Transcripts For CSPAN3 Defense 20240702

When you play on select videos. This timeline makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. Scroll through and spend a few minutes on cspans points of interest. Pentagon and state Department Officials testifying now on the Security Partnership between australia, the uk, and the u. S. And how the alliance can improve security in the Indo Pacific Region, u. S. National security and investments and a submarine production and maintenance held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. In march, President Biden stood alongside leaders expect 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 agreement. A generational opportunity that will enhance u. S. National security interests by transforming our alliances. Deterring aggression from the peoples republic of china and fostering a more stable indo pacific. Beijing today has Worlds Largest navy. Xi jinpings hyper nationalist government has been laying claim to territory in international waters. They have built artificial islands for new operating basis is 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, making political donations, even hacking Australian Parliament and Major Political parties. This is a critical moment in which the United States needs to show that we are serious about our commitment to a free and open indo pacific. Congress has about a 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 some of us would have hoped. Senator rich and i worked incredibly hard to codify the two central pillars of august, to acknowledge also senator kaines engagement in that initiative as well. Pillar one includes selling West Virginia Class Nuclear powered submarines to australia. Making them the only other country, other than the United Kingdom, that we share this technology with. Training australians to crew and produce submarines and significant financial contributions from australia to expand our own submarine production capabilities. We ought to legislation with all of these elements that we moved to the senate 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 Senate 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 august, the summary transfers and support. If we fail to move forward with full congressional support of august, including the Nuclear Powered submarines, were doing beijings job for them. China is against august, because it complicates their calculations across the indo pacific. With Nuclear Power the submarines can travel long distances underwater and undetected. This will give australia the ability to protect security interest from thousands of miles away. And we will be able to crew submarines together that operate directly out of naval bases in australia. Further enhancing our already deep bilateral relationship. And enhancing our reach into the region. Congress needs to play its part in agreement for it to work. We need to send the message that the United States can be relied upon. Australia and all of our partners in the region are watching. President xi is watching. Thousands of americans employed in our shipyards who would build these submarines and who would benefit from the australian contributions to support and expand our submarine in the structure are watching as well. I hope our witnesses will help us understand why both pillars of august will improve the National Security interest of the United States, australia, and the United Kingdom. Because based on Mission Requirements set by the navy the United States and australia need these submarines faster than theyre currently being produced. Dr. Carlin, i think would be helpful if you could clarify exactly how the department of defense plans to increase american sub production. How we go from making 1. 4 subs a year to three subs a year . Secretary more, i hope you can shed some light on the perspective. What will this deal mean for our alliance with australia and what is the cost of inaction . Finally, secretary lewis, how will you ensure that as we codevelop advanced military technologies with australia are 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 to this new partnership . Im supportive of pillar two of the agreement, the court of element of advanced military technology, which will require streamlining and strengthening export controls among the partners. But i dont want august 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 to the 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. Certainly, i want to associate myself with remarks you have made, both of us recognize how important this is. We are anxious to see it move forward. Certainly, there have been some disappointments so far, but that doesnt mean we cant do better in the future. I think thats the purpose of this hearing, to try to get this thing on track and move it more quickly and more efficiently. As United States enters into a period of strategic rivalry with china includes military competition on a scale we havent seen in generations. China has undertaken a Nuclear Breakout and fields the Worlds Largest navy in a fully modernized air force picked meet this challenge we must quickly expand the reliance and resilience and capacity of our Defense Industrial base. U. S. Allies should be copartners in this effort and the auukus partnership is an important first step for the defense trade partnership between australia, 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 of element and expedited export licensing processes. Pillar one focuses on australias acquisition of conventionally armed Nuclear Powered submarines. 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, the capabilities needed to fully implement pillar one, including cruise missiles, the boats combat system, or danced computing capabilities will heavily be dependent on pillar two. If executed as intended pillar two offers the potential for to produce meaningful results this decade. Pillar two can also expand and build resilience across the supply chains and Industrial Bases, and imperative giving the lingering impact of covid in u. S. Limitations exposed by russias invasion of ukraine. However, our expert control system remains overly cumbersome 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 Control regimes that are comparable to those of the United States. Demands from the administration that australia, uk undertake extensive reform of their domestic political and regulatory system are, frankly, condescending and highlights the need for a clear shift in the states attitudes towards defense cooperation with its allies. I fully appreciate that we dont want to open the doors to using this as a trojan horse to do some things we dont want to do. I have served on this committee for 15 years now that i have been in the senate. I also at the same time have served on the intelligence committee. 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. I think, probably it would behoove visit the state and the department of defense to spend a little bit of time with the intelligence committee. We share incredibly, incredibly, sensitive and important material with the five eyes. So, here i dont have the concerns that some have. As far as the chairman is concerned im using this as a trojan horse, that is a legitimate concern and it certainly deserves attention. Having said that, i think that there may be an overreach there. I think that we really ought to take a deep breath and sit down and review how we could 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 finance and commerce another relevant agencies should communicate to our auu. K. U. S. Partners are requirements to venture export control measures and adhere to them. In addition, these agencies should work to reduce barriers to defense, innovation, cooperation, traitor to production and sustained with the governments and Industry Partners of the United Kingdom and australia. If auu. K. U. S. Realizes its potential it will set a precedence and incentivize the number similar agreements with other close u. S. Allies. We need to get this right before we had other partners for these agreements are necessary if we are to prevail in the long term, edition with china, russia and their partners. If auu. K. U. S. Fails to achieve its lofty goals with not only shows to be an unreliable ally but also signals we are fundamentally unserious about competing with china. Thank you very much. Thank you. Less to enter eyewitnesses. Is my privilege to welcome back to the Community Assistant secretary for the Bureau Political military affairs, jessica lewis. Prior to assuming her role as assistant secretary she served on this committee as a democratic staff director for five years. Those of the most glorious years of her career. From 2007 22 2014. Assistant secretary lewis was a National Security advisor and Foreign Policy adviser and the senior National Security advisor to Senate Majority and minority leader harry reid. We also welcome assistant secretary of defense for strategy plans and capabilities, dr. Marla colin, who is currently performing the duties of the deputy under secretary of defense for policy dr. Carlin is now working for her six secretary of defense where she has advised the department on policy spanning strategic planning, defense policy, budgeting, future conflicts and Regional Security affairs. She has previously performed the duties of deputy under secretary of defense for policy from august of 2021 to february 2022. Prior to that served as acting assistant secretary of defense for interNational Security affairs. Lastly, we are pleased to welcome ken matt molloy who is the Principal Deputy assistant secretary for the bureau of east asian and Pacific Affairs since june 15th of 2021. Mr. Moye has been in the Foreign Service for 29 years and his diplomatic stops have included tours in taipei, beijing, and seoul south korea. Prior to this role mr. Moye was the acting assistant secretary of state in the bureau of intelligence and research. Welcome to you all. I want to thank the witnesses for their participation in todays hearing, for their service to our country. Your full statement will be included in the record without objection. I would ask you to summarize them in about five minutes or so so the committee can have a conversation with you. We will start off with you, assistant secretary lewis. