Transcripts For CSPAN3 Defense 20240702

Pentagon is state Department Officials testifying now on the Security Partnership between australia, the uk and the u. S. How the alliance can improve security in the Indo Pacific Region and u. S. National security and investments in submarine production and maintenance. Its held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. You ready . Okay. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. In march, President Biden stood alongside leaders of the United Kingdom and australia to announce the aucus agreement. A generational opportunity that will enhance u. S. National security interests by transforming our alliances. Deterring aggression if the peoples republic of china and fostering a more peaceful and stable indo pacific. Beijing today has the Worlds Largest navy. Pings hypernationallist government has been laying claim to territory and international borders. They have built artificial islands for new operating bases with runways for military aircraft and ballistic missiles. At the same time, they are aggressively trying to influence australian politics and Civil Society buying Critical Infrastructure like port facilities in darwin and making political donations and even hacking Australian Parliament and Major Political parties. This a critical moment for the United States. Congress has a vital role to play in cementing this long term vision and time is of the essence. Unfortunately, the necessary congressional codification of some of this agreement has not gone as smoothly as we would have hoped. Senator rich and i worked incredibly hard to codify the two central pillars and also senator k anes engagement in that as well. Pillar one involves selling Nuclear Powered submarines to australia. Training australians to crew and produce such submarines and significant financial contributions from australia to expand our own submarine production capabilities. We authored legislation with all of these elements that we move to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with strong bipartisan support. I want to thank senator rich for his partnership in helping us to advance pillar one. However, it did not make it into the senates version of the National Defense authorization act. In addition to the French Submarine industry, some of our colleagues in the senate expressed concerns about the primary purpose of aucus. The submarine transfers and support. But if we fail to move forward with full congressional support of aucus including the Nuclear Powered submarines, we are doing beijings job for them. China is against it because it complicates their calculations across the indo pacific. With Nuclear Power the submarines can travel long distances underwater undetected. This will give australia the ability to protect security nests from thousands of highs away. We will be able to crew submarines together in australia. Further enhancing our already deep bilateral relationship. And enhancing our reach into the region. Congress needs to play its part of the agreement is going to work. We need to send the message that the United States can be relied upon. Australia and all our partners in the region are watching. President xi is watching. And thousands of americans employed in our shipyards who will build the submarines and who would benefit from the australian contributions to support and expand our submarine infrastructure are watching as well. So i hope our witnesses will help us understand why both pillars of au cus will improve the National Security interests of the United States, australia and the ukrainianed kingdom because based on Mission Requirements set by the navy. The United States and australia need the submarines faster than they are currently being produced. Dr. Come lynn, i think it would be helpful if you can clarify how they plan to increase sub production. How will you go from making 1. 4 subs a year to more a year . I hope you can shed light on canberras perspective. What will this deal mean for our alliance with australia . And what is the cost of inaction . And finally, secretary lewis, how will you ensure that as we codevelop advanced military technologies with australia, our proprietary products will be safe from chinese espionage . Will this require changes to all parties export controls to protect u. S. Military technology as well as military technology we developed together through this new partnership . Im supportive of pillar two of the agreement. The codevelopment of advanced military technology. Which will require streamlining and strengthening export controls among the partners. But i dont want it to be used by some as a trojan horse to undermine u. S. Export controls for the sake of commercial, industrial interests that are unrelated tonight partnership. It should be about modernizing our historic alliances with two of our closest partners. Who have fought alongside the United States in defense of democracy and freedom. With that let me turn to the Ranking Member for his opening statement. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and certainly i want to associate myself with remarks you have made both of us recognize how important aucus is. And were anxious to see it move forward. And certainly there have been some disappointments so far. But that doesnt mean we cant do better in the future. And i think thats the purpose of this of this hearing is to try to get this thing on track and move it more quickly and more efficiently. As the United States enters into a period of strategic rivalry with china that includes military competition on a scale we have not seen in generations, china has undertaken a Nuclear Breakout and fields the Worlds Largest navy in a fully modernized air force. To meet this challenge, we must move quickly to expand the resilience and capacity of the Defense Industrial base. U. S. Allies should be full partners in this effort and the partnership is an important first step. The defense trade partnership between australia and the uk and the u. S. Is meant to bolster collaboration and joint advanced military capabilities. In particular, our goals include increased Technology Sharing, coproduction and to development and expedited exporting licensing processes. Well, this is bold and essential. It is also highly contingent upon supply and unlikely to produce increased submarine capability in the indo pacific for a decade. Importantly, many of the capabilities needed to fully implement pillar one including cruise missiles the boats combat system or advanced computerring capabilities will heavily be dependent on pillar two. If executed as intended, pillar two offers the potential to produce meaningful results this decade. Pillar two can also expand and build resilience across the supply chains and Industrial Bases and imperative given the lingering impact of covid and u. S. Limitations exposed by russias invasion of ukraine. However, our export control system remains overly com we are . And treats our closest allies with proven track records of Technology Protection as if they were our new or emerging partners. Simply put, australia and the United Kingdom have legal regulatory and Technology Controlled regimes there are comparable to those of the United States. The demands from the administration that uk and australia overtake extensive reform are frankly condescending and highlights the need for clear shift in states attitude towards defense cooperation with its allies. I fully appreciate that we dont want to open the doors and chairman said to using this as a trojan horse to do some things we dont want to do. I have served on this committee for the 15 years now that i have been in this senate. I also at the same time have served on the intelligence committee. And i would like to report to this committee that one of the very first things i noticed between the two committees is that there is a very distinct difference between the way we treat allies in the intelligence field versus how we treat them on other things like export. And i think probably it would be behoove the state and the department of defense to spend a little bit of time with the intelligence community. We share incredibly, incredibly sensitive and important material with the five is. And so here, i dont have the concerns that some have. As far as the chairmans concerned on using this as a throe january horse. That is a legit had concern and certainly deserves attention. But having said that, i think that there may be an overreach there and i think that we we really ought to take a deep breath and sit down and review how we can reconcile, how we treat our allies in the intelligence field and make it more compatible with how we treat them in trade and industrial matters. The department of state in concert with the department of defense and commerce and other relevant u. S. Agencies should clearly communicate to the partners our requirements to ensure Robust Technology and security and export control measures and then adhere to them. In addition, these agencies should work to reduce barriers to defense, innovation, cooperation, trade production and sustainment with the governments and Industry Partners of the United Kingdom and australia. If it realizes its potential, it will set a precedent and incentivize similar agreements with other close u. S. Allies. We need to get this right. Before we add other partners, but these agreements are necessary if we are too pro vail in the long term competition with china and issue and their partners. It would not only show us to be an unreliable ally and also signal that we are fundamentally unserious about competing with china. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you senator. Lets turn to our witnesses. Its my privilege to welcome back to the Committee Assistant secretary for the bureau of political military atears jessica lewis. She was on the committee as a democratic staff director for five years. The best years of her career. From 2007 to 2014. Assistant secretary lewis was the National Security advisor in Foreign Policy advisor and then senior National Security advisor to Senate Majority and minority leader harry reed. We also welcome assistant secretary of defense for strategy plans and capabilities dr. Marla colin. Dr. Colin is now working for her sixth secretary of defense. Where she has advised the department on policy spending and Strategic Planning and defense policy and budgeting, future conflicts, and Regional Security affairs. She has previously performed the duties of deputy undersecretary of defense for policy from august of 2021 to february 2022. And prior to that, served as acting assistant secretary of defense for interNational Security affairs. Lastly were pleased to welcome ken moi who has been the Principal Deputy assistant secretary for the bureau of east asian and pacific affairs. Since june 15th of 2021. Mr. Moy has been in the Foreign Service for 29 years. And his diplomatic stops included stops in beijing and taipei and seoul. He was the acting assistant secretary of state in the bureau of intelligence and Research Prior to this role. Welcome to you all and thank the witnesses for their participation in todays hearing for their service to our country. Your full statements will be included in the record. Without objection. It ask you to summarize them in about five minutes or so so the committee can have a conference with you with that well start off with you assistant secretary lewis. Thank you so much mr. Chairman for the kind introduction. Ranking member risch and honorable members of the know. Im joined with my colleagues dr. Carlin and pete moy and im excited to talk to you about the role of this state department in aucus. One of this administrations hallmark National Security and Foreign Policy initiatives. I want to start