lfill the combat commander requirements? where will it be when you look at a force that is reduced to 450,000? >> commander force right now we are able senator, to fulfill the commander requests for forces that have come in. as we continue to draw down to 450,000 by 2017-2018 i think we will inquer increased risk and at the end it will be significant risk. we will have to see. we don't know what the future requirements are going to be. senator mccain mentioned he has issues in eastern europe he has issues with isis and a wide variety of other security challenges around the world. if demand continues to increase as it has in the last year, unanticipated demand, we will have to reassess the risk assessment. >> so comes one of the combatant

commands you support as well. i have been concerned reductions across the services are going to impact the conventional source enablers that our special-op guys work with. how will you work with them on the reductions having on their capabilities? >> we are closely tied with the special operation committee. 80% of u.s. special operations come from the army. so we are tightly closed. we are joined at the hip. one of the big lessons learned from the last 10-15 years is conflict has been the synergistic affect. we will continue to work with them very, very closely. we have them integrated in the major exercise at the training center. we provide a wide variety of

enablers that support special operation. we will keep the linkage that will not break. >> thank you sir. i appreciate your commitment to making sure our military men and women are able to perform the missions they are given. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you general for your service to our country and your family's support of the service. you and i have had a good conversation on things and i will ask you what i ask most of the people being pointed. what do you consider the greatest threat? >> as a soldier and military officer, i would have to say it is russia. russia is the only country on earth that retains the nuclear capability to destroy the united states. it has capability.

intent? don't know. but the activity of russia since 2008 has been aggressive. they attacked and invaded georgia, seized the crimea and attacked into the ukraine. that is worrisome. i would also add china and north korea and isis along with iran including the recent agreement signed the other day. i would not put them in particular order. they represent security threats in their own different way. >> we talked also about the obstacles you are facing. or that we are facing by using national guard to the full extent especially in day to day operations. what are the obstacles that prevent the army prom using this

army national guard to the extent they should be as well trained as they are today. >> as you know senator, the national guard has been key over the last decade and a half. they have served proudly and honorablely in afghanistan and iraq and they fully integrate a lot of training operations here in the united states. it would help if we had greater access to the guard. right now, we have the guard as a state partnership overseas with a wide variety of countries. there is a lot of exercise and support of commanders we could use ground forces and current operation. some are peace officers and some are active like in afghanistan and iraq. but access to the guard is key. and that all links back to the budget. we can only way for bringing them on under the ocho funding and many of the operations are

exercises and not covered with the funding. >> i am sure to look forward in working with you on making that available because i think the guard can be used more effectively right now other than private contractors. what is your understanding of where the army stands being ready by the year of 2017 for with drawl? >> i hear the army is on track and ready for the full auditing in 2017. >> if confirmed you make proving the army acquisition system a priority. >> absolutely. >> i think you willed --

>> it cost effective at change those systems. it ties back to the auditing as quickly as that has been done. do you have ideas on the amount of contracts or the army contracts? >> we will do that. >> thank you, sir.

>> thank you, chairman and thank you general and your family for their service to the nation. i wanted to follow up you confirmed what general testified to the committee before that russia is our greatest national security threat. i noticed also in your advance policy questions you stated that the army in europe doesn't have what it needs. what does it need that it doesn't have and how important is this to thing about russia as the most significant threat we are facing? >> i think there are two parts. one to assure allies and the other to detur russian aggression. the army is placing activity sets and prepositioned -- pre

repositioned equipment. there are a lot of tools we can use but i think we need increase ground forces on a rotational bases to deter russia or allies. >> i wanted to follow up, you answered senator mansion talk about access it the guard, and one thing we saw was a program with the air force that is called toting force enterprise active associates unit. it is total force so in new hampshire we had an active doubt duty association between the air force and guard that has been really effective. i wanted to see if you would

partner together and have this because the air force had good success and recognizes as you indicated today we would not have been able to fight the war in iraq and afghanistan without the guard and reserve and doing training and work together >> i am look into this and the abram document served well and

we will implement that. >> i appreciate that. the program has been successful. how important is affective air missile defense to air operations? one thing that has been brought to my attention as we have the patriot and 13 allies rely on that but some of the allies have more modern versions of the patriot our troops have. i don't agree with that. i think the committee in the defense authorization, the army requested $106 million for patriot improvements to upgrade and that was actually accepted by this committee. i wanted to get your sense on

