My name is andrew hunter. Im a senior fellow here at the center for strategic and International Studies and the International Security program and director of our Defense Industrial initiatives group that focuses on defense acquisition and increasingly on what i call defense trade or the cooperation of defense acquisition that we do with our allies and partners. Im going to introduce our panel, and maybe kick off the question and answer session with this group when were ready for that. Our panel is divided into two folks who are presenting and two discussants who will speak to the presentations and other issues under this topic. And our topic for this panel is finding opportunities to facilitate republic of korea u. S. Defense r d cooperation. I think we have a really strong panel to present to you on this topic. To my left is mr. Steve wellby, who recently completed service or at least within the last several months, completed service as the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering at the u. S. Department of defense. He was the chief Technology Officer of the u. S. Department of defense, and principal adviser to the secretary on all matters relating to science, technology, research, engineering until january of 2017. Prior to this role, he was Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for Systems Engineering where he had responsibility for a range of complex topics involving open systems architecture, Systems Engineering generally, and Systems Engineering workforce. And he has more than 28 years of government and industry experience, including time at the Defense Advanced Research project agency. And shall i talk about you next . Sure. In january of 2018, he will Begin Service as executive director and chief operating officer at the institute of electrical and electronics engineers. The ieee. To his left, we have dr. So, who is a leading expert in the field of defense acquisition, defense industry, and Weapons Systems requirement planning. He served in the republic of korea army for 31 years, after graduating for the Korean Military academy. He was the chief of several important sections including the weapons system Planning Section at the headquarters of the joint chiefs of staff, defense Acquisition Policy section and the force policy section of the ministry of defense. Hes participated in advanced research on a number of critical topics. As a member of the Advisory Committee for the joint chiefs of staff, the republic of korea. And has been awarded the National Security merit in 2003. He earned his masters of science and ph. D. In Nuclear Engineering from the university of washington. Go huskies. His left is mr. Hye seo, director general of the Acquisition Planning Bureau at dapa. He leads formulation of policies and Quality Management and enhancing defense acquisition techniques and offsets. He began his career as a Civil Servant at the ministry of national defense. And he joined dapa in 2006 where he was appointed at the director of the Acquisition Policy division. And his education is he graduated from the Seoul National university, holds a masters degree from the university of wisconsin, madison. And to his left, mr. Tommy ross, who served for the last several years in the last administration as a Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for security cope cooperation. Prior to his time at the department of defense he was a staff member in congress for a number of years, including as a defense adviser to the Senate Majority leader, senator harry reid and as legislative director for comingman david price. And before that, majority leader tom dashel. Hes a graduate of Davison College in income. And in north carolina. Im now going to turn to our two presenters. I believe, steve, you are first in presenting to us. Thank you, andrew. Its a pleasure to be here today to discuss opportunities to facilitate r and d cooperation between the United States and the republic of korea. This is a particular opportune time to be discussing Security Cooperation. Recent Ballistic Missile tests have increased concern over the threat posed by the north korean regime to our allies in the republic of korea, to our friend and partners in the Asia Pacific Region, to u. S. And south korean interests, and even potentially to the u. S. Homeland. The over 23,000 u. S. Personnel serving in south korea provide the strongest possible evidence of u. S. Commitment to the security of our korean allies in these unsettled times. While much of the focus of current attention has been on recent provocations, the commitment of the u. S. Alliance with the republic of korea is deep and sustained. And is focused both on addressing todays concerns and the long term needs of the alliance. One of the strongest ways to continue to strengthen our sustained partnership is through the pursuit of common goals in Technology Development and through bilateral rmp and Development Cooperation research and Development Cooperation. Todays defense landscape is shaped by the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated military capabilities, by the convergence of leadingedge technologies driving new commercial capabilities with those driving emerging defense applications, and by the global proliferation of sophisticated Technical Expertise and manufacturing capability. This has introduced significant challenges to traditional Defense Development approaches because the increasingly Competitive Technology environment will demand Faster Technology adoption and increased pace of operational experimentation and prototyping and new approaches to rapidly deliver advanced capabilities