first by thanking both the chairman and the Ranking Member and the entire committee for your leadership role in making aucus possible. Through your support for the legislation passed by this committee in the state authorization act and much of which was then included in the National Defense authorization act passed by the full senate in july. I want to start by giving an overview of the program and then discuss legislation and the interim plan that were also putting in place. One month ago, i was with secretary blinken and secretary austin as they met with their australian counterparts in brisbane. During our time in australia arilloiders emphasized that aucus is poised to be a transformational initiative. Perhaps our most consequential Indo Pacific Defense and partnership in a generation. By modernizing longstanding partnerships, it will strengthen our defense and enhance deterrents and contribute to peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo Pacific Region and beyond. It comprises two pillars. In one we are working to provide australia with a Nuclear Powered conventionally armed submarine capability as soon as possible and in two we are partnering with australia and the uk to jointly develop advanced military capabilities based on the most cutting edge emerging technologies our nation possesses. In the past year, we have made significant progress on both pillars. In march 2023, the United States, australia and the United Kingdom announced the optimal path way to provide australia with a conventionally armed Nuclear Powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date. Modernizing australias submarine fleet will be a long term, multidecade undertaking and the partners are moving ahead to implement this phased approach. On pillar two as a recent joined experiments on swarming uas and hypersonic technologies have demonstrated, we are leveraging the collective power of the Industrial Bases to create a trilateral ecosystem that combines the competitive and comparative advantages of each nation to strengthen our joint capabilities. Let me turn to legislation. As was noted by both the chairman and the Ranking Member, for it to succeed, we need to enable speedy, seamless and secure technology and information sharing between our countries. Earlier this year, the administration submitted a pillar two legislative proposal to congress and as i said earlier, we are extremely grateful to this committee for ensuring with broad bipartisan support, that the substance of our proposal was included in the National Defense authorization bill and we look forward to working with congress and hope that the final version reflects the legislation needed across all four of the administrations submitted proposals so we can deliver on the promise of aucus. To put it simply, under this senates language, most defense items will be able to move forward without needing a license. And approved entities within the three countries will be able to move defense items or retransfer them without needing new authorizations. This groundbreaking approach will ensure that aucu us pillar two delivers its full potential while also ensuring that our three nations maintain shared standards to safeguard the crown jewels of our defense technologies. In the interim, while the legislation is being worked on here, the department of state is also implementing a novel use of existing authorities to expedite and Optimize Technology sharing and defense trade among our partners. The state departments aucus trade mechanism is an interim solution. We we gun engaging with the community on the interim mechanism and continue to consult closely with congress as we continue to finalize the approach. Also working to ensure equal opportunity and access for american firms and workers within efforts in alignment with our respective domestic obligations. We have a stake in the success of the program and we look nor word to seeing this through together. Australia and the United Kingdom are two of the closest allies and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder strengthing our Longstanding Alliance and implement this historic partnership. And i look ahead and i look forward to working with this committee and congress to promote agile and secure defense trade and cooperation between and among the aucus partners. Thank you. Secretary moy . Almost two years ago they announced the creation of the enhanced trilateral Security Partnership or aukus. Its a modernization of the longstanding partnerships with australia, and the uk to address the security challenges of the future. And support peace, prosperity and stability in the indo pacific and beyond. Aukus deepens our Diplomatic Security and defense cooperation in line with President Bidens vision of working with allies and partners to solve global challenges. Aukus enhances the United States security. That of our allies and partners and contributes to global peace and security. Sepsis announcement much work has been done to realize this commitment. On march 13th, President Biden, australian Prime Minister and uk Prime Minister sunak announced the optimal pathway for australia to acquire Nuclear Powered submarines. Aukus partners are pursuing a multifaced approach with the goal to deliver at the earliest possible date. Under pillar two of the partnership we continue to scope a variety of enhanced capabilities and ensure the Defense Export systems are prepared to meet the challenges. The commitments have critical implications for our Foreign Policy and National Security. Aukus is a critical element of our efforts to advance. Implementation of the u. S. National Security Defense and indo pacific strategies. With the goal of advancing a free and open connected, secure, resill gent and prosperous indo pacific and aukus supports our sured vision of a world thats stable and prosperous where countries thrive. Trade, and collaborate to address shared challenges. And where all countries are empowered to make their own sovereign decisions free from coercion. A free and open Indo Pacific Region is vital to Global Security and prosperity. Which is why we must deepen cooperation now. Like our other partners across the atlantic and indo pacific, aukus partners understand the Critical Role the region plays in global trade and global prosperity. Economic growth and prosperity require stability, and predictability. Conditions that aukus seeks to undergird through enhanced deterrence and security. Our alliances and partnerships have played a foundational role in contributing to peace and prosperity in the indo pacific for the last 70 years. Aukus is a concrete commitment to strengthening these partnerships by integrating our partners in europe and asia,recognizing our world is increasingly interconnected and our security here at home in the United States are all linked. It reflects the Critical Role that both our european and indo Pacific Partners will play insupporting the shared vision for enhancing peace and security in the indo pacific and around the world. Aukus will bolster the security of the United States. Both through the development of cutting edge defense and Security Capabilities but also by ensuring our allies are best positioned to contribute to their own security and our shared interests as they continue to modernize their military capabilities. Aukus is more than submarines and defense projects, thest a generational commitment toworking with two of the closest allies to strengthen Security Cooperation to meet the many challenges of the future. It is an unparalleled opportunity to boost the defense capabilities Industrial Bases and economies of all three nations while increasing investment and Economic Prosperity here at home. Bring together the sailors and scientists and our industries to showcase the best of American Ingenuity and technology along with that of our allies. With the optimal pathway now set, the hard work of implementation begins. The size, scope and complexdy of actualizing partnerships are this partnership cannot be understated or assumed. And work must advance now to deliver a capability to meet the moment as the interNational Security environment continues to rapidly change. For aukus to succeed, it will take the full support of the u. S. Government, congress, and the american worker, working alongside the same constituents in both australia and the uk that continued bipartisan support of congress is absolutely critical. Passing relevant u. S. Aukus legislation is not only needed to enable progress, but also to send critical messages that will be received around the world. The United States industry to u. S. Industry, to provide assurance to plan and succeed, to our closest allies australia and the uk, to demonstrate that we stand together as we advance a plan to bolster joint security. To the ore allies and partners around the world demonstrating the United States deliverrings on its commitments and our adversaries and competitors to demonstrate the seriousness of our intent and resolve to maintain continued International Peace and prosperity. Thank you and i look forward toanswering your questions. Thank you. Distinguishes members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the aukus partnership. Which is an unprecedented and generational opportunity to deepen our Security Partnerships with two of our closest allies. I want to start by acknowledging the service of three of our marines who lost their lives in a military Training Exercise north of darwin, australia on august 27th. I want to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the three Service Personnel who lost their lives there. Id like to thank the committee for its broad bipartisan support of aukus. It is vital to ensure aukus delivers on the promise of this opportunity. Approaching the two year an verse roy of our three nations leaders announcing this historic partnership, it is clear that we have made tremendous progress in advancing the objectives of aukus but we have far to go to realize the full potential. Today i hope to reinforce three topics. How awe thus fits into and advances the 2022 National Defense strategy, how we are seizing the generational opportunity aukus presents, and why we need to expand defense cooperation with our closest allies. First, how does aukus fit into the national selfdefense strategy . The 2022 National Defense strategy describes the peoples republic of china as the most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades and underscores the importance of new and fast evolving technologies to meet the shifting Global Security environment. Aukus is a critical part of howwe will achieve the goals of the National Defense strategy. It will also describe integrated deterrents. And calls on the department of defense to build ensuring advantages across the defense ecosystem. Aukus will help us real the concepts laid out in both the National Security and National Defense strategy. Second, how are we seizing on the generational opportunity of aukus . Through pillar one of aukus, the United States, the United Kingdom and australia have committed to conduct Naval Nuclear propulsion cooperation in a manner that is fully consistent with our respective legal obligations and that sets the highest nonproliferation standard. We are moving on swiftly. Since the announcement of the optimal pathway march of this year, three australian officers have graduated from u. S. Nuclear power school and the uss North Carolina conducted the first port visit under our commitment to encrust rotations of Nuclear Powered attack submarines to australia. Through the aukus advanced capabilities line of effort, also referred to as pillar two, we are enhancing cooperation in other Critical Military capabilitiings. In april under the auspices of the Artificial