assessment of the patriot air missile and defense system and do you support the improve funding and how important is this for the troops? >> senator, let's take the last part on how important it is. i don't think the united states army is coming under enemy air attack consistently since the invasion of normandy. we have the capabilities and we want to retain that forever. we have a robust defense capability that is capable of shooting down incoming air craft. since the modern development of missile technology, that is another component. we have come under missile threat. we are under missile threat in the first gulf war and second gulf war. the patriot plays a key role in

destroying air craft but in intercepting and destroying incoming missiles. the patriot is a key system to the air defense of our allies and soldiers on the ground. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you general to your and your family for your service. should you be confirmed i look forward to working with you during your tenur'e. i know you know about the rebound program and how important it is particular in hawaii. i saw a direct exact on facilities there when mail com

funding is cut. i hope you will work with user pack to make sure facilities are maintained and modernized so the troops have the facilities necessary to perform the tasks. >> i will certainly do that senator. >> i know you share my view the rebalance of the asia pacific is more than rhetoric. the navy's intentions are to place 60% of the ships in this area of responsibility. what do you see as the major component of the rebound strategy? >> two of the list of threats included china and north korea. so the united states' army play as key role. 8-10 largest armies in the world are in the pacific.

navy and air force and marines are fundamental to success for u.s. security in the pacific but the army is too. we have deployed forces in north korea that have kept the piece peace for the last 60 years. and most importantly in the state of hawaii. so there is a considerable amount of army in the pacific that play a key role supporting the pay com strategy. we recognize that because of the budget issue certain reductions were inevitable. i appreciate the consideration given at a the rebalance of the system and hoist a strategic

location and decisions made regarding the cuts to our army. can i expect if confirmed you will continue to give ample consideration to strategic positions including alaska and the importance of the rebalance? >> absolutely. as we go forward balancing the position of the army forces in accordance with the national strategy and balancing that against risk is a key task for the army chief of staff and i will take that. >> this committee has spent considerable time on the issue of sexual assault in the military. it is still of course occurring and persist in the military. from your testimony and our meeting you find it totally unacceptable as well. however, while efforts are bogue made to support and encourage victims to come forward we are becoming aware of the problem of retaliation. can you share specific plans to

reduce not only sexual assault but stop the further abuse by retaliation. >> senator, as you mentioned sexual assault -- there is no place for it in a disciplined military force. two years ago there were 24,000 reports of sexual assault. that is wrong. it is not acceptable and we cannot accept those casuality and it is unacceptable. the army has done a lot over the last many years. there has been some progress but it is not enough and i am full oh committed if confirmed as army chief of staff to continue to work on the problem and bring it to zero. i saw a study showing 60% of

victims report retaliation. some by chain of command and others by peers. i think by chain of command retaliation we can get after that fast through a variety of tools and holding commanders accountable. peer-on-peer is more complex and i will to study to see what techniques could be used. >> this is an ongoing area of concern for many of us on the committee so thank you for whatever you can do to improve the situation vastly. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you general. it is great too you in front of the committee. i want to thank your wife for being here as well. thank you for the support you have given over 30 years for your husband. i will not ask about the national guard. we have had very in depth

discussions in our office and i thank you for the willingness to work with the wonderful national guard and those great young men and women that provide a great support system to the active component members. thank you for that. i wanted to mention the ties between the active component and the guard. we do have our secretary bct from iowa rotating through jrtc right now. we do appreciate that partnership. i want to tag on with a little bit on what brought up in regard to the cases of sexual assault in military. i was at the west point visitor board of meeting yesterday and this was a topic we discussed. you have over 34 years of experience in the army so you have seen a lot of changes through the yearsism when it comes to especially sexual assault, in the way the army

reports this we have seen changes in the recent years. i would like your take away on what we have seen and with those changes what do you see? is it improving? the areas where you think we have seen the most impact. if you could just talk about that a little. >> thank you senator. it has been some improvement. it is not good enough. but there has been some improvement over the last couple years. we know the prevalence of incidents appears to be down and the numbers of reporting is up so showing some shift in change of command.