to frontline forces, and particularly a demonstrated ability to adapt, evolve and enhance operational capabilities after initial deployment. The United States has attempted to respond to this chal i thile strategically through a continuing dialogue regarding what has been referred to as a theroux offset strategy, the development, application and fielding of new capabilities intended to preserve and extend the technological advantage of u. S. Forces and our allies. These technologies are likely to include new systems capable of operating at extended range. Novel system concepts to create advantage on land, in the air, on and under the sea, and in space, and will certainly leverage advances in robotics, machine learning, and Intelligent Systems to provide operational advantage. The United States deputy secretary of defense shanahan and the u. S. Undersecretary for acquisition technologies and logistics lord have both emphasized the criticality of innovation, experimentation and new technology in recent remarks and both are working to align Technology Development planning with modernization objectives and to accelerate these efforts. U. S. Military service leadership, civilian and uniformed, have been emphasizing these very same themes. And u. S. Industrial leaders have emphasized that they are today working on delivering the capabilities envisioned in the third offset discussion. I see a very similar emphasis in south korean technical planning where dapas focus on future Creation Technology seeks to align industrial structures and accelerate new technology initial tiffs to shape the High Technology systems that will define tomorrows korean National Security capability and capacity. The United States has put great emphasis on capturing potential National Security innovation from all sources, reaching out to nontraditional suppliers, innovative commercial enterprises and Small Business for new and disruptive ideas, initiatives like the Defense Innovation unit experimental, the portfolio of initiatives being explored at darp the open laboratory at r and d laboratories are engaging new partners and exploring new mechanisms for collaboration. The deputy has been accelerating its uptake of Cutting Edge Technology through new basic research engagements with top universities across the United States and across the world. In korea, i again see a very similar appetite to engage koreas growing creative economy, to foster innovation, identify new technical opportunities, and create new industrial capacity in korean small and medium enterprise. In my visits to korean universities i have seen a growing interest in entrepreneurship, a strong desire to find new ways to bring technical capabilities to realization, and a great interest in the type of technical challenges that are relevant to strengthening south korean security. Both of our nations are also exploring ways to use Defense Innovation as an economic driver with impact beyond the security sector, building skill and capacity in industry and in our Engineering Work forces that will increase competitiveness in adjacent commercial markets as well. As we go forward, i see significant opportunities to grow richer u. S. Korean Research and Development Cooperation. There are currently strong areas where National Investment priorities very closely align, such as a strong mutual interest in advanced robotics, in advanced computing, in advanced semiconductor technologies, in advanced human machine interfaces and with particular reference to recent efforts being explored by the Korean Ministry of trade and energy and the kree keyian ministry of science and ict, a very strong interest in exploring common topics associated with the safety and safe deployment of autonomous systems. I believe meese areas offer excellent opportunities for collaborative planning of reference and Development Objectives and offer a great ground for researcher to researcher collaboration between u. S. And korean technologists. I do not believe that significant new resources need to be applied to have significant impact. The first challenge and opportunity is in prioritizing bilateral planning and coordinating the opportunity to collaborate with existing resources. Secretary of defense mattis has been vocal about the need to strengthen alliances. And i believe s and t cooperation offers an excellent means to pursue this goal. The coming reorganization of the United States at and l organization and the resulting strengthened role of an undersecretary of defense for research and engineering may provide an engine to drive International Science and technology cooperation. As we go forward, the common interests of the United States and our korean allies, our strong synergies and technical capabilities and our robust bilateral technical opportunities all offer enormous potential for accelerating technical change and growing our mutual and cooperative capabilities. Over the long term, i believe strengthened u. S. Korean Research and Development Cooperation is essential to deterring threats and preserving peace. Thank you. Thank you, steve. Dr. Seo . Good morning. It is my great honor and pleasure for me to speak to distinguished guests and experts in the defense acquisition and security. I express my thanks to csis kate, and dapa for giving me this opportunity. The subject i am going to present is the promotion of defense between korea and the United States. I will begin the presentation with a brief outline of international r and d in korea and focusing down more on the joint defense r and d in korea and the United States. I will speak over the general status, prospects, and