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman, for the kind introduction. Ranking member rish and honorable members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As noted, im joined with my colleague dr. Carlin, mr. Moy. Im excited to talk to you about the role of the state department in auu. K. U. S. One of this administrations hallmark National Security and Foreign Policy initiatives. I wanted to start first by thanking both the chairman and the Ranking Member and the entire committee for your leadership role in making au u. K. U. S. Possible. Through your support for the legislation passed by this committee in the state authorization act and much of which wasnt included in the National Defense authorization act passed by the full senate in july. I want to start by giving an overview of auu. K. U. S. And then discuss legislation and the interim plan that we are also putting in place. One month ago i was with secretary blinking and secretary austin as they met with their australian counterparts in brisbane. During our time in australia are leaders advertised that au u. K. U. S. Is both the chairman and the Ranking Member noted, is poised to be a transformational initiative. Perhaps our most consequential and Indo Pacific Defense and Security Partnership in a generation. By modernizing longstanding partnerships auu. K. U. S. Will strengthen our defense , enhance deterrence and contribute to peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo Pacific Region and beyond. Auu. K. U. S. Comprises pillars to compel when we are providing australia with a Nuclear Powered conventionally armed submarine capability as soon as possible. In pillar two we are partnering with australia and the uk to jointly develop advanced military capabilities based on the most cuttingedge emerging technologies our nation possesses. In the past year we have made significant progress on both pillars. In march 2023 United States, australia, and the United Kingdom announced the optimal pathway to provide australia with a conventionally armed Nuclear Powered submarine capability at the earliest possible date. Modernizing australias submarine fleet will be a longterm multi decade undertaking and the au u. K. U. S. Partners are moving had to implement this used approach. In pillar two, as recent joint experiments on swarming uis, hypersonic technologies have demonstrated, we are leveraging the collective power of our Industrial Bases to create a trilateral ecosystem. It 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 auu. K. U. S. Therese succeed we need to enable speedy, seamless, and to secure technology and information sharing between our countries. Earlier this year the administration submitted a pillar two legislative proposal to congress. As i said earlier, we are extremely grateful to this committee for ensuring brought bipartisan support the substance of our proposal was included in the National Defense authorization bill. We look forward to working with congress and hope that the final version reflects legislation needed across all four of the administrations submitted proposals, so we can deliver on the promise of au u. K. U. S. To put it simply, under the Senate Language most defense items will be able to move forward with out needing a license. An approved entities with the three countries will be able to move defense items or retransfer them without needing authorizations. This groundbreaking approach will ensure that auu. K. U. S. Pillar two can deliver its full potential. While also ensuring 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 auu. K. U. S. Partners for the state department auu. K. U. S. Trade authorization mechanism known as a tammuz interim solution to streamline defense trade into legislation is enacted. We have begun engaging with the committee on our interim is him and will continue to consult closely with congress as we finalize our approach. We are also working with our australian and british counterparts to ensure equal opportunity and access for american firms and workers within auu. K. U. S. Efforts in alignment with our respective domestic regulations and International Trade obligations. We all have a stake in this success of auu. K. U. S. And we hope forward to seeing this together. Australia and the United Kingdom are two of our closest allies and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder as we strengthen our Longstanding Alliance and implement this historic partnership. I look ahead and i look forward to working with this committee and congress to promote agile insecure defense trade and cooperation between and among the auu. K. U. S. Partners. Thank you. Secretary moy. Chairman menendez, Ranking Member rish, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Almost two years ago President Biden alongside the leaders from australia and the United Kingdom announced the creation of an enhanced trilateral Security Partnership, auu. K. U. S. Auu. K. U. S. As secretary lewis noted, is a modernization of our 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. Auu. K. U. S. Deepens our Diplomatic Security and defense cooperation in line with President Bidens vision of working with allies and partners to solve global challenges. Auu. K. U. S. Enhances United States security. That of our allies and partners and contributes to global peace and security. Since its announcement much work has been done to realize this commitment. On march 13th, as assistant secretary noted, President Biden, the australian Prime Minister, and the uk Prime Minister announced the optimal pathway for australia to acquire conventionally armed Nuclear Powered submarines. Auu. K. U. S. Partners are pursuing a multiphased approach over the coming decades with the goal to deliver the submarine capability to australia at the earliest possible date. Under pillar two the partnership will continue to scope a variety to advance capabilities and ensure that our Defense Export systems are prepared to meet this challenge. These commitments have critical implications for our Foreign Policy and National Security. Auu. K. U. S. Is a critical element for 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, resilient and prosperous indo pacific. Auu. K. U. S. Supports our shared vision of a world that is stable and prosperous where countries thrive, trade and collaborate to address shared challenges. We are all 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, auu. K. U. S. Partners understand the Critical Role the region plays in global trade and global prosperity. Economic growth and prosperity require stability and predictability, conditions that auu. K. U. S. Seeks to undergird their enhanced deterrence and security. Our alliances and partnerships have played a foundational role in contributing to peace and prosperity in the end of pacific for the last 70 years. Auu. K. U. S. Is a concrete commitment to strengthening these partnerships by integrating our partners in europe and asia, recognizing our world is increasingly interconnected and that the security of all the worlds regions and our security here at home in the United States are all linked. Likes a Critical Role that both our european and indo Pacific Partners will play in supporting our shared vision for enhancing peace and security in the indo pacific and around the world. Auu. K. U. S. 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 interest as they continue to modernize their military capabilities. Auu. K. U. S. Is more than summary defense projects pics is a generational commitment to working with two of our closest allies to strengthen Security Cooperation to meet the many multifaceted challenges of the future. Its 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. Its will bring together our sailors, 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 complexity of actualizing partnerships or this partnership cannot be understated or assumed. The work must advance now to deliver ability to meet the moment as Internet Security environment continues to rapidly change. For auu. K. U. S. To succeed will take the full support of the u. S. Government, congress, and the American Worker working alongside the same constituencies in both australia and the uk. The continued bipartisan support of congress is absolutely critical. Passing relevant u. S. Auu. K. U. S. Legislation is not only needed to them enable progress, but to send critical message that will be received around the world. The United States industry u. S. Industry plan to succeed to our closest allies of troy and the uk to demonstrate we stand together as we advance a plan to bolster joint security. To our other allies and partners from, demonstrating that the United States delivers on its commitments into our adversaries and competitors to demonstrate the seriousness of our intent and resolve to maintain continued International Peace and prosperity. Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. dr. Carl appeared distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the auu. K. U. S. 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. I would like to thank the committee for its broad bipartisan support of auu. K. U. S. Its vital to ensure auu. K. U. S. Delivers on the promise of this opportunity. As we approach the two Year Anniversary of our three nations leaders announcing this historic partnership, its clear that we have made tremendous progress in advancing the objectives of au u. K. U. S. We still have far to go to realize the full potential of what auu. K. U. S. Can achieve. Today i hope to reinforce three main topics. How auu. K. U. S. Fits into and advances the 2022 National Defense strategy, how we are seizing the generational opportunity auu. K. U. S. Presents , and why we need to expand defense cooperation with our closest allies. First, how does auu. K. U. S. Fit into our National Defense energy . The 2022 National Defense strategy describes the peoples republic of china as are most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades, highlights indo pacific security and stability and underscores the importance of new and fast evolving technologies to meet the shifting Global Security environment. Auu. K. U. S. Is a critical part of how we will achieve the goals of the National Defense strategy. It will also describe integrated deterrence as a holistic response to the strategies that are competitors are pursuing and called on the department of defense to build enduring advantages across the defense ecosystem. Auu. K. U. S. Will help us realize the concepts laid out in both National Security and National Defense strategy. Second, how are we seizing on the generational opportunity of auu. K. U. S. . Through pillar one of auu. K. U. S. United states, the United Kingdom and australia have