the legislators of the russian government. And this is a complicated job because this moment the political element these people very close to the who publicly defends them and protects them both for the president and in the eyes of the public. Despite that the organizers were declared a search for the organizers and for those who are not legislators. Regarding i value such a person because if he did not exist in the case of when there was terrorist there was not there were people who were recruiting them not to organize. That is the same situation. I do not see any other elements. Some of the organizers and told them you [ inaudible ]. And being worried about how the relations are built in the oriental states. I believe there was not information on this topic. These people simply decided to put an order and to avenge themselves. Thats what is today. The moral responsibility are the leaders of the state because these people thought by killing the president they are going to be treated with leniency and working in favor of somebody else. And they believe that they were doing the right thing because there were Many Political assassinations in which never completely discovered because they were killing opponents of the regime. Here they made the mistake, of course. They made the mistake because im absolutely convinced because president putin knew him so very well and kind of lenient in respect of the joint work in the past he was outraged when was killed in such a blatant way. He gave an order and the permission and 80 people and investigators who continue to study this case who was killed after he quit. This the root and the details of the investigation. The general picture so far looks like this maybe they will find something else. Maybe it was cia or Intelligence Services in order to shape stability. Technical means so far did not identify neither american nor ukrainian involvement. So could you talk a little bit about how this has affected you personally and the liberal establishment that youre a part of. I know several people have left the country. People go back and forth. You are very visible. Is that the protection that you are wearing . Or is it just fate . Translator my guards do not my security people do not recommend me to talk about the issues of security. Let me tell you one episode. I got a phone call from one of the socalled Law Enforcement agencies and said do you have a passport business to a foreign country. I said yes i have. How about your son . I said yes he has. I was told grab your son and fly wherever you want to go. I grabbed my son and flew to london. That day the [ inaudible ] we learn about it by watching tv in london. And later i got a call and they said you can come back now. They called me again and said now you can leave alone. I have six men, the guards, because declared me [ inaudible ] as well as this happened in early january. Refuse to use the protection the guards. He preferred beautiful girls instead. And i understand him. And im jealous. But no matter how much we can joke about it do you know how he was killed . He was alone, walking without security. Although he was warned. I would rather still live a little longer. Several years ago on the same square outside the kremlin there was a spontaneous demonstration of soccer hooligans on the square in reaction to a small scale fight and the decision to not press charges against the assailant that had killed another group there was a fight between soccer hooligans and people from the north caucuses, guest workers. Russian politics has changed dramatically since that event which i think was in 2010 if im not mistaken. Nationalists and otherwise previous marginal voices have become part of the mainstream, part of the domestic political mainstream. Is that a phenomenon which you expect to intensify in the run up to the elections in 2016 and 2018 or does putin and his Political Team, do they need to create a more moderate sense of where politics what normal politics is in contemporary russia . First of all i would like to invite the nationalists and the imperialists because the nationalists are those who talk about the superierity of the russian nation. They remain marginal in terms of political framework and the government persecutes them. Russia includes not only russians but also others. This trend is gaining strength. But they in terms of electoral they are proputins. The nationalist is going to be picked up. He is going to get his 7 or 5 or 10 . He is quite loyal to putin and he is a illiterate as well. What happened this were hooligans and remember how the chief of the police [ inaudible ] came out and saved this young. Now he is the minister of interior affairs. And he also has an idea about how these events, these mass riots should be suppressed right in the beginning but there are those who should be punished. To identify organizers who inside this people who finger point at the enemies. I believe this is a smart policy. Lets talk for a moment or two about ukraine and then i very much welcome people from the audience to join us in this conversation. If you look at the situation today inside Eastern Ukraine there is a small amount of fighting significant military buildup on the russian side inside ukraine regrouping of Ukrainian Military units government and semi government units. We have not surged into all out war and there is a certain level of stability. Is that a new normal . Will we have a kind of stable unfinished environment in Eastern Ukraine or are we just in a pause . And will there be predictable triggers or unpredictable triggers that push us into a more dangerous stage of a conflict . I believe that its a long term conflict. It will not be over neither this year nor next year or this decade. It reminds me a lot of [ inaudible ] where the borders were not clear and from both sides people are going to be shooting from time to time and kill each other. Two or three people today in the best Case Scenario. Unless it happens some sad event like shooting down of the malaysian flight this war is going to be going for a long time. There is a part of the sea coast which is not controlled. And i believe that our friends from columbia already use this territory because this is the Free Entrance into the if you go left there is no russia and no border with ukraine. That is a great market. How many people will be shareholders to keep this conflict forever and keep it frozen . This way i am pessimistic. But im more pessimistic if the second ma 17 happens because you probably dont know but two hours before this flight the same corridor was used [ inaudible ] if i were him i would send [ inaudible ] thats the real world. But the different plane was shot down. And i believe it will happen by mistake, by chance. There are many shareholders in every side. The situation is not controlled like in sudan. A large number of militias, the large number of economic interests. There are coal mines and factories. There are pressures like in germany after 1945 when it was taken away. There are many people who are willing to continue this unpredictable situation environment no matter what the leaders want, plilt or military leaders. Im troubled by the analogy of comparing a flight with innocent civilian going to malaysia and the idea that president putin would not be aware that russia has supplied advanced military equipment to the separatests and it is a clear case that someone made a bad mistake. I think we need to be careful in terms of where assigning the blame here. I think the idea that mr. Putin would start a war for such a terrible decision which is a reflection on his failed policies in ukraine i think doesnt make a lot of logical sense. But the question long term is the goal here to have a big mess for decades or is it to wait until kiev collapses and then you have pieces of ukraine that become more cooperative or ukraine basically stops existing as a unitary state . What is the goal . Where does this end . Translator i completely disagree with you regarding the airplane. The turnover, the public mentality both among leaders of Public Opinion after the plane was shot down before that neither you can check it [ inaudible ] have no militant did not use after shooting down the plane. It was complete 180 degree uturn in terms of russia. Unfortunately, no one will ever know who shot it down. Of course, we are going to read the report of the commission. It is going to be published and half of the world is going to agree and accept it and the other half of the world is not going to accept it and keep asking questions. [ inaudible ] we have established civilian plane was shot down by this or another country. And both are cases where those who shot it down admit it. And put the stop on it. Im talking about suffering and shot down by the u. S. Navy in the persian gulf. There were lots of reports, lots of conclusions. Half of the world will accept it and half will not. Youre not im sorry, what are you saying . The flights of crimea translator ukraine still does not recognize. There was an agreement in the member. Compensation [ inaudible ] and i was talking to russian dig dignitaryies but ukraine it is still not clear and this way last year ukraine when the russian relatives, compensation. The question was regarding previous plane. Why do they hate us . If you watch through official state television you get a pretty good idea. Im just curious as a representative of the media how you sort of would assess the effects of last Weeks Supreme Court decision to recognize gay marriage across the United States. Does this form the basis for long term Cultural Values gap. I think the decision of the Supreme Court that russia could not care less for the decision but this is a tool in the situation of the war and the environment. Everything that your enemy does should be recognized and make it look funny. Thats it. This is the collapse of the United States. Soon america is going to disappear because america gave up the christian values. But this is the tool of the war. The tools of the war not so much going back to your previous question. And maybe they are more efficient. One cost more than 100. And sent other strange persons going to make another statement on tv going to show them on every channel. Look this is the candidate for president for which we will find this candidate and bring them to our tv screens and