if an incident does occur the first thing is to protect the victim and then investigate with investigators and hold those perpetrators accountable. i think the entire key is within the hands of the chain of command. staff sergeants and first sergeants all the way up through general officers. all of us have to be engaged to get after that. a couple things in the 35 years i have used and seen and one is the role of the commander. an engaged commander makes a difference between success and lack of success. secondly i would say operate in body teams. there is great value in using the buddy temperatures approach. and third is control of the terrain which is the barracks.

cannot control outside of the force but as commanders we can control the barracks and displain is fundamental to the barracks. and lastly is alcohol. we know in many cases of sexual assault alcohol is a contributing factor. i think commanders and the chain of commands the sergeants, captains generals and sergeants are fundamental to getting after sexual assault and bringing it to an end. >> i appreciate that very puck much. i do see we have a lower level of incidents and a very long way to go with this. one of the points we raised yesterday as west point was that it is really difficult when you have someone like yourself or even me with a lot of gray hair telling soldiers don't do this,

don't do this. i think where we can see a lot of shift in the culture and environment is when peers are stepping up and saying don't do it. we talked about not in my squad. i think that is an important step. we have a long ways to go general. i look forward to working with you on the important topic and protecting our sons and daughters as they serve. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, i want to commend you on your statement. i think it is one of the best statements about the role and mission of the army should be required reading, i think, for every member of the army today. one of the questions you answered to the chairman was would you commit to provide your personal views even if they differ from the administration in power. i want to underline the importance of that. all of your experience,

knowledge and wisdom that you accumulated over the years are of no value if you don't share them. you will be operating in the highest level of the government in a situation that can be intimidated. we want to encourage you to remember that question and speak up. you have to share your knowledge and experience that got you where you are. i hope you will remember that question and the commitment you made. i think you have a great deal to offer the country. >> i will be intimidated by no one. >> i believe that general. more specific question. are the iraqi security forces willing to fight? >> when we left in 2011 the

reports -- i wasn't there in 2011 but before that and iraqi security forces were willing to fight. in the years between 2011 and today the chains of command have been decimated and they were not getting proper pay and training went down the tubes. after three or four years and you lack training equipment, and spare parts and most importantly you lack a leadership then you can certainly understand why units fell apart last year during the isis. >> i think there is nothing prohibiting the iraqi security forces from a will to fight with the exception of a lack of proper leadership. that is important from where i sit and i would like to take a trip to talk to the commanders on the ground. but my assessment is they have the potential and capability to fight but they must be led, just like any army must be led, to

close width and destroy the enemies of their country. >> it seems when we think about the strategic challenges of iraq afghanistan, ukraine, all of those are local troops with u.s. support in way or another. and one of the key challenges is how do you teach the will to fight? have we learned that? are we at a place where we know the pressure points to develop the command mentality that is necessary? we are in a series of disputes around the world. none of which involve directly, if any, u.s. troops. we are at the mercy of how the local people perform. i am wondering about the army's thinking about to training. that might be one of the most essential tasks the new army as.

>> we in the army think that we do know how to develop leaders. the army does many things and does many things well. ...

they are not going to follow them and the third piece i think is a committed leader, leader committed to the cause which they fight. if those elements are combined together in the iraq e. leadership. and the iraqi security forces have a chance of prevailing. >> the senator and i were in lebanon and we saw the training program that involves bringing. particularly bringing them here they see that they get a lot from their peers when they are at fort benning or four or wherever they are is that a program that you think should be continued to strengthen, emphasized? >> yes i do. it's been invaluable in the past over many decades with many armies around the world.

i'm a little bit over time but how long would it take to go from a 4:50 god forbid the circumstances required, what's the lead time? >> i would have to get back in but to build a brigade for example, the brigade combat team depends on the type of brigade that you have. to build from scratch is about a three year pure code to get them certified and ready to engage in ground combat operations. so, to regenerate that it can be done but it's not going to be done in a very short amount of time. >> thank you mr. chairman and for your testimony for coming by to see many of us before the

testimony. i want to ask about the commission of the army which was established by the national defense authorization act of 2015. end of the and the army's aviation restructuring initiative. at the national commission mandate is to evaluate the future missions, evaluate the mix of the total and evaluate whether combat aviation assets should be transferred to the army. i understand the army intends to implement certain forces as early as october 1 of this year. as i've expressed to you making these irreversible changes to the guard before we've had a chance to see what the commission says about the ari wouldn't be advisable.