potential items for rock u. S. Joint defense r and d. The history of international trained r and d in korea, which mostly centers around the civilian sector began in the 1960s. All these periods can be characterized as the period of learning from advanced countries through joint r and d. And building up technology capabilities. In case of the defense sector, however, joint r and d actually began in 2000s. This is more than 30 years behind the civilian sector. The top partner in korea in civilian sector has always been the United States. With japan and china forming the second group, and germany, the uk, and france forming the third group. The types of International Joint r and d in korea can be classified into two categories. The first is the joint implementation of r and d promise, invitation of researchers and the research commissioning belong to this category. The second type is Foundation Build up. This is sort of an indirect joint r and d. Some examples like establishment of research institute, personal exchanges, and information exchanging. The government budget for international trained r and ds is about 300 million. This is about 2 of the total r and d project. There can be a number of incentives to pursue joint r and d, technology, physical reduction, overcoming export control, cost saving, resources sharing, utilization of local characteristics and the development of common markets. One or more of these factors were definitely effected whether to pursue joint r and d. Now i will talk about joint defense r and d between korea and the United States. Lets take a look at the history first. In the history of joint r and d there are only a few cases of Weapon Systems development. The k 1 tank in the 1980s. The 50 golden eagle jet trainer was in the 1990s. And the lager project in 2000s. All these promise were successful, but the lager project was just half a success. It was to turn rockets into guided missile systems. But because the United States withdraw from the project in the middle, korea had to conduct the emd phase alone. But managed to accomplish the task anyway. From 2010s, a number of private researches began to be implemented in every year. The system analysis is held every other year. This seminar is a good venue for Information Exchange and for finding Research Projects s ts conduct together. This shows status for joint defense r and d in korea. The budget size for International Joint r and d is im sorry, defense r and d is 3 of the total investment for technology investment. There is an increasing trend. During the recent years all the Research Projects are applied the researches. Thus you can see that there is an extreme imbalance in research categories. As for the main agent of joint defense r and d, agents for Defense Development also known as add is doing most of the work. Regarding the infrastructure of join defense r and d there is myu for r and d and test evaluation. This is umbrella between the two countries. For Corporation Channel we have a subcommittee of the sscm. One of the cochair is minister tran over here. It is for defense r and d collaboration, however its slow and the work scope should be expanded to include cooperation for Weapons Systems developments. Other cooperative bodies are ddscz, defense ict forum, and rock u. S. Ticc, but their focus is more on Information Exchange and policy cooperations, not joint r and d. This slide shows a belief summary of the joint defense r and d in korea. The first point is that there have been no cases of System Development in recent years. And most the cases are apply the researches. But United States has been the main partner of korea. Most of the projects have been driven by the governments. The infrastructure for joint r and d is still week and the room is for improvement. The key point to be extracted from here is the reality of cases and the weak vitality in the joint r and d in korea. There are three reasons i can think of that contribute to the reality of joint defense r and d in korea. Firstly, there is a lack of kmoen interest. Korea is more interested in acquiring technology. On the other hand, United States may be more interested in development of a market and cost savings. Also the gap in Technological Capabilities between the two countries may be a real obstacle for join r and d. And we have no established cooperation channels to propose and discuss joint r and d. This is more so for Weapons Systems development. Regardless, there are good reasons to believe in a Bright Future for join defense r and d between the two countries. Firstly, koreas r and d capability and the level of our defense science and technology are improving. That they can now successfully perform joint r and d in selective periods. Moreover, korea is making highly aggressive investment in r and d. Can i go to the okay. This chart shows the global r and d funding status of last year. Stand for the r and d expenditure as presenters of cdt, and science and engineering per millions of people. The size of the circle indicates the amount of r and d expenditure for each country. You can see korea is located at the top position in both axis. The amount of r and d expenditure is within top five. This states that the potential of korea r and d capabilities are very high and progressive. Also, korea has a lot of experience of getting our successful defense r and d with relatively low r and d costs. In addition, korea enjoyed a friendly reputation in many developing countries, which may act as a positive factor when developing export markets. All these factors are strengths are rok joint r and d. One other reason for a bright prospect