say look what an idiot this guy is and he is going to be the president. The enemy should be humiliated in the military environment during the war. Thats when your people will be less afraid of the enemy. So were going to open this up now to the people in attendance to pose questions. Two or three ground rules. First of all wait for the microphone before you start speaking. Two, identify yourself, name and affiliation and then make it short and make it a question. Yes, sir. Translator the position is that you provide its easier if you speak in english, if you dont mind. The position of your station is to provide ground for the whole political spectrum from prokremlins and antikremlins. Recently we witnessed some liberals they turned against the policy of your radio station. I was wondering how what measures you take to bring them back and to fill that gap. Thank you. Translator we use the tool actually, everybody is unhappy with us. The only media which the only media outlet criticized by president putin was in 2004 bh i was told that he said you guys cover with it every day and i tolerate it. I suggest to do the same thing to tolerate who criticized him. [ inaudible ] did not refuse to come to our radio. And we have been negotiating. And several other people are talking to him. We will explain it. We are not a Political Party radio. We are just a forum to conduct debates. I am aware of what happens because earlier we used to criticize and clash with the government which would refuse to come to our radio or agrooeto come to our radio. But we were criticized and had no other forum to speak. Now they have other outlets. They have tentative outlets but they are not going oo change our official position as chief editor im not going to change the policy except with the people who propagated fascist ideas and call to kill people or to kick out people out of the country except people everybody else can come and express his or her ideals and i said it quite clearly. And the next how it would happen if say im going to change the journalist. What would you do to this candidate . How would it be possible . It would not. Thats why we have this little standards, little standards. If you are mad at us in politics being offended is not a good merchandise to sell. I believe it is going to get tougher. All the way in the back. To what degree. Tim nelson. To what degree do you think russians are becoming aware that russians are dying for putins gambit in ukraine to seize territory . Are they aware in the sense that they are going to take action regarding it . Translator in this case i would compare the Public Opinion with the Public Opinion during the war in afghanistan. First nobody knew that people died there, that the soldiers died there. And then the information infiltrated. Now the situation is more transparent. Reported about a death and other Media Outlets and we repeat those reports about the death of soldiers in ukraine who were from we report about those who were taken prisoners of war. That is two of them. This way when we talk about many russian soldiers i would say if that happened you can verify the information then we know that was an exchange of the pows between ukrainians and russians and separatests say they exchanged 800 people. None of them was of Russian Military. We have a list of intelligence officers. [ inaudible ] 800, 900,000 were taken as prisoners of war but only two of them happened to be Russian Military officers. Thats why i would suggest to be more cautious when we assess the number of the soldiers and the number of those who died, killed in action because this is all going to be because of the military bureaucracy and paperwork and i should say that i believe the russian Public Opinion that lists is changing. Its not that it is changing but people are getting tired of all of this war, this information. They are getting tired. The Public Opinion does not change. This is the first stage for people to start to think about the price of the issue. Let me push you a bit on this. Are you trying to minimize the significance of the Russian Military presence in Eastern Ukraine . And by military presence i mean both the official ministry of defense units and special services . Or are you trying to say that there needs to be some element of proof . I think if we are looking for that you are not going to get something that stands up in court but rather see a pattern of behavior in terms of equipment, command structure . That is the foot print, not about having hundreds of thousands of russian army in ukraine. Translator there is a site which follows on social networks all the russian soldiers in ukraine. It is a very efficient website. [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] any will say russians are present in ukraine. If you ask them how many are there i need to ask questions. I dont want to fantasize. I work with facts. And i can imagine that there should be infrastructure units to support the equipment. How many of them, i dont know. Where did they come from . I dont know. What they say is what they know. Otherwise we trump into the opposite propaganda channel. They are going to say 100,000 soldiers. When we get [ inaudible ] i apologize for all the way to the military unit then we can say because we care about the reputation and can speak about large presence the business of president obama is to say to putin get the russian soldiers out of ukraine so intelligence provided different information and they should be asked the questions. Do not force us journalists to fantasize. There are too many people in our profession who do love to fantasize and end up to become a circus eventually. Question here on the lefthand side. Thanks so much, sir. Im from the u. S. Air force academy academy. I was wondering what you think the role of the Baltic States are in this. We see a lot of large stale military exercises. How is their threat perceived in russia . How serious is that . Will there be involvement there . Translator maybe i misunderstood the question but conducted large scale military exercises and do you know how big it is. When russia conducts large scale military exercises they can be deemed as large scale military exercises. It was very funny in 2007 [ inaudible ] who was the major enemy of russia in 2007 . The first place took esatonia. Estonnia major threat to russian population. Why . They moved the monument [ inaudible ] and the Public Opinion decided that since they moved this monument they are the major enemies of russia. Now, if we are going to talk seriously, of course threatening each other [ inaudible ] which would indicate our presence. What im telling you is trust me the war is not necessary like everybody shoots canons and. Confrontation raised and brought up in the air is a different situation. You know how long it takes from helicopter [ inaudible ] seven minutes it takes them. This is in every war where threatening is the platitude or business. When i believe would be military exercise are going to continue and militaries are going to earn money to do exercises i believe they should do a golden monument because here you are finally making doubled the budget. Creating a threat revive this organization. You guys should start collecting to put headquarters. It should be a monument so that everybody could see it from outside of the nato headquarters. The fact he is describing on nato budgets has not occurred except for a handful. Translator well, this is only the beginning. There is great potential. Large scale exercises. Robert, could you please comment on the increasing number of russians who are joining isis or especially from the northern caucuses . And how is this perceived in russia . What is russia doing . And what can be done . Thank you. Translator i dont know if they publically announced this number or confuse the public and unpublic numbers. Public number was 1,866 people officially declared by the chief of the federal service of security, fsb. I hope i did not this is the registered by our fsb, russian citizens who became numbers of isis who fight on this isis side. Out of them half converted. Not born, but russians who converted to radical islam and went left to fight there. If you check the Security Council meeting in the northern devoted to this issue, as far as i know, the president gets word of the people who come back from syria back to russia. They all are under control. And this threat is very serious. If you paid attention recently the assistant of the the president , he was made large interview, he devoted three quarters of the interview to isis. Ukraine is mostly pr. The ukrainian events is the information noise, white noise. But the fact that they are Security Council follows, monitors the situation very carefully and is concerned, that is 100 . And our meetings in washington, both russian representatives, and u. S. Officials we never discuss totally despite the breakup of the relationship. And the exchange of the information regarding isis still continues. Today it is very high level of exchange of information. And probably aware that our senior officials do not travel to the United States after sanctions were and the u. S. Senior officials but the meeting of the terrorist dedicated to terrorism, chief of fsb, following the instruction putin came to this was the highest level of official russian who in the last year has visited, which shows how important is this issue on both yours and our leadership. So lets try for three more questions. If i could just put them all together. Ill start down here. Thank you. Philip civicen from the wall street journal. You said in 2000 president putin called you his enemy. But listening to you now 15 years later you dont strike me very much as putins enemy. Sometimes you strike me as at best a sympathetic opponent, at times an apologist for his imperialist agenda in ukraine especially here you speculate on mh17. My question is who are you . And more importantly what do you see your role in russian public life today . Thank you. Why dont we answer that question and then well come back to the others . Translator im not concerned about im not concerned with the fact that you do not perceive me as an enemy. What im worried about is how putin perceives me. This is the most important issue. I do not support president putins policy. But it is not my opinion that counts here. Im just a