the intent of congress was clear there should be no transfers of helicopters away from the guard until congress receives and reviews the findings of the commission. i would like to know your opinion of the ari plan which would remove all combat aviation from the national guard. do you support halting transfers of power copters away from the guard until the army commission report back in february of next year? >> it's my understanding of the the transfer is in accordance with last year's and the one that's under debate right now so the army is actually executing the last return order. i will look into that. as far as do i support it i think the national guard has good points they are concerned

it's a slippery slope. fair enough but there's also key points. there's a billion-dollar savings. if it's not insignificant given the current crunch and most importantly is a readiness issue. i think three of the divisions are not going to have the reconnaissance capability and blind three out of the ten division commanders with an inability to see the battlefield if they are thereby committed so on balance i would favor the transfer however i'm going to await the results and pay attention to the recommendation very closely and remain engaged with the guard to do the right thing for the army. >> i'm glad to know you are going to await the funding of

the commission and i would say to you a couple of things from my conversations with many people on the guard. a belief for many of the states such as mississippi the program would be sent back for a decade. it would take ten years to get over the loss and i think would do great harm to what we've had over the past and that is the active army and the national guard units have operated seamlessly as one team since 9/11 and it's been good for the country. i think it's unfortunate that the policy fights and distrust between the army have become prevalent over the past five years. what's your assessment of the

relationship between the army and the army national guard "-end-quotes you acknowledge that the relationship has deteriorated to the point where actually it is unseemly? >> well as the commander of forces i deal with the national guard and army reserve on a frequent basis, so i'm coming at this from an operational force plaintiff do you and i do not see the field that it forces. we we train together can trained together can operate together, have partnerships together and i have commanded the forces both in iraq and afghanistan. >> you don't see that in the field? >> that is correct. >> may be some things happen, i don't know but perhaps.

as i understand there is tension here among some of the leaders. i worked along with the general to patch up whatever issues there are from the personal perspective i think there's one. that's it. one army. we all wear the same uniform and that's the way we have to approach it. the united states army cannot conduct operations in a sustained way overseas without the use of national guard and reserve. we can do short-term operations that sustained cannot be done. there is one army critical to our success. >> this conversation will continue. we are discussing it publicly

today and i think we can acknowledge that the national guard is a very integral part of what's your mission will be coming and i hope these issues can be resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner. >> thank you mr. chairman and your family for all you've done for the country and thanks for taking the time to come to my office and i want to follow up on that discussion. in regards to military suicide, we talk about the importance of pushing the situational awareness down the chain of command and when i met with the israeli defense forces they said it was critical reducing suicide was pushing it down the chain of command so the squad leader and platoon leader who could identify right on the spot could

help. i was wondering your plans to make sure the leaders of those squads and platoons are aware of the challenge and are ready to try to help in eliminating it. >> i've been in the command a lot and suicide is a horrible tragic thing in the unit. the effect is on the family, the unit etc. just like you would have a killed in action in combat. it's terrible, it's horrible. but i think in terms of how we get after it and the situational awareness is key. because the army has done a lot over the last couple of years to increase situational awareness - the signs and symptoms and then the technique of intervention - our numbers have dropped considerably in suicide. so, that's one point is to

consider sustaining and actually increasing situational awareness. second is to continue to reduce the stigma. behavioral health, mental health, my view is therefore but the grace of god the human psyche is a fragile thing and regardless how many ranger tabs or anything else anyone has it is not so hard, not so tough that they cannot break in a in the search and correct combination of stress and pressures. we have to be alert to the signs and symptoms if we have to reach out and be literally our brothers and sisters keeper. that attitude has to happen throughout the force. it has happened considerably better than it was in previous years. the last few years it has improved significantly and i think that is what is contributing to the reduction of suicide is the increasing situational awareness and the stigma, and then the intervention on the part of the junior soldiers at the most junior level. >> i would encourage you as in your new position to be in the bird dogged this and to make

sure the squad leaders let us know if you see something going sideways. let them know there is no stigma and then they should get help and i know you will do that. i want to switch to - the whole team that's before the push to the mahdi and falluja began and as you said it is a question of leadership, good leadership for the iraqi security forces and so as opposed to this or that plan i would love to hear your advice on what you think our role should be in helping get the leadership back together.

