winter break is upon us and we will see you when parliament resumes. >> south carolina governor nicky haley signed a bill to remove the confederate flag from the state house today. here is an article from the post post: using nine pens nicky haley signed a historic measure that will remove the flag. the flag will fly above the confederate flag soldier monument on the capital grounds one more night before being lowered in a ceremony at 10 a.m. friday and taken to a museum in columbia where it will be displayed with other civil war relics. that is from the

post-in-corrier. at a conformation hearing to be the next joint chief chair it was said worship poses the greatest national security threat to the united states. that is next. and then a look at the supreme court cases decided by the court this term. and later a conversation with california congress woman loretta sanchez. >> here is some featured programs for the weekend: with the up coming release of harper lee's new involve c-span2 booktv focused on the novelist. we talk about the impact of lee's book to kill a mockingbird and her life since the publication. and we will reair this program sunday evening at 6:30.

and hue hewitt talks about hillary clinton's second run for president. and congressional remembering of the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war with readings and remarks by members of congress. and sunday evening, carly theorina visits with voters. and on lectures and history, flagler college professor speaks on the great depression and roosevelt's action to help the people and the economy. and jeff share on general williams sucoming to lee and why sherman is not the village of poplar legend. get the complete schedule at cspan.org. during this conformation hearing, general joseph dunford

took questions from the members of the senate armed services committee. general dunford was nominated by president obama to replace general dempsey as head of the chief staff. arizona senator john mccain chairs the committee.

>> good morning, we meet to consider chairman dunford to be the joint chief of staff. he is no stranger to the members of the committee. we have known him as our commander in afghanistan and pane post before that.

he is a lawyer and leader of the highest quality and we are grateful for his 38 years of distingished service. and we are thankful for the sacrifices general dunford family has made over the years and their willingness to lend him to the nation. it is our tradition we welcome you general dunford to introduce members of your family joining us. i mind like to express thanks to your wife helen. we honor the sacrifices you are making through your continued support to our nation and not to mention the downgrade in your residents.

the next chairman will present the next array of global crisis since the end of world war ii. in iraq and syria, isis terrorist continue to succeed on the battlefield capturing half of the territory in syria, and every border crossing from iraq and syria. the spread of isis is around the world in libya, nigeria, and even to afghanistan where i visited last week. our troops are supporting afghan partners in making a stable future button -- but even with the threat the president is committed to drastic reduction by the end of 2016 before inthe

afghanistan forces are able to operate without our support. this creates a security vacuum and we have seen what filled similar vacuums in iraq. we will be interesting to hear your thoughts on the proper coalition going forward. iran is continuing to support terrorist. in europe vladimer putin's russia continues the onslaught in crane and they execute this campaign to undermine ukraine's government and independence and the united states has refused ukraine the weapons it needs, and deserves for its defense. in the asian pacific, china is continuing a pattern of destabalizing behavior and the

vast land features in the south china sea and the military build up designed to counter military strengths and their blatant cyber attacks against the united states. while our rebalance to the asian pacific has shown some successes, especially with deepening alliances, this process is not deterring china from their course. world wide challenges like this are growing and the defense department is growing larger but less capable, more complex but less innovative, and more proficient with low tech threats but more vulnerable to higher threats. the budget control act and sequestration level of defense spending have made all of these problems worse. army and marine core strength is dropping low. the air force is the oldest and

smallest it has been. the navy fleet is declining to pre-world war 1 levels. with reductions to defense spending, we will continue to downward sprawl of military capacity and readiness will not serve at well. budget cuts have slowed critical modernization priorities. this isn't just about the weapon system we hear the most about. fighter air craft and submarines and armored vehicles. these are important. but budget cuts threaten the ability to seize the future and make vital investment in cyber space and breakthrough technology such as direct energy, i-tunesa vehicles and data analytics. the current chairman of the

joint chiefs of staff stated even with the additional $38 million above the budget cap our military would still quote remain at the quote lower ragged edge of manageable risk in our ability to execute the defense strategy. more worrisome, every chief including you testified that sequester related spending is putting people at rivsk. i fear our military will con front depleaded readiness, chronic modernization problem and declining moral. we will not be able to provide military equipment they need with a broken defense acquisition system that takes too long and cost too much we

are interested in hearing you views about the defense system based on your years of service. more than ever we need an honest and forthright leader that officers his best and unvar unvarnished advice. i hope he always appreciates the opinion of you by his side. we look forward to your

testimony. senator reid -- reed? >> thank you for your service to the nation. during the 38 years of military service, general dunford served it courage and disstinction and i am sure he will continue. ellen, thank you. and patrick thank you for being here. i know joe and kathleen wanted to be here but are serving elsewhere. thank you for serving the nation and marine core. the joint chiefs of staff released the 2015 national strategy. and general dempsey stated the current global secure environment is the most unpredictable he has seen during military service and global disorder is increasing and some military advantage has began to

erode. er orcounter is reer -- our counter isis claim will counter all parts. it will talk about denial of isis safe havens and building the capacity of local forces to counter isis with training and air support from the international coalition. the success of these efforts

ultimately depend on a effort to address the situations that allowed isis to thrive. i look forward to hearing your views and your thinking on the most effective role the military can provide in supporting efforts on the diplomatic front. regarding iran there is no clear outcome to the negotiations over iran's nuke program. no matter what happens, the department of defense play as key role with our partners in the region working with threatss and working to de-escalate the threats. general dunford if confirmed you will bring experience to oversight of the mission in afghanistan where you have led the u.s. and coalition forces. while the forces have got against taliban attacked more needs to be done to build the afghan forces capability of denying safe havens for

terrorist. the next chairman plays a critical role of the size and footprint of forces in afghanistan and 2016 beyond. another challenge will be deterring aggression through ukraine and reinforcing the fires. congress' support to ukraine including defense weapons that help the ukrainian people defend their foundation and integrity. we will be interested in your views of the security situation in ukraine and what steps you recommend for protecting yourself from the attacks in crimea and eastern ukraine. our men and women in uniform remain the committee's top concern and i know they are your top concern also. our armed forces are nothing out their people and the department continues to juggle goals to provide high quality of life to fair pay and adequate levels of