journalist, who analyzes what the government does. And i am telling you about my own analysis. Of course it would be easier for me to present putin with horns and tail, but since all the journalists have horns and tails, then he would be just one of us. Im trying to understand in order to justify him, not to apologize him. I can tell you about the ukrainian war, about economic reforms, about positions, but who cares about my own opinion. Who am i . But i can tell you about myself a lot. I love myself. I dont want to talk about myself. But i believe that the task of the journalist, the goal of the journalist is to analyze when talking about american journalists. If you ask my opinion, im going to tell you, i believe it was a great mistake and that the people takes the country into im telling you this openly this so why hold it here. Im trying to understand why where is the mistake . Who is better . Who is good . Okay, im going to find a good guy. Who do you know in russia . I would be happy if i tell you who the Prime Minister putins former Prime Minister putin is good this would be boring. Im not justifying president. Hes an experienced man. Does not need my justifications. I never voted for him. And im probably the only journalist who he publicly criticizes. My opinion was i voiced it on the next day and i the airplane was shut down. As far as im concerned, there was information this the military plane was to fly more or less was supposed to take off at the same time and i absolutely do not feel was it a Russian Missile or did the what is more about is who shot it down and who canceled the flight . Who did not release the planes . Who knew it was going to happen. Thats the kind of question the investigators should ask because the situation is not that clear. And thats what im trying to figure out. And my own opinion has not changed in the past year. Thats why things i approve, i do continue to drink spirits because i dont have such a strong and i do not hide this fact. Yes. Right here. Thank you. My name is viola beginninger from the United States institute of peace. I wonder if you can reflect a little bit about the russian narrative and what it means to be russian and how has that changed since the end of the cold war if it has, in various parts of russia . It might vary from one place to another. But how has that idea evolved and how does that affect the internal debate and discussion and the potential susceptibleability to this information and propaganda . Im afraid i cant answer this question. I am just a journalist. And this is a question for i observe myself is post imperial syndrome which i mentioned before, again for me it is it is widely spread among the people who were born in the best Case Scenario at the end of the soviet union, which unites everybody. Because overseas, and we care that people stopped responding to us as russian i can nothing else to say. I believe this is the sense of the majority of the population. The propaganda helps the target but it exists on the grassroot level, and propaganda only enhances it. Thats what unites russia. Yes, please. Steve winters, local researcher. At this Big Press Conference several months ago putin was asked a very pointed question. Again . This Big Press Conference a few months ago putin was asked a pointed question about claims there was a he was calling people a fifth column and creating a bad atmosphere. I thought he gave a very strong answer to that question. He quoted pushkin and basically said there is a loyal opposition, but the traitors are the people who are working in the interests of another state. And against our state. So it seems to me actually being a foe is not quite as bad in his view as what do you think about that answer . Pushkin . Translator i am what i am. Efb everybody else is your false perception, including false perception of myself by the president. And your perception does not depend on what im doing. Putin was referring to something else. I was there at this press conference. He was referring to as i understood that there is opposition, which is willing to play by the rules which he as a president established. There is opposition which is willing to get rid of this rules. And there is a legitimate position legitimate and illegitimate position. And his suggestion just moved to the legitimate position. We didnt want two people we didnt need people ability to elect your local deputies, then regional depputyies and then 40 years later become members of duma. And that was his explanation for the conference was thats what he said. The second part dont you dare to work to use foreign money for the interests of the foreign powers. Use your money of your own citizens, let them fund you. That was his official position which he keeps going over and over again. And there is no emotional case. He views his Legal Education and differentiates different approaches. This is what he can do. We have time for three more questions. I would like to group them together. If people can be quick identify yourselves and ask a question. There is a woman here on the aisle. Hi. Im olga, department of state. You described the media space as a bit of a circus. And i wanted to hear a bit more of an assessment of what you feel, you know, has changed among you and your colleagues in the media space in russia in the last several years. Here. Thank you. My name is david. I would like to ask about russia georgia relations. New government of georgia tried to reduce tension but we unfortunately dont see a major improvement in russia georgia relations. How do you see russia georgia relations in the future . Thanks. And then one last question here on the right, at the very back, a woman on the far hi. Thank you. From the atlantic council. On the question of this information, i always wonder since we almost more than 90 of the russian prbublic gets their News Conference from television, what would it take to reach that public from the perspective of i guess you say western media in the western language and is that even a possibility to reach that public to convince them of an alternative narrative . Translator im guyoing to answer first of all about georgia. Russia. Most likely is going to move toward unification. I mean northern and southern position. Thats what russia can do to reduce the tension. The technical issues, for example, to let the import or to remove the to facilitate the travel regime and to understand that the current Political Team in in the decision regarding was made and in short time this is going to be unified and going to become part of russia. It is unavoidable from the point of view. This way there is no absolutely no ease in the relationship possible. And the most important issue that the refugees will be able to go home. This is most important because refugees from are going to pressure the government of georgia no matter who is going to in power, and will not achieve anything as a result of the interior tension is going to grow and enter russian discourse, going to be popular and fashionable trendy. And this way the relations unfortunately are going to be bad. This is not theyre not going to improve. The second wish was regarding the media, you know i believe the most important thing which happened was the we raised a generation of responsible journalists. Some journalists cover the government and take responsibility for the information policy and other journalists are hiding themselves under in a different media outlet and mostly websites. And personally with his name his name is not responsible does not play the expectation and for what he says, rights, because he is relieved and he was relieved from the consciousness. This is the major issue talking about publicists. There is a deeper problem discussed here but im going to talk briefly about it. That any person who has an account in the social Network Becomes a photojournalist. He collects information. He spreads information. This information. And this information takes over everything. One can take a fake news from internet, and the traditional media is going to spread. Let me get let me tell you one story about explosion in the white house and how would you like me to 8 00 p. M. In moscow, and chief i hear that the news editor runs across the lobby, officially theyre not allowed to run because it is and then the broadcaster cannot speak properly. So it means something happened. He runs into the studio, turn on the radio according to the itartass agency the associated press, the explosion in the white house explosion in the white house, obama was wounded. The chief editor pushes the red button everybody that should be News Agencies there is nothing there. And i believe it did not get there is nothing there. There are 100 journalists. Nobody else reported this story. What happened . Check the markets. Markets go down. Later we found out that hacker ss broke into the associated press, and placed this report there. And the it was evening in moscow received the twitter report pushes the red button and sends it to the air. And then it took us long, long time to first of all to the markets. This is what journalists means today. Who was responsible for this episode so the responsibility is subject tiff and ive and the objective became the major issue. So this is irresponsible behavior. And this is also a profession, well paid profession, but a different one. So andrew wanted me to tell about the number of the soldiers in ukraine which he wanted to move me from one profession to another. But hes not first one who tried this. And not the last one who is going to fail to do this. This is regarding the journalists. And it was about foreign media. Before media, a lot popular in russia. Because there is a high level of mistrust. In russia, the foreign media is perceived as part of the government. Theyre perceived not only by the population, but also by the president putin himself. And so russia says or publishes cartoon against thats obviously not the one who did it or obama made a call, because because this is what happens in russia and that means this is how all of us either on mars or venus, and so you can write what you believe is right and most important thing is because the spread of the digital spread in internet the large number of people study english and foreign language, i would like to say the access to the different kind of information is this for