what can we do to help them do that? >> i would like the opportunity to talk to the guys on the ground to answer that question in a more informed holistic way but based on what i know now what makes. with makes. in iraq and afghanistan, there is a wide variety of things we need to do to help the security forces and the advise and assist levels of effort. as i understand, the constraint right now is not so much on what we are doing, but the amount of training of security forces are providing. so maintaining a train and advise and assist efforts with the iraqi security forces over a length of time is going to go a long way. what the senator mentioned earlier is something that should be seriously considered to improve the effectiveness of the

enablers, the close air support that is being provided. i think advisers going forward with units again is something that should be seriously considered. however there are lots of issues with that and the risk associated etc.. but the bottom line is there are things we can do and i would like to give you a more informed answer at a later date. >> i would ask you to member in remember in regards to iraq and i know you will when you said the mission is to win we have to win in order to have success in syria and to help the forces have that kind of leadership and of the last the last thing i will say is on the article five responsibilities the motto as you know is fight night. we have to make sure we have the same kind of readiness in those areas because we have the same

obligations they've said they will stand with us and we need to do the same for them. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> general, congratulations. thank you for your service. general, i want general, i want to start maybe with going back to something that the chairman mentioned in the opening comments and incidentally i have a committee meeting over in the judiciary that i've got to go back to. we have sequestration which i think we all recognize as devastating and have to get rid of it. it's bad policy and should have never been implemented. what are your thoughts about ways that we can save money in your new position and i look forward to supporting you on this nomination but what areas in your opinion do we have the opportunity to bend the cost curve for increased productivity

and how would you go about doing that in your new role? >> there's three areas that should be considered. the senator has already referenced them. you have to take a hard look at overhead. not just the army that the military across-the-board office services to include the department of defense are a very large organization with a big iraq are c. and a significant overhead. second is acquisition as it is already previously mentioned a considerable amount of cost and waste. we need to get that under control and at the third and final piece that i think is worth taking a look at there's a wide variety of emerging technologies that could 15 or 20 years from now landed itself to the automated processes and reducing the demand power cost compensation cost over time and

those are three pretty big areas that i want to take a look at if confirmed. >> we have russia creating a looming threat in europe and we have the pacific and china's expansion or increased activities. we have the ongoing war in the middle east against the fight against islamic extremism. general odierno said that a fifth brigade army should be adequate to keep these threats in check but now we are on a trajectory for a 33 brigade army. do you think that managing or facing those threats is possible with a 33 brigade army? >> senator are you talking active brigades or the total army brigade because right now we have 60 brigades today 32 in the active components today.

the plan that was announced will take us down to 30 and we will lose to. i think we have adequate capacity numbers of brigade combat teams and the contingencies that are on the books if we do not drop below the nine easy force we have adequate capacity size but that is with significant risk in terms of the time to get them trained, certified and then it's also significant risk and casualties and the second piece is not just the capacity of the capability of the readiness of the force and how capable it is to handle that type of a fight

which is different than we would have that we've been dealing with the last decade so we have ways to go in improving the readiness to the high-end type of combat operations. >> i just want to close by saying i look forward to you being in this role and you were the first to reach out to be back before i was even sworn in to offer information and you were generous with your time when i spent several days down at fort bragg and you have been a few up here several times and i know you to be in approachable and correct person and you will be a great addition as the chief of staff. thanks again to you and your family. >> thank you mr. chairman and general as everyone has expressed, we appreciate you coming to the offices to visit one on one. i certainly appreciate that.

i want to talk about the cuts into sequestration and the issues in front of us in the next 90 to 120 days. the cuts that were announced early this month are based of course on the shrinking and as he talked about this morning there is a significant risk that they will not be the last and if congress doesn't provide some relief from the sequester caps the army will be forced to cut an additional 40,000 active-duty soldiers. this year the republicans are attempting to get it out of the statutory budget caps by using the contingency operations were that were fond which doesn't have to be paid for. it can be put on a credit card. would you buy that structure using this fund?