Intelligence working group we demonstrated the joint deployment of Artificial Intelligence initialed assets in a collaborative swarm to detect and track military targets in realtime. Through collaborative investment in high end capabilities, we are ensuring our ability to maintain a free and open indo pacific with two countries who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States for more than 70 years. Third, we need to expand defense cooperation with our aukus partners even more. The u. S. Network of alliances and partnerships is a strategic advantage that competitors cannot match. Weve been fortunate to have great partners in the departments of state and commerce who are working with us to ensure we are creating and enabling environment that securely streamlines and promotes deeper cooperation. We appreciate the continued support of congress to enable us to accomplish those critical objectives and as you are aware there are four areas in which the administration requires congressional action to facilitate implementation of this generational opportunity. First, the pathway requires shift transfer legislation to authorize the u. S. To sell Nuclear Class submarines to australia as an interim capability before it comes online. Second, legislation is required to allow us to accept australias historic investment into the u. S. Submarine Industrial Base through financial contributions. Third, to move out on training, australias submarine work force requires legislation excuse me, to move out on training australias submarine work force, legislation is required to allow the u. S. Government to coordinate submarine Work Force Training with australian private sector inti cities. And finally, we request legislation to enable export licensing compensations supporting defense trade that would facilitate the goals of aukus and raise our collective standards to protect the Critical Technologies that provide u. S. Forces with war fighting advantages. We cannot implement aukus without your critical support in all of these areas. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to met with you today i look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you all for your testimony before we start around five minutes. I want to ask unanimous consent to include in the record an article that is entitled meet the tiny state officers clearing billions of dollars worth of weapons for ukraine. By doing in hours what used to take months. Without objections so included that happens to be secretary lewis department. Well start a series of fiveminute rounds. So let me ask you, dr. Carlin, how are we going to increase our sub production . We do 1. 3 need to get it to at least 3 . One of the issues here that was raised during the whole ndaa is the concern about giving our subs at a time were not producing sufficiently at a rate to replace them. How do we need that concern . Senator, as you know, we have two really important advantages. Our undersea capability and our Historic Network of alliances and partnerships. I want to hone in on the first to make sure i get at your question. Theres two pieces here. Theres maintenance and production. And so we need to make sure that were investing in both of those so we can have more operationally available submarines particularly out in the indo pacific. Given the focus that were talking about today. With Congress Leadership and support, the administration has been able to put in billions of dollars indeed approximately 4 billion in the latest president s budget, for both production and maintenance of submarines. And so theres a lot of really hard work to help increase those numbers. Hope in on maintenance for a moment. The navy in particular has been doing some really good work to increase the availability of submarines and indeed since may, that availability has gone up from 60 to 67 . The goal is to get to 80 which they think that theyre on track to do in about 2027 or so. That would allow there to be seven more operationally available submarines in our arsenal. This is all really important for you are suggesting that a significant increase in maintenance opens up more subs to be put at sea. Indeed. Okay. What happens if we dont approve pillar one . I just want to make sure i understand your question, sir, as in approve the request to sell if we if we do not make pillar one as a transfer, of submarines to the australians as part of a very broad deal, what happens if we dont do that . We think its a priority to keep investing in the submarine Industrial Base. And will continue to do so. That is a separate issue. Look, australia has demonstrated a commitment to purchasing these conventionally armed Nuclear Powered submarines and theyve shown they will treat this responsed and i would note theres a bit of a crawl walk run approach to how they can do this. So getting submariners who are trained in how to do so. Getting work force trained and all kind of builds on pieces so that aukus can deliver its full potential to deliver deterrence at every phase. Yeah. But if we were not to do that, there would be consequences for us in the not only with the australians, but in the indo pacific. The message we would send is one of unreliability. And two, our reach would be significantly limited. So i hope that those who have a concern about this will find their way to be supportive. Now i am supportive as is evidenced by the fact that we passed legislation out of the committee in a bipartisan way, of both pillar one and two. So having said that, however, i do have some questions. Secretary lewis, i understand that the uk and australias export control regimes operate differently and are not reliably comparable to that of the United States as this moment. And that just means theres a greater risk the u. S. Military technology thats exported pursuant to pillar two activities could be compromised by u. S. Adversaries including the peoples republic of china. Can you confirm for me that the australian and british governments, that if the australian and british governments were to make certain adjustments to their export control regimes and enforcement and safeguards that their regimes could be deemed comparable to the United States system . Senator, thank you for the question. Let me start by saying yes, we are confident that australia and the uk and the United States, will end up with comparable standards and i think what you are pointing to is the reason we need those standards is to make sure that adversaries or others who are trying to gain control, access, to our ip, to our most sensitive technologies, cannot do so. So we are very confident that australia and uk will be able to move forward. We will end up with comparable standards. And we are also committed to making sure that we are protecting the war fighter and our technology. Has either country committed to bringing the export controls up to u. S. Standards . At least for protecting u. S. Defense goods, technologies and services . As this committee passed in the may side . My understanding is they are each country is looking at changes they may decide to make. I dont want to speak for them. But again, im confident that they will be able to do so. One last question. We if we lower our comparability standards for australia and the uk significantly, which of course as senator pointed out. Theyre very, very longterm reliable allies and i get that. What do we do when other partners tell us that they inevitably want the same lower standards . And they will be not insignificant allies as well. In terms of their longterm relationship with us. Shouldnt the we use this opportunity to leverage enhanced allies export controls so that we are protecting our own vital taxpayer funded military technology . Sir, i think you are absolutely right. What we want stop the answer there. Thank you. [ laughter ] just kidding. Got to have a little fun around here sometimes. Go ahead. Im sorry. I think the bottom line is, as we work very hard to increase and make the system work so that we can create these kinds of alliances and partnerships where were providing our most sensitive, highly lethal defense articles to other countries, we want everybody to have the best possible standards. Let me give you an example. This doesnt specifically to australia or the uk but an example of the kinds of things that we could be concerned about. For example, weve recently seen some chinese pilots getting training from other countries. Including pilots here in the u. S. We need to be able to prosecute those. We want our partners and allies to be able to do the same. We want to make sure that if a country is trying to acquire a particular technology, it cant get around this system by goinginto a place where theres more room in their export controls and i think to me, these its common sense to Work Together to bring all of us to similar standards and i would say its not just to protect our companies and the ip that they produce. But fundamentally to protect our war fighter. Because of these technologies are exploited and used against the war fighter were also putting them in danger. And we take that responsibility very seriously. Thank you. Senator . Thank you very much mr. Chairman and first of all lets me say im incredibly proud of this committee has done its job as far as producing legislation. And coming to agreement on it. And i want to thank the chairman for working in partnership. As always, the the devils in the details and i hope no one gets the idea that we may have some different views on how we handle this technology transfer. That somehow theres daylight between us. There really isnt. This isnt were all on the same page here. And so hope we can move forward in that regard. The pilot interestingly enough, you mentioned the Pilot Training of chinese citizens. You know, we got the same problem though. Even with our standards. We got the exact same problem. So thats not a good example. Theres other examples but thats not a good one. The other thing i find ironic is that and first of all, let me back up. You are aware that the that the other parties to the aukus agreement are groaning a bit at the United States insisting that they make certain changes in their standards. You are aware of is that. Are you not . Senator, may i start by just saying i first of all want to go back toe what you started with. Which is that this committees work really put us on a path to achieving all of our goals on aukus. And as someone who worked on the committee, i know how much work goes into that. Both by and you your staff. So just to thank you again for that. I actually will say i was just in australia with both our secretary of state, our secretary of defense, and their equivalents and across the board, we heard broad support for what we are doing together. I have to tell you i spend a lot of time meeting with other countries and it was possibly one of the most positive meetings i have ever participated in. I think the australians and again, they of course can speak for themselves but i think theyre very committed to pillar two in particular on how we can look at the comparable advantages they may have, for example, in production. Of certain items. As they work with our Defense Industrial base. So really the conversation that i participated in was about how do we take advantage, how do we bring our companies and our Research Institutions together to work on pillar two . Well, first of all let me say that my experience in talking with them both the australians and the brits, is the same as yours. Theyre its incredibly positive. Certainly you dont always agree on everything, but everyones rolling up their sleeves and committed to get this done and reach the middle ground we need to get there. Its a little ironic that we are beating a drum about higher or different