is that there are a number of common items of interest in many areas. As mr. Welby also mentioned in the previous presentation, there are defense technologies that both countries wanted to develop. This include Artificial Intelligence, the internet of things. The Technology Basis for the First Industrial revolution are not different from those of the third strategy. They are almost the same. In addition to the First Industrial revolution items, defense technologies that both countries are having difficulties in developing can be a target of joint r and d. And there could be more items of common interest, such as items of high and low mixtec nolgs, r and d items where cost savings is dirible, Technology Sectors where joint security or International Cooperation is required. Exploitation of common markets and utilization of testing and utilization facilities. We will be able to find common interests in all of these areas and create various items for joint r and d. Present constraints can be a driving force for joint r and d especially when both countries have difficulties in funding their own r and d projects. In this instant, joint r and d will be a strong option to pursue. Lastly, having intensified and diversified the channels for discussion will help to promote joint r and d. For this, the role of the tticc and its subcommittees should be reinforced, and they should be encouraged to take a more active role. We need a cooperative system where both sides may jintly participate in the life cycle of weapon System Development. Also, the spectrum of joint r and d should be diversified by spending to basically researches and systems development. Then, to realize these prospects, we need specific items to consider. When considering the opotential systems for roc u. S. Joint defense r and d the top candidates will be the First Industrial revolution technologies and the next generation Weapons Systems. These items conform to the global chain of a csis that encourages countries on common items of interest. The cyber technologies can be good candidates for joint r and d. Rok needs the cyber key complain and the Cyber Technology to respond to north korean cyber threats. The United States may have an interest in this area as well because cyber warfare requires cooperation in international doe mai domains. Cooperation regarding defense data and related technologies can be a source of defense r and d as well. For example, rok did not have the capabilities of underlies Weapon System effectiveness but has many disbursed Weapons Systems data. The United States may be able to utilize local systems through joint r and d. Utilization of local firing ranges may also help with the promotion of joint r and d, this could satisfy practical test and evaluation needs of both sides and will be helpful in creating more opportunities for r and d collaboration. So far, we have a look to a slightly comprehensive approach to the joint r and d. In this slide i listed some specific examples of technologies that can be considered for rok u. S. Joint r and d. The autonomous situation that we are for uavs, autonomous for their own defense, Cyber Technology defense on machine learning, and so on. I believe these technologies could be on immediate agenda for joint r and d between the two countries. In conclusion, joint r and ds are recommended solution to overcome technology and the budget constraints, and to expand the common export markets. Rok has good potential and strengths in joint r and d in terms of low r and d costs, aggressive r and d investment, growing technological power, and friendly reputation among developing countries. In this context, a better environment and the more opportunities for joint defense r and d will be available for rok and the u. S. A. In the future. This is the end of my presentation. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you, dr. Seo. Mr. Hyeungjin seo, i want to give you an opportunity. We have heard a lot about i think the strategic imperative for r and d cooperation between republic of korea and the United States. And we also heard about some of the opportunities that are there. And we heard about some of the barriers and complications that maybe have limited this cooperation in the past and that would need to be overcome to significantly deepen the relationship going forward. I would be interested in your thoughts about the opportunities that you see and how those opportunities can be integrated into the systems that dapa is considering purchasing. As to mr. Welbys comments, i have agreement, just about total agreement. And dr. Seo, however, i have some differing thoughts, although we came from the same proper. And as such, i have somewhat of a different flavor to what we have discussed so far. As to dr. Seos comments, he mentioned some barriers between the two nations for the joint operation, the common interest, technology, and also joint governance system. Those were some of the barriers that he had mentioned. I would like to differ otherwise, respectfully. As to the common interest, i think this is a rapidly changing area as to the u. S. s Foreign Policy is really when it comes to acquisitions, more about limiting technology from according to the hands of other people and other nations, even if it were to the allies. So there were limitations to what the u. S. Was willing to provide. However, we know with the fastchanging environment and the security arena and also with the enlarged offset programs that the u. S. Has, i believe there has been some changes in the u. S. Policies in regards to this area. And also for korea, the r and d programs when it comes