>> we would prefer if possible that the budget be in the base that as a recipient of the money we will take if that is the only mechanism that we can in order to sustain the readiness and modernization. >> let me ask one that is difficult because the tramps on whether or not it is being used appropriately. but as an off the budget. for the emergency of the contingency operation that's why it's called the contingency operation. we know in your advanced policy question for the hearing but technological advantage over the current and potential adversaries are at risk. we invested in the base budget in the technology and research for decades to get us to the point that we are today where we

are the most technologically superior force in the world. if we want the young men and women we will send a warning to future to have a same advantage that the men and women have today with over technological security. can you make long-term research and development investments using a fund that was designed only to apply to the contingency? >> i have to get back to you to the legal use on the fund and i think the answer would be no clever funds are specifically targeted to the operations overseas contingency operations. i don't think it could but i will get back to you. >> the frustrating part is the difference between the commitment to put this $40 billion in the budget between my friends and colleagues.

it's the willingness to acknowledge that we are spending the money. the willingness to say this belongs in the base budget lets put it in the base budget and let's not use a gimmick to pretend that somehow we are not making investments and the beast needs in the contingency operations and it remains a great frustration to me and 19 hopeful we can work out so that we don't go down this path and create this precedent. so i think it is dangerous to the long-term stability of the military into your and your ability to do your job in terms of planning and coordinating and having what you need going forward. i think it's a very irresponsible press event. on the asphalt i know several members talked about it already and i do want to mention i know you're getting after the retaliation.

so for the investigators asked the assault, this is a special set of training that must occur and i would like your content but - comment frankly on the civilian world. the expertise has been developed is unparalleled in terms of how you get after the investigation. i would like your commitment that you will continue to fight for the adequate funding so that we can get these perpetrators behind bars so that they are not discharging the amazing and wonderful military that we have in this trade. >> i will take a deep look at that. as i understand from the ports that i have it as best practice is best practice and it leaves the nation and its skills. >> it does and buy things to

your family and to you for your service. >> thank you mr. chairman, good to see you thank you for your years of service and to your family i know you've sacrificed a lot. i have a number of questions as you can imagine about the army's decision could a 40000 troops recently. i know that you are not the ultimate decision-making but your going to be tasked with implementing this so maybe i would appreciate your thoughts and views. the general talks about the importance of the military focusing on and implementing the defense guidance of the congress and whether it's - i gave examples if they were told by the congress even carriers that we need or the chief of the air force, chief of staff of the air

force even though the service doesn't like it, they do it. so one of the things i am concerned about is we have a lot of focus on the rebalancing and there is a very strong directive line which. the united states shows how they should be increased and any withdrawal outside of the continental united states would undermine the rebound and a lot of the focus was put in there to provide credibility to strategy that this congress supports. so i've been quite concerned that the armies decision ignores this. i don't think that the decisions were inevitable. as a matter of fact it was just announced takes a huge chunk of

dramatic increases of about 40,000 the huge portion was from the asia-pacific region. so the idea of fighting tonight and maintaining the rebalancing think it is all undermined. it is dramatically undermined and i think our allies are going to see it undermined. so, do you think that the president's strategy has been undermined by dramatically reducing the forces despite the defense guidance to the department of defense did not do that? >> i don't think that it's necessarily been undermined. about 20% of the armies in the pacific even with the reductions but more to your point, i agree they should absolutely inform the decision making decision-making and we should take that seriously and i think we will. >> but it didn't look like you did in this case.

>> i'm talking about the army decision which now - you will have to defend. >> the department of defense the army did not abide by the defense to a congress if they read that amendment. >> i will take a hard look at the entire issue and look forward to working with you on it but i do think that they have capabilities committed to the pacific, but they've been significantly increased in the last two weeks according to the decision. >> the only brigade in the entire pacific has now been gutted. >> i would say that it's brought down to the task force with the specific design that it could be

reversed if funding becomes available. that brigade it doesn't go to the - until the late 16 or 17. so it is with the intent if funding is made available. >> do you think that our allies were supportive of this? that was for any contingency that could get there in the seven hours. you'd think that our capability has been increased in this decision? >> the army greens still have capabilities in of the position throughout the continental united states and hawaii, alaska washington and they can mitigate the threats given the current situation. >> i will have more questions in