committed to connect Naval Nuclear propulsion cooperation in a manner that is fully consistent with our respective legal obligations and that sets the highest nonproliferation standard. Were moving out swiftly. Since the announcement of the optimal pathway in march of this year three australian officers have graduated from u. S. Nuclear power school in uss North Carolina conducted the first port visit under our commitment to increase rotations of Nuclear Powered attack submarines to australia. Through the auu. K. U. S. Advanced capability line of efforts, also pillar two, we are enhancing cooperation in other Critical Military capabilities. For example, in april under the auspices of the Artificial Intelligence working group we try latterly demonstrated the joint deployment of Artificial Intelligence enabled assets in a collaborative swarm to detect and attract terry targets in real time. Through collaborative investment and highend 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 au u. K. U. S. Partners even more. The u. S. Workup alliances and partnerships is a strategic advantage that competitors cannot match. We have been fortunate to have great partners in the departments of state and Congress Working with us to ensure we are creating an enabling apartment that securely streamlines and promotes deeper cooperation. We appreciate the continued support of congress to enable us to accomplish these critical objectives. As you are aware, there are four areas in which the administration requires congressional action to facilitate implementation of this generational opportunity. First, the optimal pathway requires ship transfer legislation to authorize u. S. To salvage dennis salvage any class summaries to australia. 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 Australia Submarine workforce requires legislation is required to allow the u. S. Government to coordinate submarine workforce training with australian private sector entities. Finally, we request legislation to enable export licensing exemptions, supporting defense tray that would facilitate the goals of auu. K. U. S. Raise our collective standards to protect the Critical Technologies that provide u. S. Forces with war fighting advantages. We cannot implement auu. K. U. S. Without your critical support in all of these areas. Mr. Chairman distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you all for your testimony before we start a round of five minutes. I want to ask unanimous consent to include in the record and article that is entitled, meet the tiny state Department Offices clearing into dollars worth of weapons for ukraine. They have handled 150 fold increase in work by doing in hours what used to take months. Without objection, so included. We will start a series of five minute rounds. So, let me ask you, dr. Carlin, how are we going to increase our sub production . We do about 1. 3, we need to get it to at least three. What are the issues here that was raised during the whole indy aa, the concern about giving ourselves at a time that we are now producing sufficiently at a rate to replace them. How do we meet 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 two make sure i get here . Theres minutes and production. We need to make sure we are investing in both of those, so we can have more operationally available submarines, particularly in the indo pacific. Given the focus that we are talking about today. With congresss leadership and supports 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. There is a lot of really hard work to help increase those numbers. If i could just hone ml maintenance for one moment. The navy, in particular, has been doing some really good work to increase the availability of submarines. Indeed, since may that availability has gone up from 60 to 67 . The goal is to get to 80 , which they think they are 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 you are suggesting a significant increase in maintenance opens up more subs to be put at sea. And d. What happens if we dont approve one . I just want to make sure i understand your question, sir. As in, approved the request 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 it its a priority to keep investing in the submarine Industrial Base and will continue to do so but thats a separate issue. Look, australia has demonstrated a commitment to purchasing these conventionally armed Nuclear Powered submarines. They have shown that they will treat this responsibly. I would note theres a bit of a crawl, walk run approach to how they can do this. Getting submariners who are trained in how to do so, getting workforce trained all builds on pieces, so that au u. K. U. S. Can deliver its full potential to deliver deterrence at every phase. But if we were not to do that there would be consequences for us, not only with the australians, but in the indo pacific. The message that we would send is one of unreliability. And to our reach would be significantly limited. I hope that those who have a concern about this will find their way to be supportive. I am supportive, as is evidenced by the fact that we passed legislation on the committee in a bipartisan way in both pillar one and two having said that, i do have some questions. Secretary lewis, and understand the uk and australias export control regimes operate differently. And are not reliably comfortable comparable to that of the United States, as of this moment. That means theres a greater risk to u. S. Military technology that is sordid to become revised by u. S. Adversaries, including the peoples republic of china. Can you confirm for me the australian and british governments that if the australian british governments were to make certain adjustments to their export control regimes and enforcement and the court that there regimes could be deemed comparable to the United States system . Senator, thank you for the question. Let me start dasha start by saying, yes. We are confident that australia and the uk, and the United States, will end up with comparable standards. I think what youre 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, our most sensitive technologies, cannot do so. We are very confident that australia and uk will be able to move forward and we will end up with comparable standards. We are also committed to making sure that we are protecting our war fighter and technology. Has other country committed to bringing their export controls up to u. S. Standards, at least for protecting u. S. Defense goods, technology . My understanding is each country is looking at changes they may decide to make but i dont want to speak for them. Again, im confident they will be able to do so. One last question. If we lower our comparability standards for australia and the uk significantly, which, of course, as a senator reese has pointed out, there very long term, reliable allies. 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. Should we use this opportunity to leverage and enhance allied export controls, so that we are protecting our own vital taxpayerfunded military technology . Sir, i think you are absolutely right. You can self the answer there. Thank you. Just kidding. Having a little fun here sometimes. Go ahead. 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 while 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 is not specific to australia or the uk. Let me give you an example of the kinds of things that we could be concerned about. For example, we have 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 the system by going into a place where there is more room and export controls. I think that, to me, its common sense to Work Together to bring all of us to similar standards. I would say its not just to protect our companies and the ip that they produce, but fundamentally, to protect our war fighter picket these technologies are exploited and used against our will war fighter we are putting them in danger and we take that responsibility very seriously. Senator. I am incredibly proud of this committee and what they have done pretty done his job as far as producing legislation and coming to agreement on it. I want to thank the chairman for working in partnership. As always, the devil is in the details. I hope no one gets the idea that we may have some different views on how we handle this technology transfer. That somehow there is daylight between us. There really isnt. We are all on the same page here. I hope we can move forward in that regard. The pilot, interesting enough, you mentioned the Pilot Training of chinese citizens. Weve got the same problem. Even with our standards. We got the exact same problem. I know thats not a good example. There is other examples, but thats not a good one. The other thing i find ironic is that, first of all, let me back up. You are aware that other parties to the auu. K. U. S. Agreements are growing a bit at the United States, insisting they make certain changes in their standards. You are aware of that, are you not . Senator may, i start by just saying i first i want to go back to what you started, which is that this committees work really put us on a path to achieving all of our goals on auu. K. U. S. As someone who works on the committee i know how much work goes into that, but by you and your staff. Thank you again for that. I actually will say, i was just in australia with both our secretary of state, secretary of defense, and their equivalents. Acrosstheboard we heard broad support for what we are doing together. I have to tell you, i spent a lot of time even with other countries and it was possibly one of the most positive meetings i have ever participated in. I think the australians, and again, that of course, can speak for themselves, but i think they are very committed to pillar two in particular on how we can look at the comparable advantages that they may have, for example, in production. Of certain items as they work with our Defense Industrial base. 