>> that's a progressive vote and a very progressive country. i think the context is important because if you see, it's one thing to say they are very homogenous or very progressive but there has been a lot of immigration and a lot of immigration people aecom, they

become limiting liberals, right? they are progressive up to a point. so i think you can make the arguing with jobs and hard work and great and all that stuff and people will support that. >> we always get the question about basic income versus federal jobs. one thing is not mutually exclusive but i would favor a federal job guarantee over terry say this basic income a although you can have them both. because there is productive work to be done in the u.s. as well as the fact that the basic income if it's given, if it's not progressively graduating in terms of who gets it can be inflationary. it could be counterproductive and actually enhance inequality. it's possible the argument that rebuttal is that you use the tax code to address, to address the

inequality issue but it would be far less efficient as a federal job guarantee in my view for some of the reasons i mentioned and then also there is intrinsic by it to a job itself which i don't want to under per size which we should think about as well. >> a college graduate will take a 23,000-dollar job. remember the downturn in remmler what you said the unemployment rates were blessed with much higher education, higher than for dropouts so you can say to a black person might associate's degree in my remedy is to get $23,000. absolute not. that's not what i'm saying. the minimum would be $23,000 so if you are black coming in with skills and turning to a federal job guarantee you qualify for

more than the minimum and nor does the federal job guarantee force worked the you can choose to take it or not. it provides a basic floor level at a minimum but it also will be graduated based on your skill set and the type of job that you would be doing. >> i really enjoyed all three. i had small things about -- and i will leave those for later but i just wanted to say that if you compare the cost of the money guarantee program $750 billion to the stimulus of 787 in the bank they allowed of almost 3 trillion it's a nice comparison but it's kind of, senior moment. it's colorful to attack because

the 750 billion would be every year as opposed to the one-time 787 billion so just to think about framing it some other way with some of the comparison might be less vulnerable to counterattack. but also the discussion about hard skills labor market. you can leave in the segment of the labor market and the overlap of with traditional hierarchies. getting to the secondary market rather than primary. they don't get the good jobs, they get the bad jobs basically. >> i agree with the latter part in your point is well taken the stimulus with the one-time intervention but we also could

point out the context of the federal anti-poverty budget as well which is ongoing so you are right that we could perhaps emphasize that even more. >> do you have a question or comment? >> at one point you had a number of tactical items. it sounded like it's the same so i was just wondering about some other ways to quantify that. >> why don't just break it down. we have a categorized in general categories and smaller categories and what we want to do is just look at that but let's just see everything that they acquire and try to draw the lines by population. >> the one thing i would follow up with, you showed me metric

tons by country but it might be a better way to present might the megatons per-capita or share of gdp. in that way china is huge. >> thank you. that was a really good point. okay we have michael followed i jam and mob. >> i have a question for darrick you also mention prime and i'm wondering if you could also split off violent crimes because police may be more likely to want assault weapons to after violent criminals than shoplifters but also if you split off and had data on attacks against police officers and if you have that syngenta

panel data you could do a nice causality test police officers causing them to militarize or did the militarization of police causing the population to revolt against police. another one that might be another extension of that the segregation maybe you could also look at the ratio of the police force as well. it might be interesting to look at and then for darrick your assessment of the logistics on education and wages and unemployment and all of that in the discussion, whether we are seeing a similar phenomenon whether poor countries have been increasing and not seeing the accompanying and -- increases in income and the argument is we are measuring it wrong. yes the children in developing

countries are getting more years in school but they are not necessarily learning anything in the additional years of school, so it could be the case and segments of the population where both kids are going to school for 12 years but one kid is learning a lot more in his 12 years in the others are learning in their 12 years. we know there's inequality in the school system throughout the united states and i think a big part of that is that we fund our schools locally so we have poor neighborhoods in poor schools. perhaps there might be either an alternative may be to the jobs per gram might be better distribution of schooling and making sure all kids are getting equal education and have that are learning outcomes. again, 12 years of schooling and years of college is not the same for everybody in terms of what you have when you come out of it. my goal is to make sure that i behave while i'm in class and not necessarily that i learned anything important and good for

my career. additional schooling is not going to give me much. something else to look at. >> so i'm a college professor so i'm all for good education. [laughter] i'm all for education reform for intrinsic values in and of itself that i think people should have access to especially in the country is rich is the united states at good quality education. i am for it the talented and gifted programs and giving everybody talented and gifted. why should some people have access to that privilege program and not others? we know that privilege breeds other forms of privilege. we also question the role of education as a measure of human capital as opposed to is of the signal is it a credential so there are many things that education can be. the question about blacks and

whites getting different education for the same years of attainment, well i like presenting this work about of employment and wealth because i think it throws that argument on its head. it's hard to argue that a college educated black person should end up with less wealth than a white high school dropout. hard to argue that a white high school dropout should have greater access to a job. it's hard to argue equality is driving those differences. >> if you control for test scores so you have some independent measure the beer of labor statistics has the monthly bulletin this month so if you are black, i controlling for years of education and your

scores and everybody here knows what i think of that but controlling for that, blacks are 50% more likely than whites to go into a long-term spell of unemployment. they are 33% less likely once in that spell to be able to escape it. so i mean i think the disparities as darrick laid out were so dramatic. isn't the case that blacks with an associate associate degree or give an associate degrees out of politeness or paying attention while you were in community college and these wonderful high schools that do such a wonderful job. it restricts credulous the too much. the numbers are too startling and even when we conceived the misuse of these test scores even when we conceive them.

though i would say the test scores are more likely to have value in employment and their date do not explain the unemployment gap. it's far more reasonable to believe if they believe they have validity that an employer in interviewing you says this person is and so sharp, not going to hire them. it's less convincing, higher you that i pay less because i don't think you have the skills. that is a way more difficult argument because the idea that an employer is able to successfully rank order people on test scores that they have never seen is far less convincing to me than i can at least a rank order people that i think of the general skills to do the job. that's easy for me to accept and when you do look at controlling for test scores they did nothing to explain the unemployment gap.

>> i want to go back to the practical part of indonesia and he talked about ownership and he came back and said the u.s. is extracting goats from the mines and i didn't understand the ownership issue. >> basically when independence was looking like it might be up for grabs there were two kind of vague geopolitical business things. one was the mining and the fact that americans and outside interests wanted access to that mind and the other was ended in asia. indonesia wanted further resources. i haven't figured out why new guinea was allowed to but maybe it was because it was a former british colonies as opposed to the dutch and the dutch were

slightly less stringent with managing colonial obligations. but also the fact that indonesia played cold war politics between the u.s. and russia in trying to garner support. so i actually found the regulated briefings from kissinger and actually kissinger and his part in helping set this up became a member of the board of the mining company that took that contract. so i haven't quite -- it's kind of in the paper but it's kind of like in there in the wind things that i really don't have is the numbers too tied down to at this point. that's kind of folk was going on so in that little peace of history mining and the interest behind it are kind of paramount.

so yeah, i think this whole thing is an implicit argument against transpacific wrecker ship. >> can you go back and show a picture of indonesians versus -. >> basically, that's the wrong way. >> now, note the picture the people. >> at the very and, oh yeah. >> look at the pictures of proper new guinea. >> part of it is that pop off new guinea, papua new guinea allows people to be undocumented there are per 500 languages and their. in terms of the 60s a lot of

what happened in the states here was the indigenous population had been paralleled in indonesia and even in australia so whereas this whole thing that the federal government looked at hitler with regards to the reservation system, the intimations have looked at australia and the u.s.. for instance children are removed from families and they are sent to other islands. they are put with islamic families, converted so that kind of boarding school stuff that went on in the states and in canada is happening right now. so those structures we dismantled 100 years ago here are carried out there with the support of the u.s..