those who want to find it. The issues the challenges that many people are not looking for a different kind of information. One channel on tv, one link on internet, so this is not your problem. This is mostly our issue. So my suggestion is to know to diverseify the view from the left to the right and to be to become available to everybody all over the world including russia. But this is your issue. We are trained to create in russia, were trained to provide, make available different points of view. To our users. But we are not very successful in this business. But neither are you guys. And thats why were colleagues and were going to cooperate. Thank you very much. We wish you another one more time congratulations on the anniversary. And we wish you safety and continued ability to have the impact that youve been having. Thank you very much. Thank you, andrew. Defense secretary Ashton Carter and general Martin Dempsey testify in the morning about u. S. Strategy for combatting the militant group isis. Watch live coverage from the Senate Armed Services committee at 9 30 eastern on cspan. On cspan2, a look at the federal governments response to unaccompanied immigrant children who cross the u. S. mexico border. Our live coverage from the Senate Homeland Security Committee also starts at 9 30 eastern. When congress is in session cspan3 brings you more of the best access to congress with live coverage of hearings News Conferences, and key Public Affairs events. And every weekend it is American History tv. Traveling to Historic Sites discussions with authors and historians, and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. Cspan3, coverage of congress and American History tv. Next a house panel investigates u. S. Reliance on rocket engines for space launches and looks at new programs to develop American Made Rocket Propulsion systems. Congressman mike rogers of alabama chairs this house arms Services Committee hearing. Good morning. Welcome, everybody, our Strategic Forces subcommittee hearing on assuring National Security space investing in american industry and to end reliance on the Russian Rocket engines. And before i get started, i think we all ought to take note today that it is the day of the funeral of those nine families in South Carolina and this is a real tragedy and i know our hearts and thoughts are with them and our condolences to their families and friends. As for todays business, well conduct two panels. In the first panel, five expert witnesses from the industry who represent current and potential providers of the space launch and Rocket Propulsion for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program. In our second panel, we have three senior government officials who have responsibilities in managing and overseeing the eob program and we also have an expert adviser to the government on recent launch study. On panel one, we have tony bruno, president and ceo of united launch alliance. Mr. Rob meyerson president of blue origin. Miss julie van kleeck, Vice President advanced space and launch programs at aerojet rocket dine. Mr. Frank culbertson, president of Space Systems. And mr. Jeff thornburg senior director of propulsion engineering at spacex. I thank all of you for participating and providing your perspective on National Security. It takes time and energy to prepare for these things and it is an inconvenience to come up here but it helps us a lot for Public Policy so i appreciate your service. This is our second hearing we conducted on space. Were dedicating the time to this topic because of its significance to our National Security. Without an effective space launch program, we lose all the advantages we gain from space capabilities, losing space for our war fighters is not an option. There are key policy and acquisition positions regarding the future of National Security space that need to be addressed. As we said before, im committed to ending our reliance on Russian Rocket engines for National Security space launch. I believe we must end our reliance in a manner that protects our militarys assured access to space and the taxpayers by assuring we dont trade on one monopoly for another. The house bill accomplishes this. And i look forward to perspectives of our witnesses on the current legislation under consideration for fiscal year 2016 nda axa, both senate and house versions. Because were committed to ending our reliance on russian engines, we must invest in the United States Rocket Propulsion industrial base. Investment in our industry for advanced rocket engines is overdue. While we may lead in some areas of Rocket Propulsion, we are clearly not leading in all. This say painfully obvious fact considering that two of the three u. S. Launch providers we have here today rely on russian engines. And it is not just the russians leading the way. According to online press reports, the chinese may be flying a new launch vehicle on a maiden flight this summer with similar technologies as the russians using advanced kerosene engines. The time has come to resume u. S. Leadership in space, and i believe the companies before us today can help us do that. However, aim concerned with the air forces recent approach in that what they may i am concerned with air forces ain what may amount to a very expensive and risky endeavor in development of new engines, new launch vehicles and new infrastructure. Congress is only authorized funding for the development of Rocket Propulsion system. Launch vehicles are not the problem. The problem is the engine. Thank you for being with us this morning. I look forward to your testimony and discussion on these important topics. I now recognize the Ranking Member mr. Cooper for any Opening Statement he might have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think we should approach this hearing with a great deal of humility. I think the bottom line is, if we had gotten last years ndaa right, we wouldnt be having this hearing. So were correcting a selfinflicted wound here. Now, there are many selfinflict selfinflicted wounds bee dpooend depending how far back you want to go in history. It is embarrassing for america we havent been duplicate or exceed the Russian Technology given the billions of dollars we have expended. But there are tremendous signs of hope. Because if we had this hearing a few years ago thats when we really should have been worried but we werent smart enough to be worried back then. Now due to the investment, sometimes of our own billionaires, and their love of space, there is some amazingly exciting things happening. So were really just managing this transition, im confident we can do it. I wish i dont know whether the chinese with their long march missile have in fact bought the rd 180, or at least copied it successfully, something we apparently have been unable to do. But we dont want to just be held to the past standard. There are new generation technologies that are even more exciting, more capable so how do we effectively transition to that . A Company Competition can be contentious sometimes, but it is also exciting. And sometimes it brings out the best in us no matter how painful it is. So im glad were having this hearing. I hope that the net result will be superior congressional performance and superior Company Performance so we can have assured access to space. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I thank the gentleman and the chair would inform the other members that they have Opening Statements they can submit them for the record. Now we will move to our first panel. The witnesses are asked to summarize their Opening Statements, full Opening Statements will be accepted into the record and we will start with mr. Bruno. You are recognized for five minutes to summarize your Opening Statement. Thank you, chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper member of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to come here today and talk about our ongoing transformation of ula and our journaly to y journey to replace the russian rd180. As you know, we partnered with blue origin last year for the development of the be 4 engine. It is a methane engine. It was 3 1 2 years into its development, and the engine portion of that effort was fully funded allowing us to move out smartly on that activity. Rocket science is hard and rocket engines are the hardest part, so prudence required that i also enter into a partnership with areao jet rocket dine as a backup. Thats a kerosene engine. It is at present 16 months behind the blue origin 4 engine because it started later, and it does require significant government funding in order to continue. Both engines are currently on plan. They are meeting their project and technical milestones and most importantly for our nation both will bring the advanced engine Cycle Technology that is present on the rd 180 to american shores and allow us to regain our leadership in this key technical area. As we do all of this, you always focus will remain laser sharp on Mission Success and schedule certainty. Were very proud of our perfect on time successful record of now 96 consecutive launches. Many of which were critical National Security assets. Now, in order to do all of this and avoid an assured access gap and generate the commercial funds necessary for this investment in this new engine, it is necessary that we be allowed to continue competing with the atlas launch vehicle in order to support those missions and provide the funds that are required to do this. And so i am grateful to the house and especially for this committee and the work that you have done to correct the situation that Ranking Member cooper referred to that will allow us to have true and proper competition Going Forward while we protect our own National Security. Now, as we stand here today the industry has matured to admit a second provider for National Security launch. I think thats a good thing. Competition is healthy for the taxpayer. And it is healthy for the industry. I look forward to competing in this new environment and i am confident that when there is a fair and even Playing Field that ula can come to that field and win. So im optimistic about the future of space launch. I am inspired by the missions that i have the privilege to be entrusted with and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Bruno. Mr. Mire son,eyerson, youre recognized for five