training and equipment. it is based on congress and the nation to size train and equip military of the necessary quality of character and talent to meet national defense. to that end, as you well known, the department and congress have the civil years considering various proposals for compensation and health care to slow the growth so they can be redirected and buyback readiness. i would be interested in your views on the impact of such changes are not enacted. during consideration of the national defense authorization act this committee had robust opinions on funding defense programs. and i said sequestration is not the program that will address the nation's fiscal challenges

and undermines our national military readiness. the defense budget should be based on long-term military strategy. that is the point the chairman made eloquently. even a one year increase doesn't provide the authority it needs when building its five year budget. this undermines our troops and families who want to know the future is planned for more than one year. i hope you will share your thoughts on this topic today. general dunford, thank you for your willingness to serve our nation >> there is standard questions asked of military and we have always done that and i would like to proceed with that before your testimony. in order to exercise this

legislature and oversight responsibilities it is important this committee and other appropriate committees are able to receive testimony, briefing and other communications have you adhered to conflicts of interests? >> i have. >> do you agree to give personal views? >> i do. >> have you assumed any duties or undertaken actions that would presume the outcome of the conformation process? >> i have not. >> will you insure your staff complies with deadlines for things such as records of the hearings and questions? >> i will. >> will you cooperate with congressional request? >> i will. >> and do you agree if confirmed to appear and testify upon request before this committee? >> i do. >> do you agree to provide documents in a timely manner

when requested by a dually committee or consult with the committee regarding the bases for good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> yes chairman. >> thank you and please proceed with your testimony. >> good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am truly honored to be nominated as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i want to thank general dempsey and his family. joining me is my wife ellen, our son patrick, and our other two kids are not able to be here. helen has been a great mother and served as an advocate for military families. i would not be here today without her love and support.

i would like to thank the committee for the commitment to soldiers, airmans and marines. we have the most well-trained and well-equipped military force in the world. i am mind full of the security environment and chairman you mention that. this committee is aware of the challenges be face in europe africa, the middle east space and cyber space. we also face the need to restore readiness and modern size the joint force in the context of fiscal challenges and budget uncertainty. i will provide the secretary of defense and the president with my best military advice and options for addressing the current challenges to national security. when delivering best military advice, i will do so with candor. i will look with the joint chiefs and leaders of the

committee to maintain a joint force capable of insuring our national safety today and tomorrow. i will dedicate myself to properly leading, representing and keeping faith with the men and women in uniform when people who volunteer to serve our nation. thank you again for allowing me to testify and i am prepared for your questions. >> thank you very much. >> it has been 60 individuals who have been trained to go into syria and fight against. what do you know about that

particular situation? >> those numbers are certainly much less than what we estimated. the feedback i received is those numbers are largely attributable to the vetting process and they think they learned things during the process of the first 60 and made other contact. but until have a chance to be on the ground and speak to commanders what i know about that now is secondhand. >> did you believe we should be getting a pledge from these recruits that they will only fight against this? >> what i understand now is we do not have the authority to take action against the forces. unless that policy changes that would be required. >> given your experience in the military, do you think it is good idea to train people and send them into a conflict to be

attacked and bombed by another entity and them not defending them? >> chairman i don't. if we train those individuals and they go back to syria to fight we need to provide them with the capability of being successful. >> keep them from being bombed? sgr >> we need to provide a full range of capability to be sub successful. >> i was in afghanistan over the fourth of july and there was great concern among the military and with the afghanistan people about the present proposal to have our force in afghanistan down to a quote embassy force by

2017 meaning that we would be giving up or turning over the basis. a force that is only based in the u.s.-embassy. great concerns concerning this plan and articulated plan by the president of the united states. as you know the taliban did not respect the non-fighting season. as you know the afghanistan casualties are higher than they have ever been. we have isis getting ahold and the iranians providing the taliban with weapons. is this a wise decision on your part to have a calendar base of

american troops rather than a condition-based with drawl given your background and experience? i think you are probably well qualified to make that judgment? >> chairman i am aware of the consequences of the mission in afghanistan and i have a degree of personal commitment having spent time there. i can assure you if i am confirmed i will provide advice to the president to allow us to reach the desired end state and that is based on the conditions on the ground. >> other than a calendar base decision? >> my experience has been sometimes the assumptions you make don't obtain particularly with regard to time and that is certainly the case in afghanistan. >> thank you. in ukraine, it is obvious the russians continue their military build up. i was in eastern ukraine and watched the surveillance video

made by the ukrainians showing the build up of russian forces inside ukraine. do you believe we should give the ukrainians counter battery system to defend themselves from mass russian artillery and rocket strikes and provide them with javelin anti-tech missile systems to defeat the russian tank grades? >> from a military perspective i think it is reasonable we provide that support to the ukrainians and without that support they will not be able to protect themselves against russian aggression. >> i would like to thank you for your appreciation and service and i am confidant you will serve with distinguished honors.