>> look at the picture of the children in papua new guinea. what does it look like? that kid could be in mississippi. he looks like a little black kid in mississippi. he does not look like the kind of person the united states would put aside. >> is there a theoretical construct which links convincing the applications of weapons and behavior modification? so in the sense that just because there is a -- somewhere that is their training and

sensitivity training to mitigate the effect? >> that would be something i'm going to address in my sabbatical. it's one of the things i want to look at because there a lot of narrative stories and i don't know how the process of actually acquiring the items when the agency gives them what happens when they put the uniforms on what happens. do they go through some training system and what kind of training is it? we talk about training, don't use it, but training might be just the opposite. i hope to be able to find the answers to those. i want to look at more of the details so i don't have it yet. in terms of the literature there's not a lot of discussion

about behavior modification. there has been little on the impact of actually wearing military outfits in behavior, looking at colors of the outfits whether it's blue, whether it's black and how people respond to police who wear blue or green or black but there hasn't been much there. >> we need to break for dinner but i would like to first thank the afl-cio for cosponsoring our summer conference for a second year in a row and i thank all of our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] today on c-span2 u.s. marine corps commandant robert neller news briefing with the chief of staff of the air force. live coverage of the news briefing with house democratic leaders in an update on the zika virus with dr. anthony powell chi of the nih.

>> it seems in so many ways that not just people in the flyover nation although i think are targeted to have this back-and-forth in the right and left that are pulling them in one direction or another and it goes back do we need you to show up or support this particular issue. but that divide is kind of scary because now suspecting with

enough we will be liturgically defend ourselves against a major threat. >> and we will defend american jobs and american workers by saying no to bad trade deals like the transpacific partnership and unfair trade practices. >> the state of pennsylvania has lost one third of their manufacturing jobs since the clintons put china into the wto.

>> the program includes a look at and after the 1994 free trade agreement between united states mexico and canada. >> this will well bus together and the causes for jobs for our people, for exports, for markets and more democracy for our allies. >> in fact historically the united states simply was not a free trade nation for most of american history. the u.s. is in fact a protected economy. this goes back to work very constitution. >> an in-depth examination of the world tripp organization the bodies that enforce local trade rules. >> at the time debbie tia was being negotiated for its smaller sister and after the north american free trade agreement 800 more pages of specifics rules and regulations. my book would be very different. when these two were being negotiated the u.s. had its

official advisor, 500 corporate advisers. >> the commandant of the marine corps general robert miller talked about maritime security at the center for strategic and international studies. topics included modernizing the military preparing for complex in the 21st century. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good good morning everyone. welcome to csis paradigm kathleen hicks and i direct the security program here and i'm delighted to have you all here for the latest in our maritime security dialogue series. today is focusing on the future of the warfare in the marine corps more generally. before we begin i'm just been to give you the announcement the give at the beginning of all of our events. we feel safe in our billings

that we want to make sure everyone knows where the exits are charge a record you and directly behind me. i'm your designated safety officer so should a fire alarm go off i will be directing us to worship up to the maritimes to carry dialogue is a product of u.s. institute together in partnership to highlight the navy and marine corps and coast guard from national maritime policies and concept development and program design. we are delighted that our sponsor for this series lockheed-martin and industries has been so kind as to provide the support to make this very possible and today we are focusing in particular and as i said expeditionary warfare in the marine corps and to better to speak about the marine corps than his 37th commandant general robert neller. general neller let's dive right into the web a conversation between the two of us and then of us in the move open up to the

audience in a bit. let's start with the security environment overall. we have in think tank and many conversations about the challenges posed from china to russia to nonstate actors like isis. from my marine marine corps perspective what do you see as the most salient series of challenges that you have on the horizon? >> first, thanks dr. heck's berlon need to be here and senator warner and the other folks here. i guess they have a whole lot going on in d.c. on this tuesday morning. congress is in recess in the ballgame is not until tonight. everybody else is chairman on vacation so i guess i am that the show in town. but kind of makes me really nervous. you know i mean when you put it into context, came into the marine corps in 1975.

it was the end of vietnam and the country was kind of in still dealing with that war. the soviet union was a major threat. it was pretty similar, we are going to go and fight them and the marine corps who was very engaged in vietnam continued to have forces in the pacific and then we evolved into capability to participate requiring a war against the soviet union. but it was very simple. we were going to fight a state-directed military force and there was going to be a forward line of troops line of engagement that you would be on one side and they would be on the other and we would go fight and be worried about their defense of electronic warfare in a traditional, the way americans like to fight. it's why we like football.

there are goals that either and, their referees around the field to make sure everybody plays by the rules. we like that and then we stop and call a play and run another play. there is one referee who never seems to see anything in guys run around in different directions all the time. they fall down even though they are not touched. we think that's bad and everybody else's us as part of the game. in the military that's called deception. so fast-forward the tape we go through desert shield desert storm. the wall comes down and then 9/11 happens. we find ourselves in a very different kind of fight. even though it starts off very traditional conventional force, unconventional force alliance versus taliban with two conventional forces the u.s. and coalition against iraq and now we have for the last 15 years we have been in a counterinsurgency , stability and

and we have trained and developed and organized a way of fighting that worked really well so now we fast-forward to where we are today and we are still in that fight both in iraq and afghanistan. other countries have watched and observed what we have done as they continued to develop develop their capability and we capitalize a lot of their forces, their aviation and strategic forces, their undersea forces and now we have as the sex death describes it for potential threats and one ongoing so how does the marine corps fit into that? i still believe that there is a great opportunity to deter adversaries by having forward postured forward-deployed forces.

in line with the strategy that we want to build partner capacities for our partners and we can do that using the cs maneuver space and not violating the sovereignty of formations to base forces coming from the sea is a huge advantage. we have flexibility and none of the games we play hopefully we won't be playing a home game. we do want to play home game. all of our games are away games so you have to have the capability to the expeditionary and to me that means when you show up you have to be able to bring with you all the things you need to sustain yourself for at least a certain period of time before you can get a logistical chain to support your efforts. so, i think is part of the naval force when i talk to see a note john richardson about this a lot i think the challenges and things we might face in the future are things that we have done before but things that we haven't done recently so we are

committed to developing the naval capability that allows the combatant commander to forward deploy and provide forces for forcible entry or noncombatant evacuation order will partner capacity to do whatever we need to do a cross the spectrum. >> the marine corps is really known for being that crisis response force sort of the 911 ever ready and i think we can just call it normal now. do you worry about the marine corps stability to sustain itself and its readiness in that sort of crisis response mode to having a responsibility to respond to crises from embassies etc.?