the second round. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member for this hearing and genital for your service and thanks to the family. i'm so grateful that you are continuing to serve the country. i want to talk about the combat integration and applaud the army for taking the steps to eliminate the policies and the associated skill positions. as you look at the positions that still remained closed that reason might be to act on the exception of the policy position? >> the only reason at all and there's been no decision yet but everything that we revolver standards and readiness. some florida observers in the artillery and special operations

special forces. there is a study going right now that the training and doctrine command at a similar study on going by the marines so they are both cross walking the data and if confirmed we will have to make a decision recommendation to the secretary whether to seek a waiver or not. i will take a hard look at that data and make the call at a time. >> we have seen the success in afghanistan and how vital they were to the mission to gather intelligence where they were and where the weapons were being housed so i do hope you will focus every effort to make sure all of the best and brightest are serving. i was concerned about the recent news regarding those the field the school due to their inability to accomplish subjectively the evaluated leadership task. these were ranging from captains to majors with years of leadership experience. why did you think that class of

winning - why do you think that these women were in such a historically high attrition rate and do you find it alarming that the academy at west point's graduating leaders who after five to six years of service are not able to complete the leadership tasks that are accomplished by the specialist said private first class? >> the range is very hard course. male, female, no matter who you are it is a hard course with a high attrition rate. so the women that have failed one was leadership skills which because they are not in the infantry already they have had a limited opportunity to train those and i think that those schools would improve over time. but right now we have three women that are in the mountain phase as of yesterday anyway still in amount the mountain phase of ranger school and we

are observing that see how that goes. the broad issue of women in the infantry etc. there is a very detailed study going on i want to take a look at that to make sure the standards are being met and force and in the force and as to whether that women can fight or not i've seen it up close and in real. there is no doubt in my mind that women can engage in ground combat because they've done it. and also about sexual assault of the military and how important it is for the committee that we solve the problem. i want to note one thing from the testimony, retaliation is not a new issue. we've been retaliating over the last several years because of the dod surveys and one of the biggest challenges we have and why the senator caskill raised it is the 62% that 62% of the survivors that retaliated

against received the retaliation because they reported these crimes. that is the same statistic as the 2012 survey. so we have a challenge here with retaliation and to be clear 53% is peer-to-peer and 35% is administrative action and 33% his retaliation and 11% as punishment for an infraction. more than half is through the chain of command so please do study that because there is an issue of perception by female members of the military. of the determination. they said that it's 60% of the harassment cases and discrimination cases that came from the immediate commanders and you're talking about the unit commanders that are perhaps creating a toxic climate and to

the command climate needs to be looked at aggressively to make sure that these female soldiers know that they can succeed and their immediate supervisor doesn't have it out for them. >> i will make that a focus area senator. >> thank you mr. chairman and general for your service to the country and for your willingness to be considered. i enjoyed the visit last week when we met and i enjoyed getting to know you a little bit better. i want to first join my colleagues in condemning the attacks against the servicemembers in chattanooga last week. i pray for the friends and family members and colleagues of the servicemembers that lost their lives and for the quick recovery to those that were injured. the attacks in chattanooga last week were the latest in a string

of deadly assaults on the military personnel and facilities including fort hood and the navy yard as well as a number of attacks that were planned but quite fortunately were disrupted before they could be carried out. in the coming months i hope the military and congress can work together and work in an efficient and effective manner to figure out how we can better protect our men and women in uniform from these types of attacks in the future. one of the concerns that i've heard repeatedly from servicemembers in utah and elsewhere is that they feel inadequately informed by the military leadership about the persistent threats against themselves and their families and the facilities where they have into work. they see threats on the news with the media but they don't feel they've been given enough information about what's being done to protect them or were

proper guidance on how to protect themselves at work away from their workplace. what is your assessment of how such information is being disseminated through the army and if confirmed, what you might do to improve the effectiveness of information and guidance that's coming from army leadership on these threats to the homeland and to the servicemembers in particular. >> in today's world there is no - in the battle of any other organization in the area in the united states is in fact vulnerable we have to make sure that that for ability affordability assessment and informational awareness is out there. there is no doubt in my mind we have to increase that throughout the force in the military. there's things like what to look

for signs and indicators and warnings. unfortunately though a lot of these attacks are very ambiguous and this one in chattanooga may or may not have gone ahead of time may or may not have been a loom to you wolf. a lot of times these things are very ambiguous about active and passive defensive measures with all of our families and all of our soldiers and airmen and bernie and will be necessary in the current environment. >> i appreciate your insight on that. i wanted to follow up on some questions the senator asked. among the most contentious issues over the past two years have involved the army's aviation restructuring

initiative. i understand the army has been put in a difficult position by the budget reductions and over the past several years has been exploring a number of options to the power while at the same time figuring out how to cut costs. if confirmed, will you commit to the aviation restructuring initiative and working closely with congress once the commission reports are delivered next year us figure out the best path forward? was been absolutely. >> what do you think are the biggest threats that should you be confirmed he will have to prepare the army to address in the coming decade?