to military, it had been very closed. We tried to manage all the r and ds within our military installations. But that also is changing. We are having a more of an open platform. We are having more exchanges and collaboration with the private indust industry, private participants. And as such, research and developments for military acquisitions and military Weapons Systems are now not limited to the people within the military. Now we have more people from private industry and also with the addition of private industry we have International Collaboration that is taking place more intensely. So as far as the common interest is concerned, i believe its converging. So that barrier is getting lowered and lowered. And as to the technical capabilities, i dont believe there is as much of a Technical Technology gap between the two allies. With the fourth industrial revolution, i think we have to be mindful of the many of the changes that has taken place in the 21st century. For example, usage of the application of the big data. Well, who has the data . And who has the ability to analyze . For example, underwater movement of submarines from north korea. Its not about technology anymore. Its more of a Creative Solutions to finding ways to mine the data that we have already. As to the movement that we already have much data on. And as to the joint governance, tcsnc of recent, we have had deep discussions between the u. S. And korea. We have identified 40plus areas for joint cooperation and collaboration and at the previous sscm we had very good reviews on those collaborations. And we have had, during april of this year, we have had further discussions and talks about the collaboration between the two allies. So as far as these three obstacles identified by dr. Seo are concerned, there are not as big an obstacle that many might be thinking or as dr. Seo aligned. When it comes to korea u. S. Alliance, it has been somewhat lopside, more of the u. S. Making the decisions and korea having to either take or not take the decisions made upon korea. But i think we need to have a more balanced approach to the alliance. For a long term healthy relationship to be viable and sustainable i think its important that our voices are heard by the americans as well as the american voices in our administration. And we need to share the burdens when it comes to many of the limitations that we have and that is how allies as partners could further evolve in the relationship. And thats the healthy relationship that we look forward to. Mr. Ross, i know you focused a lot on Security Cooperation, both in your time in congress and at the department of defense. And this issue of cooperating on the research and Development Side is very much on the front end or the leading edge of a lot of the issues that come up throughout the process, all the way out to operation and support when theres a need to share data to make Systems Operations after they have been produced and fielded and then we are operating and training together. Im interested in your thoughts about how research and Development Cooperation fits into the secretary welby began by saying that the Security Cooperation activities between the United States and the republic of korea really ought to be focused on both addressing todays concerns and on the long term strength of the alliance. I think that needs to translate into the r and d program as well. And it does. I think that in terms of addressing the long term strength of the alliance thats obviously where a lot of the focus of the panel has been thus far. And i think theres a lot of consensus about the direction we ought to be going in looking at Technologies Associated with the third offset makes a lot of sense strategically for us, it also happens to be where our industries are aligned and our defense interests are aligned to a large degree and the capabilities that we bring to that research and development, that set of activities. On the more current set of concerns, thinking about how we can prepare ourselves, the United States and the republic of korea to be able to Work Together on the battlefield if and when contingencies arise when we must respond together and potentially in a Coalition Including other allies and partners is an important focus for research and development. I think its one that often it doesnt attract as much attention as the sort of sexy, long term, you know, Artificial Intelligence and robotics kinds of discussions. But its one that may ultimately have as much or more impact on how we are able to fight together if we are ever in that situation. So i think one thing that i would highlight there is the importance of strengthening a feedback loop where we can identify the operational concerns where we need to focus our efforts on research and development, and then build research and Development Programs around that. And the way in my mind the most important place to focus on developing that feedback loop is in thinking about how we conduct bilateral and multilateral exercises together. Those kinds of exercises need to be able to really focus on testing and assessing operational concepts that in terms of how we fight together, and using those kper siexercise identify where there are weaknesses, and. Fromming those weaknesses into areas for further research and development. I think some of the areas where we really fall short in that regard right now are demand and control and logistics. Those are areas that are sort of often ignored in exercise. They are sort of magically wished away. We just assume that our troops will be able to be in communication with each other and will be able