>> i think if you talk to the people in the operational forces that are doing if they would tell you that the operational tempo today is as high today as it was when we were -- had large numbers of forces in iraq and afghanistan. the commitments haven't gone down. so there is stress on the force. 9/11 we were 172,500 marines and we deployed at a. of 3-1. we were normally gone for six months and back for free teen. since then we have drawn the forest 2-1 with gone back down because he wanted to get back to the 3-1 so 182,000 marines which were probably will be reached in the next couple of months we are 2-1 force. that is kind of the red line for service. there are some particularly

capability sets that are inside of that and that concerns me. it concerns me mostly about stress on the force and individuals and on the equipment. but marines don't join the marine corps to sit on their seatbacks at camp lejeune. they want to train but they want to go somewhere and do something and so i think that we can stay at 2-1 and maintain a level of readiness through the the force, we don't tear readiness. you are expect when you come back even though we know there will be some sort of degradation of readiness we expect in short order he will be ready to go. and we don't reduce resources for funding or training opportunities when they come back for them to planet could be reset them and they are back ready to go. if we can stay at 2-1 think we

will be able to sustain that. i watch it very closely. i watch all the surveys we do for marines and their families. is this too much? but i believe we can find and recruit the right kind of people which is really our center of gravity, the people we have that want to put their hand up in the air and say they wanted to be a united states marine we will be fine but it's something i watch all the time. >> staying on readiness what part of the marine corps are you , should i say which parts are you worrying about the most in terms of readiness? we all know is a lagging indicator that you are more likely to see it earlier than most of the public so where do you see the stress is coming in? >> if you track readiness over time we are right for the end of afghanistan after we left iraq in 2010 and 2011 and we left

afghanistan in what was that, 2013, the end of 2014? anybody have any questions asked the gentleman right there in a very nice suit and tie. looking good. there was a period of time where it never has been and never will be whether forces are fully trained and ready to go but there was an increasing number of forces at the bottom end that were sustained at a lower level of readiness longer and that started to turn through those numbers have gone down the people that are in the middle have gotten larger and that's where we what we want. we don't want anybody at the very bottom. we want them to stay there for sure period of time and they want to forces as they get ready to deploy to go through an iterative process and deploy at the highest levels of readiness. there are three groups.

the groups on the ground side that deploy as battalions. they're readiness is in a good place. the congress was good enough to obligate $5 billion to reset our ground equipment. we are about 75% through that so the grand readiness which is our pacing item is really good to there are a number of ground units that deploy in the unit. they are in a good place but sometimes the way we do the algorithm or the policy for how you would. the ratings they might show their readiness is low but if they were re-aggregated together pieces of the marcaw and so they have to say part of my force is gone. on the aviation site where in a more difficult place. we have talked about this and i've talked about this in testimony and general davis r., bound for aviation is talked about it. we have flown or airplanes for a

long time and we are in a recapitalization of every model type in series. we are trying to reset. to oppose the legacy aircraft that we have and we still have optempo. everyone is a little bit different. the f-35 will replace three model type serious. without we are going to get that airplane a bit earlier but we didn't but now we have stood up our second squadron and we are going to start to see that airplane deployed overseas after the first few years. but there are some issues with the f-18s because it took longer to feel than we thought only pad issues with the tebow so we are starting to see now slow steady improvement. i'm not going to spike the ball because we have got to get more airplanes on the ramps.

the second-most challenge is probably the 53. we are going to buy a new 53. its intestine is doing very very well. but we have got to get back to optempo. i think we made a mistake that i told everybody does when we were in iraq or afghanistan that left our word array wing in theater and we didn't bring them back after redeployment. we left them there and set up an intermediate maintenance thing. looking at that now i would recommend to my successors to never do that again. the money was there to fly those airplanes back and put them through the depp colon we should have done that way they would have been in a better state than they are now so now we are having to do that but it's going to take some time. we are still fielding the fe 22 osprey. we will replace the cobra and that's happening but understand

every time you take a squadron in transition at you have to stand them down for 18 to 20 for four months in the mechanics had to be trained so the rest of the force has to pick up the difference for it we are going to work through all of this. i track it very closely and is not something you can watch on a daily basis. first of all it would drive your staff crazy and you literally wouldn't see anything but from a multi-basis we are starting to see gradual steady increases in the metric. how many airplanes are on the ramp that we can fly a? that is the metric ready-based aircraft. and the number of abyei's going up not as fast as we would like that it's going up and we are on the course and we will just keep riding on this and it's a combination of legacy aircraft

in the depo and getting better support and replacing airplanes with the old airplanes that we have. >> so you mentioned early on the challenges posed by increasing capable adversaries and the shift in the still contained environment which we have operated that now also an environment of potential concern for the marine corps in being able to operated anti-adversaries. can you talk a little bit about how you are thinking in terms of the requirements of the marine corps to evolve the force and the innovations you are looking at to be able to operate in that kind of environment and of course how do you bounce that against everything you just talked about a high optempo marine corps that is engaged every day and deploy? >> we were in the process of looking at guild hall force structure that we have.

and trying to project what that force is going to look like in 2025. i think we have a pretty good idea based on what we have learned since 9/11 and what we have observed and other potential -- what we have seen her other fights going on in the world in eastern europe and even stuff that's going on in syria or iraq and afghanistan and around the world. so, we realize that there are certain set of capabilities not just for any sort of a near-peer fight that we have not had to deal with which is a training thing and we don't have the capability which is an equipping thing and then it's all coming up to have the right people to understand how to do this. so whether those capabilities sets that we think we need a baltimore cyber more information ops more electronic warfare to

attack and defend, how much counter mobility for counter i.d. do i need to retained do we have enough air defense, is that balance against maneuver fires intelligence collection so how do you make this all fits? we are in the process of doing that. one of the assumptions we have is we are not going to get any more people. whatever these capabilities are the question then is how much of that do you need and then what are you going to take away and where are you going to do bias bias -- divest yourself? what does that cost you to give up? so everybody has got great ideas about what we need but there aren't a whole lot of people offering a lot of their own stuff to fill these other needs.