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 . First of all, let me say that my experience in talking with them, both the australians and the brits, is the same as yours. Its incredibly positive. Certainly, you dont always agree on everything, but everyones rolling up their sleeves and committed to get this done and reach what we need to to get there. Its a little ironic that we are beating the drum about different regulatory changes when, in fact, we are the ones that have actually been the victim of chinese thefts and espionage and what have you. Whereas, im not aware of any publicly reported instances of the same thing happening to the australians or the brits. Is that an accurate statement . Let me share what im aware of. I actually think, because we have our laws in place, we are actually able to prosecute the chinese, those who are training the chinese pilots. While i was in australia i did learn that in australia they also dissipated. We are looking to extradite that pilot here under our laws to deal with that issue. Again, these kinds of issues, thats really an illustrative example. Certainly, not the only one. Im concerned also about what we talk about, the other ways we may see those kind of talent is coming forward. I agree with that but none of this is existential to the failure of this program but these are things that we can work through, things that we can and should work through. I would really hope that you dont view atm as being a solution to the problem. Its temporary. There has to be more to it than that. Number one, we need to meet need to get it finalized. Fair enough . Sir, i agree with you. The purpose of hm is to be an 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 a tim but for those of you that arent living in the world of state department acronyms, this is our interim measure that we are working on while we are waiting for the auu. K. U. S. Legislation to pass but i think the good news is they love the work that we are doing to put this interim measure together will also be helpful, hopefully, when the final legislation is passed i appreciate that. Again, i would urge the finalization be given a very high priority. Get there as quickly as you can. Also, have everyone understand this is only interim. Its going to take more than this. With that, my time is up. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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. I think its important to note that australias dni counterpart publicly warned about the extent of chinese espionage directed at australia. I think we all agree on what we want to achieve. The concerns are legitimate on both sides. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to add my thanks to you and the Ranking Member for the manner in which our committee has been engaged. I strongly support this alliance. And recognize that Congress Needs to act. I want to thank our witnesses. Dr. Carlin, i want to start with the realities of our budget. I have an understanding whether you talk about increasing our capacity on maintenance, get more subs out there, and perhaps increasing production. They asked for some additional summaries to be produced. You also mentioned the fact that australia will be contributing to these costs and we have tough budgets but give me an idea as to whether the implementation of tier 1 will require Additional Resources from the United States. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have four years, thanks to the great support of congressman investing 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 auu. K. U. S. , to the extent legislation passes that would permit this, australia has offered an unprecedented and historic investment into it to help ensure our submarine Industrial Base can be as strong as possible. We want to keep investing in it. Auu. K. U. S. Is, of course, a piece of that. More broadly, having that undersea advantage is critical to i understand that. Im try to get a bottom line as to whether pillar one will require additional allegations of our defense resources and budget . I see pillar one increasing our collaboration with australia and the uk and voting on investments we have made to date and will want to continue to do in the spirit of the National Defense strategies focus, pacing to the need to deter the peoples republic of china. So, 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 that there is additional stress on the Defense Budget, due to auu. K. U. S. I see it at the strategic level. Auu. K. U. S. Being immensely helpful for what we are trying to achieve strategically and trying to ensure that we have deterrence in the indo pacific. On pillar two, secretary lewis, if i might, i think this discussion has been very helpful 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 other allies that are interested in pillar two, both in the asia Pacific Region as well as our nato partners that are interested in being engaged in pillar two. What standards will you administration use in order to deal with the requests that we are going to be receiving from our other allies . Thank you for raising this issue. Let me just start by saying that right now we are really focused on getting australia and the uk over the line. And you can see the significant amount of work that is taken. We havent made plans, at this point, to bring others in. As our Ranking Member mentioned, what is 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 we are putting in place . I think for any kind of exemption that allows faster defense trade, between, as the chairman pointed out, not just governments, but between companies, universities and other places, its important to understand that. What we are asking for here is we need to make sure that we know who is going to be receiving these items. I think for obvious reasons you want to know who is the recipient. You want to know that this is not an item that is inhibited 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 they are going to have their own protections in place, so that it doesnt get transferred to a bad actor. So, those are the kinds of requirements. The technicalities are in the weeds, but thats what we are looking for across the board. So that we have that shared community and we know where things are going. We have an understanding of making sure that some things will still need to move with a license. Anna still need to be looked at more carefully. And that all countries are dissipating have those same standards. I do think thats a precedent we are setting moving forward. I think to address something senator rish raised, we want to make sure and to talk about the transformational nature of this. What we are 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. That is why this is so important. To make sure that when that entity, whether 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. I think those are the standards we need across the board. Thank you. Senator . 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. This is all part of xi jinpings plan to dominate the world by 2049. In some areas they are outpacing us with regards to their technological capabilities. One area they cannot do that in is our allies. Thats why this auu. K. U. S. Agreement is so important. Its important that we get it right, 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. Right now we are sitting at 49. I think dr. Carlin, you mentioned up to 40 are not available or were not available due to maintenance issues. They got it up to, now down to 33 not available. Theyre hoping to improve upon that. By 2030 we are going to be dropping down to 46 submarines. Even adding the additional submarines are availability, because of maintenance, youre still not going to have any where close to the 66 submarines. We are, as i think the chairman pointed pointed out, we need to get to 2. 3 or 2. 5, maybe three to be able to do that. We have to make sure how this is going to get done. My understanding is that months ago that osd cape and the navy produced a detailed plan for how to meet the funding requirements, how to meet the u. S. And auu. K. U. S. Requirements. Is that accurate . Has this plan, detailed study been done . Senator, there has been a lot of study of what we can do to make sure we are prioritizing this undersea advantage. The back 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. Has the osb cape study been done . They have been working on a study. So its not finished yet or its finished . I dont think i should represent osd cape. I will say they have been looking very hard at this issue and studying it. If its helpful, i would welcome asking my colleagues from that office this is the crux of the parliament, right . One of the things we have asked is, okay, australia is obviously making a generational investment in their suffering Industrial Base, and ours. We ought to be doing the same i agree with you that this is a huge competitive advantage for us. The question is, what is that number . What is a number that is going to take . I think senator kern was dodging asking the same question and you dodged it then too. We are grateful that strains want to invest, but what will we have to invest to get to 66 submarines . If that study has been done to be supplied to congress and if not when is it going to be done . Thats what were looking for. Two postclose were we close it down a bunch of the nuclear summary basis. There has been important investment by this congress, by the administration to try to build up and to make sure we can put it in the right places and see what fruits will grow from that, in terms of workforce and talent management, in terms of supplies. There has been a lot going in there. Its a priority and will continue to be a priority Going Forward. I think, again, when we are talking about how we will make this happen, will this be a success, we have to have these plans because not sufficient to say we are working on it. This is part of the concern some of the folks have. We want to make sure its a success but i think auu. K. U. S. Is incredibly important. If we are going to make it a success we have know what we are going to be investing. This is why, is the administration going to ask for supplemental to be able to do this . I will throw that open to any of the panelists. Is the administration going to have start doing this investment. What would be the timing and are we going to get a study . These are the questions we would like to know to be sure this is successful. Does anybody have an answer . We want to make sure we are robustly sharing information on this topic but we know how important by partisan congressional support has been in auu. K. U. S. And investing in our suffering Industrial Base share the information. Thats what im saying. I keep hearing you say you want to share the information, and im not getting any information here. What is information . Is there a study that says this is what we will need to do to make auu. K. U. S. A success . Im expecting is probably not a small number. Spivak we have been able to share a lot of information over the last few months about what we are