minutes. Chairman roger Ranking Member cooper and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. Assured access to space is a National Priority and a challenge that we must meet domestical domestically. Blue originalen is working to deliver the american engine to maintain u. S. Leadership in space and deliver critical National Security capabilities. Our partnership with ula is fully funded and offers the fastest path to a domestic alternative to the russian rd 180 without requiring taxpayer dollars. For more than a decade we have steadily advanced our capabilities flying five different rocket vehicles and developing multiple liquid rocket engines. Were spending our own money rather than taxpayer funds and taking a clean sheet approach to development. As a result, were able to outcompete the russians building modern american engines to serve multiple launch vehicles. Our recent successes demonstrate that. In april of this year our be 3 engine performed flawlessly, powering our new shepherd space vehicle to the edge of space. The be 3 is the first new American Hydrogen engine to fly to space in more than a decade. United launch alliance recognized the merits of our approach when they selected our be 4 for thure vulcan rocket. It improves performance at a lower cost and is more than three years into development. Most importantly, it is on schedule to be qualified in 2017, and ready for first flight on the vulcan in 2019. Two years ahead of any alternative. Being available two years earlier means there is two years less reliance on the russians. As with any ox rich state combustion there are many developments. We have an extensive Testing Program under way completing more than 60 stage combustion tests and multiple tests on power pack to date. Full be 4 engine testing is on track on schedule to be completed to be conducted by the end of next year and because we own our own Test Facilities we can do this much faster. Blue is well capitalized and significant private investment has been made in the facilities, equipment and personnel needed to maybe the be 4 a success. The engine is fully funded, primarily by blue with support from ula and does not require government funding to be successful. Instead of duplicating private efforts, the u. S. Government should focus its resources on developing the next generation of launch vehicles to meet National Security requirements. In conclusion, no new engine can simply be dropped in to an existing launch vehicle. Launch vehicles have to be designed around their engines and launch vehicle providers are the ones who are best able to decide what type of engine they need. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Meyerson. Miss van kleeck youre recognized for five minutes. Chairman rogers Ranking Member cooper, and members of the subcommittee it is a privilege to be here today to discuss this important National Security issue. Simply stated, we have an engine problem on the atlas 5 rocket, the nations best and most versatile National Security launch vehicle. It uses a russian made rd 180 booster engine. On behalf of the s nationwide, i want to thank the committee for recognizing the problem and taking action. It is our position that the fastest, least risky and lowest cost way to fix the problem is develop an advanced american rocket booster engine to replace the russian rd 180. With a focus competitive acquisition based on Robust Public Private Partnership we firmly believe this can be accomplished by 2019. In fiscal years 2015 and 16, this committee took a leadership role by authorizing funding and direction for the air force to competitively develop this engine by 2019. Aerojet rocket dine welcomes the opportunity to compete for this effort for the ar 1. More than six months have passed since fiscal year funds were appropriated for the Engine Development program this committee mandated and virtually no money has been spent. It appears this Engine Development is being subsumed into a lengthy new launch Vehicle Development and subsequent launch service acquisition. Mr. Chairman earlier this week you stated in the press and i quote, it is not time to fund new launch vehicle or new infrastructure rely on unproven technologies. It is time for the pentagon to harness the power of the American Industrial base and move with purpose and clarity in order to swiftly develop an american Rocket Propulsion system that ends our reliance on russia as soon as possible. End quote. Youre exactly right. And we whole heartedly agree with you. This is a National Security imperative and should be treated as such. West technology to fix this problem. But we must get moving. With the focus Public Private partnership aerorocket dine has the proven capability to develop a state of the art advanced technology that can be certified by by 2019. Aerojet rocket dine is able to say this with confidence based on more than 60 years of experience developing and producing launch vehicle propulsion. We have at hand these technologies as we worked on them for last 20 years. We have active state of the art liquid rocket engine factories that are currently delivering engines supporting up upcoming National Security launches. Were the only Domestic Companies designed to develop flown rocket engines with thrust greater than 150,000 pounds thrust, replacing the rd 180 requires a Million Pounds of thrust. We have experienced developing large liquid rocket engines on short timelines such as our nation now faces. The r 68 on the delta 4 launch vehicle which produces 700,000 pounds of thrust was developed and proud on a fiveyear schedule. Aeroone will not be a copy of the rd 180, it will be a superior all american engine and will leapfrog Russian Technology. Aero1 will be available to any u. S. Launch booster propulsion user and configurable to any launch vehicle. The intellectual property will be retained by the government. To reiterate, our nation has an engine problem on its premiere launch vehicle the atlas 5. We must get rid of the Russian Rocket engine. We believe the fastest least risky lowest cost manner to do this is to develop an advanced american engine to replace the rd 180 on atlas 5. This can be done this can only be done by 2019 with the focus and robust Engine Development program. And Public Private partnership. Doing so will preserve access to space and reinvigorate the u. S. Rocket propulsion industrial base. Chairman rogers, i want to thank you again for holding this important hearing. These are difficult issues and each of us at the table has competing equities at stake. On behalf of aerojet, i look forward to your questions. Thank you, miss van kleeck. Mr. Culbertson youre recognized for five minutes. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I have submitted my felt statement for the record and will describe for the committee how orbital atk is working to support the Space Systems and launch vehicle programs. As a Global Leader in aerospace and defense technologies ordeal atx designs, builds and delivers affordable space, defense and aviation related systems to support our nations war fighters as well as civil government and commercial customers in the u. S. And abroad. Our company is the leading provider of small and medium class space launch vehicles for Civil Military and commercial missions and having conducted more than 80 launches of such vehicles for nasa, the u. S. Air force, the Missile Defense agency, and other government commercial International Customers in the last 25 years. Including delivering approximately four tons of cargo to the International Space station. As a committee is aware, earlier this year the u. S. Air force announced the Phase Two Development and launch Services Acquisition plan. One of the key components of the plan beginning in fiscal year 2015 centers on the Rocket Propulsion prototype program. We believe the air forces acquisition plan for rps is well conceived and if supported by congress will be successful in providing new space launch capabilities that are affordable reliable and available by the end of this decade. As both the launch vehicle builder and propulsion system supplier ordeal atk is prepared to support the air forces prototype program. Orbital atk proposed solid and liquid propulsion system developments that will support a new all american launch vehicle family that meets all the specified National Security launch requirements as well as civil government commercial International Launch needs. It is true were using a russian agent on one of our launch systems, but thats because it was the only one available to us at the time. We had to meet our commitment to the International Space station and deliver cargo. Our new systems, however, will be developed in a Public Private partnership with significant private investment and we are confident that our alternatives will be ready to support first flights by early 2019. Orbital atk is committed to supporting our space policy. Reliable affordable and capable systems are critical to ensuring our country is prepared to maintain access to space. Through the program we believe that u. S. Industry is able and poised to respond to this need. And will provide the best possible by nations of systems for the future of u. S. Access to space. We appreciation the efforts of this committee and this congress to correct the situation we find ourselves in Propulsion Development in this country. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i look forward to your questions. Mr. Chairman Ranking Member cooper, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. In addition to my Opening Statement, ive prepared a detailed written statement ive submitted for the record. Mr. Chairman this countrys ability to launch rockets without using russian engines should not be in question. America right now has talented Rocket Scientists engineer and technicians flying or developing innovative, American Made solutions to end u. S. Reliance on russia today. It bears noting there has been a Concerted Movement toward National Consolidation of the Russian Space industry and series of recent failures with Russian Rockets, engines and spacecraft. Having worked on this business for 20 years for both government and private industry including the air force, and nasas center, i can tell you more is happening now than at any time in my career. What is spacex doing . It is the largest private producer of liquid fuel rocket engines in the world. The first stage merlin engine has flown 162 times to space, more than any other domestic boost phase rocket engine flying including the rd 180 and the rs 68 combined. In the past 13 years, spacex developed nine different rocket engines. Merlin is the first new american hydro carbon rocket engine to be successfully developed and flown in the past 40 years. All while offering the highest thrust to weight ratio ever achieved. Were investing in a next generation rocket engine called raptor which will be a fundamental advancement in Propulsion Technology and serve a number of applications for the National Security space market. And we have captured more than 50 of the global space launch market increasing u. S. Market share from 0 in 2012. With respect to a National Engine program the air force is undertaking a strategy to result in not just a rocket engine, but launch systems. We believe this approach will, if done correctly benefit the entire u. S. Industrial base, properly require private industry coinvestment, and meet requirements for u. S. Government launches. Most importantly the air force is seeking to ensure that any new system is commercially viable in order to end the Current Practice of costly and unsustainable government subsization. Spacex is ready for access to space to the United States and next generation propulsion launch systems. In may, the air force certified the falcon 9 launch system. We appreciate the air forces confidence. Powered by spacexs merlin rocket engine we are also building qualifying and certificate fight the falcon heavy, which also uses the merlin rocket engine. Between these two launch vehicle systems, spacex can execute 100 of the launch requirements and provide heavy lift redundancy for the first time to the government. We anticipate certification in mid 2017. At the same time, spacex is developing raptor this stage combustion system will be extremely powerful and versatile, efficient and reliable while achieving commercial viability through notable risk and cost reducing improvements. Raptor will advance the state of the art and ensure the u. S. Remains the Global Leader in Rocket Propulsion technology and serve important politic for National Security space launch. Importantly, meaningful competition is reentering the program. With this we have seen the incumbent make promises to reduce its costs, innovate and fund new Development Efforts with private capital. These are good things. Much has been made of a socalled impending capability gap and assured access to space. The only gap that exists relates to heavy lift capability because the russian powered atlas five does not have a heavy lift variant. Otherwise there is no credible risk of a capability gap for National Security launch now or in the future. Existing vehicles including the falcon nine and the delta four are both made in america certified for dod launch, the atlas will continue to fly through 2020 under current law. There will be no gap. Soon, however, the falcon heavy launch system will close the preexisting gap and heavy lift through internal funding by spacex. Falcon heavy will be certified years before any proposed National Engine program is set to fly. I want to close my testimony with some Constructive Solutions to truly achieve assured access. First, the United States doesnt need more russian engines to get National Security space payloads to orbit. Second, continue working to achieve assured access through genuine competition through multiple qualified providers with redundant similar launch vehicle systems. Third, Congress Must properly structure its Engine Development effort to maximize smart investment. Any government money should be matched at 50 by private capital to ensure meaningful coinvestment and commercial viability must be a key component of the future system. Mr. Chairman thank you, spacex, as well as our investments in home grown next generation Propulsion Systems like raptor looks forward to contributing to the nations space enterprise. Im pleased to address any questions you might have. Great. Great job. Thank you, all of you. My first question was going to be to the companies do you think youre capable of providing us a Rocket Propulsion system that can replace the rd 180 by 2019 . Mr. Meyerson and miss van kleeck answered that in their Opening Statement. I was interested in your Opening Statement, you implied you are going to get into competition for this replacement engine. Was that an accurate interpretation of your Opening Statement . Yes sir. We certainly are working towards that end. Excellent. Mr. Thorne burlg,burg, are you planning on getting in the competition and can you have it done by 2019 . Through our existing launch vehicles we can provide 100 of the nations needs for National Security space missions. In addition well continue our investment in next generation Propulsion Systems and capability to further increase the u. S. position in propulsion my understanding is youre talking about you can use your falcon nine 1. 1 and falcon heavy when it is certified to compete for the mission but youre not planning to get into the competition to develop a propulsion system to fit on the atlas 5. Were invest internally and next generation Propulsion Systems like raptor and happy to have a conversation about how we can support the u. S. Government at any time the u. S. Government asks what can the industry provide to service the needs of the country, were ready to participate in that conversation. I heard you make reference to the merlin and the raptor. If those would work in some way with a launch system, would you be willing to sell those to other u. S. Companies . Launch companies . From an engineering standpoint, yes, thats something that we could entertain. Im sorry, mr. Culbertson you want to be recognized . Im not sure i understood your question correctly. Were not proposing a replacement engine for atlas, were proposing a launch system that would meet the needs of the country in response to the air force thats what i you had me excited for a minute there. I want a new engine. I dont want a new rocket. We want something to replace the rd 180 and if not be a drop in fit on the atlas 5, something that doesnt require a whole lot of modifications to work on the atlas 5. I understand all of you all like what youve got and i know mr. Bruno wants a new rocket, a launch system. Thats awesome as long as were not paying for it. We want an engine to be able to get our Critical Missions into space in a timely fashion and 2019 is a critical time for us. Let me ask let me go back to the two people i know will compete for it. Mr. Meyerson and miss van kleeck. Will the cost start with mr. Meyerson. Would the cost of your engine be comparable to the rd 1 80 . According tour inging to our customer at ula, we believe it is. Miss van kleeck . Yes, sir. We designed it to be at or below the price point of the rd 180. Ill stay with you, miss van kleeck. Mr. Bruno in his Opening Statement made reference to the fact youre 16 months behind blue origin in the development of your engine. Can you address that observation and what does he mean by that . Well, i dont have my competitors schedule so i cant say for certain where the 16 months comes from. What i can say is we will be certified by 2019. Were very confident about that. We spent 20 years developing this technology from the russians that was pioneered by the russians. We have the factories. We have a schedule. We will be testing full scale engines in the beginning of 2017. We will provide a full engine set to ula in 2018 and we will complete certification in 2019. 2018 or 2019 . Complete certification of the engine in 2019. Mr. Meyerson tell us what your schedule is. When do you think youll complete certification . We believe the engine will be qualified in 2017 and certified for flight on the vulcan in 2019 or ready for the first flight on the vulcan in 2019 with certification of the system coming after. We have been working at this for more than three years. We have the facilities and people and processes and equipment in place to do so. We have high confidence in our schedule. We are testing hardware now were testing today, so the confidence, the level of data is well ahead of any alternative. Thats what gives us the confidence in our schedule. You made reference to the vulcan in your Opening Statement. And i know mr. Bruno really wants to have a vulcan launch system. Yes. Were interested in the atlas. I am. Will your engine work on the atlas with modifications and how significant a modification would it take . So our engine runs in liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas. So no, as the atlas is designed it will not integrate with the atlas. We would have to have a new launch system. That is right. Okay. Mr. Bruno tell me lets talk about the vulcan system. Tell me where that came from and when you see that happening and how does that play into what were doing right now given you know our previous testimony and my comments publicly and our conversations privately. I feel very strongly i just want a replacement for the rd 180 . Why are we talking about the vulcan . Vulcan refers to a series of evolutions to the atlas that takes several years to accomplish. The first step in that evolution is simply replacing the engine that is on the atlas. So whether it is an ar 1, or a be 4, that atlas with that new engine would be called vulcan and it would still have the atlas upper stage atlas farings and strap ones. If i might take a moment i would like to expand on my colleagues answers. I think they were far too modest when they responded to your question on the cost of the engine. First understanding there is no such thing as an rd 180 drop in replacement. Were not at this time capable of replicating the performance and thrust level of the rd 180. What theyre talking about is providing a pair of engines that would replace the single rd 180. That pair of engines we expect to be upwards of 35 less expensive than a single rd 180. So while the performance of the engine is only first generation and lagging what the rd 180 has, the Manufacturing Technology is a giant leap ahead. I will get back to you on my next round of questions. I want to turn to my friend now from tennessee, the Ranking Member, for any questions he may have. Thank you. I