so that kind of falls on me. we are in the process. we have gone through, we brought in a couple hundred of marines after that first gear. we had kind of the colonels revealed persons and the young persons, bunch of captains and majors and no surprise there were somewhat similar but also somewhat different and then we have a hybrid and now we are iterating that trying to figure out how we will make it work. so it would be great if we could have the resources to honor 90,000 marines but we are not assuming that and that's a decision that is and not to my job job chart proved to operate under the assumption we have 182,000 marines because that is what we have been resource for. one thing we are not going to do is we are not going to stay exactly the same because i don't think we can.

the threats in the capabilities out there are changing too fast and we have to be able to survive on the modern battlefield. that will be very different i believe that what we have been on the last 15 years. >> sticking with the leadership and training aspect of that you have been very vocal about your concern about a tongue-in-cheek way of putting his marines getting familiar with the paper map again. can you talk a little bit about that aspect of the leadership and training qualities that you want to make sure the marine corps has in the information environment electromagnetic challenges at the same time you are building up here on the offensive capabilities in this area. >> we have a whole generation, everybody that came to the marine corps purchase prior to and after 9/11 grew up in an environment which was very different than the one i grasp

in. they have grown up an environment where they walk into the operations center and they have got big-screen tvs with common operational picture and they know where all their people or because they have the force tracker. they can see the airplanes. they have got multiple means digitally to chat text let alone voice. they didn't have to worry about an adversary adversary that my ipad uav let alone an air force and they have this ability to jam. they didn't have. so here we are today and we have developed a system of warfighting that is very dependent upon the internet and the network of space. so looking at our potential adversaries we think that is going to be there.

that network is going to be there when we engages with these folks. i would say i don't know. i don't think you could assume that. in fact i would think our center of gravity from a tactical sense is we have to check that. if we lose that we are back to paper maps and stuff that myself and general paul from back in the day when we were underneath a poncho at night with a flashlight stuck in her mouth trying to read a map hoping some surgeon could tell us. [laughter] so there is a balance. we have to leverage the technology we have. it gives us an operational advantage but the same time which makes training even harder you have to work through and be prepared for when it's not there. i believe we have to build into our requirements and build into our training. i will tell you we have started

to train more force on force at twentynine palms and we have given her adversaries the opposing force uav. marines are in a built-up area walking down the street in a lookup and in the sky and there's the small uap uav and they are like what is? they have never seen that before i'll vote those that have been deployed in the middle east are starting to see that more and more. they have never seen that before that's the same that you can get on groupon or go to sam's club and buy for foreigner box. don't fight around here because it will be a federal offense and you will be arrested. but it's simple stuff like that like jamming the radio orders saying gps doesn't work. it doesn't work. what does that do?

the server just crashed. look what happened with -- the built in entire system of reservations and flight management based on this network and it failed. just by itself. what if somebody actually wanted to do that? so the fight that we used to think about in the air, land and sea and under the sea is expanding to space, to cyber and information only and it's going to take, i have no doubt in my mind our force will figure it out. they are much smarter and more capable and more adaptive than we ever work because they have run up in this and they will adjust that we have to put them in situations to where they have to deal with it. you training base and we think is going to happen to you in the environment. simple things like i was talking to a commander on the west coast

and she is the map headquarters group commander. they did something really smart. they scrapped the entire map headquarters group which is a very large thing and a remote did all the communications here and they put up camouflage netting which used to be a very common thing. in last 15 years there isn't a lot of camouflage going on because there was no need to the enemy didn't have airplanes and they weren't used in space. so we didn't do it. they netted up all they have hoping area netted up certain things and then they got on google earth and took a picture of it. and they were pretty good because it blended in with the terrain except they realized they put concertina wire around certain very important facilities in the light from the sun reflected off that concertina wire and there was this big circle around this one thing.

anybody that would look would say what is? or something inside that circle. it was where the intel people were. so what are we going to do about that? it has started been fixed. i don't think i'm giving away state secrets that you have got to look at yourself. we have got to change the way we are thinking that an adversary can see us just as we can see them so how do we keep from being seen and still see them and how do we protect ourselves and put them at a disadvantage? >> i'm going to ask some more questions and then i was turned over to the audience but i want to talk about capability. this is an area where those of us who observe the marine corps can see the evolution of thinking with regard to the

challenges of being able to aggregate the ability for wartime needs and the challenges of managing crisis response and more routine engages in. the marine corps has become very creative frankly and how you have addressed that challenge in terms of things like land based approaches, creative amphibious warship based approaches. i wonder he could talk a little bit about where you think the marine corps needs to go on amphibious capability in terms of managing the challenge of being ready across the spectrum in the challenges you're facing? >> one of the also one of the effects over the last 14 years of being involved in the land-based insurgency is the number of marines assigned to an

expeditionary unit. the opportunity because of time to get on ship was less and less. a commander started to say we need to get back to these things and he started an exercise program called old alligator. at first it was kind of sitting around it people getting themselves recommitted in re-understanding a better understanding getting back into the books we have on how to conduct amphibious landing and that exercise will be a simulation this year and the reason is we didn't want to do it with a small number of ships. we wanted to continue to grow and increase the complexity. we have done it every year and it's been added on the west coast. we have done it recently and then we have done rimpac which was a very large exercise and

every fall in korea there has been pyongyang where we bring in the aggregate the brigade with our rock marine partners. so we are trying to continue to grow not just ourselves and the navy, want to get the carrier strike or spare because there is no way in amphibious force can land in the conditions that were set in those conditions have to be set either flee. like the carrier strike group and other ships and submarines that will set the conditions so you can put that force is sure. we are working with our allies this last fall in the med the largest amphibious exercise in many years called tri-juncture where you have u.s. spanish british portuguese dutch ships. the italians were going to

participate but they were tied up with another mission and 35,000 individuals. they were u.s. marines on uk ships in uk marines on u.s. ships spanish ships and vice versa and we continue to do that to develop a coalition. the same thing happened at rimpac. we are trying to get our own amphibious skill set will back up but i think we are on path to do that. we are working with coalition partners and then we are using every opportunity we can to get marines on what we call alternative platforms whether we high-speed vessels or mobile landing platforms or just normal ships that have a flight deck where you put marines on board where they can use the sea again and the new for and position themselves to accomplish a mission. that is what we do. that is our mission. to seize and secure dance naval

base. that's our job. that's in the law. we can do a lot of things and what we really do is provide infantry capability for the nation as part of the fleet. >> okay we have microphones that will come around. i need when i calling you to give your name and your affiliation if you have one, one question and i do mean question not a statement or monologue of any variety so let's begin right here in the third row. >> thank you very much. i would like to ask about the mine core. we are trying hard to beef up the amphibious force around okinawa and nonstate evidence. my question is do you think this

improvement will lead to reshape of the marine corps and the okinawa area and what is the state of the marine corps? >> the marine corps in okinawa generally? >> the japanese ground self-defense force is working hard to develop in amphibious brigade capability. we are happy and proud to be partners and that ross s. to provide any expertise in training that we can with them and to train with them. your self-defense force has built some really nice ships and we have certified their ability land ospreys on the ships and we put marines on the ships. so we will continue to train with the japanese ground defense

forces. they continue to grow in capability. whether that will affect the force posture and no could not walk or elsewhere in the pacific i think it's early to say. we are still in process, there are a number of environmental and political things that are going on that are affecting the current plan to put the force down in the proper position in a more distributed manner. so i don't know for it's too early to say that for sure we are totally committed to helping the japanese ground self-defense force. we would like to find another place to do that but we will work with them and we will continue to be good partners and try to achieve that goal because i think that's a great capability whether it's hadr or any other requirement that might exist to work with our allies in the pacific.