it is a unique role designed in the 1947 act, i believe. so i hope that you will keep in mind your obligation to the president and the men and women who are serving and we may have to send into harms way and make sure they are playeded with the best capabilities. and i hope in answer to some of these questions you will talk about the devastating affects of sequestration on our ability to defend the nation. >> i have dealt with the issue of sequestration as a service chief and if we go into the sequestration we will not be able to support the service and

it will suffer catastrophic consequences. >> i thank you, general dunford. senator reed? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. and once against thank you for your service and sacrifice, general. following on senator mccain's questions about sequestration. the administration and secretary carter made this clear has adopted any isis campaign with nine lines of efforts, two principle controlled by the department of defense. are you comfortable with that overall approach? >> i am comfortable with the overall approach. >> the other lines of effort are controlled and senator mccain's effects of sequestration on department of defense. are you concerned the partners in the effort could be hand strung as much as you would be

if the bca went into affect for them? >> i would not only do we represent two of the nine lines of effort but we cannot be successful in iraq syria or other endeavors without the whole government approach. >> let me just ask you since you are the expert. you were in afghanistan and we had a significant military effort but we had a significant civilian agencies effort -- state department fbi, drug enforcement administration, and all of these agencies. and i would assume you consider them to be integral parts of your effort and without them or without their ability to provide resources, you could not have accomplished what you did. is that fair? >> i think that is absolutely fair. i think we have accomplished quite a bit over the last few years and from my perspective that is because we have been able to integrate the capabilities of those

organizations and in particular i think the relationship we have with the state department and in afghanistan was absolutely critical to our success. >> one of the most difficult issues you face is building the capacity of the iraqi security forces. this has been an endeavor we have tried. do you have any idea of what we can or should be doing differently? how do we do this? we have heard colleagues from from the committee, your colleagues and suggest that there is staff of leadership at the upper levels and your perspective on the length of time and the emphasis we take to get the deal in iran that will secure the country? >> i have been away 11 months and will go back immediately if

confirmed. the intelligence, logistics, special operations and the aviation capability and the minister capacity were concerns and our estimates were this is a long term endeavor and it would take years to grow the capacity we have in this country. but the ability with the level of mission interior to support tax level organizations and i think continuing to stay the course with the plan general campbell has and recognizing that will require continued resources and patience is the way to be successful. >> focus and i know your experience is in afghanistan and other places but in iraq there is the same capability problems. your analysis of the long term need to build up the iraq security forces admin min.

>> the problem is many of the leaders that were correct were were -- incorrect were eliminated. we will good where we are with the afghanistan leaders. we have work to rebuild the iraqi forces perhaps to get them back to where they were a few years ago. >> there are many situations in iraq but one is the tension in the country and our policy is to support a unified government in baghdad and work with them so they are able to integrate their ethnic communities. is that the approach you think makes the most sense? >> that is going to be very difficult to do. but at this point, i believe that is the best prospect for long-term success as a unified

sectarian government in iraq. if confirmed and at any point i don't believe that is possible my advice will be adjusted accordingly. >> thank you very much, sir and thank you for your service again. >> thank you mr. chairman. in responding to one of the chairman's question you were talking about not having the authority to go after assad? >> that is my understanding. we don't have the legal authority at this time to go after the assad regime and it is the policy of the administration not to go after the assad regime militarily. >> for the record i would like to have you expand a little bit on that. as to whether it is desirable to have that authority.

we have been talking for a long time with you and at the hearings about the amount of risk we are at right now. you were quoted as saying your commanders face increasing risk. we talk about the risk out there. and you know risk equals lives and we talk about all of these theories but how do you define too much risk? are we there yet? >> senator, i believe today we are capable of providing adequate security to protect our national interest. i believe we are at the raise -- razors edge. if we to go below the level we would have to adjust the end of the strategy and no longer be able to support our strategy. >> and that is a similar response whatever the general is. they are concerned about the level we are accepting that we

never had to accept in the past. i was there in ukraine that resulted in no communist serving in their parliament. we talked about the obstacles and is there one we can help with or do you have the authority now? >> additional capability to the ukrainians would help them deal the separateist and the russian aggression.

>> i understand that and appreciate that. kind of the same thing with the kurds. they have a need for anti-armor and a lot of these things. i get two conflicting stories. one from the top people in charge saying by sending through baghdad you have a problem in getting it up there to the fight. and yet i heard just yesterday from someone in charge that problem has been resolved. is that really resolved? do we have a problem getting the equipment that they need up there to those fighters need to effectively fight? >> i watched carefully the hearing on tuesday and the exchange on this particular issue. i have been briefed that in fact the issues have been resolved and the support is good to get to the kurds. iraq afghanistan and places where young men and women are in

harms way, if confirmed, would be the first places i would go and i would like into this issue personally because it is so important. >> good. i appreciate that. on the hill this morning, there were quotes from general saying we could schedule an end to the road and that talks about ask and that nation's conflict but we cannot schedule an end to the there or threat from al-qaeda the islamic state or other extremist elements of the global jihad. going to zero option next year would be playing roulette with afghanistan's future. is he right? >> i think he is absolutely right with regard to the war will continue whether we are there or not. i do consume the war would be worse were our presence not to be there. our presence ought to be based on the conditions of the ground and i will go over and check those if confirmed. >> very good.

thank you very much. >> senator nelson? >> thank you mr. chairman. general, isis with regard to iraq and syria would you a scribe to the fact in iraq it will require the iraqi having the will to fight and meet isis in iraq to be successful? >> senator, our current campaign is dependant on the capabilities of the iraqi security forces to deal with isis.

how much do you think the assad regime staying in power would comp lie complicate the issue of us taking down isis in syria? >> senator, my assessment is it plays a significant role. i think assad's brutality to the people was the primary factor giving rise to isis and one of the assessments i prescribe to. and i think his remaining in power is inflaming people and gives isis the recruits and support they need to operate inside syria. >> i agree with that. then the question is when do we press for assad to exit? any thoughts on that? >> i don't. i am not involved into the

dialogue with that regard. the political resolution is one of had lines of effort that is part of the overall strategy and i don't know but i would assume today that issue is being addressed and if confirmed i expect to be part of the conversations and know a bit more than i do today. >> and general, someone of your stature is going to be very comforting to us to know those tough decisions made with regard to limiting the effectiveness and ultimately defeating isis will be made with you sitting at the table giving council. if you look at a map of who is in control of syria in the different areas of syria it is a mess.