appreciate the expertise on this panel and i appreciate my friendship with the chairman. Im a little worried that were pursuing a unicorn here because i think mr. Bruno said there is no such thing as a replacement for the rd 180 engine. There is no drop in equivalent and were kind of fooling ourselves if we think there could be at least in the reasonable future. There are some you know, work arounds or replacements and a new launch system. So continuing the theme of my Opening Statement, i think our first role should be first do no harm because we wouldnt even be here if we had gotten the language right in last years ndaa. So im not a technical expert, not a Rocket Scientist but it seems to be in this testimony there is remarkable differences. First of all, i regret it is a little unfair the witnesses are at least 31 you know against spacex and im not sure thats fair. Perhaps we should have given mr. Thornburg the time maybe three and a half to one against. But he more than held his own. And it should be exciting for all americans that we have billionaires and entrepreneurs will willing to devote so much resources to coming up with new and more efficient solutions. But the factual question is there a gap . You know, it seems to me we need at least nine rd180s. We may need 29. We may need more than 29. And meanwhile a lot of what you hear on the hill is a lot of bad mouthing of the russians and there is plenty of reason to bad mouth at least their leaders. But while were dependent on the rd 180, may not be the smartest thing strategically to bad mouth the source. Hopefully we can overcome the gap and mr. Thornburgs testimony is that the real gap is the premature decision to retire the delta medium. So there you dont blame the russians you blame us. Or the gap could be air force dragging their feet to certify the new falcon heavy and certainly there are a lot of worthy and important requirements and certification three required successful launches lots of things. I loved mr. Culbertsons quote of von byron when he said we can lick gravity, but sometimes the paper work is overwhelming. Congress is really good at paperwork and putting in artificial requirements that oftentimes impede the private sectors ability to innovate. I get worried that when it comes to a drop in engine youre talking about my beloved all Chevrolet Impala and trying to find a new v 8 you can put in the old vehicle. I want a car that will work not just an engine that will perform. And when we talk about assured access to space we want a vehicle that can get our payloads up into the appropriate orbit. And maybe we havent had enough discussion in this panel of appropriate orbits and may we cant do that in an open setting, but we have to serve all of our National Security needs and some of those are harder to achieve than others. So i hope that this hearing and it may take the second panel to do it may take the second panel to do it will be able to resolve the question of whether theres a gap and if so how large and how to bridge that gap. And so to a certain extent, all of the witnesses are asking us to buy some vapor ware because nobody can predict. Nobody has a crystal ball. It takes time. At least the american way of doing it. I hope its not that long. But and we should all be encouraged to stay with the new methane engine. The blue origin is completely amazing. But also the idea of the raptor is totally amazing. But some existing accomplishments are the things we should be deeply proud of. I am a little worried about mr. Thornburgs methodology because the fall conusees nine or ten engines. And you claim an engine heritage that is able to be multiplied due to the number of engines, it makes me think that if fall connine were composed of a number of engines, by then you would have something ten times more successful than all the 180s. Thats practice a specious record of come up with a track record. But still, youve exceed whad most people would have expected. Our job here is to not stand in the way of progress. And i think the statement of Administration Policy was pretty on point when it said soften the congressional language especially last years 1608 gets in the way. So how do we resolve this in a sensible way . We launch commercial competition. We want to share access to space. But above all, we have to have aa sured access to space. So im hopeful that the witnesses can help us resolve those questions. And as i see, it may take the second panel. But there seems to be general consensus that no one is talking about a drop because its my understanding that even the proposed solution res 18 inches too long or 14 inches too long. So the chairmans goal as worthy as it may be is really not available for many of the witnesses on this panel. Now the chairmans goal of cost saflgs is extremely important. But i dont need to remind members of our Armed Services committee how many were wasting on various services here and there. The key is assured access to space. So if any of the witnesses want to correct my impressions, i spent much of last night reading your testimony. It was very helpful. But it is so conflicting, it is hard to find where the truth lies. Yes, sir, thank you for the opportunity. The buckets have been reengined in the past. On numerous occasions both in this country and others. You can replace rocket engines. The air one is a near drop in replacement. Yes. And ill explain the differences. And they are minor. Theres we can reproduce an rd180 in this country. It would cost, in my opinion, more money than it would to develop a new engine. Its a very complex engine. It would cost a lot from the recurring standpoint. And i think its time for the u. S. To leap frog that technology, anyway. The ar1 uses the same propellant. It has the same engine cycle, so it has a similar environment. It would use the same tankage would have the same attach points, have the same performance, not lower performance, the same performance. It is two engines. We did look at making it a single engine. The two engine sess probably a better longterm solution for the u. S. Because it can be used in multiple other applications in the future. And you can have the exact same physical attach points with the two engine solution to really wear the propellant, and how it attaches. It is 11 engines longer but we have been told that length is not an issue. There is length to work with. That will affect minor ground modifications. Its as near a drop in replacement as can be made. But there are many others that use acoustics and mr. Bruno was saying just because you started late youre 16 months behind. So we dont know what they will choose in the down select a year or two from now. Yes, sir. Thats thats a fact. The acoustics, the rerocket engine has a specific signature. The fact that its the same cycle runs at a similar operating point. We would anticipate that that would be similar. For assured access to space, we need something that would work. Yes, sir, but we have been a part of reengineering numerous engines over time and we have been successful with those reengining. This engine has been designed from the beginning to be a replacement. We saw this problem coming ten years ago. And we have focused on that. We understand the atlas 5 very well. This engine was designed to interface with the atlas 5. You may have seen the problem ten years ago, but youre 16 months behind right now, even blue origin and some of these other things. So that puts us in a tough spot. We have to measure the gap and figure out how to fill the gap. We can meet 2019. Whether were 16 months behind or not one would have to look at the details of these schedules and the different milestone toes really come you know, to that. I have not seen that. Mr. Chairman, i think my time has more than expired. Thank the gentleman. Id like to recognize mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, mr. Chairman. One of the concerns i have is when you consider the houses position and the senates position on rd180s, our positions are different. And i have heard that ucla is interested in developing the balkan to the extent that they have a certain number of rd180s available for the future. If we dont have that number then theyre not interested in developing the vulcan. What happens if the senate doesnt come the direction of the house . In that case, what happens to the vulcan and whats your backup plan . So either engine pass that has been discussed requires significant investment on the part of ula. Without the continued rev institution generation of the atlas atlas, until that new american engine is available we will lack the funds to be able to accomplish that activity. Without that we are entering into a market tree where the air force market has declined and is incapable of supporting two providers. Now, the good news is the overall market is large enough to support both of us both us and the traditional suppliers. But in order to be a viable economic in that entity in that environment, we need to be able to effectively compete for civil and commercial missions in addition to competing for National Security space missions. Without that lower cost rocket and without the investment required to get there, were simply not economically viable in that window. You skated that with the commercial launches in addition to the military launches there would be economic viability for multiple providers and even we might get a third provider with orbital tk participating. That being the case is there a reason that ula couldnt get private capital to support the investment . Its unlikely that the Capital Markets would look at this uncertain investment environment any more favorably than our parents do. So investment really dislikes and avoids uncertainty. So as we sit here today its uncertain whether it would be available and the availability of a new rocket engine. That leaves a multi year period of time when we have no product to bring you the marketplace. Not very likely i could attract money from Capital Markets for that. Mr. Culbertson does orbital tk representative that investment . Obviously, you guys are doing it without the rd180 engine. I cant really comment on udls position. We have a market out there but its pretty slim in the classes we are discussing here. We are working with ula to continue to supply cardio to the International Space station. After we had the