>> we have one right here in the front. >> thank you. generally talked about how the marine corps is taking a look at the force structure and i know that's still ongoing but can you say what your current thoughts are about what would make up and infantry and how much would be cyber and how much would be riflemen? >> in the past when we have changed the force we have cut flags and left it was in the flags of same. my aim status we stay at 24 infantrymen. i was inside those infantry battalions. it's going to be a little bit different not fundamentally different but i'm not ready to say exactly what that's going to look like. we have a number different models and options we are looking at. we want to make sure we maintain

the capacity and capability of the infantry battalion and any changes to that is first do no harm. but it will be different. one of the things we are looking at right now is providing every infantry squadron and assistant squad leader and the reason for that is he would be a marine that would fly the squad's uavs and help the squad leader manage the information because the demands, when i was out at twentynine palms the unit we are using for experimentation, they are still doing that appointment and doing all of this is part of their normal work up that i met one of the squad leaders out there and he had a tablet that folded in and out of this battle rig and he had the ability have

google earth maps talk to higher headquarters. but he had that and there's this 25-year-old guy showing me all the stuff which i would probably break it if i touched it but to him he is like i can do this and i can do this and i'm like that is very cool. my job is to make sure that works when i needed. there are going to be changes in equipping and training. i'm just not sure what it's all going to look like at the end. >> okay, the second row. >> hope with military.com. i'm very interested in your thoughts about making the ground forces more analog bringing them back to being able to function with very little technology.

.. that's inherent in anything we do. the f-35 is come has a huge capability to gather information and disseminate it to the point where we have to figure out can we absorb all of that. it's not that we're going to go back and the law.

we have to be prepared for when that happens. because, and we have to be able to function. we have as our operation, maneuver warfare where is going to be friction, going to be uncertainty and the commander has to deliver to the force what the bleep is the intent, in other words, what this thing looks like at the end. so in the absence of communication they have some idea what they're supposed to do even if somebody is not able to communicate. it's almost counterintuitive. we've got the system of war fighting what we're trying to develop as much certainty as we can we get our philosophy of fighting based on our experiences, we know to some degree that's never going to work in 100%. if it does great. we still have to have marines out there that understand their to exercise their initiative, use their best judgment. the commander has to understand

what they're trying to do and they can't stop and wait just because something might not work. that's all part of the training and the recruiting. we've got to find people who have the initiative and intelligence to understand what they have to do in the absence of certainty. there's never certainty in a war. even though we might try to achieve it, there's always something out there that you are never sure about. >> marine corps has never had a recruitment problem but do you have concerns about building the skills that she feels you need in the future? >> we've had recruiting problems before. we are having them right now. our recruiters are out there working really, really hard, and we have to turn over about a

fourth, we have to recruit about 34,000 people a year. we are a very young force, 60% under the age of 25. that's what i say most days. but that's a huge operational advantage because being young is an advantage. we have to take advantage of their youth, enthusiasm, fitness, and then get them to grow up really fast. they have done a great job. it's incredible. but at the same time it takes a little bit longer to do this. it used to be you could take somebody out of recruit training, they know how to fire his arrival, they are physically fit and they can carry the load and they can function. i think we are beyond that period the complexity, even at the level let alone all the other levels, it takes a certain level of intelligence and the ability

to be trained, and we are there. what i do worry about is the time it's going to take, the additional time it might take and then being able to retain enough of these to become sergeants and staff sergeant and gunnery sergeant because of these are capable, qualified people. there's opportunity. if are going to train someone to work and cyber domain and we invest in them and they get to the end of their enlistment, they are going to have a huge number of opportunities. so how do we convince them, and the same for the army, navy, air force. how do we convince them to stick around and wear a uniform and do that when some of your companies are offering two, three times as much money and they get to sleep in their own bed at night and no one is trying to kill them? let me think about that for a minute. [laughter] so far enough of them take pride

and are willing to accept the challenge. i worry about that because as the force becomes more technical the force becomes more capable, they have more options. >> we will go right here in front. >> thank you. john harbaugh with national defense magazine. general, as you look to the future and prepare to fight more advanced adversaries what kind of new vehicle technologies are you looking for either in terms of armor or low visibility or things like that? >> i didn't talk about recapitalization of the ground vehicle force but there are two programs in particular, joint light tactical vehicle and the amphibious combat vehicle where we're going to replace some number of our humvees and replace some number of our amphibian assault vehicles. both of those vehicles have better traffic ability, better

survivability in the vehicle they replaced. they're still can't be beaten. you can always have a bigger weapon or a bigger bomb but i think there are other technologies out there. we just can't keep hanging more armor on these vehicles and trying to figure in jeans, heavier transmissions the their vehicle protection systems that are out there. there's electronic means to protect these vehicles, and, obviously, if there is lighter ways, lighter means to armor them and give them better defense. as far as light armor, the first thing i'm take it is the individual marine lighter body armor. when you pick up the gear, the basic load, the vest, the body armor, the water andammo, not even talking about the pack, and she had some sort of tablets or radios or anything else you have to carry.

you are pushing 60-80 pounds. that's before you put your back on. we are really looking hard for ways to lighten that load in any way, shape, or form as possible. from having to carry water, to carry something that can make the water so we don't have to care as much clean water, something that can charge your batteries. even to the point even if we can find the brass casing of a round to be made out of something that's not metal and it is consumable, that would reduce the weight of the bullet by 25%. so multiply that by 300 rounds of 5.56. every pound counts. i used to do fo for a living and now i'm just an old fat man, but i watch these kids and i remember what it was like.

i am committed, and along with general neller, we talked about this and talk to general thomas. socom has done a lot of work. we are committed to figure every possible to increase the survivability and lighten the load of everybody who is carrying their stuff across the battlefield on their back. that's the vehicle thing. vehicle protection system, there's active protection systems out there. we are going to look at a couple of those. they are not really light that if you build it into the vehicle, circling that teach you some advantage where you don't have to just keep hanging armor. we still struggle with mind. we talked about one of the areas we still need to work harder on is the clearance of minds in the shallow water and onto craft landing zone.