and how you bring order to senator mccaskill has shown. this is syria and the colors representing the different entities in control in that geographic area. it is comforting to know you will be there giving your wise council. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sessions. >> thank you. with regard to the budget control act that includes the sequester voted out spending for the defense department. the appropriation's committee

voted out that same spending level level on the floor. the commander and chief, the president of the united states is insisting on blocking that bill and encouraging democrats to filibuster it until there is an agreement to spend an equal amount on mon-defense. the fact we have a crisis doesn't require the nation spend more on non-defense. that is the difficulty we face and you will be seeing more of that as time goes by. isn't it true we have a national

security interest in seeing and blocking a takeover of iraq by this extremist group isis who chops off heads and does other extreme things? >> senator, i would agree the issue of isis is creating regional in stability and we have u.s. national interest in a stable iraq that is not a sanctuary for extremist. >> i think it is mistake saying we will mate on the iraqi army to get their act together. we have trained the iraqi army for over a decade. they have companies and organizes and they are not well-led and their morale is not good. they have an army though. the question is can we help encourage them to be more effective in fighting back against

>> general dempsey hasn't recommended embedding a small number of forces in the iraqi army but he would do so if he thought it was a appropriate. don't you think it is time to make a move from being in baghdad and head quarters and move out to help provide this kind of confidence and air cover

and direction of giving confidence of resupply and american commitment? isn't it time for us to move forward in that direction? >> without appearing to be evasive what i would like to do if confirmed is have the opportunity to get on the ground and speak to commanders and provide a more comprehensive recommendation on how to move forward. >> i hope you will do that quickly. and one more thing, senator mccain warned yesterday that we could be facing the same situation he warned about iraq in 2011 when we pulled out prematurely and now we are facing this decision in afghanistan. i hope you are clear and firm in your recommendation to the president if you believe this plan of date with drawl is an error. will you do so if you think it

an error? >> i will. >> senator mccaskill? >> senator session and i worked on matters of accountability and trying to spend less money but y a different take on where we are in terms of inthe military budget. i cannot think of increasing the war fund instead of the base budget. i cannot think of any reason other than misleading the american people about whether or not we are balancing something. that is the only place they can put the money and not have to pay for it and shortchanged cyber security, port security, airport security fbi, cia all of which i know you would acknowledge general dunford is a very important part of the role of keeping america safe. would you agree with that?

>> senator, i would absolutely agree those organizations play a role in keeping us safe. >> let's make it clear. if we go down this pact of pretending we are balancing something by putting it in funds we don't pay for will the war funds as i like to call them, will they do anything to avoid the force structure cuts that are looming across our nation if we don't get off the path of misleading the american people? >> i think all of the service chiefs that have to balance budget would much prefer that money to be in the base budget because it provide as degree of predictability we can get after the two main issues of modernization of force and getting back at a the levels we are comfortable with. >> the cuts are a drop in the bucket if we continue the

bizarre idea of putting the money in the war fund instead of in the base budget, correct? >> if the budget level goes below what is requested in 2016 there is significant additional cuts made. >> thank you. >> you know how hard we worked on sexual assault in the military. i mind pleased insohcidentincidents are down and reports are being made and the efforts to measure victim satisfaction with command look good. it is too early to declare success. we have more work to do. but the thorny problem that remains and one i want to make sure is at the top of the list is retaliation. i know there have been initiatives begun but i would like to see a written plan as chairman of the joint chiefs of

staff with what you will do. the lower level command, unit command and peer to peer. that is the bulk of the problem. and that is a culture issue. that means from the top. i am disappointed we have not had more prosecution of retality. that is where you come in. i would like a commitment from you today that you would be willing to put a plan in writing that we could follow. >> senator, i would make that commitment commitment. i think peer retaliation is what we are trying to grapple with and i can assure you the leadership has been looking at that to set-up a climate where retaliation is not acceptable >> i will put a question for the record about the unused building

record in afghanistan. i know there was an investigation that you were not found to be a problem in this but it is a problem the investigation found no problem and in reality there was a huge problem that someone signed off on a building for $36 million that is never going to go used. my final question if you don't have time to do it now, i want to make sure we get your take on isis in afghanistan. with your experience in afghanistan, are you comfortable you have a handle on what isis is trying to do in afghanistan? >> senator, what i know from general campbell's reports and intelligence is we have seen a number of taliban rebrand themselves as isis but beyond that i don't have a good feel for the depth of the problem but

it would be one of the issues i look into if confirmed >> thank you very much. >> general dunford, i think you are just the man for the job. let me tell you you have a lot of crisis to preside over. i would simply ask you during the course of your term in office tell us what you need come back to us and be honest and tell us what our men and uni uniform need to succeed and get the job done. i was privileged to lead a bipartisan delegation of house and senate members over the past week to ukraine. we met with the president in kiev and he is grateful for the $300 million this government provided in military assistance during the past year. he mentioned the need for tank missiles. i think your testimony earlier today is that that is a reasonable request on the part of the president of ukraine and

it will be necessary for him to get those in order to defend his country. was that your testimony? >> senator, it was. from a military perspective those kinds of capabilities in my judgment will be necessary to deal with russian aggression and the separatist issue he is dealing with. >> separatist that are backed by the russian higherarchy. would you agree it is not acceptable the transfer of hundred hum vees to ukraine took over a year to process due to delays at dod and state? >> if it took a year to do that that is unacceptable. i am not aware of that. >> look into that for us. and also led the delegation for the parliamentary assembly. before the delegation left before the russian delegation left in mass because of a

dispute over five delegates being on the ue/eu sanctions list. the head of the delegation said that rushsiarussia's neighbors have no reason to be threatened. russia has mr. putin under the leadership has twice invaded neighbors. georgia in 2008 and ukraine last year. and we see there is a russian official investigating the legality of the transfer of crimea back in the day saying that this perhaps wasn't an innovation because crimea was never legally transferred to ukraine by the russian federation. it certains me this same