>> i think the fundamental mission of engaging in ground combat winning and ground combat i think that mission remains sound, and i anticipate that will remain so in the future. the three key tasks in the national security documents that are out there is to assure the allies to fight and win on the ground and those will be challenges as we go forward. >> thank you mr. chairman. i wanted to talk about budget constraints and looking at ways to reduce those. one that you didn't mention is making sure there is no overlap in terms of core competencies and missions and i'm assuming it is the airborne brigade task force to deploy anywhere on a

moments notice kicking the door. >> that is correct. >> so on of the things that i've been concerned about is that when you look at the army's pathway mission my office has been asking the army for weeks now with the costs of that are. >> we haven't been able to get any answers on that front to me you see the value in terms of the nation's defense. >> i think that the army forces and moving them around the pacific has been done for over a century. you don't see that in the

asia-pacific? >> the reason i see that is because they complement each other. what we are talking about for the pacific pathways is the strategic movement of the army forces over the ocean and we are not using any of them anyway to do that we are using black and green to do that. so if you had to choose - what they want to focus on the airborne corps competencies or the missions that look somewhat redundant to the services? the >> they have to do both. >> we have to be able to do both we have the airborne assault and we have to be about to move the forces both air and sea to reinforce a variety of contingencies.

>> i would appreciate that we enter the numbers on the pacific pathways in terms of cost. >> many talk about -- i's principal threat and certainly that is the case in ukraine. i want to emphasize and talk more coming at in to give probably seen in the last few weeks there've been articles they've made the build up in buildup and the priority and there's article after article in the huge force structure and the new dct's big operations with nobody is even aware of that have taken us by surprise all through the arctic you've probably seen this has new airfields some nuclear power.

that's it. we are going to move the key capability of these. we have this as our strategy. this is the 2013 arctic strategy that mentions climate change five times and mentions russia. this is a joke of a strategy. and i think that in our deliberations the congress recognizes that this is a serious issue and threat environment so we had an amendment that came through that focused on our interest in the need for the broader assessment for a much more serious look in terms of old plans and the military strategy and that

passed unanimously. so they have to put forth this strategy in the next year and get the next capable forces before we even do the analysis before we do the planning or the old plan. it takes a long time to become proficient in the arctic so i wonder your thoughts on that and if confirmed i hope it makes sense to do the analysis first to do this strategy first before we move the force structure is will you commit to work with this committee to hold off on moving the forces particularly given the dramatic increase

until after the secretary of defense and others have put together an arctic strategy as defense defense guidance from this committee and this congress do you think that is the most logical way to do the planning? >> i appreciate that, senator and i agree i think having the plan first and the organization second is the right sequence and i think that is in fact what is about to happen. the strategy is going to get reviewed and then the general information the other day. >> well there is no strategy unless you want to call this a strategy. there is a lot of work that needs to be done and it's under review as i understand, and i think that you asked the general to produce the plan and i look forward to participating in that and we will look to that in the course of the next year.

>> they don't get reduced until the end of 16 or 17 so the reduction of the forces second are still required. >> it makes strategic sense to see what the combatant commanders need in terms of troops to see what the threat level is and then make a plan. stack the senator raises this issue. we see our friends in sweden and

finland banned by the league that the russians have what is it, 50 some icebreakers? close to 40. we had a very full agenda but the arctic is another area that we have to be concerned particularly given russian behavior even sweden which is traditionally as we know a very natural nation has become concerned about russian activity in their territorial waters and as we see climate change and as we see areas of the arctic opening up to the oceans and

areas of navigation this is an area that i hope we will spend some time on and i think the senator for his attention and involvement in the situation with russia.