you've got to get ashore somewhere. we are still pretty much like we are with ieds, down to farm tools. we've got to do better. we've got to do better. we are more survivable but there are two ways to find ieds. there's a right way, which is see and avoid it, and then there's the wrong way, which is to get it. i prefer the first. >> a question way in the back over here. >> "defense news." the amphibious readiness group construct has been around for a long time. but almost never, they trained as a unit but almost never do they operate as a unit wants their forward deployed. you've got the seven. is a construct that needs to be changed or can you validate, can you revalidate the continuance of that today?

what else could he do besides a combo? >> well, because the method of employment, i think the only potential survivable valid forcible entry capable at the very bottom is, it's true, they trained together to operate as one but they also trained to operate distributed or separated. right now we've got more task then capability so we can dump being in multiple places, sometimes supporting multiple things at one time. i would not ever support unless there was a specific thing unless we have excess capacity. we've done single deployers before. every year there's exercise, a training exercise combined amphibious readiness or assistant training exercise

like, that's probably not the right acronym but marines go on a single ship and a seal around the pacific and they do security cooperation to build capacity with our allies. we used to do one ship and we do ship sometimes down to south america. i'm not saying it would never change, because what you think you got all figured out you're probably wrong. the three ship, i think the real discussion is do we, by design, deploy as a three ship and then do it automatically by design not just by happenstance yesterday ourselves across the battle space? we've got to be able to come back together because one of the ways we would create a larger landing force is to bring multiple amphibious ships which would come from other marine expeditionary units together and

aggregate them into a hole. they got to give the function together. they can't come together and figure it out at that time. it got to be able to understand the anti-landing plan. i don't see right now us in order to meet our combatant commander requirements deploying from the continental united states one or two ships by themselves. they will continue to go as a group. >> i have one weight in the back over here. >> good morning. my question is about special-purpose marine task force. marines led by -- currently in honduras, 20 american forces to fight trafficking. my question is already there for two months.

what is the future, more noncombat humanitarian deployments? thank you. >> the special-purpose magtf that space out of the hundreds and operating out of three or four different countries, in fact i'm going to go visit in another week or so. was at the request of the combatant commander then showed kelly. to provide marine forces to do exactly what you said, to work with allies and partners down there to provide the capability for the combatant commander. there've already been, they have the most recent, wasn't hurricane earl? they already went through that winter fortunately there wasn't a whole lot of damage, to provide disaster relief be required to work with our partners and to engage with our military partners down there. a year ago in april i went to

cartagena and met with the marine corps' in this hemisphere. there's a lot of naval forces, a lot of navies in the north and south america region that have marine corps'. we want to maintain relationships with them, not as much, more so than just as a professional relationship but to work with them. because of a common interest but also they have a lot of great experiences about humanitarian assistance disaster relief. the chilean the reins because of all the ecological things have happened, they've had earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. they really can teach us a lot about how to react to these types of events. we've had a relationship with the colombian marines because of the insurgency the ad. we work with the mexican marines in some of the counter narcotic things the that you. every country down as a

particular mission said. we are just down the to try to engage with them, maintain a relationship and try to help in any way we can. this will be during the hurricane season. it will be a six-month deployment. hopefully we'll have resources to be able to send another group down there next year. >> penny starr with the cms news. you mentioned in your battlefield. and you explain what that looks like and how that relates because by some to quote-unquote rebuild the military to defeat the enemy? thank you. >> you are always at risk when you try to predict what's going to happen in the future because a great, great percentage of people that do not have gotten it wrong. that said, when you look at even what's happening on the battlefields in iraq and afghanistan now, technology and

the ability of adversaries that we considered low-tech, which i thought was a bad thing to underestimate our adversaries, are expanding. use of information, the use of social media, not just to market their ideas and ideology but to communicate their use of unmanned systems, their ability to move and survive, the ability to use what is kind of the asymmetric capabilities. if you take that and put up with a nation-state about the weather doing and look at what a number of countries are doing around the world, you're kind of in a battlefield that's more similar to what we would of thought it would've looked like during the cold war. but i think much more complicated. the chief of the russian military is a guy who wrote a really good paper about what he thought the future battlefield

was going to be like. i read it three times. he talks about what he calls fighting a war without fighting a war. the use of information and social media, disinformation, deception, the use of special forces to engage with local forces that may have a political beef with their own country. what we would call conventional forces might somehow be involved in that. you add into that an adversary that would have a capable air force, a capable artillery, capable of electronic warfare to find you over to gmu, who can see you. we haven't worked about come when was the last time an american military force worried about being bombed by enemy air?

world war ii? so what capability do we have to defend ourselves from any air? kenwood mask our signature? can we defend space? so i don't know what the battle for this good looking but i think all those capabilities and denials or being able to contest or have a counter actual, or something if we didn't start talking about and thinking about it and i wouldn't be earning my pay every day. and i wouldn't be doing my job to make sure that the young men and women that are in our military, another the other chiefs all feel the same way because we talked about it. no one, we are just any attention. i think everybody else understands that and we are on a

path that is eventually going to get us, it's partly by the, partly training, but the key thing is we've got good people and they will help us find a solution to these problems. >> we will take to less questions. i would be the one back here and then we will come up front. >> my name is michael tucker. i'm with the u.s. border patrol. you mentioned you wanted to do forward deploy. you mentioned build part of capacity. my question what are your thoughts on how the analysis joint illegal immigration issues into a maritime environment? >> for us to be involved and the coast guard, that's what they do. they are the ones because of their authorities and permissions to do those things on the water.

i would imagine, i don't know but i would think the border patrol probably has a certain maritime capability at least in lakes and rivers around. immigration, you've seen in the mediterranean as we've had immigration come from syria, north africa. using military get involved in that. -- you have seen. that's more of a law enforcement issue. our involvement with immigration is we've fighting people stranded at sea and we render aid to people that are kind of the stranded mariner type of thing. that's something that the navy does. if we are at sea with them we support them with it. as far as defending the united states against immigration, i don't, i can't, i can't imagine how that would happen to now, defending the united states against the threat of a maritime

board weapon or some capabilities that was coming year, that would fall under in command and she would work to all the authorities u.s. military forces, air or sea had to be involved, if they had to be involved it would work to relationships they have with homeland security. the whole interagency thing, we've done a lot better but we have to continue to work at it because it gets really complicated. i was one of the most -- does one of the most difficult things i had to understand, at the end of the day, who's going to pay for it. sometimes they came down to that but at the en end of the day wee going to do what we've got to do to keep the homeland safe. i appreciate everything you and your guys do all over the country. >> sidney friedberg, breaking defense. general, people and the press

like myself tend to focus on shiny hardware but you mentioned several times in some ways there's a basic core concepts of operations they need to be we learned back into a lot, for example, -- to help people survive with more intense battlefield. what are some more examples of things people need to relearn or things you maybe need to learn that they never did in the cold war, that could make a difference in a way that just buying any piece of hardware perhaps could not? >> i was talking to admiral davidson, talking about signature. in other words, how do you eliminate your signature in the navy, used to call it operating

in an electromagnetic spectrum reduction. he realized when they would try to do that that's why it's the kind of important to do, raise flags. they have been practicing. turn off your radar, be able to shoot stellar of celestial navigation in case the gps goes at the their teaching again at the naval academy. admiral greenert realize if you lost gps had no means to navigate. no charts, just. so admiral davidson goes we're trying to do this and we realized we didn't have the right solution because semen 60 cents you want to check her facebook page so she walked out on the weather deck at night with her phone and what's that phone got? she's got gps.