official is now investigating whether the transfer of the baltic states whether the giving of independence to baltic states was also legal. perhaps that wasn't legal at all this russian official suggests and we can get to the issue this way. i want to ask you this about our nato commitment. i can envision a situation with small jurisdictions that have a majority of russian speaks and small jurditions in estonia with russian speakers. and sites of pretext and we need

to create a trip wire in the baltics. this should communicate to russia that nato will not tolerate violations of the territory integrity of our allies. will you highlight the steps dod needs to take under your leadership to send a message to show this sort of pre-text by the russian administration is not tolerated by the united states and our nato allies? >> i think our experience in ukraine and the highlights you use show we need to upgrade the threat from russia which has been a hybrid threat. it provides support for

separatist in these countries and that needs to be a priority. you are asking watt the department should be doing. we need an effective model for the 21st century to deal with the threats we are seeing in russia because i think that kind of threat is one we will continue to see in the future and we will continue to that in the european context. >> would an en -- a surge of troops be unacceptable? >> from a policy standpoint i cannot answer. from personal it looks like sovereignty. >> under article four of nato it would be unacceptable. this administration and congress

needs to make it clear we will do what is necessary to prevent this idea from being considered in the first place. i agree with that and think it applies to the cyber threat as well. the idea of changing threat in the 21st century and we should update the models for both. >> thank you, general, for your service to our great country and your family's dedication and sacrifice they made with you. and sir, i am sure you had the opportunity to form opinions on what our threats have been and what our threats are today. what would you consider the greatest threat to our national security? >> my assessment today is that russia presents the greatest threat to your national security. >> would you want to elaborate

on that? >> in russia we have a nuclear power. we have one that not only has the capability to violate the sovereignty of our allies and do things not consistent with national interest but they are in the process of doing so. so a nation that poses a threat to the united states i would point to russia. if you look at their behavior it is nothing short of alarming. >> when you have basically, and i have been very much concerned about the same issue, i think we talked about it before when you visited by office briefly before but i have been told by major scholars that the cold war is colder today than it was when it was declared because of the lack of communication. do you find that to be true?

>> >> but i think from a pure economic resources and the government's perspective they are much more yclept to set up a separate state at this time. >> also the mistake of the office leaving iraq and pulling troops out when we did. did we have an option to stay? >> i was not involved with the discussion at that time that the assessment was we did not have the option. >> so those of us who believe there could have spent some forces left there

were the valuation of maliki not doing his job was rigo down the past to democracy ought -- democratize the country we did not have the option? >> the iraqis were not meeting our demands item '03 would have no option if i would say that. >> i have spoken many times of a lack of the audit in the federal government and the marines have made more of a never than any other branch but it has not been fulfilled. what is your commitment to have an audit to know about our contractors or how many forces with of military order national guard? >> we cannot be effective as

an organization or be efficient with the taxpayers' dollars if we don't have an effective audit. working as the assisted commandants we did make significant progress to get to the point where we could in turn liotta resources that are under the marine corps with some data base but i can assure you if confirmed i will continue to press hard in that direction and to press hard that we can come to you with a clean audit. >> you have my support and the confidence of the american people or at least west virginia. >> general thank you for all you have done for the country i think he will do a tremendous job of chairman of joint chiefs of staff i want to thank your family for what they have done for

the country what they continue to do. we appreciate it. i also want to lend my support to the issue of retaliation it is very important as we focus of the work that we have done to work to prevent sexual assault in the military to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. i look forward to seeing that proposal from you. i want to ask the situation as we look at iran and their support to support a proxy for undermining. >> to provide support in in yemen and provide support it

is the clear influence and lebanon and certainly tried to expand their influence into iraq and are exacerbating the sectarianism across the region. >> i want to follow what but also i saw reports they are engaged you support the taliban and in afghanistan. >> i have seen those save reports and a half provided support in the attempt to encounter isil. >> think about your experience as to command troops in iraq but certainly iran has the blood of american soldiers on its hands for the expose of materials for the she dash

militia that killed many you men and women in uniform. as you look at that situation in a back with shia how could they be part of the long term influence? >> that is why i believe we should not provide any support to those forces of less under the iraqi government and not provided support to the iranians. >> i want to ask about the situation on cyberbecause the fbi got the blood dash director has said he believes this is his enormous breach of millions and millions of individuals who provided background information have been

breached and director clapper says they believe it is a chinese. looking at the threats facing our nation called bush uss our current posture with the chinese? >> cyberthreat is significant and frankly every week we learn more about a opm breach from the data it has not been compromised. one of the challenges from my perspective this is to provide the president with a full range of options to deal with these cyberattacks which is what the breach was >> and though the senator asked you what the greatest

national security threat was and you identify a russia with the aggression and -- aggression to invading other countries essentially but as you look at the national security situation what keeps you up at night the most? >> the ability to respond to the uncertain. i am very confident in said joint force to deal with the challenges of today but on balance to deal with the challenges that we know there is very little residual capacity the readiness to respond that keeps me up at night to if i

were confirmed as the chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate the hearing i am grateful for your wife and children to be here with you. we know that you served together we are expecting a nuclear agreement today. i concern lifting sanctions may allow that country to invest more money into terrorist activities in the middle east? >> no question it will change the dynamic in the first thing i say if confirmed our have a responsibility to have options for the president with regards to increase resources it is reasonable to assume the iranians would

have more money but i would say regardless my expectation is that will continue the activity over the mill east over the last several years. >> also about retaliation in the senator was correct that we all very concerned talking about unit commanders cry want to be specific so you know, the problem. 53% was peer to peer but 35 percent was adverse administrative action action, 32 percent was professional retaliation and 11% punishment for the infraction stowe some of that is perceived by survivors to be done by unit commanders or someone within the chain of command because what is perceived is

serious. there is a climate issue that the chain of command is responsible for particularly unit commanders and lower-level commanders that is not getting the right message. intact a recent survey said 60 percent of women who said they experienced sexual discrimination of negative behavior came from their unit commanders. said the climate issue is not adequately addressed ho you also have the challenge in the reported cases one out of seven perpetrators that were alleged to have committed rape for sexual assault was also in chain of command sielaff challenge lower-level commanders but

it is not yet addressed. and want to talk about combat integration and i strongly believe we should have standards that meet the needs of each position for the have not been very vocal on this issue but if confirmed you are one of the individuals that are advising the secretary of defence whether the services should receive any exceptions to policy do you expect them to ask for exceptions? >> i cannot answer that question right now but i can explain the process. we have looked at the issue pretty hard with the task force i expect the data that we have collected to be available in the august or september time from now will meet that timeline from