to jointly deploy and resupply each other without sort of putting those systems to the test. It turns out that, you know, in a lot of cases those assumptions are just not true. And they are not true for both policy and planning reasons and for technological reasons. So i think there is a lot of work on the technological side to be done in support of our demand and control systems and our Logistics Systems to ensure that if and when the time comes, u. S. And Korean Forces are able to truly collaborate on the battlefield without the wrinkles that weve seen in Previous Coalition environments. And you know, i think in particular command and control is an area where the United States has invested a lot of time and money in recent years on creating coalition environment, Coalition Command and control environments. And i dont think we have a satisfactory answer yet. So you know, creating that feedback loop from exercises to research and Development Activities and development of policies, procedure, plans, training around those concepts, i think is a very important cornerstone of the relationship and ought to be Guiding Research and Development Activities in that you know, that second area of focusing on current concerns. The second thing i wanted to pick up on is a remark that professor seo made about or a couple of remarks he made actually about some of the advantages that the republic of korea brings to the relationship. One is the friendly relations that korea enjoys with many developing countries in the Asia Pacific Region and beyond. And the second one is a focus on being able to translate Korean Technology into exports to those kinds of markets and looking for areas where those kinds of exports can advance joint research and development. I think thats really important to be developed in a strategic context, to think about extending Security Cooperation beyond just the u. S. korean relationship and thinking about how u. S. korean Security Cooperation can engage other partners that will be important in potential or in current settings with regard to deterrence and in potential future settings. Weve seen korea and the United States become much more active in working to develop capabilities of partners in the asia pacific. The truth is a lot of those partners are not as sophisticated and not as well resourced as the United States and korea. So they cant make good use of the kinds of technologies that we are developing for our own militaries. So there is work to be done in terms of developing capabilities that are tailored to less sophisticated militaries and that are affordable to less sophisticated militaries and can be maintained and sustained by less sophisticated militaries but can create the kind of strategic advantages we need to be developing in relation to our activities in the South China Sea and other contested areas. In the South China Sea you might think about patrol boats. You might think about sensors both above water and under water that are sleepily produced and mass deployed and easy to maintain. And you might think about less sophisticated literally defense capabilities in some of the areas that we might profitably focus on not so much for the development of our own military capabilities but to ensure that our partners in that region are able to mount more effective defenses against potential adversary action in thats areas. Thats are thoughts how i think we should be operationalizing research and development to support strategic. I think there is a tremendous amount of promise in the relationship to do just that. Thank you. Thank you. And before i turn to audience questions, which i will do shortly, so get your questions ready. Scribble it down if you want. I want to give our two presenters a chance to respond to some of the comments made by the discuss ants to the extent. Dr. Seo, why dont you go first. Dr. Welbys comment he said hes completely in agreement but not quite for my comments, which was quite shocking. But after all, i think he basically stands in agreement with what i stated because what i said, the three barriers, which were those things that i mentioned those that up until now and in the past whenever there was a joint r and d project in korea why it was lacking, and that was my own analysis about why there was lack in the past. As i said in my presentation, those barriers that were formally in place are improving quite dramatically. Thats why joint r and d capability possibly is quite positive. Is my summary. I want to restate my same conclusion again. And in response to mr. Rosss comment about testing and evaluation, how we can expand the opportunity in that area, i am whole heartedly in agreement. Our two nations need to tap into that area and have some substantial discussion. Thank you. Id like to quickly mention that the main point of r and d cooperation is to obtain Mutual Benefit. And so as we look at programs we should be identify those places, those opportunities where there is Mutual Benefit to both partners. I think that in the past folks have talked about high low mixes. I think we should be thinking about the past and the future as the mix today. We should be thinking about ways to get involved earlier, and get involved in areas where there is the greatest National Strengths that can come together. While in the past, the number of joint Development Programs may have been low, in fact the number of joint Research Programs may have been lower than we would like the United States has had significant engagement in the with other ministries in the korean government, between defense cooperation with the u. S. Defense department and other