regulatory changes when, in fact, were the ones that have actually been the victim of chinese thefts and espionage and what have you. Whereas im not aware of any of publicly reported instances of the same thing happening to the australians or the brits. And is that an accurate statement . Let me share what im aware of. I actually think because we have our laws in place were actually able to prosecute the chinese those who are training the chinas pilots and while i was in australia, i did learn that in australia, also participated there and we are looking to extradite that pilot here under our laws to deal with that issue. But again, these kinds of issues, thats really an illustrative example but not the only one. Im concerned about also what we talk about are the known unknowns. The other ways that we may see those kinds of challenges coming forward. And i agree with that and none of this the existential to the failure of the program. I mean, these are things that we can work through. Theyre theyre things that we can and should work through. On it itself, i would really hope that you dont view atem as being solution to the problem. Its temporary and theres got to be more to it than that. So number one, we need to get it finalized. Fair enough . Sir, i agree with you. The the purpose of atem is to be on interim measure so we have something in place while the legislative process is being completed. So absolutely agree that we will continue to work on it. I think for those of who you are not living in the world of state department acronyms, this is our interim measure that were working on while were waiting for the aukus legislation to pass. And i think the good news is a lot of the work that were doing to put this interim measure together will also be helpful hopefully when the final legislation is passed. I appreciate that. And again, i would urge that the finalization be given a very high priority and get there as soon as you can and also have everyone understand that this is only interim. Because its going to take more than this. And with that, my time is up. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you senator. Let me just say, we share intelligence with government officials. Export controls, however, control u. S. Defense technology to nongovernment persons. So our bill requires comparability of export controls only on u. S. Origin defense items, not on all of their own indigenous products. And its i think important to note that the australians dni counterpart publicly warned about the ascent of chinese espionage directed at australia. I think we all agree on what we want to achieve. And the concerns are legit mall on both sides. Senator cardin . Well, thank you mr. Chairman and i want to add my thanks to secure the Ranking Member. I strongly support this alliance. But dr. Carlin, start with realities of our budget. I have an understanding whether you talk about increasing our capacity on maintenance to get more subs out there. And perhaps increasing production. Senator wicker has asked for additional submarines to be produced. You also mentioned the fact that australia will be contributing to these costs. We have tough budgets. Give me an idea as to whether the implementation of pillar one will require Additional Resources from the United States. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have, for years, thanks to the great support of congress, been investing in our submarine Industrial Base. And will want to continue doing so given that undersea capabilities are such an unparalleled advantage for us. As it relates to aukus, to the extent legislation passes that would permit this, australia has offered an unprecedented and historic investment into it to to help ensure our submarine Industrial Base can be as strong as possible. So we will want to keep investing in it. And aukus is of course a piece of that. But more broadly having that undersea advantage is critical. Understand that, just trying to get a bottom line whether pillar one will require additional allocations of our defense resources in our budget. I see pillar one increasing our collaboration with australian and the uk and really building on investment that is we have made to date and will want to continue to do in the spirit of the National Defense strategys focus. On pacing to the need to deter the peoples republic of china. Are you saying there will be no increase in the projected resources necessary or do you believe that there will be additional stress on our Defense Budget . I do not see theres additional stress on the Defense Budget due to aukus. I see it the strategic level. Aukus actually being immensely help. For what we are trying to achieve strategically in trying to ensure that we have deterrents in the indo pacific. Okay. On pillar two, secretary lewis if i might, i think this discussion has been very help. In trying to understand how we are going to Share Technology and be able to advance the next generations as they come along. We know there are many of otherallies that are interested in pillar two. Both in the asia Pacific Region as well as the nato partners that are interested in being engaged in pillar two. What standards will the administration use in order to deal with the requests that were going to be receiving from our other allies . Senator, thank you for raising this issue because let me just start by saying that right now, were really focused on getting australia and the uk over the line. And you can see the significant amount of work thats taking. We have not made plans at this point to bring others in. Well, as our chairman and Ranking Member mentioned whats done here is going to be used by other allies to say why arent we getting comparable considerations . Absolutely, if i may, would it be helpful for me to talk a little bit about sort of exactly what were putting in place . Because i think for any kind of exemption that allows faster defense trade between as the chairman pointed out not just governments but between companies to universities and other places, its important to understand that. And what were asking for here is we need to make sure that we know whos going to be receiving these items i think for obvious reasons. You want to know the recipient. You want to know that this is not an item thats prohibited under one of our nonproliferation regimes and then you want to make sure that once you have that information, that when it lands in the country that theyre going to have their own protections in place so that it doesnt get transferred to a bad actor. And so those are the kinds of requirements. Its the technicalities are in the weeds but thats what were looking for across the board. Is so that we have that shared community, we know where things are going. We have an understanding of making sure that some things will still need to move with a license. And still need to be looked at more carefully and that all countries participating have the same standards. And so i do think that is a precedent were setting moving forward. I think to address something that the senator raised is we want to make sure and just to talk about the transformational nature of this, what were talking about is license Free Movement of these defense articles. That means that if you are on the list of companies or entities that can receive it, you dont have to come ask permission to export a lethal weapon. You can receive it. This is why thats so important to make sure that when that entity, whether its a university, or a company, receives it, that nothing is going to happen in the next step where we end up having it exported to a bad actor or someone who may want to exploit it and i think those are the standards we need across the board. Thank you. Senator rickets . Thank you very much mr. Chairman. We have talked a lot today about deterring the peoples republic of china. As a chairman said, theyve got the largest navy in the world. They are expanding their capabilities and this is all part of pings plan to dominate the world by 2049. And in some areas, they are outpacing us with regards to their Technological Capabilities but one area they cannot do that in our allies. Thats why this aukus agreement is so important and its important that that we get it right. That we get our ducks in a row to be able to meet the commitment. The navy has a requirement to have 66 Fast Attack Nuclear submarines to be able to defend this nation. And right now were at 49 and i think dr. Carlin you mentioned that up to 40 are not available or were not available due to maintenance issues and theyve got it up to now its down to 3 are not available. And theyre hoping to improve upon that. But by 2030, were going to be dropping down to 46 submarines. And so even adding the additional submarines through availability because of the maintenance, nothing close to the 66 submarines. Were producing 1. 2 a year and we need to get it up to 2. 5. Maybe 3. To be able to do that. So we have to make sure how this is going to get done and my understanding is that some months ago, that osd cape and the navy produced a detailed plan for how to meet the funding requirements to how to meet the u. S. And aukus requirements. Is that accurate . Has this plan is this detailed study been done . Senator, theres been a lot of study of what we can do to make sure that we are prioritizing this undersea advantage. So cape has been done. Cape is done. There has been a lot of studying on what we can do to ensure that we are investing as much as possible is the osd cape study been done . Is that done . They have been working on a study. Its not finished yet or its finished . I dont think i should represent osd cape. So what i will say is that they have been looking very hard at this issue and studying it. And if it is helpful, i would welcome asking my colleagues from that office to this is really kind of the crux the problem right . Because one of the things that senator wicker and myself and others have asked is okay, you know, australias obviously making a generational investment in their submarine Industrial Base and ours and we ought to be doing the same. I agree with you this is a huge competitive advantage for us. The question is, what is that number . What is that number thats going to take and i think senator cardin was asking a hug us, so the question is, what is that number. What is that number going to take . I think senator cardin is trying to ask the same thing. You dodged it too. Were grateful the austrians want to invest 3 billion and what are we going to have to invest to get 66 the marines . Has that study been done, and has it . Forgot thank you for raising this issue, senator. As you know, postcold war, we closed out a bunch of the submarine Industrial Base and consolidated it, given these postcold war dividends. Theres an important investment by the congress, the administration to build it up and make sure we can put it in the right places, then see what fruits will grow from that in terms of workforce and talent management, in terms of supplies, so theres been a lot going in there, and it is a priority. It will continue to be a priority going forward. Again, when were talking about how are we going to make this happen, we actually have copies plans. Its not sufficient to say were working on it, and this is part of the concern some folks have spewed we want to make sure this is a success. I think aukus is important if we will make it a success, we have to know what were investing in. Is the administration going to ask for supplemental to be able to do this . I will that open to any panelist. Is the administration going to have supplemental to do this investment . What will be the timing . Are we going to get a study . These are the questions we would like to know to make sure this will be successful. Does anybody have an answer to that . Senator, we want to make sure we are robustly sharing information about this topic because we know how important bipartisan congressional support has been in aukus and investing in our submarine Industrial Base. Thats great, so share the information that i keep hearing you want to share the information, but im not getting any information here, so whats the information . Is there a study that says this is what were going to need to do to make aukus a success. How much is it going to cost . I expect its not going to be a small number . We have been able to share a lot of information the past few months about what were doing both on aukus and the submarine Industrial Base and im aware of a proximally 45 briefings or so to members and two staffs over the last seven or eight months, and i would be delighted to take this back and work with colleagues in the secretary of defense to share the information you are requesting. Is there going to be a supplemental from the administration requesting more dollars to invest in our submarine Industrial Base . Im not able to speak to that at this time. I defer to my colleagues as well. Were anybody else as well . Nobody else knows . Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will say whether in public or in classified, if the numbers, some classified consequence to it, i think the senators question as well poised, and i think on the bus would be interested in knowing that answer it if you could take that back to the department, i would appreciate it. Thank you mr. Chairman, and i would like to follow up on senator ricketts question and senator cardins. First, i want to go back. You talked about the maintenance piece of our Industrial Base capacity, and obviously, the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan is making a huge impact on that. I can speak from the Portsmouth Naval shipyards perspective that were about to double our drydock capacity, and thats going to give us more ability to maintain nuclear subs and get them out in an expeditious way. But i guess, and i would agree that we have made substantial investments in our Defense Industrial base in a way thats contributing to our ability to produce the submarines we need. I talked to suppliers in New Hampshire who are beneficiaries of that investment, but it still seems clear to me that, despite all that investment, we dont yet have the capacity in that Defense Industrial base to build the subs we need to meet the aukus agreement. Is that an accurate assessment, or do you see Something Different . Senator shaheen, i think i may say we absolutely need to be able to produce and maintain more submarines for our strategic interests, for our ability to be able to deter and the indo pacific and also globally. I would agree with that. I dont think that was an answer to my question, though. I think my question was, based on what i know about our situation at present, we dont now have that capacity. Is that correct or not . I want to make sure i understood what capacity you are talking about because the way aukus is set up, were not actually going to be assuming congressional support, obviously. We would not actually be selling submarines to australia for at least a few years in terms of delivery, and if we continue on the trajectory we are on with maintenance, we would have approximately seven more submarines operationally available at that time, so i think when i would look at that, its a lot more satisfying to be able to ensure the strategic intent of aukus. So what youre saying is if we continue to invest at the rate we are investing, by the time our commitment to provide those submarines comes due, we will have that capacity . At this stage with the information we have, it does appear as though we are on the right trajectory in terms of the impacts of investments. I think this is an area one needs to monitor really closely. Im delighted to hear your case studies about the Impact Investments today, but were going to need to watch that closely. Ive heard from our Industry Partners that they face challenges realizing aukus transfers and exports, not at the senior level because weve certainly gotten those assurances, but more at the action officer and manager level. Can either of you speak to that and whether you are seeing that move as we hope . Absolutely, and, first of all, we are in regular conversation with industry across the board on these kinds of issues. Let me talk a little bit about whats going to be different once, assuming the legislation moves forward, and i think this will help presumably some of the concerns you are hearing. When it comes to australia and the uk, companies who, again, we know where they are sending in item two, and we note that its not prohibited under an international agreement. They will be able to move without actually coming to the state department for a license. That is a very significant change. The second piece, which i have not talked about as much, which i think is the thing we hear more from countries about, is right now if you have a u. S. Defense article, like a weapon and you want to transfer it between one company to another among the three countries, you also have to get, in essence, you have to come for authorization to do that, and among and between the three countries, u. S. Defense items, again, within the caveats i laid out, are going to be able to move. When i sit down and talk with companies, and i met with the u. S. M chan when i was in australia. When we talked through those issues, those tend to be the core of their concerns. Now, theyre there are always specific things that we have to get through, but thats why what were doing here is so significant. And we are doing it, again, with australia and the uk because they are some of our closest allies and because of a long history of working with them on defense trade. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator haggerty . Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i welcome our guests today. First, i would like to say our friends in australia and britain ought to know that aukus enjoys very strong bipartisan support in congress. I cant think of a Single Member of congress, whether they be republican or democrat, that doesnt support aukus , and at least the objectives of aukus. I think the question before the president is how to implement aukus quickly , also effectively for everybody thats concerned it as part of the First Submarine pillar, the administrations put board a plan for the United States to sell and transfer some three to five Nuclear Attack submarines in australia starting in the early 2030s. But they have not put forward a plan to make sure our navy can meet its requirements 66 attack subs in a reasonable time frame, and ladies and gentlemen . That is a problem. Today, the navy has 49 attack submarines. Thats roughly 25 short of its goal of 66 submarines. The pace of making, as i have read, maybe 1. 2 submarines a year, by giving these submarines to australia, that will put us three to four years behind in our production looking at the navys most optimistic protection, they dont realize the 66 attack stubs until 2049, before taking into account the submarines we would take to australia. I understand this talk about maintenance being some kind of fix for this, maybe extending the life of the submarines we do have an service here but were only 75 of our goal right now. This is a bandaid fix. Weve got to look at our capacity. There is no real substitute, i think, for having a strong Industrial Base to build these submarines and meet our deterrence goals, and ill start with you, secretary carlin. Do you agree with what i said or disagree in any way. I appreciate the points you made on the strategic points of aukus but also the importance of our undersea capability. Its an unparalleled comparative advantage, and its absolutely a priority. The National Defense strategy underscores this as well. The points i making on maintenance are in no way to ignore, to be clear, the importance of production as well. It is just that we are all working through Congress Really important support and through the administrations prioritization to build up an Industrial Base that, frankly, was not as strong as anyone would like it to be. Speaking to that cooperation between the administration and congress, i look forward to the president working with congress to make necessary hard choices and work through regular order to get this done, so we are prioritizing resources rather than coming to some sort of emergency situation. We need to implement this in a way that aukus works to make both America First interests and our allies interests first as well when it comes to Nuclear Powered submarines get i like to turn the pillar over, and that is about trilateral cooperation. On advanced capabilities include undersea technologies, quantum technologies, Artificial Intelligence, advanced hyper, counter hypersonic capabilities, electronic warfare, information sharing. All of these are absolutely critical, and i want to make an important section to you. You know i served as ambassador to japan. I got to see firsthand japans superior capabilities when it comes to Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing. Our allies korea also had similar strengths. So, my question, i will put this to secretary lewis and assistant secretary karlin. Do you need these activities down the line . Let me just thank you for your leadership on defense trade. Weve had a lot of conversations, and i 100 agree with you on the bipartisan need and strength and consensus around these issues. To get to your question, i think in the first thing is first, were really focused on getting this right for uk and australia, and then i think we can look at whether there may be other countries who may want to, need to bring capabilities for specific projects. In my conversations, i can assure you they want to. Thank you a thank you, senator. I would echo what secretary lewis said. Once we do this, we can look at discrete partners for discrete projects. I want to thank you your leadership on the u. S. japan alliance, which is flourishing and and extraordinary ways. I want to reiterate how Important Office is to our own National Security interests, and i look forward to working with all of you and within the inner agency to make sure we keep on this. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for your testimony today. I want to start by applauding President Biden in the Biden Administration for striking the aukus agreement to begin with it i think its an important move in achieving our goal of ensuring a free and open in the pacific, and i agree with the chairmans remarks we should move forward expeditiously in implement to get. I think further delay will undermine our credibility both in terms of strategy, but both with partners we enter agreements with, so i hope we can overcome the current delay on that front. I also support the idea of streamlined i only export control provisions with respect to these two allies. I also share the chairmans view that that should be accompanied by applying the highest standards, with respect to protecting our technologies , and is going to be very it will be these two partners, uk and australia adopting a very strong export control. As its been said, we need to make sure hours are as strong as possible. A pilot issue was raised here, so we need to look at ways we can do it. At the same time, providing flexibility when youre talking about these kind of partners. I want to talk a little other piece of the Technology Sharing and coproduction piece. Dr. Karlin, maybe this is for you, maybe for assistant secretary lewis. As i read this, it does envision Technology Sharing and coproduction. Is that correct . It does indeed. Look at that. Im looking at a series of potential Weapons Systems we may be coproducing. Autonomous underwater vehicles, those are the kind of things that this envisions. Am i right . Absolutely correct. I think part of why were talking about these advanced technologies, and dr. Karlin may want to add more on this because we think this is a unique opportunity to leverage the different capabilities and strengths that the three countries printed this problem set, and so, that is why were talking about coproduction, and thats why the defense trade needs to be smooth. Before i saw you, you had to convince me of that, but heres my question and my concern , and this is going to be important with respect to precedent. Lets take a hypothetical coproduction agreement. Autonomous underwater vehicle, where the United States to invest in the share, 80 of the coproduction. With either australia or the uk and that scenario and have the details of each so to transfer that system to say, our ukrainian friends russian aggression as we speak because i think its very important we dont give up our ability and authority to transfer a system where we have done the lions share of the production to other allies in need, so can you talk to that, either of you . Let me start by saying coproduction codevelopment agreement vary significantly. We do these and other countries without aukus. We need to not get ahead of whatever is written in this. If a u. S. Company would on a certain kind of technology then we would still be able to troll the expert of that technology. Again, i need to be careful about the way these agreements are written, because they all do tend to be different. I understand. My concern are raised by some of the current production grievance and the fact that other countries are limiting our ability today to transfer our own systems to the fighters in ukraine, so i think it opens the door for a larger question. When we enter into codevelopment agreements and coproduction agreements with the United States is the primary actor and primary financial backer. In my view, to transfer this weapon systems other allies in need. Today, to the ukrainians. Im going to want to pursue that question as you pull forward. I may want to add anything to this with australia and the uk is because they are among our closest allies, where we would not anticipate those kinds of issues, of the these production often agreements to very. Im having to bubble up with you on that. Thank you. Senator collins. Its so encouraging to have us where the two of you are really pulling in the same direction and leading the senate in a positive and important direction for our country and to have strong, unified testimony between the three witnesses. This is a critical strategic moment for the United States, as our president has repeatedly said, many of us agree our Global Network is our critical competitive security. Economic, development, advantage and nothing has strengthened and deepened that partnership in the indo pacific like the office announcement. Its up to congress nasas little eagle authorities, the framework, the fire to take advantage of it and accelerate it i recently had dinner with dennis daley ambassador of the United States, an observer of red for six. Given his first summit is the argument senator murphy and other two republican senators and may be on a trip to the United Kingdom where he had a series of meetings. Im very interested in filler to precedent this may breathe at the outset if i could secretary lewis. And you keep specific. Id are legal authorities required from this contract that you think have not been precisely defined in the previous counts right before it with you. I think just to make a point of clarification i think as you know, there are four pieces of legislation we are looking to move. Which is focused on 2. 2 is focused on the extra controls. And i got to talk to that one. The reason we need that legislation is because you just without. The companies, the colonies needed sureties about how this defense, our defaults are going to move. They going to move them safely. Its Mission Critical for us to have this legislation. Dr. Karlin may want to add more, but obviously we need to ship transfer legislation also missioncritical for evening pillar one happy to go into any more detail that would be helpful. Let me add a civil authorization i made in our conversation in the United Kingdom any list of the top research came in Prime Minister and they are focusing on their particular capabilities in Artificial Intelligence. Quantum computing as well repeatedly on liverpool, and what he ways has the longterm greater significance, and am a long our three nations more closely in terms of developing really challenging and important new technology. On this, i would argue our procurement system, our defense securement system is ossified, sclerotic, antiquated, smooth moving. Pick your favorite multisyllable can description i dont think that anyone says our defense and payment and deployment system is moving at the speed of technology at the sales sometime of our pacing at the back three. Is a possible through the filler to partnership with australia or that i kingdom, given them that they are smaller militants, different legal constraints arent operational constraints we would find in them, Research Development and deployment partner, able to move more agility, particularly in emerging Technology Areas thank you so much, center. As you note, whether its our procurement system or extra control system this was designed for a different world for the United States had an uncontested military and technology will dominate, and the security environment has changed a whole lot of wayne. We have this and work ways with allies and partners. So just system is able to learn and move in different ways to to australia and uk, thats on your trip both both of them were put aukus at the heart at what they are doing. Im struck by how the ukrainians destroyed a remarkable ability to take shelves and modify them, deploy them and to take material from dozens of countries all over the world, just in a way our system is not capable. The both have sockets in particular mailed to, and the morning is in defense procurement. Senator kane. Things to our witnesses. Secretary karlin, i want to start where you did. I want to establish, the rains that were killed in the inlet. I want to mention the names. Corporal Spencer Connor rhiel from arlington virginia, captain eleanor noble, 29 is over billy boy. Major turbine lewis, 37, jefferson, colorado. We have great aussies, but were in a dangerous line of work, and when people water that one day out, i appreciate the fact you be getting a wristband trees, they can promote allies in the indo pacific, and its a good way to do things globally. In europe, we have nato. We dont have a nato equivalent in the indo pay, but we do have these networks of allies, and i want to apply the Biden Administration with working with south korea and japan. That david meeting, it probably wasnt a big s helpline at home because we have good relations with japans creations. But to the mail to me a relationship is to good and strong that was a really important summit, and i just want to plod the Biden Administration on that. For my voice and his point, subcommittee of armed services. This august partnership is very exciting to me, and its also exciting because the virginia class submarines are built in virginia and connecticut. I had the opportunity to take a rest to our shipyard to really give into the tremendous, yet thats not what he have. Some of the questions that have been current pace and production, now we can build of the poise to not only meet our needs, but the commitments we made in august. I will question that senator menendez put in what if we didnt do pillar one . Pillar two, i think everybodys excited about and everyone is supporting pillar one, but theres a little bit of a kick in killer run. Australia is going to make endorsement in the u. S. Industrial base, but they are only willing to make that during the 2030, we will be delivering to them 3 to 5 virginia class subs. If they make that investment, it will help increase our increase the pace of production. We would like to be good on our commitment, but we are sort of saying well only be good on it may come in and that weekend produce and increase our production. Well be able to do that with the Australian Investment. Without the Australian Investment, it would be hard each side has definitely something you want to do, and each side can have ways to help each other, but australia is not going to make the investment unless they have surety theres going to be a deliverable for them. I would imagine going to the parliament and saying, lets invest billions in their millions Industrial Base . We should use this historic opportunity of the Australian Investment to enhance our ability to meet the production goals were talking about. Thats not just the Australian Investment. We have been investing in the summary number industrial basin last year, so the question is how much more are fair questions. On your crawl walk, run. If we were not to do the virginia class transfers, the ultimate goal was australia, which currently has no nuclear at all, the only Nuclear Australia has as medical isotopes. If we dont have this interim staff to ginger class subs, the ultimate goal that australia will build their nuclear subs off of uk design but chockfull of american technology, they would be significantly delighted in their of develop a domestic submarine manufacturing capability, if there was not entirely derivative stuff because with the virginia class starts, they are training their office already to operate nuclear subs. The virginia class sub transfer would happen after we had done significant training of their workforce, and with the virginia class subs. They are looking to operate nuclear subs and maintain closable, possibly to refuel, all those steps are needed before they become a class producer of their own nuclear subs in the 20s and 40s and beyond, so the august framework trained them, except their investment, so we can expand our Industrial Base. Ramp up our protection, deliver assets to australia that they can use, and then learn on so they can develop their own capacity. And that capacity would be fantastic for the United States and all the nations in the end of this visit that spend stability there i think the fun is seven. We want to get the aussies a place where they have their own production capacity. The only way we can do that in a timely way is the first app of the deliverable class. There is our investment with our own investment is going to get as there and benefit both, American Security and the security of australia and regions in the west state of that kiss senator, you say it a lot more video than i am. I dont know about that, but i will give it back. What a compliment that is. I meant it as a compliment if you didnt hear me clear. I was echoing your compliment. Which submarine did you see . I brought back a hat from the uss new jersey delivering it to my pmps. Senator duckworth. Thank you, mrs. Chairman, all the witnesses here today. I lead a letter to the philippines, indonesia, and thailand to examine the significant opportunities our countries have to get together in the Indo Pacific Region. This is following up on what senator kaine was talking about. The white house touts office as the new Security Partnership that would promote a free and open indo pacific, that is secure and stable. I agree. The positive impact of aukus extends beyond these three allied companies, and i received quite a few positive comments in the three nations i visited, indonesia, thailand, the philippines, to aukus, and what we are doing for each of the