2012. >> will you look across the services to see if one asks if another service does not? is it a comparison? >> might understanding is i will have a responsibility to look at each request on its merits through the secretary of defense. >> i want to address cyberwe're constantly confronted by our needs as they have been building all those capabilities but there is work to be done. what do you see that as the reserve component? >> this survey will grow and i support admiral rogers said she said to grow it and

capacity the reserve component will be very important. is specially the skill sets that our unique to cyberwe need to figure out a way to maximize and leverage those capabilities. >> they give for your many years of service to your family and wife and your niece who is here as well the was pleased to see listed modernizing that enterprise among the top challenges you expect to phase in response to the advance questions and also described the nuclear deterrent as the top military priority. is a critical we maintain

the full triad of the delivery vehicles? been given the nature of the threat today i do believe that. >> to support the bomber legs armed with that gravity bombs and the cruise missiles? >> i do. >> and you know, that they are entirely different capabilities. one does not make the other redundant. correct? >> it is. in dad's a degree of complexity to give assurance to deliver as required. >> modernization has been delayed for some time but now we're at a point with the delivery systems cannot be extended any further as the deputy secretary put it the choice is to modernize the capability in the twenties and thirties but some argue it is too large

we cannot afford to retain the nuclear deterrent but according to the count -- calculation, at its peak the mission would be 7% of the nuclear budget. i think it is confusing to hear the deterrent to describe as affordable and the alternative that they would age out to have the affordable cost. day you have thoughts on that? >> some people would ask if we could afford that i would say i think we need to think how we would find that. is the number one and capability in nuclear weapons have that existential threat. how do we move forward to fund this whether or not we could do that.

>> 7% of the budget at its peak, i shouldn't that be what we find first? >> is more complicated than that when i look at the replacement as the example we have to make very difficult decisions from the capability perspective so that balance capability is what the joint force needs. >> very zaph. i appreciate the connection between the modernization panda of reductions to the non deployed weapons. i think it is often overlooked and based on simple logic if you have a modern stockpile with the infrastructure you don't

need to keep as many spares. i thank you are more insulated as well from what is happening in the world from those surprises said technical failures. so does that make any changes before we have the modern stockpile? >> that would be the most prudent course to take. >> sandoz traded a a negotiated treaty. >> i don't believe we should take unilateral action.

>> i think we can wait for that question for the record. >> do you agree any arms control negotiations must take into account the current behavior? you mentioned at the beginning about russia. >> i do. >> also want to thank general dempsey for what they have done for the country and general dunford thank you very much for stepping up to the plate. as you know, and as we have discussed in the past i believe another greatest threats to our troops is where they start to think about suicide we lost over 400 young men and women in

the past year and you have worked very hard in this area was reading in the marine corps. will you have that same screening used when you look at recruits early. >> once we identify to take appropriate to actions. >> p.s. there question i want to ask you is a lot of times there is the stigma for the young men and women to seek help. so it is us cyano strength as opposed to any weakness. >> absolutely.

but over the past 57 years he stigma has changed dramatically even dealing with families in the wake of suicide think of one decade ago was completely different is much more receptive than that was in the past to make sure that is the steps -- successful. so we made some progress on that regard. >> i was on a trip with senator mccain and we've met with a number of forces there one of their greatest concerns with the iraqi troops will get the i.c.e. is fighters but i know that

has to be a focus 40 earthy forces but will lease and the message the only way through ramadi that there is no backdoor? >> you have been on the ground were recently talking to the commanders said it had seen the play and and they have made it very clear the iraqi security forces how important ramadi is as we're tracking the conditions for the iraqis to be successful. from the operation as perspective or from the perception of the campaign it is a strategic action and the iraqis understand that. >> also who we met with to meet with this to the tribal leaders.

and then to read chanteuse secretary carter one of the members said we have people eating grass their work with the united states there is no milk for the children reach the age you to help with the humanitarian crisis. so not only do we have to win the battle but reacquire the hearts and minds if you do we will move the folks out. >> but then to develop relationships of the anbar prophesy could not agree more that their confidence and trust will have an impact not only from a military perspective but

from the willingness to support us. >> appears the plan we have is no plan. we talked about a buffer zone with a river is saudi arabia with chairman retain to have a no-fly zone. to be in search of a plan so we hear that then to see a race between isis to take over the rest of the country which is a very rare scenario. so this is a challenging position and it will change quickly we had best be

prepared anb ahead of it or the entire country will be gone when we look up. third. >> thank you for your years of service also to your wife prepare you said russia is the greatest threat i take it that is because they have a nuclear capability tura destroyed unit of states? >> combined with the recent behavior. >> give that russia with the intermediate forces treaty to believe the united states should consider withdrawing from the treaty? >> of the by to take that for the record. as it currently stands is fresher violates the treaty

that means united states is the of the country to develop but the president currently has a proposal with the country's not just the capability but also to put stress on the alliance. i find that someone underwhelming to station troops pinned in those countries. as part of the of wide range of activities is to have the infrastructure in the other is to preposition equipment the and the other is rotational forces his secretary carter announced the one month ago.