doing both on auu. K. U. S. And the submarine Industrial Base im aware of approximately 45 briefings are so to members and to staff over the last seven or eight months. I would be delighted to take this back and work with colleagues in the office of the secretary of defense to share the information that you are requesting. Is going to be a supplemental from the administration requesting if more dollars are able to be invested are submarine Industrial Base . Im not able to speak to that at this time. Does anyone else know . No. Nobody else knows. I will say whether in public or classified if the numbers somehow some classified consequence to it, i think the sellers question is what was and i think all of us would be interested in knowing that answer. If you would take that back to the department we would all appreciate it. Thank you mr. Chairman. I like to follow up a little bit on senator ricketts questions and senator cardins first, i want to go back, dr. Carlin. You talked about the maintenance piece of our Industrial Base capacity. Opposite, the shipyard for structure Optimization Plan is making a huge impact on that. I can speak from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Perspective that we are about to double our drydock capacity and that will give us much more ability to maintain nuclear subs and get them out in an expeditious way. But i would agree that we have made substantial investments in our Defense Industrial base in a way that is contributing to our ability to produce the submarines we need. I talked to suppliers in New Hampshire who are beneficiaries of that investment. Its still seeming clear to me that, despite all that investment, we dont yet have the capacity in that Defense Industrial base to build the subs that we need meets the auu. K. U. S. Agreement. Is that an accurate assessment or do you see Something Different . Senator sheen, i think i might take that a little bit of play wide armitage on that. We absolutely need to be able to produce and maintain more submarines for our strategic interests. I think we would all agree with that but 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. Away auu. K. U. S. Is set up we are 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. If we continue on the trajectory we are on with maintenance we would have approximately seven more submarines that are operationally available at that time. I think when i would look at that operationally available picture its a whole lot more satisfying to be able to ensure both, to be able to ensure that strategic intent of auu. K. U. S. What youre saying is if we continue to invest at the rate that we are investing that 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 with we are on the right trajectory in terms of impacts of investments. I think this is an area one needs to monitor really closely. Im delighted to hear your case studies on the impact of investments to date and we are all going to need to watch that closely. I have heard from our Industry Partners that they face challenges realizing au u. K. U. S. Related defense transfers and exports. Not at the senior level, because we have certainly gotten those assurances. More at the action officer and manager level. Can either of you speak to that and whether you are seeing that movement as we hoped . Speed 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. I think this will help, presumably, some of the concerns your hearing. When it comes to australia and the uk companies to we know where they are sending an item to and we know it is not prohibited in the international agreement, they will be able to move without actually coming to the state department for a license. That is a very significant change but the second piece which i have not talked about as much which is what 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, you have to come for authorization. And among and between the three countries, you best defense items within the caveats that i laid out are going to be able to move. When i sat down with companies that i met with the usa, when i was just in australia, when we talked to those issues, those tend to be the core of their concerns. Now there are always some specific things that we have to work through but that is what we are doing here, 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. Spent auu. K. U. S. Quickly and effectively. The administration has put forward a plan for the United States to sell and transfer some 3 to 5 Nuclear Powered attack submarines to australia starting in the early 2030s but the administration has not put forth an incredible longterm plan to ensure that our can meet its requirements we have 66 attack subs in a reasonable timeframe. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a problem. Today, the navy has 45. That is roughly 25 goal short of the goal of 66 submarines. The pace of making a 1. 2 submarines a year by giving the submarines to australia, that will put us 3 to 4 years behind in our production process. And looking at the navys most optimistic projection, they dont see realizing 66 until the year 2049 before taking into account the submarines that we would send to australia. I understand that there was talk about maintenance being some type of fix for this, maybe extending the life of the submarines that we do have in service but we are only at 75 of our goal in terms of how many submarines we have. This is a bandaid fix. We got to look at our capacity. There is no real substitute for having an strong base to build the submarines and to meet our deterrence goals. I will start with you, do you agree or disagree with everything i said . I appreciate the strategic importance but the importance of our undersea capability. It is an unparalleled advantage and absolutely a priority the National Defense strategy underscores this as well and the points i am making on maintenance are in no way to ignore the to be clear the importance of production as well. It is just that we are all working through congress is really important support and through the administrations prioritization to build an Industrial Base that frankly was not as strong as i think anyone would like it to be. Speaking of that cooperation between the administration and congress, i look forward to the president working with congress to make the necessary hard choices and work through regular order to get this done so we are prioritizing these resources rather than coming to an emergency situation. We need to implement this in a way. That auu. K. U. S. Works to make both americas interest and our allies interest first, as well, when it comes to Nuclear Powered submarines. Next, that focus is on trilateral cooperation on advanced capabilities here, advanced capabilities include undersea technologies, quantum technology, autonomous systems, hypersonic and counter hypersonic capabilities, electronic warfare, information sharing, all of these are critical and i want to make an important suggestion to you and i encourage to hear your thoughts. You all know that i served the ambassador. I got to see firsthand japans superior capabilities when it comes to Artificial Intelligence and quantum computer. Our allies in south korea have similar strengths. So my question and i will put this to secretary lewis and to carl, do you agree with me on the need to find ways to incorporate u. S. Allies such as japan and south korea into the pillar two activities down the line . First of all, let me thank you for your leadership on defense trade. We have had a lot of conversations and i agree with you on the bipartisan need and strength and consensus around these issues. To get to your question, and the first things first, we are really focused on getting this right for uk and australia and i think we can then look at whether there may be other countries who want to come i need to bring capabilities for specific projects. I can assure you that they want to in my conversations. I would echo what secretary lewis said and once we get this room, we can look at discrete partners for discrete projects. I also want to thank you for your leadership on the Usjapan Alliance which is flourishing in extraordinary ways. And i want to reiterate how important august is to our own National Security interest and i look forward to working with all of you and i look forward to working with the interagency. Center . Thank you mr. Chairman and thank all of you for your testimony, today. I do want to start by applauding President Biden and the martin administration. The auu. K. U. S. Agreement, to begin with, i think it is a very important move in achieving our goal and assuring free and open indo pacific and i agree with the chairmans remarks that we should move forward expeditiously in implementing it. I think further delay will undermine our credibility both in terms of the strategy but also with partners that we enter into agreements with so i hope we can overcome the current delay on that front. I also support the idea of streamlining 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 it is going to be very important that these two partners, the uk and australia adopt very strong export controls as has been said, we need to make sure that hours are a strong as strong as possible. The pilot issue was raised here and we all need to be looking at ways we can do it but at the same time, providing some flexibility when we are talking about these kinds of partners. I want to talk about another piece of the Technology Sharing and coproduction piece and doctor carlin, maybe this is for you and maybe it is persistent secretary lewis. As i read this, it doesnt vision Technology Sharing and coproduction. Is that correct . It does indeed look at that. And i am looking at a series of potential Weapons Systems that we may be coproducing autonomous underwater vehicles, Quantum Technologies for positioning navigation and timing, those are the kinds of things that this envisions, is that right . Yes, that is absolutely correct. May i add one thing . Part of why we are talking about these advanced technologies and the doctor may want to add more on this is because we think this is a unique opportunity to leverage the different capabilities and strengths that three countries bring to this problem set. That is why we are talking about coproduction and that is why the defense trade needs to be smooth. You dont need to convince me of that but here is my question and my concern and this will be important with respect to precedent. Lets take a hypothetical production agreement of autonomous