so anybody in the world is going to know there's some gps cloning across the ocean. it's probably on a ship. the same officer that did this said what do you think the largest electromagnetics signature in the entire headquarters emanated from? the building area. why? everyone had their phone out. we have to take anyone's phone away from them. i know that sounds silly but it's not silly. so taken with going to go to the for for 30 days the agile and leave your phone in the car until your significant other, your mom, your aunt or uncle you when i get 75 attacks each day and answer them. simple things like camouflage. i actually saw a marine come when was the last time when you

think about marines or soldiers operating in iran or iraq when they camouflage. when was the last time you saw the? it's been a long time. because the enemy didn't worry about somebody seeing us at night or our signature. digging a hole, preparing a defensive position and camouflaging that everything in the field and do not going back to a fob every night to check your e-mail. that's what we've been doing for the last 15 years. not everybody. not everybody. but we've been operating out of fixed positions. we are not moved across the ground, we've outmaneuvered, we have not lived off the land. we've been eating in chow halls in drinking mean bean coffee. that's pretty nice.

we have been other stuff don't get me wrong but when people think of going to war, and that's for the last 15 years that's what it's been. there were people out on the edge, don't get me wrong, soldiers and marines living out there, living hard. but it's different. what i'm suggesting is come at a don't think it will be a problem, those marines and soldiers, sailors, they did exactly what we trained them to be. we've got to change. you were living out of your pack stop at night, dig a hole, camouflaged under of august off and sit there and try to sleep. you are going to be careful to not make any angel tried to have absolutely no signature. because the queue can be seen them you will be attacked. that's the difference.

that's where we've got to get. >> general neller, just before the close this, you are passionate intimate details a little bit about him and what it means for you to have that. >> i never met this marine. the story goes like this. it's 2006 and we're getting a bunch of jammers we thought were going to drive the enemy's ability to use remote control devices to activate an ied, it would defeated the we anticipated that they would go, they have two choices, command wire which means someone has to sit there and actually wait for you to drive by or they're going to put pressure devices and bury them and wait for you to drive over. we started talking about how we might defeat the pressure device, and the idea, it's not a

new idea. what if we put a role in front of the vehicle? what if we put something in front of the vehicle? i don't know, it will blow up, they will simply offset it. all sorts, all well intended, logical reasons. i was kind of responsible for our counter ied program in and bar at the time so i listened and then one night i went to my office and debate about this guy, this young man was killed by an ied from a pressure device. i would just say that motivate me to get off my general officer back side and make a decision. so we decide we're going to build rollers, and we did. it was the first week of may and had a bunch of mechanics at all the different logistical areas make a bunch of us did roger

rollers. there were rollers out their in the commercial world, and then in very short order we had rollers. but before that there were no rollers. think about all the pictures you've seen from iraq and afghanistan of all the vehicles, they are all pushing rollers. that all started because of him. >> thank you so much for your time this way. senator warner, thank you for joining us as well. please join me with a browned of applause for our guests. [applause] is [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

an [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today on c-span2 live coverage of the press conference by house democratic leaders, expecting to call republicans to end of the congressional recess and pass legislation dealing with the zika virus. they will talk about the recent congressional delegation visit to troops in afghanistan. later an update on the zika virus from dr. fauci director

the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. live coverage from the alliance for health reform at 1 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> sunday night on q&a, a documentary film instructor talks about houston's award-winning documentaries some of which have been grand prize winner in our annual studentcam competition. he teaches at jenks high school and james tocaloma. >> i'm not the kind of teacher who look at something that's not very good and just go that's nice, he did a nice job with it. i will say what's not working. eventually every single one of my kids makes a better peace than it did in the beginning. every single one of the eventually the kids who do really, really well internalize all this stuff. so i no longer have to say -- >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's q&a period.

>> the c-span radio app makes it easy continue to follow the 2016 election where ever you are. it's free to download. get audio coverage and up-to-the-minute schedule information for c-span radio and c-span television plus podcast times or popular public affairs, book and history programs. stay up-to-date on all the election coverage, c-span's radio app means you always have c-span on the go. spent the air force secretary and air force chief of staff briefed the media about the air force budget. this is a 40 minutes. spent that afternoon and welcome. secretary james and joe goldstein will make a few comments and then we'll jump right into questions. >> thank you very much, general thomas. and good afternoon, everyone. thank you for joining us on these dog days of august.

i am so delighted to be here with our 21st chief of staff of the air force, general dave goldfein. i think we actually won the lottery when he agreed to be our chief of staff and he's certainly hit the ground running. and i'm going to yield to him in just a couple of moments to share some of his thoughts from his first month on the job and also about our globally engaged air force. but first i want to touch upon a few issues that are affecting us right here at home in washington, specifically some of the budget challenges associated with a long-term continuing resolution. and then i also want to give you a quick update on our rpa, remotely piloted aircraft get well plan, and as well as a couple of other initiatives first, a long-term cr. i want to say we certainly hope that is not the case. we know the congressional staff is working hard, even while their members are back at home this summer. but we are hearing that either a

six-month cr or a one year cr is a possibility, and i want to explain why this would be a bad deal for the u.s. air force. first of all, more than 60 air force acquisition new starts and upgrades could be affected, including those to existing platforms like the mq9 reaper, and the c-130, and the b-2, and the b-52, all of these systems require upgrades. number two, the production of joint direct attack munitions known as j-dams, would be limited to the fy16 quantity, which we feel is unacceptable, particularly in light of current operations against daesh and other extremists around the world. number three, kc-46 production would be capped at 12 aircraft, not to 15 in our 17 budget, which would delay operational fielding of this platform. number four, the b-21 would be capped at fy16 levels, which would slow everything down and

risk a long-term deterrent capability, which we hope to have in the 2020 decade time-frame. number five, there are many milcon projects that would be affected, including projects associated with the down of the f-35, a new recruit dormitory, and important missile maintenance facilities. so overall, a long-term cr would fund the air force at about $1.3 billion less than the amount we requested in fy17, and would cause as you can see many many perturbations in our system. let me now shift to the number one capability that our combatant commanders ask of the united states air force, combatant commanders all around the world, and that is the role of isr, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. specifically, what we are doing in the world of our rpa's to try to lessen some of the strain and improve quality of life.