>> now moving into iran under eddie such agreement to get billions and billions of dollars higher do expect that? >> there are two challenges as a result of the economy. >> so you believe that these part of that supports like has the law -- has blood or yemen or the shia militia in iraq? >> does united states have a military capability to destroy the iran nuclear program? >> it is my understanding that we do. >> serving in iraq and afghanistan do you know how many soldiers or marines under your command were

killed by iranian activities >> i know the total number that were killed by iranian activities it was quoted as 500. we cannot always attribute the casualty's we suspect it was a radioactivity although we did not have the forensics to support that. >> but we suspect those killed in action even more wounded. you have a reputation to be thoughtful with service members will reduce say if there were killed by renewed activity if they make a nuclear agreement before they change their behavior in the region? >> and if confirmed but i will make sure that

leadership has a full range of military options to deal with the renewed activity. >> your nickname is fighting joe? [laughter] >> it is not one that i used. >> one that has been given to you? >> perhaps by my wife. [laughter] >> would you perhaps tell us the origin? >> i prefer to talk about that in private. >> cry heard it is as an infantry officer in the early days and given whatever budget agreement we reached it is inadequate of the long-term modernization needs with of bomber and are you worried about the next generation of infantry bin that we take major capital

investment? >> it is broader there in the infantry peace we need a balanced inventory of capabilities to be successful. with a is a question with you say what kept me up at night did the to respond and and what concerns me are people who know what the future looks like so to have a full range is the prudent thing to you do. >> a think we put ground forces into the balkans is somalia and afghanistan and even if you don't want to be called friday and show you a book of for all of those in the of marine corps.

>> the senator from arkansas clearly got his nickname. >> general dunford with the recent announcement of march visor's going into the anti-isil mission in iraq and syria to figure out how to serve abroad in the battle. and then to deduct ground strikes. today's ago general dempsey was your justify he believes in the mission of the complexity ensouled for the disease to defeat isil will

they be received positively from the troops with congress would have a debate and affirm the west mission against isil? >> it is all vague that have purpose in a demeaning. and then it is the unmistakable message to the allies but with respect to the anti-isil effort to talk about when senator reid was talking about the couple of the government encroachment just for the record i should know these support effective

governance and iraq, it denies safe haven, a building partner capacity capacity, and hinting intelligence on isil, a disrupting isil finances, exposing the nature and disrupting flow of foreign fighters in to protect their homeland a and humanitarian support. that is with the building partner capacity to have a piece of the others in a given the fact that these items are not dod but with significantly hurt the other that is critical to defeating isil. >> i would like to talk about the relationship retrieve the to because it highlights the issue. from my perspective to go on

record right now ainge for i don't know how we could have been during success but with those military lines of never will set the conditions and without the game properly resource. with iraq than syria but then to have an enduring stability in the region once and for all. >> so to fix the sequester for defense that is all we need to do with the

non-defense investments in 100 senators are now on record by voting for with public statements and with non-defense accounts in my hope we can do that. >> and with the opposition first raised in september senator mccain raised the question is a free-trade foes to fight isil and they are attacked by assad regime would we protect them he asked again yesterday so by my count that is nine months without a clear in answer. we were told in theater last referrals other engagements still would prohibit u.s. effort to support u.s. trade

isil fire if they become under attack by have asked questions for the record and i like to know if that is the policy if dod intends to change the policy and will day and what do we need to do because i do not believe we should be sending u.s. trade and people into a theatre of war without a guarantee they will be protected those will be record question is for the hearing but i want to let you know, those are coming and it is a very important matter. >> this is a hint general dunford thank you for taking on the responsibility and marines all over the country taken great pride in the fact you are only the second marine ever nominated for this post and i know your

career has exemplified the values of honor and courage and commitment and i certainly plan on voting for you with enthusiasm and i encourage my colleagues to do similar afford to see you tomorrow night said to ask questions about congress as an adviser to the president weighing it and through other means of the key posture issues troops troops, aircraft, how important is it the military following the defense guidance? >> it is very important given how explicit it is with the responsibilities of the congress. >> i will provide examples

note to the chairman the number of aircraft carriers passed unanimously through the committee to vote on the senate floor this should they say he doesn't know that much about ted levy so we will blow that advice off? is inappropriate to a civic event passes alive and not be appropriate to ignore it. >> what if they say it is a sense of congress with the asia-pacific to increase forces is that appropriate to ignore that? >> but first to inform all the actions spirit there is a recent amendment that says exactly that. i will provide a second area

in terms of the emerging threats because there are so many threats out there then this certain threats. something that everybody seems to be focused on you may have seen "newsweek" this week with the race to control the arctic in the struggle retreat major powers to dominate s strategic place and how the russians are aggressively moving military forces into the arctic with the secretary of defense to save the geopolitical cold war

the west is in danger of losing the we're not even the same legal or plagued the gave little. it is safe to say the department of defense has been asleep on this which there is a section that requires the department of defense with the military strategy with the interest and threats does it make sense to cut the limited number of cold weather trade warriors in the arctic before the strategy is completed? >>. >> there is only certain forces in the arctic and they're all in alaska. >> i would like to take that for the record so i am not aware of the full range of decisions being made and the

implications. >> it is hard to figure out those capabilities without a plan we have mandated us desire for a planned to cut the foresee from before rigo the plan and we hope dod will recognize that as well. >> that we will develop an appropriate role with in support of the economic interests in the arctic. >> thank-you for your

service. i want to rubric of the issue of sexual trauma in the of military and retaliation and to determine those root causes that it does not support the retaliation and to have a sense of urgency have space addressed the issue of retaliation with the chips raw there could not be strong for his they are encountering sexual assault and harassment. >> show your views of the rebalance. >> i cannot it is critical

breed to that's also the economic future with the philippines and vietnam and india austria have all been adjusted the have an unprecedented level of exercising future in the pacific to a certain influence to provide a stabilizing presence. indebted is what has existed so that'd sin place so we can do that in the indefinite future as well.