witnesses. How does aukus and pillar two in particular impact the Indo Pacific Region as a whole beyond the three nations of australia, United States, and how will our partner nations in Southeast Asia benefit from a stronger trilateral relationship and an enhanced in the pacific presence from the United States, australia, and the United Kingdom . Thank you, madame senator. First of all, i want to expose appreciation for your investment in the Southeast Asia. It does matter that youve taken strong interest in asean countries, and asean centrality. We have invested a lot of time in diplomacy, in making sure all the countries in asia understand in a transparent way what were trying to achieve their. We stated earlier that aukus is a monetization of longstanding partnerships that will recognize the changes in the security environment for the future, and when we talked to Southeast Asian countries, you mentioned three yourself, but there are more than that when we talk to countries like singapores of the world, malaysias, they also recognize these challenges and believe that our transparency, our candor about the challenges we see ahead that aukus will help address them. We are not trying to challenge asean centrality. We believe aukus can be complementary to asean centrality, so we look forward to more discussions in the future with our allies and partners in asia and around the world to make sure they understand the truth about aukus, to make sure that this information coming from other parties does not prevail , and that they have facts and that when we provide those facts, we believe that we will prevail over them and ensure the security of the east asia Pacific Region in the future. Thank you. Miss lewis . Thank you it im going to agree with ts moy. Its really the question. We say it a lot, but we really mean and when we talk about a stable, secure, free, open indo pacific. When that is what this alliance is about, and fundamentally, as he was talking about, we believe the countries you listed as well as others, and i think resilience is another word, a term that we have been talking about, meaning that we are investing in a way that countries will be able to feel more secure and more resilient facing, and i think dr. Karlin mentioned this earlier, a whole new set of challenges and threats that we need to be able to respond to collectively as well as individually. Thank you, dr. Karlin . Thank you very much, senator duckworth, and i appreciate hearing reflections on your trip that is heartening. The vision that we have a secure and stable into pacific i think its a vision thats manifested by aukus, but also by so many of our allies and partners around asia as well, and to the extent you have more, more partners who are actively involved in ensuring the security and stability can be realized through collaboration and cooperation. I think it really becomes a better situation for all. This feels like a pretty positive and i think symbiotic effort. I agree with you. I think the success of these regional mechanisms, whether its aukus or the quad can only help our interests in the Indo Pacific Region in particular. Mr. Chairman . Thank you. Senator merkley . Youre thank you very much, and i had a chance to travel to vietnam and indonesia earlier this year. There is a fair amount of confusion, i will say, as we talk about aukus, the quad, and reinforcing centrality, as you put it , of asean. There are issues that are particularly important to countries like individual issues for vietnam and indonesia. They are two very different nations. We had quite positive responses to aukus from the philippines, japan, taiwan , but a little bit of what is this all about and how does this affect us . I know a lot of work has been done to try to assure more transparency has come up a number of times. That is important. In vietnam, theres a lot of appreciation for senator leahys program, the cooperation to heal the wounds from the vietnam war, including addressing the munitions that continue to explode in the docs and contamination from agent orange, but as you assess it now, and i guess i would address this to both the secretary lewis and secretary moy, do you feel like we have really massaged the concerns expressed by some of those other nations, or is there still a little bit of feeling left out skepticism, if you will, that requires further work . Thank you very much, senator, for that question. It is important we have those candid conversations with not just the countries you identified, but with all partners, allies in asia. Its natural that something so new, so novel would generate questions, and so what we have done is undertake a very expansive effort to make sure that countries in the region do understand what this is and what it isnt. There is, there are rivals out there. There are adversaries out there. Who will try to paint aukus in a different light , suggesting perhaps that the u. S. Is a provocateur. In fact, its the opposite of that. We are recognizing the changing security environment in the future, and we are taking steps with likeminded countries, with allies, partners to address that, and we will exercise we will go to all efforts to inform others in the region, to reinsure them of our intention, what this is really about. I am glad that our partners, our australian and uk partners have also undertaken these efforts to make sure that regional friends and others are fully aware of our intentions and what this is, so we are committed to this. It is not to say thats our work is done and that were satisfied. We will continue as aukus evolves to inform our friends and partners out there just to make sure they do understand what we are trying to achieve. May i would like to add something in addition to the aukus question, but to bring the question of what you raised. Part of whats important is our investment in the region is much broader than aukus, and i think what you pointed out , my bureau actually runs the program. We are the largest supporter of those programs in the world. That is the largest assistant program. We consistently hear from countries about how important that work is, and obviously, senator leahy was a leader in this, and his vision helped us achieve these goals, but i think its important to remember that as significant as aukus is, we are doing a lot of different kinds of work investing and working with countries on issues that are critically important to them, and in this case, helping save their populations from stepping on exploded ordinance, but also letting, once lands are cleared, to be used for other protective purposes. Just to support what he said, but also raising that program. Thank you, and i will continue to advocate for those programs in the context of vietnam. There is this sense in the conversations that we really appreciate the counterweight to an aggressive china, but were also concerned about our relationship with china because they are powerful nearby allies when we reference countries like vietnam and indonesia, but we have both an opportunity and concern, as you recognize, secretary moy, china accuses aukus of being an imperialist assault , a cold war version attack on china, if you will, to discredit it, but there is certainly a desire among a number of countries to have strengthened counterweight, and i think we are working effectively nation after nation with different issues because it nation is so different, but good work. I am i missed your address earlier, but if you didnt address it, feel free to address it. We do not yet have pillar one in the Defense Authorization act and what level of concern you might have about that. Thank you, senator. Pillar one , as senator king was just discussing, is critical to the success of aukus and the way that this broader effort of aukus has been designed, it really is a crawl, walk, run approach, so its important that congress is enthusiastic of and supportive of the key pieces of legislation for pillar one, like the ship transfer legislation, the training legislation, and the legislation that would allow us to accept this historic and unprecedented investment by australia into our submarine Industrial Base. That cant ensure all the right things can happen so that australia will be then able to responsibly operate a conventionally our Nuclear Powered submarines as soon as possible, and of course, the strategic picture is critical as well. As you no doubt heard from your travels, all eyes are on aukus. It is a spectacular effort , and showing together these three allies can deliver deterrence in every phase and help ensure that in the pacific remains secure and stable today and in the future is crucial. What state auto submarines being made in . I believe they are being made in there are parts from i believe a variety of states. I think the word virginia was the word you are searching for there . Thank you all very much. Thank you. You just made it in time, senator young. I will give senator young a moment to get ready for his questions. As i do, let me ask you one last question. This committee has demonstrated willingness to provide legislative relief to facilitate Defense Exports to aukus. This will need to be done by the administration at both state and dod to make this a reality. As has been said here, the u. S. Arms export system is convoluted and tactical. The system is not built to move quickly. Yet, solutions to many of these challenges do not require legislative relief. I know the administration has developed an aukus authorization framework utilizing existing authorities have about this challenge goes back beyond aukus , to ukraine, taiwan, and across the globe, so i want to ask both dr. Karlin and secretary lewis. Can you update the members of the committee on efforts underway in state and dod to improve the efficacy of arms exports . Senator, youre absolutely correct, and we have taken a number of steps to improve our system. Let me take just a minute and talk about the Foreign Military sales system. We have been very focused in this hearing on the commercial to commercial or commercial to government side, and we have undertaken a plan which we call fms23. The goal of which is to streamline how we move cases forward when were selling between governments. Good news front, where we stand now, we move 90 of cases within 24 to 48 hours, but it is the 5 or 10 of cases that we need to look at how do we make changes. Im not going to go to every detail, but to give you a sense of what were doing, were asking questions, and i meet with my team every two weeks. I met with them yesterday. How do we do a better job of prioritizing . That does mean d prioritizing, but how can we make sure we are prioritizing countries based on our National Security strategy, defense strategy, to better train people to execute these programs. That sounds like a simple problem. It is actually quite significant and were obviously looking at improving and continuing to improve our work with congress, where you play a Critical Role, as we come with congressional notifications, and we have a whole host of other pieces were working on, including some things i think are very important in terms of looking at questions of export ability from the beginning of the process. Often what we find with these complicated systems as they are designed for our military, which they should be for our own war fighter, but they need to be adapted or change as we look to export them. We need to make the Decision Making about that much earlier in the process so were not slowing it down at the end. Much more there, but i want to get dr. Karlin a chance as well. I might add three points of reforms were trying to make to our part of it. So, one is were working on pulling together a Security Cooperation picture because thats because im just being