underwater vehicle where the United States invests the lion share in the coproduction, 80 , whatever it may be. Would either australia or the uk under that scenario have the ability to veto a decision by the United States to transfer that system to say our ukrainian friends fighting russian aggression as we speak because i think it is very important that we dont give up our ability and authority to transfer a system where we have done the lion share of the production to other allies in need. So can you talk to that . Either of you . Let me make sure i get you the correct answer. Let me start by saying coproduction in Development Agreements very significantly. We do these with other countries without auu. K. U. S. So i need to be a little careful about not getting ahead of whatever may be written into these agreements. But fundamentally, if a u. S. Company would own a certain kind of technology, then, we would still be able to control the export of that technology but again, i need to be careful to not get ahead of the way these agreements are written because they all do tend to be slightly different. Right. I understand. In fact, my concerns are raised by some of the current coproduction agreements and the fact that some of the other countries are limiting our ability, today, to transfer our own systems to the fighters in ukraine and so i think it is the sort of open the door to the larger question, when we enter into a codevelopment agreement and coproduction agreements, where the United States is the primary actor and primary financial backer. In my view, we should not be giving up our sovereign right to transfer those Weapons Systems to other allies in need. For example, today, to the ukrainians. I will pursue that question Going Forward. Part of the reason we are doing this with australia and the uk is because they are among our closest allies where we would not anticipate those kinds of issues but these coproduction agreements do very and i am happy to follow up with you on that. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman Ranking Member. It is so encouraging to have us in a hearing 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 had to have such strong and unified testimony across the three witnesses today, this is a critical strategic moment for the United States. As our president has repeatedly said that many of us agree, our Global Network of allies is our critical competitive Security Economic Development and political advantage and nothing has strengthened and deepened that partnership in the indo specific and pacific so it is up to congress to deliver the framework, the funding that you need to take advantage of it and accelerated. I recently had dinner with the australian ambassador of the United States, a transient observer giving his Foreign Service as Prime Minister and his deep knowledge of the challenge posed by the prc and joining senator murphy and a number of other republican senators and memory many house members to the United Kingdom where we had a series of meetings in august. I am very interested in the questions but at the outset, if i could, ms. Lewis, secretary lewis, can you be specific . Are there any legal authorities that are required from this congress that you think havent been precisely defined in the previous rounds of questioning back and forth with you . I think just to make a point of clarification, i think as you know, there are four different pieces of legislation that we are looking to move. One of them which is focused on the export controls. I would say it is and i would take them want to talk about it, the reason we need that legislation is because of what you just laid out. The companies and the countries need a surety about how these defense articles are going to move and we need confidence that they are going to move speedily and safely. And so it is Mission Critical for us to have this legislation. Doctor carlin may want to add more on the other two but the ship transfer legislation is also missioncritical or achieving fuel or 1. I am happy to go into more detail. Let me just add a simple observation i made. Any list of the top 10 Research Universities in the world typically include two from the uk, cambridge and oxford if not others. There leadership by focusing on particular capabilities and Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, as well. Pillar ii in many ways has the longerterm greater significance in that it may align hour three nations up more closely in terms of developing really challenging and important new technology, autonomous water transfer, for example. I would argue that our defense procurement system is ossified, sclerotic, antiquated, slow moving, pick your favorite multisyllable description but i dont think there is anyone that says that our Defense Innovation and procurement and deployment system is moving at the speed of technology and moving at the same speed of our pacing threat, the prc. Is it possible that through the pillar Ii Partnership with australia or the United Kingdom given that they are smaller militaries that they may have different legal constraints or operational constraints that we would find in them a Research Development and deployment partner able to move with more agility come particularly in emerging i think that is quite conceivable. As you note, whether it is our procurement system or expert control system, this is all kind of designed for a different world, one where we the United States had uncontested military and technological dominance in the security environment has changed in a whole bunch of different ways. We have as you know this unparalleled network of allies and partners. It is our center of gravity and just as our system is able to move and learn in so many different ways, so too can australia and uk, both of whom have really put auu. K. U. S. At the heart. The remarkable ability to take off the shelf products and modify them and deploy them and to take material from dozens of countries all over the world in a way that i was system just is not capable of doing. It is my hope and out of the war in ukraine that we are learning about how to innovate defense procurement. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thanks to our witnesses, secretary carl, i want to start where you did just to acknowledge the marines killed in the osprey accident in australia and i want to mention their names, Corporal Spencer tower, 21 years old from arlington, virginia, captain Eleanor Lebeau from illinois and major tobin lewis, 37 years old from jefferson, colorado. We have great partners in the auu. K. U. S. s but we are in a dangerous line of work and when people fall in that line of work, they ought to be recognized particularly at a hearing like this and i appreciate the fact that you began your testimony with that. Auu. K. U. S. Is a great example of how the u. S. Can work hand inhand to promote stability in the indo specific and it is a good example of the way we do things globally. In europe, we dont have a nato equivalent in the indo but we do have these networks of allies and i do want to applaud the Biden Administration working with south korea and japan at the camp david meeting. It probably wasnt as big of a headline here because we have good relations with south korea but the work of the administration to porch closer relationships, no relationship has often been strong but limited by challenges at the Political Leadership level. That was a really important summit and i want to applaud the Biden Administration on that. From my vantage point, as chairman of the seapower subcommittee of farm services, this auu. K. U. S. Partnership is very exciting to me and it is also exciting because the virginia class submarines are built in virginia and connecticut. I have the opportunity to take the ambassador to our shipper yard about a month ago to really dig into the tremendous assets we have but also the challenges, some of the questions have been directed about the current pace of production and how we can build up that pace not only to meet our own needs but to meet the needs of the commitments that we made in august. I want to followup on a question that senator menendez put in. What if we did not do pillar i . Pillar ii, i think everyone is excited about. In pillar i, i think there are questions we are asking. Australia is going to make an historic investment in the u. S. Industrial base but they are only willing to make that investment if they know during the 2030s that we will be willing to deliver to them five virginia class subs. If they make that investment, it will help us increase our pace of production if they dont make that investment, it will be harder to increase the pace of production. We would like to be good on our commitment that we are servicing , we will only be good on our commitment if we are confident we can increase our pace of production. We will be able to do that without the with the Australian Investment. Without the Australian Investment, it will be harder. Each side has something they want to do and each has resources to help each other but we have to get the timing of this right. Australia will not make the investment unless they have a surety that there will be a deliverable to them. The question is going to be, what are the guarantees that the virginia class subs will be there . So we should use this historic opportunity and the Australian Investment to enhance our ability to meet the production goals that we are talking about and obviously, that is not just an Australian Investment. We have been investing in the Submarine Base in the last few years and the question is how much more and i think are fair questions. On your crawl walk run, if we were not to do the virginia class transfers, the ultimate goal is that australia which currently has no nuclear at all , the only Nuclear Australia has is medical isotopes. They dont even have civilian nuclear. If we dont have this interim step of the virginia class subs, the ultimate goal that australia will build their own nuclear subs off of the uk design talk love american tech allergy, they would be significantly delayed in their ability to develop a domestic submarine manufacturing capability. If there was not a Timely Delivery of this interim step because with the virginia class subs, they were already training their officers to upgrade nuclear subs. The virginia sub transfer would happen after we hit significant training in the work horse and with the virginia class subs, they are learning to operate nuclear subs and maintain nuclear subs possibly to refuel nuclear subs and all of those skill sets are needed before they begin to be a worldclass producer of their own nuclear subs in the 20s, 40s and beyond. So the auu. K. U. S. Framework and i am not just talking about 1, to train them, except their investments, ramp up our production, deliver assets to australia that they can use and then learn on so that they can develop their own capacity and that capacity would be fantastic for the United States and for all of the nations in the indopacific who care about stability. So i think the crawl, walk, run analogy is really an important one. We want to get the aussies to a place where they have their own production capacity. The only way we can do that in a timely way is through the first step of the virginia class deliverables. Their investment in our Industrial Base with our own is going to get us there and benefit both American Security and the security of australia and regions of the nation. Have i stated that right . You stated it a lot more beautifully than i ever could. I dont know about that. A lot more beautifully, what a compliment. I meant it as a compliment to be very clear. I was echoing your compliment. I wasnt questioning. When you took ambassador road, which submarine did you say . I brought back a cat from the uss new jersey. I delivered it. All right, senator duckworth. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, today. Last month, i led to the philippines, indonesia and thailand to examine the many significant opportunities our nations have to collaborate together in the indoPacific Region. Again, the white house touts office as a new Security Partnership that will promote a free indopacific that is secure and stable and i agree the positive impact extends beyond these three allied countries and the that, i received quite a few positive comments in the three nations, indonesia, thailand and the philippines and what we are doing for each of the witnesses, how does auu. K. U. S. And pillar ii impact the region as a whole beyond the three nations australia and the United States and how will our partner nation in Southeast Asia benefit from a stronger trilateral relationship and enhance indopacific presence from the nine states, australia and the United Kingdom . Thank you, madam senator. First of all, i want to express appreciation for your invest in Southeast Asia. It really does matter that you have taken a strong interest in auu. K. U. S. Countries. What i would like to say about those countries and the more countries in asia where you have been is, we have invested a lot of time in diplomacy, in making sure that all countries in asia understand in a transparent way what we are trying to achieve. We stated earlier that auu. K. U. S. Is a modernization 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 for yourself but there are more than that, when we talked to countries like singapore, malaysia, they also recognize these challenges and they believe that our transparency, our candor about the challenges we see ahead that auu. K. U. S. Will help address them. We are not trying to challenge auu. K. U. S. Centrality. We believe that auu. K. U. S. Can be complementary to au u. K. U. S. 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 au u. K. U. S. To make sure that the disinformation coming from other parties does not prevail and that they have fax and that when we provide those facts, we believe that we will prevail over them in ensuring the security of the east asia Pacific Region in the future. Thank you. Thank you. I am actually going to agree with pete. I think when we talk about office, it is not just about the alliance between the strengthening of that alliance between australia and the uk, it is really the question we say it a lot but we talk about a Stable Secure free and open indopacific. That is what this alliance is about and fundamentally, as pete was talking about, we believe that benefits the countries you listed as well as others and i think resilience is another word, a term we have been talking about meaning that we are investing in a way that countries will feel more secure and resilient and i think that the doctor 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 very much. I really appreciate hearing reflections on your trip. That is heartening. The vision that we have of secure and stable indopacific i think is a vision that is manifested by auu. K. U. S. But also by so many of our allies and partners around asia, as well. And to the extent you have more partners who are actively involved in ensuring that security and that stability can be realized through collaboration and cooperation. I think it really becomes a better situation for all. So this feels like a pretty positive and i think symbiotic effort. I agree with you. I think the success of the mechanisms whether it is au u. K. U. S. Or the quad can only help our interest in the Indo Pacific Region in pacific in particular. Thank you, senator murphy. Thank you very much. I had a chance to travel to vietnam indonesia earlier. There is a fair amount of confusion, i will say, as we talk about auu. K. U. S. , the quad and reinforces centrality, as you put it, secretary may. There are issues that are particularly important to countries like vietnam and indonesia. They are two very different nations. We had quite positive responses from auu. K. U. S. To the philippines, taiwan but a little bit of, what is this all about and how does it affect us . I know a lot of work has been done to try to assure where transparency has come up a number of times, that is important. In vietnam, theres a lot of appreciation for senator leahys program of cooperation to heal the wounds from the vietnam war including addressing the munitions that continue to explode and the docks and contamination from asia to orange but as you assess it to now and i guess i would address this to both secretary lewis and secretary mori, do you feel like we have massaged the concerns expressed by some of those nations . There still a little bit of left out skepticism, if you will, that requires further work. Thank you very much senator for that question. It is important that we have those candid conversations with not just the countries that you identified but with all partners , allies in asia. It is natural that something so new, so novel would generate questions and so, what we have done is undertake a very expensive effort to make sure that countries in the region do understand what this is and what it is not. There are rivals out there, there are adversaries out there. Who will try to paint auu. K. U. S. In a different light suggesting perhaps that the u. S. Is a provocateur. In fact, it is just 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 reassure them of our intentions, what this is really about. I am glad that our partners, the 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. We are committed to this. It is not to say that our work is done and that we are your satisfied. We will continue as auu. K. U. S. Evolves to inform our friends and partners out there just to make sure they do understand what we are trying to achieve. I would like to add something in addition to the august question but to bring up something you raised which is part of what is really important is that our investment in the region is much broader than auu. K. U. S. And i think what you pointed out, my bureau actually runs the unexploded ordnance programs, we are the largest supporters of those programs in the world. In some countries, that is our largest assistance program. We consistently hear from countries about how important that work is as senator leahy was a leader in this. But i think it is important to remember that as significant as auu. K. U. S. Is, we are doing a lot of different kinds of work or working with countries on issues that are quickly critically important and in this case, saving populations but also letting once lands are clear, they can be used for other productive purposes. Just to support what pete as moy said but also think you for raising that program. Thank you and i will continue to advocate for those programs in the context of vietnam. There is the sense in the conversation that we really appreciate the counterweight to an aggressive china but we are also concerned about our relationship with china because they are a powerful nearby ally in reference to countries like vietnam and indonesia and so we have both the opportunity and a concern and as you recognized secretary moy , china accuses auu. K. U. S. Of being kind of an imperialist assault to 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 the counterweight and i think we are working effectively nation after nation with different issues because each nation is so different but good work. I missed dose you probably addressed this earlier but if you did not, feel free to address it. We do not have pillar one in the Defense Authorization act and at what level of concern you might have about that. Thank you, senator. Pillar i is critical and the way this broader effort has been designed is a crawl, walk, run approach. So it is important that congress is enthusiastic of and supportive of key pieces of legislation like the training legislation and like the legislation that would allow us to accept this historic and unprecedented investment, Industrial Base. That can ensure that all of the right things can happen so that australia will be able to then responsibly operate conventionally Nuclear Powered submarines as soon as possible and the strategic picture is critical, as well. As you no doubt heard from your travels, all eyes are on au u. K. U. S. It is a spectacular effort and showing these three allies can deliver deterrence in every phase and help ensure that the indopacific remains secure and stable today and that the future is crucial. I believe they are being made, parts i believe from a variety of states. I think the word virginia is a word you were searching for, there. You just made it in time, senator young. I will give the senator a moment to get ready for his questions. As i do, let me ask you one last question. This committee has demonstrated a willingness to provide legislative relief. We are required to facilitate exports. However, there is far more that needs to be done to make this a reality. As has been said, the u. S. Arms export system is convoluted and technical. The system is not built to move quickly. Solutions to many of these challenges do not require legislative relief. I