accident they spacex and calm other Companies Said we can give you a ride and we have contracted with them on a commercial basis to do that. So we are sort of the beginning of their commercial market to continue to fund. But we also are continuing to develop our own systems to fly not only to the space station, but to fly National Security missions. Mr. Thornburg, when you think about the commercial market with the eelv program is the market big enough . And for how many providers . And clearly you guys are already making the investment privately. I also also say that as an engineer, im not necessarily studying the markets. But i can say that spacex believes theres we can be very competitive across the market. As i mentioned in my Opening Statement, weve recaptured in the Opening Statement 50 of the market share. Certainly with more costeffective launch solutions, the market does open up. And so mr. Bruno, you would know that the United States and we have members of congress we want to make sure we have assured access to space which means we need multiple launch Service Providers for the eelv program. That being the case you know, your investors have to understand that it is not in our interest of the nation to have two providers and one of them go out of business and end up with a monopoly. Which means theres going to be some level of security. Would you agree with that . And are your investors, your parents, aware of that . The only data i have to operate at the moment is the forecast the government has provided for the space lift that occurs in that window of time. And its important to remember that were the ride for National Security assets. Theyre recapitalized in waves. So we are currently recapitalizing a set of National Security satellites that are well past their design life. Thats going to complete in a short number of years. The pipeline being designed and built, it drops from about eight to ten a year to five. And then that will be divided between at least two providers. So two or three. And thats not a sustainable economic model if you do not also have access to civil and commercial markets. Okay. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Kaufman, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First, mr. Bruno congratulations for an outstanding record of success. Jeff besozos said, quote, ula has put a satellite into orbit almost every month for the past aift eight years. Theyre the most successful provider in history. Im proud that ula is headquartered in colorado. Im fully confident ula will remain very competitive in the future. You enjoy an exclusive contract because of your competence. But i want to ask you what exactly can congress do to ensure that across the board we have created an environment that promotes innovation while not unfairly tipping the Playing Field toward or away from any potential provider . Certainly. That reveals mr. Bezos is obviously a very intelligent man. So in order to have a fair and even Playing Field in the interest of the government and good forestry its important, of course, that the participant necessary that competition are able to bring competitive products to the marketplace. Thats why we need continued access to atlas. In addition to that, the competition itself needs to be fair and even. So we must be held to the same technical standards in terms of the performance and the missions that were able to fly as well as the contracting requirements. So today, the ula is required to perform to whats called far part 15 which are a set of very complex and sophisticated acquisition regulations. They require us to provide elaborate, extensive and Financial Reporting tracking and reporting systems. Our competitor in a commercial marketplace does not. So all of these elements have to be level. And then i also also advise the government that for National Security missions for which our nations mystery depends that a low price acceptable technical priced shootout is not an appropriate methodology. You wouldnt buy your car that way, you wouldnt buy your home that way and our soldiers lives could not be dependent upon it. So they should consider cost, equally balanced with technical performance, reliability, and schedule certainty. The assets are generally beyond their shelf life. That, too, should be considered. Thank you. Mr. Thornburg congratulations on a successful certification of the fall con9. It was testified in this committee that you have ecaa auditors manufacturing audits right now and your cost and your rates have been audited. Was that testimony correct . And can you briefly describe the audit that spacex undergoes and the number of personnel resident at the spacex facilities. To your first question, was her testimony correct . I believe the answer to that is yes. With regard to the questions about dca audit and frequency and my position within engineering and working engine and Vehicle Development im not familiar with the frequency of the visits. I can tell you that were working very closely with the air force and the d. O. D. Id be happy to collect that information and get back to you. Id appreciate it if you would get back to us. I recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. Lamborn for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for having this very important hearing and thank you for the timeliness of this hearing. Mr. Thornburg b with id like to ask you about the current version of the merlin engine that youre using. Is the new baseline is the full thrust merlin engine, the new baseline for the falcon engine Going Forward and does spacex intend to use that system for upcoming dlv launches . The current engine were flying is the merlin 1d boost engine. Your reference to the full theft is a minor upgrade to that engine that basically takes the full potential of that engine system for future missions and the falcon 919. Now what are the differences between the two systems, both hardware and software . Ive heard that there are hundreds of differences. Is that correct . I cant recall the exact number of differences. I can say that from a technical engineeringwise, the differences are very minor in terms of the changes to the upgrades in the engine. Its all in line with our continual improvement of our Propulsion Systems and overall systems. But essentially were taking the existing merlin 1d with its present design and performance and taking the additional performance that we have available there and offering it to our customers and to enhance the performance of the falcon 919 system. What im trying to get at is with the changes that youve incorporated, does the previous certification cover the new what amounts to what i would consider a new version once you started making a lot of changes . As far as the certification effort to date, the recent certification of falcon nine, the merlin 1d and Going Forward, the bulk of that is identical. Were talking about minor upgrades to the system at all be reviewed through ongoing and future review board activity with the air force. So even though there are an undetermined number of changes, indeterminate number of changes you cant give a number you dont think that that amounts to anything worth recertifying . Or reopening the no i can comment that the ongoing dialogue with the air force through the certification process has been fantastic. Were working very closely with the air force as well as the aerospace corporation. The type of improvements and modifications that the falcon nine vehicle is no different than the improvements that have been taken on over the years. Okay. I just wish there was a little more certainty in this. You cant even tell me how many changes there are. I guess thats a concern. I think we should get to the bottom of. Changing gears here ms. Van kleeck, what technology does the rd180 use and why is it important that we bring that technology to the u. S. . Well, the rd180 is whats called an oxford stage Combustion Engine. Its a closed cycle engine its the most efficient engine that can be chemical rockets that can be used. The Space Shuttle is also one of these engines. The russians pie your neared and perfected the oxford stage Combustion Engine during the cold war and the u. S. Didnt the u. S. Perfected solids and hydrogen systems. So its a high performing hydro cashedon system. Some of things that are in it are advanced coding, advanced materials. Its very compact, very high pressure. Those are things, particularly the materials were things that this country did not choose to pursue and did not develop. And so that is where the there is a Technology Gap in this particular variant of rocket engines in this country. Mr. Meyerson, would you agree with that assessment . In terms of the rd180 and the importance and the efficiency of the cycling, yes, i agree. If you look back to the time that lockheed martin, and the choice of the rd180 was an enabler for the atlas 5. Today, i think its time to take a fresh look and look at a new engine. This is the oxford stage combustion cycle is critical and thats what has been chosen. The b84 is the choice of natural gas and the repellant is one of those enablers. Thank you and thank you all for being here. I thank the gentleman. Well start our second round of questions. I was listening to my buddy from tennessee when he was talking about his chevy and dropping a new engine in. And how sometimes that wasnt all that easy. I made it very clear. My priority is to reengine the at last atlas five. He had an opportunity to meet with retired general tom stafford, also an apollo astro nault. And we both visited these topic with him. How big a deal is this to reengine this rocket . He basically said this is nothing. We reengine fighter chens jets for generations and thats much more complicated than what were talking about here. So with that back drop mr. Culbertson your company is converting to the rd180 russian engine. Is that correct . Considering your current experience, how easy is it to change to that vehicle . It depends on the period of it at the time that you move forward with it. The engine that we are using in the future generation of launch vej vehicles which we intend to start flying next year was specifically designed as a replacement. So the arrangement of the thrust back there, the piping, if you will, for the fuel systems, the connections, the size of the engine and the thrust levels