ministries. I dont think those are fully counted in some of our joint statistics here. Thats allowed us to engage universities and commercial entities directly in technologies that may be defense releva relevant. Thats important to think about specifically as the time frame between commercial application and military application shrinks. I want to give the audience an opportunity. I have other questions i want to ask. We are running short on time. Let me see whether there are hands for audience questions. Im going to ask then to followup ena couple of comments that have been made, i think, relevant, steve, to your recent comment and comments made by others on the panel about opportunities for commercial technology integration. I think it was touched on at least a little bit by almost every speaker, that this r and d collaboration goes beyond just dod mnd conversation or a dapa dod conversation. It includes the civilian university researchers, it includes civilian aspects of industry. And i would be interested in thoughts on the panel about how that can be best understood to tie into the dapa dod conversation. Because there is tremendous capacity in both nations and tremendous investment as professor seos slide, which i really liked, that showed the axes of r and d to dpd and population. There is tremendous opportunity on both sides. Both these two nations are principal leaders in investment in this area not just on the defense side but the commercial sichltd i would be interested in the panels thoughts about how that cooperation can be increased but also leveraged for National Security purposes. Thank you for your excellent comment. Direct cooperation and joint r and d, which is very important, but we need infrastructure as well, basic sciences, and cooperation with colleges and private sector is important as well. And in my view, colleges and private r and d centers in the United States related to military, i think has far greater strength than their korean counterparts. So to activate joint r d not only those institutes that are directly related to military system or weaponry, i think those private entities and colleges need to become more active partners in military related r and d so that we can expand the pace. So even private entities and colleges in korea and their counterparts in the United States need to promote exchange and cooperation so as to strengthen the overall infrastructure and the basis so that ultimately the core military technology can offer more opportunities for joint r and d between our two nations. So because we are lacking in that area when it comes to koreas private entities and colleges related to military technology, thats why many minute trees within the rok government not only the dmmd but other relevant ministries are emphasizing the need for skprrks d in the Military Area through colleges and other private entities. And dapa should more be keen on inviting the colleges and the private entities by pouring more investment and budget. Thats my point. Thank you. First of all, with regards to the comment made by mr. Welby, r and d statistics, the comment you made about stit sticks, i whole heartedly agree with your view. Recently, i came to know in the asia Pacific Command of the United States, japan and korea colleges are were being fundsed by the u. S. asia Pacific Command, which is probably missing in the statistical analysis. And secondly, r and d, can it go beyond the dod mmd cooperation regarding that question, i think that should be the overall direction because, in particular, r and d cooperation between Government Agencies should not be the norm continuously rather military relations between our two nations, rather, military between our two nations should actively be encouraged to toe operate. Also, joint marketing, joint purchasing should also be encouraged as well. In that vein of said system which i am personally responsible for our military r and d in the system itself needs to be france formed and improved upon. And along the way, koreas military industry, and particularcally the private or the commercial component, needs to be encouraged for more cooperation with their counterparts in the United States. And policy support is going to be provided alone that line. Thank you. The most exciting advances in u. S. Policy for International Reference and Development Cooperation thats occurred over the last few years has been the introduction of bilateral multinational muris, multinational research initiatives. These are cases where the u. S. Government will go out with a proposal to universities here within the United States to conduct a research activity, basic research activity. And a partner nation will go out to universities within their country with an identical request for research and Development Activities. We have been now including in these requests that University Partners identify peers and collaborators across our mutual national interests. And therefore, without dollars transferring from country to country, each country is issuing activities where researchers in both nations are working on the same problem with the same goals and collaborating together naturally as researchers do without the overhead and burden of transfer of dollars and formal coordination. The coordination is in the planning of its not in the execution of the work. We leave freedom to the researchers to work naturally together. We have now done this in a number of nations. I know in a discussion was going on about activities for muri activities between the United States and the republic of korea, i think thats a way to conduct this basic cooperation. I have