know the administration has developed a auu. K. U. S. Framework utilizing existing authorities but this goes to taiwan and across the globe so i want to ask both the doctor and secretary lewis, can you update the members of the committee on efforts underway for state and dod to improve the efficacy of arms exports . Senator, you are 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 fms 2023. The goal of which is to streamline how we move cases forward when we are selling between governments. On the good news front, where we stand now, we move 90 of cases within 24 to 48 hours but it is the five or 10 of cases that we knew to look at how do we make changes . I will not go through every detail but just to give you a sense of what we are doing, we are asking questions and i met with my team yesterday, how can we do a better job of torah sizing prioritizing. Based on our National Security strategy and our Defense Strategy . Number 2, how can we better trained people that have to execute these programs . That sounds like a simple problem. We are 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 that we are working on including some things i think are very important in terms of looking at questions, export ability from the beginning of the process. Often what we find with these complicated systems is there design for our military which they should be for our own war fighter but they need to be adapted or changed as we look to export them. We need to make the Decision Making about that much earlier in the process so we are not slowing it down in the end. Much more there but i want to give the doctor a chance, as well. I might just add three points of reforms we are trying to make to our part of it. One is we are working on pulling together a security Common Operating Picture and that is because, being able for folks to see from an initiation until delivery, looking across that entire bucket of what is happening, seeing what is where, what needs to move, that has been a really important step that we have been working on for transparency and communication. Another piece i want to highlight is these process improvements and some of that is in line with what the secretary was saying which is to say not only can folks see the entire picture but they can elevate the challenges and figure out, we need to deal with an accountability problem, here. The third piece i want to highlight is secretary austin announced over the last few months the creation of the defense Cooperation Service which gets at the crucial issue of training. So much 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, why are they looking for it, how does it fit within our National Security interest . We are seeing really robust training efforts so that we can ensure we are organizing and training the folks appropriately to make this all as successful as possible. I know there are people at stake who rally against the informal process. I have to be honest with you, when my staff gives me the sale notice, i generally do it in the same day. It depends. It is very rare when the end user who we tentatively sell to have problems and i am concerned about those problems because i have no ideological problems. Selling american weapons abroad. I am having a problem with the enduser using it wrongly against civilians and other entities. So for our part, i know as a chair, i have been trying 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 processing. Thank you, chairman. I think our witnesses for being here. I know it has been kind of a long morning for you. As a committee, we need to recognize that pillar two will be impossible to achieve without a secure supply of minerals. Chinas dominant position in the sector particularly through its deep ties through a number of redeveloping rich nations has led it to account for approximately 60 of worldwide production and 85 of Global Production in critical mineral processing. Fortunately, australia is well positioned to help us reduce this dependency. The specially especially for requirements including cobol, tungsten, manganese and lithium. And i believe we need to ensure that auu. K. U. S. Takes australias existing and potential role as a mineral supplier into consideration. This should start with the strategic position to designate australia as a domestic source under the defense production act as was included in the Senate Passed in daa and if time permits, i will ask doctor carlin how the goals of august 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 august . Of course, deferred other witnesses if you like on this question. Thank you for the question, senator. I am 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 and so we do know that there are supply chain issues. We do know that it is of critical importance to get off reliance of specific countries that may have cornered the market or may have dominance in these areas. Those countries including australia and it could be indonesia or any number of countries in africa. In other places in the world where there is availability, we are absolutely talking with governments to discover ways to stay off the kind of dependence on a single country or other countries. Thank you very much for raising it senator. On dpa and australian australia in particular, i would highlight at the uk and australia as domestic sources with streamline technological and industrialbased collaboration and it would strengthen implementation and build new opportunities for coinvestment in the production and purchase of Critical Minerals exactly as you note and also critical contact elegies and other strategic sectors. I would see this perhaps is a complementary effort to that conversation already happening but probably not a substitute for that conversation. Okay. As much as anything else, i keep bringing this issue up in the hopes that these critical mineral conversations are happening among almost all of the stakeholders within our government with counterparties and foreign governments as well. Because i believe and feel free to correct me if i am wrong that this is a real risk factor in implementing many of our priorities including august. If it is not regarded as a risk factor, i am concerned. Because, i think one of the risks, this is so little discussed compared to other issues. Hopefully, the administration will engage this committee on Critical Minerals may be in other contexts. Given the central role of Critical Minerals and our advanced Weapon System would itar apply to Critical Minerals from australia . Based on my understanding, i dont think that 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 or things associated directly with weapons. Thank you. Given the importance lastly of Critical Minerals to auu. K. U. S. And indeed our Economic Prosperity, how should the United States be considering supply of minerals in response to the recent brick summit and its emphasis on Critical Minerals . Absolutely, senator, that is something at the highest levels of the state department. We have had discussions with a number of countries including the ones i just mentioned. For example, the philippines, indonesia, we talked about cobalt and congo and other countries so it is a priority. As is of great importance and maybe not known as well to the American Public but it is something that we are definitely seeing there are opportunities again to take action where in the past, we may have been over reliant on specific countries. Are there particular minerals that our government deems us disproportionately reliant on a bricks or bricks plus as we think about 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 cartel lies in a bricks plus construct and we need to come up with alternative sourcing or Processing Capacity in order to address that motor ability . You actually put your finger on one of the main issues here and that is the processing part of this, as well. We know that many countries have these Critical Minerals but the experts on the processing, it is in another country, right . And we all know what that country is. As though i think it is our priority to, whenever possible, find or develop alternatives to what we have seen. Again, an overreliance on what the country has put us in a vulnerable position has put the world in a vulnerable position. Is the right plan you can point to to address this larger issue . For example, processing . The first thing i am overseeing that area, i can actually ask colleagues who do have an expertise in this area to consult with you and your team. Members of this committee. Thank you. One final question. This is a little bit beyond auu. K. U. S. But we talked a lot about the value of alliances. Talk a little bit 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 and i was overjoyed to see it happen. Talk about Going Forward how this will help regional stability. Ive got to tell you, thank you senator. We will follow these issues in the east asia and wait for a moment like this for 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. It tells you about the significance of this. And to bring together these partners, we know that there are historical, painful history here. But we have to apply the courage of the rok president as well as the Prime Minister 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 this 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 talk about the Regional Security environment changing, we are not talking about just one country. We could be talking about russias illegal and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. We have talking about it since 2022, the nearly 100 lodges of missiles coming from the dpr including four icbms this year. So this environment is creating this opportunity for us to unite the country, likeminded countries and to protect our security including that it is about American Security as well as the entire east asia Pacific Region. Absolutely significant and we look forward to more conversations. It is not easy. It is not exactly the most popular thing. Because of that shared and painful history but we think it is the first step in a significant change to the future of the secure environments in the indoPacific Region. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chair. Well, this is been a very helpful and robust hearing. With that, the record for this hearing will remain open until the close of business on friday september 8 and we asked the panelists to respond to it in a substantive way. With thanks to the committee for your participation and your insight, we are adjourned