>> and as a result of the budget necessities with regard to the importance of rebalance i know that this is something the senator shares to three the rebalance of the asia-pacific remains the strong commitment on our part. with a threat to national security where where they fall? >> with china was toyota's the virtues. >> russia is because of the nuclear capability because of the growing military capability and the interest of the specifics of the relationship between their capabilities and our interest and doesn't leave

the current threat. such a look at those capabilities and then as distinct clearly aide north korea with ballistic missile capability and potential to reach the united states. >> i just want to make it clear that they don't attack thoses sequencer there is a prioritization of one that has to do at this particular time all of the security issues they create a challenge that need to be addressed.

>> and then to talk about the pacific with japan and though whether of the concerns of the okinawa population in the challenge to relocate forces because that is the part of the rebel is that we are committed to. but they received nothing budget the commitment so my sense is the japanese government is committed to that recognizing it is important so right now the of relationship with the japanese is that a pretty good place.

>> so really has a concern. >> now we talk about okinawa of we need to be good neighbors to set the conditions to make that contribution and a replacement facility is the internal japanese political issue that has to be worked out by the japanese government. >> think your approach general dunford welcome to you and your family in your written testimony you state the nuclear deterrent is the nation's top military priority that leads me to a specific question related to how we plan for that party over time. with a full weapons complex

is critical to nuclear deterrents and one of the things in your written testimony is we must recruit and train the next generation workforce to have a stockpile requirements to modernize the nuclear weapon infrastructure. can you share your thoughts specifically on the laboratory directed research and development in the programs going on at our national labs in the role to achieve retention of the next generation nuclear force? >> that is something in my capacity and have no expertise that would take that for the record. >> i look forward to engaging with you with that in the future it is important to view the particulars and how we manage the things that bring

people into the pipeline at the front end with expertise then they stay in those positions and rise up to provide continuity to make sure we have the kind of modern deterrent that we need. and an expression with the challenges here at home, in my view defense innovation is moving too slowly. often times echoes years while commercial innovation goes over months and we included a section to authorize funding about half of which would be dedicated for directed energy to read so read the building of offset technologies including additional directed energy cybercapabilities and autonomous systems and

intelligence data analytics what role will the development of these new technologies play in our national security? and what steps should take to develop and deliver these systems more quickly? >> in my capacity i view the future of the jury forces to be of critical responsibility a key piece is to keep pace with innovations anonymous jury get better to find different ways to do things in the future than ever more effective to maintain our competitive vantage her gore think we were all lying is a concern for me because of the past decade our efforts of innovation were a lower priority than they ought to be and we have tried to energize that i will bring that same focus and attention if i am confirmed. >> i appreciate that.

one of the challenges the airforce remote pilot is under severe strain largely through increased combat and commander requirements and policy actions with the basic reality the air force is losing more pilots they and it is training we have heard from secretary james in general welch but have assure this committee their dedicated to resolve the shortfall but the also what your commitment to help resolve this issue. if confirmed we make that a priority? >> i will comment quickly those men and women represent the capability of the joint force in their effectiveness, morale and willingness to continue to serve is important i will certainly reinforce the

efforts to make sure those individuals are appreciated and have a climate they will want to remain in urban. >> i appreciate that deeply it is an area where racy severe strain and where folks need our support. thank you. >> good morning, general dunford. thanks for your service and for your families long time serving our nation. i leaned over to the senator sullivan for your comments and i appreciate your concise answers it is refreshing. i would read like to go back to a question that senator sessions asked.

with the certainty so it is not a long-term commitment so precisely how you would. oh or if you give us the current rules regarding oco we cannot use it the modernization is was has suffered the most springs . >>.

are you making specific recommendations to get the most productivity u.k. and out of it? i have spoken with a number of people we have the right mix to fight successfully had given iraq i understand about the political decisions to cause a problem and though structural issues have to be addressed. but to have the right command infrastructure among the iraqis.

what we need to ruth create of fighting force for a the iraqis. >> i can address that in the institutional trading with the ministerial level to support those forces but i want to take a opportunity with the commanders on the ground with a comprehensive recommendation. >> the afghanis have made progress but they still of rely on us heavily for the i s hour capabilities in the region and. i have heard you say we can have a calendar based approach toward reduction of forces but the sense that i

got when i was in kabul is that those that are in very much in touch with the situation on the ground thinks it would be a very bad idea to substantially reduce the presence over the near-term for cry assume they'll look 18 months from now that we will still not be in the plays were the afghanis could be completely independent. do you share that view? >> the assumptions that we made with the recommendation and delivered december 2013 those affected the timeline and we did not expect that to be as much of a delay as it was and it was of great destructor the when i was on the ground was difficult to get my counterparts to focus of the practical side of the growing ministerial capacity when they were dealing with

the election switch delayed efforts and there are other areas where you make assumptions about things i could be done but actually we did not get done during that time. from a distance to talk to general campbell a central command if confirmed immediately this make sense to me with a time when we originally identified in is possible affected inside of afghanistan. >> thank you afford to supporting your confirmation. >> mr. chairman. thank you for your service and for your service as well. i want to begin with what u.s. just as the primary threat through russia and china tour talked-about a weapons platform or system

for the submarine force a recognize that is not immediately part of your background but as the great responsibility if you are confirmed is certainly i will still strongly support your confirmation. the program is critical to our nuclear deterrence and the cost of the program has been estimated in the range of $100 million in the navy said it cannot pay for it out of the navy budget. will you consider and support looking at the defense department budget as though whole to fund the replacement program which i assume you agree it is critical to nuclear deterrents. >> i do agree it is critical. it is part of that triad to modernize for five very

familiar with the budgetary implications with the long-range ship building planned so to fund an ohio class replacement so with the rest of that shipbuilding plan between two and half for three ships per year we are nowhere near ready to be right now. so i do think a broader mechanism would make sense otherwise we will have adverse effects of the navy and one of my perspective is coming into this role would be we need to have some balance so the united states navy without war fighting capability would be difficult to balance those with the replacement to be

paid for with the current department resources. . .