general goldfein and i were just recently at the creech air force base, and the bottom line i would share with you with respect to our get well plan, is that it is proceeding at pace. it is not all done yet, but there is a lot going on, a lot in process. we are well on the way to having 100% manning at our training units. and of course, having all of those instructors in the schoolhouse means that we are going to be producing more rpa pilots, and, indeed, we already are. we have roughly doubled the graduate and undergraduate pilot output in this arena of fy15 to fy17, so that's a good start. producing more pilots of course means a better quality of life for all of our rpa airmen because it will give them more family time and more opportunities to pursue developmental opportunities. meanwhile, we have mobilized additional guard units, and they are flying right alongside their active-duty and reserve counterparts, with an additional three air combat controls which the guard is now providing. we are also providing more contractor support for

non-strike missions. this fall, we will release candidate bases for locating a new wing of rpa airmen, at up to two locations. one will host an operations group with mission control elements, and the other will potentially host a full mq-9 wing. because you see, building additional locations where our people can rotate to is another aspect of our quality of life plan. finally, we are pleased to announce that no later than october 1, we will pay a $35,000 rpa pilot retention bonus for those who are at the end of their active-duty service commitment, and who agree to stay with us. now, this 35,000 per year level is up from the current 25,000 per year level, and all rpa pilots who are flying today will be eligible for this bonus. and there will be more details to follow on this one. turning to our other pilots for

a moment, we are still working with the congress to update the -- we need this authority now specific because we need to address a number of shortfalls, the most important which at the moment is the 700 fighter pilot shortfall that we are currently facing by the end of this very year with 1000 fire highlights we are projected to be short and just a couple of years from now. why is this so? well, the airlines are forecasted to be hiring a lot more. they already are. we also need to increase our pilot production, and soon we will announce the standup of new f-16 training units. we expect to select candidate locations for us to two new training locations by the end of december 2016. and in the meantime, we intend to augment up to two of our existing training units to jumpstart pilot production by

the end of september 2017. so back to compensation now for just a moment. we're working with congress also to ensure that basic allowance for housing, which is a key factor in total compensation for military members, that this remains robust and does not change substantially for our airmen. there is a proposed change on capitol hill that could reduce overall compensation and disproportionately affect our dual military couples and members who are living together. and we really think we need to get that fixed for all of our airmen. finally, i want to say, money is important, but it is not everything. it is not the be all and end all. as you've heard me say repeatedly, quality of life, quality of the work environment, these are also important factors. and so, to that end, we will soon announce ways that we will reduce assigned additional duties to give airmen some of their precious time back. this, i want to emphasize will be a first step, and it's going to be followed up by a review of computer-based training and

other ancillary requirements that take up a lot of our airmen's time at present. and with that, i am very pleased to yield to general goldfein. >> thank you, ma'am. i learned to work side-by-side with you as we lead the 660,000 active guard and reserve and civilian airmen that make up the world's greatest air force. also, thank you to the pentagon press corps. this is the first of, i hope, many engagements with you to help tell the story of your air force and the incredible who deliver global, global vigilance, reach and power for the joint team every day. in the five weeks since secretary james swore me in as the 21st chief of staff, i've had the opportunity to travel to the u.k., hawaii, seven u.s. bases to meet airmen and their families. along the way, we've promoted new commanders of pacific air forces, air force reserve command, air force special operations command, and welcome general steve wilson as the 39th vice chief of staff. tomorrow, i get the opportunity

to promote our newest four star, general tod wolters, as he takes command of u.s. air forces in europe and becomes nato's air chief. followed by an extensive visit across the middle east to see our warriors in action as they lead the fight against daesh. your air force is fully engaged in providing air power solutions to counter aggressive activity from china, russia, iran, north korea and violent extremists, while we simultaneously stand watch over the nation's nuclear enterprise, manage space constellations, operate in cyber, and set strip alert to defend the homeland from attack. we operate from a capsule below the surface, to a combat controller on the surface, to a cockpit above the surface, to the outer reaches of space. we're everywhere. air power has become the oxygen the joint team breathes. have it, you don't even think about. don't have it, it's all you think about.

air superiority, isr, space, lift are just a few examples. as secretary james outlined, we do all of this despite financial uncertainty and the risk of sequestration still looming on the horizon. make no mistake, we will be unable to execute the defense strategic guidance and perform these missions to the level the nation requires if we return to a sequestered budget. despite the uncertainty ahead, however, i'm optimistic about the future of the air force for one reason. our airmen, who continue to deliver 24/7/365. i'm proud to serve as their chief and i'm honored to work side by side with secretary james as the 21st chief in the 21st century. thank you. >> thanks for doing this. a question about how some of his bat, so the concern to you talk

about is affecting the operations that are ongoing. recently the president authorized more sustained air operations in libya. can you talk about how these budgets and other shortage concerns are affecting your day-to-day operations? how is the pilot shortfall of 7000 affecting this and where do you see the impact most strongly? is it iraq, syria, more reliance off ships and the marines were libya? where is the more specific impact on the daily airstrike operations? >> maybe i could begin and then chief, please, jump in. the first thing i want to say is i am so extremely proud of our airmen because regardless of how much strain there is, regardless of what they're asked to do, they step up time and time again. the types of the strange we are speaking of our frequent deployments, a lot of family separation and didn't even when

they come home, frequently they immediately had to go up to major exercise to try to try out the can for the high insight. it's for these air force that i've ever seen in my 35 years of working on defense matters. but they're doing it. in terms of what is the specific impact on operations of libya, i will tell you that we have known for some time that we're going to go ever isil and other files that extremists would spread, particularly in areas of failed states or lawless states. libya certainly kept in that category. is is not surprising. at least not to those of us who are tracking this closely. we have done some strikes in libya before and so this is an opportunity to get a push to some of those local ground forces on the ground as they attempt to contain and hopefully snuff out the forces. so they're doing it. there is a strain.

the ammunition, all of that is holding because we put our best forces forward. >> i'll just add that i could i'll give you a vignette. this is what two weeks in the life of the -- not so long ago. so weak one, we deployed a squadron on short notice to incirlik and 21st hours after rival they were attacking daesh in northern syria. in the second week we employed the second squadron on a strike in libya against a high-value target. 24 hours after the strike occurred and aircraft returned to home, nuclear surety inspection team arrived to give them a major nuclear surety inspection. that's the kind of optempo. very often to be able to get to the level of readiness we need to go for to be able to engage with the combatant commanders need us the most and the

quickest, we end up absorbing that risk in home station. for the second and i to build on her point, it's our ability to ensure that we are simultaneously ready for not only to continue fight that we are involved in against violent extremism, but also as a secretary of defense is laid out there or for other global challenges that we have to be ready for as an air force, china, russia, iran, north korea, and that's what we absorb some of our risk. spent as a follow-up do you see the libya fighting absorb more by the navy and membranes and air force, or do you think the air force will be more involved both in terms of strikes and also the additional isr, maybe you could update us on what are the caps there? >> i would see would be a combined, it is a combined arms engagement which means all services are engaged. the combatant commander uses all four components as required. sometimes together, sometimes individually as all that's part of h c