able, for folks to see from initiation into delivery, looking across that entire bucket of what is happening, seeing whats where, what needs to move, thats been an importance that we are working on for transparency and communication. Another piece i want to highlight is these process improvements, and some of that i think is in line with what secretary lewis was saying, not only can folks see the entire picture, but they can elevate the challenges and be able to figure out, we need to deal with an accountability problem here. Something is not moving here. The third piece i want to highlight is secretary austin announced over the last few months, the creation of the Defense Security cooperation service, which gets at this crucial issue of training. So much of this starts with the folks in the u. S. Military who are working in the countries, in our embassies with our partners and allies and trying to understand what is it they are looking for, white why are looking for, how does it fit into our National Security interest, so were standing up a robust training effort so we can ensure were organizing and training the folks, appropriately to be able to make this all as successful as possible. All this panting club at our colleagues at the state department. I just made a comment. I know there are people maybe not at state, but in defense to who rally against the formal process. I have to be honest with you. When my staff gives me the sale notice, i generally do it the same day. It depends. Its rare when the end user, who work attentively going to sell to come has problems, and im concerned about those problems because i have no ideological problems of selling american weapons abroad. I have a problem when the end user is going to use it wrongly against civilians and other entities, so for our part, i know as a chair, ive tried to expedite our response so it can be quick, but i think it would be a huge mistake if anybody tried to undo the informal process. Senator young . Thank you, chairman. I thank our witnesses for being here today. I know its been a long morning for you. As a committee, we need to recognize that pillar two of aukus will be impossible to achieve but that is secure supply of Critical Minerals. Chinas dominant position in this sector, particularly through its deep ties to a number of developing, resource rich nations, has led to it to account for approximately 60 of worldwide production at 85 of Global Production of critical mineral processing. Fortunately, australia is well positioned to help us reduce this dependency, especially for critical defense requirements, including cobalt, tungsten, manganese, and lithium. I believe we need to ensure that aukus takes australias existing and potential role as a mineral supplier into consideration. This should start with the strategic decision to designate australia as a domestic source under the defense production act as was included in the Senate Passed and daa, and if time permits, i will ask dr. Karlin how the goals of aukus would be advanced by extending certain authorities under the defense production act, such as the designation of domestic source to other trading partners with Critical Minerals found in the u. S. But in my time, i certainly want to get to secretary lewis and start by asking what existing regulatory or statutory barriers might be hindering our foreign procurement of Critical Minerals , and how would this impact the goals of aukus . Of course, defer to other witnesses if you like on this question. Thank you for the question, senator. Im not an expert on Critical Minerals, but what i can say is we do have discussions with a number of countries about the availability of these Critical Minerals or rare earths, so we do note that there are supply chain issues. We do know that it is of critical importance to get off reliance on specific countries that may have cornered the market or may have dominance in these areas, so those countries, including australia, but it could be indonesia, any number of countries in africa, other places in the world, where there is availability. Were absolutely talking with governments to discover ways to stay off that kind of dependence on a single country or other countries. Thank you very much for raising this, senator. On dpa and australia in particular, i would just highlight that adding the uk and australia as domestic sources which streamline technological and Industrial Base collaboration. It would accelerate and strengthen aukus implementation, and it would build new opportunities for coinvestment in the production and purchase of Critical Minerals, exactly as you notes, and also Critical Technologies and other strategic sectors. I would see this is perhaps a complementary opportunity export control reform conversation thats also happening, but maybe not a substitute for that conversation. Were okay, thanks. You know, as much as anything else, i keep bringing this issue up in the hopes that these radical mineral conversations are happening among almost all the stakeholders within our governments, with our counterparties in foreign governments as well because i believe, and feel free to correct me if im wrong, that this is a real risk factor in implementing many of our priorities, including aukus. If its not regarded as a risk factor, then im concerned. Because i think one of the risks is this is so little discussed compared to other issues, so hopefully, the administration will engage this committee on Critical Minerals may be in other contexts. Given the central role of Critical Minerals in our advanced weapon systems, with itar apply to Critical Minerals from australia . Based on my understanding, i dont think itar would apply to Critical Minerals. The itar comes on applies to items on the u. S. Munitions list , which fall into, generally speaking, weapons are things associated directly with weapons. Thank you. Given the importance, lastly, of Critical Minerals to aukus and, indeed, our Economic Prosperity, how should the United States be considering supplying minerals in response to the recent brick summit, and its emphasis on Critical Minerals . Youre absolutely, senator. That is something that at the highest levels of the state department we have had discussions with a number of countries, including the ones i mentioned. I could set if you examples, philippines and nickel, indonesia and congo and other countries as well. There is a priority. This is of great importance, and maybe not known as well to the american public, but it is something that we are definitely seeing that there are opportunities, again, to take action where, in the past, we may have been overreliance on specific countries. Just as a followup, are there particular minerals that our government deems as disproportionately reliant on a brics or brics plus as we think of an expansion country or countries that need to concern us, whatever the risk threshold might be for a particular mineral. I will leave it to the government to establish those. Have we identified a mineral that could be cartelized in a brics plus construct, we need to come up with additional sourcing or Processing Capacity in order to address that vulnerability . You put your finger on one of the main issues here, and that is the processing part of this as well. We know many countries have these Critical Minerals, but the experts on the processing, its in another country, right . We all know what that country is, so i think it is our priority to, whenever possible, find or develop alternatives to what we have seen. Again, an overreliance on one country has put us in a vulnerable position, the world in a vulnerable position, and thats what we have to address. Is there a plan you can point to, to address this larger issue, for example, processing . Personally, im overseeing that area. I can actually ask colleagues who do have an expertise on this area to consult with your team members in this committee. Thank you. Senator king has one final question. Secretary moy, this is a bit beyond aukus, but we talked about the value of alliances get talk about the value of this camp david summit that President Biden pulled together with korea and japan. I have been waiting for Something Like this the entire 10 years i have been in the senate. I was overjoyed to see it happen. Talk about going forward, how this will help regional stability. Ive got to tell you, take, mr. Senator, for raising that because we who have followed these issues in east asia have been waiting for a moment like this for a generation, really. It is the fact that this was the first time foreign leaders were invited to camp david since i think it was 2015 was the last time tell you about the significance of this, and to bring together these partners, we know that there are historical, painful theres historical, painful history here, but we have to applaud the courage of the rok president as well as prison a kishida in taking up this challenge because they recognize that the geostrategic conditions in east asia have changed, and we have to recognize that we have to respond to this, and the best way for this is to unite or to bring together these two democracies that have so much in common with us in terms of values, bring them together in an effort to push back on some of what we have seen out there, so when we talked about the Regional Security environment changing, were not just talking about one country. We are talking about russias illegal and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. We talked about since 2022 the nearly 100 lodges of missiles coming from the dprk, including four icbms just this year, so this environment has created this opportunity for us to unite likeminded countries to protect our security, and this is important, but it is about American Security as well as the entire east asia Pacific Region. Absolutely significant, and we look forward to more conversations. Its not easy. Its not exactly the most popular thing. Its not going to win a lot of votes in each of these countries because of that shared, painful history, but we think it is the first step in a significant change to the future of the security and the environment of the in the pacific. Godspeed. Thank you. This has been a very helpful, robust hearing. With that, the record for this will remain open until the close of business friday, september 8to it and respond to it in a substantive way. With a thanks to the committee for your dissipation and your insights, this is adjourned. As you make up your own mind. Campaign 2024. On the cspan set parts. Or anytime online at cspan. Org. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. Nonfiction book dollars, c span has a podcast for you. Us into nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast but on q a, here white conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen for book notes plus our weekly hour long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of Nonfiction Books on a wide variety of topics and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the Nonfiction Book Publishing Industry with insider interviews, industry update and best sellers list find all of our podcast by delegate the free cspan now app or wherever you get your podcast and on our website cspan. Org podcast. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government. We are funded by these Television Companies and more, including spark light. The greatest town of the earth is the place you call home. At spark light it is our home too we are all now facing our greatest challenge that is why spark light is working around the clock to keep you connected. We are doing our parts are it is illegal easier to do yours. Spark light support cspan as a Public Service along with these Television Providers are you a front row seat to democracy