more followup. We have got about two minutes left. If there is an audience question that anyone has come up with im going to take a quick scan. Over here. I think one common point in a few of the presentations was the need for channels, for identifying future projects, be it military or through civilian sectors. I just wanted to check whether people thought that was perhaps one of the most pressing problems, or one among many . I think that the opportunities for coordination have dramatically improved since the 2014 mou. The direct contacts between atl and dapa and in my previous life, between myself and my counterparts, i think were very effective again in generating opportunities. Those need to be followed through and executed. Okay. Well, we are at the end of our hour of oh, was there one last hand . It can fit in if it is a quick question, i think we can fit in one additional. I dont think it is a simple question. Rather, ill do my best to make it as simple as possible. Todays conference actually is related to military r and d. In actual iity im afraid that m about to ask you a politically loaded question. I dont know how honest or free you can be in answering this question. But when it comes the rok side r and d, is it really something that they can really seek genuine cooperation with their counterparts in the United States . Its because with the new government in seoul there are a lot of voices of concern that are being raised. So political issues, and ideological concern are being raised. And under that context, is r and d going to be possible or easily facilitated with the United States . Is the u. S. Going to be truly willing to open possibilities in that area . Is rok in the same context willing to pursue this r and d irrelevant of the political inclination of the top leadership in the seoul government so we can focus our effort on strengthening alliance between the u. S. And the rok . Is there assurance that such effort can be genuinely made . That is my first question. And when it comes to the u. S. Side, regardless of the ideological position of the current seoul government is the u. S. Willing to pursue or do you believe you can genuinely pursue r and d between our two nations . Because until we can address this simple fup question we may talk about same dreams but we may dream different dreams at the ends of the day. I think this simple question needs to be addressed. To, well, the question that goes to the u. S. , i think i went to the u. S. Participants, but as a korean let me try to answer your question. The technologies is a very technical area. Technological cooperation. Those who are involved in planning, discussing this particular area, we need to find the areas of joint, common interest, and weve really got to find areas where we can act together. This then we have got to designate areas of implementation and discuss and think about how we can fund it and we have got to kick off the projects. Thats how it goes. As you raised the question, how willing the uss is going to open up, i think that kind of question is over technology transfer. But when it comes to the joint r and d, i dont think it has much relevance in that regard. The fourth industrial revolution, and the policy shift given that the joint r and d cooperation between our two nations is likely to improve farther than in the past. We have a good soil, if you will. And if you really can discuss this at a technical level between the technokratz between our two nations i think we have a very good environment. Thats how i want to address the question. I think we will leave it there because we are short on time, out of time, actually. And i want to make sure that we get our next panel up and start that discussion. Please join me in thanking this panel for this discussion. [ applause ] next a hearing on gun background checks, and a proposal to ban certain gun devices. Then, Supreme Court oral argument in a case to legalize sports gambling in new jersey. After that a look at terrorism, and isis in north africa. And later, part of a conference on u. S. Military cooperation with south korea. Tonight on cspan, a look at defense funding and readiness with military and elected officials and executives from the defense industry. They discuss the equipment and people required to handle current and future global conflict. Heres a preview. Going to defend ourselves against a nuclear north korea, and god forbid iran becomes a Nuclear Weapon state, were going to defend ourselves against them too. W were going to keep fighting terrorists unfortunately. Weve got europe and traditionally as congressman gag gallagher this morning saying we do not want them to be dominated by a hostile power. Everyones candidate is going to be the middle east. Gone knows id love for the region to return to the obscurity it so richly deserves. Thats just not going to happen. Its gauoing to impose itself o us. I think were talking about risk and or resources. When we talk about resources. You know, i think everyone automatically goes to the issue of, okay, the budget, its the top line. How do we increase it. It also is intellectual resources. How do we think about fighting these, potential conflicts differently. You can watch the discussion about defense in entirety tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan. The second session of the 115th Congress Gets underway this week with the senate returning on wednesday. That day will see the swearing in of two new democratic lawmakers. The house returns the following week on monday. In the new year, Congress Faces a government funding deadline, with temporary spending set to