capabilities. and so it's important to keep that current. we do work with our rok forces. they are very good with their chemical capabilities. and we have -- we train in those type of environments. so i'm confident in regard to that. i do not see the north koreans giving up this capability. i think it's something we're going to have to continually deal with given the current set of conditions. >> would you like to add anything? >> i would add, thank you very much, congresswoman. i think what the department of defense brings to bear, particularly what general thurman and his capability in theater bring to bear three very important things. number one, a strong deterrence capability. to deter the north from using these horrendous weapons of mass destruction. secondly, as he indicated, a very robust defensive capability. should these weapons be used, general thurman and his forces, together with the south koreans

have a good defensive capability to deal with the consequences if these were to be used. and to complement both of these and to really enhance that deterrent capability is as constant operational readiness of our forces in the theater. so this is what the department of defense brings to bear against this. but i have to agree with you. north korea is an outlier today in the world. the president was just in seoul over the last couple of days with a nuclear security summit. over 50 of the world's leaders were there, and everybody is getting aboard to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to decrease that danger. again, north korea san outlier. so in addition to what we're doing, the department of defense, we're also supporting a broader international diplomacy, nonproliferation efforts to try to deal with that threat. >> great. appreciate what you're doing. very, very important. thanks so much. >> thank you. ms. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here

for your service. i'm sorry i missed the early discussions, but i wanted to ask you -- i guess extend the discussion on the tour normalization. and what you are finding in terms of, i think morale of the unaccompanied tours because the turnover as i understand it is about 600, 700 service members every month. is that normal? is that what we would anticipate, and what kind of resources are there then, and how is that affecting readiness in any way on the base? >> yes, ma'am. congresswoman davis, first off, most of the turnover we see that is occurring out of that 600 to 700 are the lower enlisted greats which are predominantly over there on a one-year assignment. and that's, as you can imagine,

that constant turnover affects the crew stability inside the 2nd infantry division and so that's something that commander has to deal with. in regard to the number on tour normalization, we have roughly today around 3,800 families that are command sponsored. there's another 1,700 where soldiers elected to bring their family members over there that are noncommand sponsored. so that's really what we have. we have not achieved the 4,645 as of yet. so that's why, based on the current fiscal environment, i looked at, number one, could we afford more families over there, over and beyond the 4,645? and i determined that that is not feasible at this time. >> do you have other concerns

that really are affecting the basically the quality of life for service members that are there. and is there, while in fact you wouldn't necessarily -- you don't see those numbers getting to that level, do you see major differences in terms of their ability to conduct their mission? >> ma'am, i do not. i think what makes korea unique is we have a threat to the north. we have a well-stated mission, and i have not seen a decline in any morale issues. this requires active leaders. leaders that are sensitive to the needs of their service members. and that's where i put my effort. and making sure that if there's any quality of life issues that we quickly try to resolve that. >> okay. and of the people that are -- have been deployed, the service members, are there numbers, i

guess maybe at the height of some of the deployments that we're actually going into, iraq or afghanistan? >> yes, ma'am. we see a lot of returnees from iraq and afghanistan. i mean, we are a combat season force now. and frankly, we welcome the combat experience over there as we work with our rok counterparts because that just helps strengthen our capabilities. >> have you been able to strengthen any of your providers in the medical, mental health areas in order to accommodate some of the needs of returning soldiers? >> yes, ma'am. i have placed a lot of emphasis on that. particularly in regard to any type of ptsd to make sure that, one, we have the capabilities there to treat our service members. we destigmatize that, and we are very active with our chaplains' support programs to make sure

we're quickly dealing with any service member that may have a problem. >> because in their case, they are really not able to go out on to the economy, essentially, when it comes to service providers? >> right. >> is that correct? i mean, they really have to stay in the family. >> the medical community does write consultations that go out, if there's some specific need. but so far, our capabilities have been very good on the peninsula to take care of our service members and their families. >> thank you very much. thanks for your service. >> thank you. mr. whitman. >> they y >> thank you. i thoroughly enjoyed our visit out there to your command in south korea. it was a great opportunity to go there and understand the challenges that you face, and we wanted to make sure we understood a little more about those today. you speak in your testimony about the north korean army, the

korean people's army having about 800 service combatants. can you tell us what are their capabilities and limitations in relation to our fleet structure, our surface combatants currently forward deployed in japan and the japanese maritime self-defense force ships that are also there in the region. >> congressman wittman, thanks. first off, in regard to maritime, the thing that concerns me most out of the 800 combatants are their submarine forces that the north koreans possess. particularly the ones on the west -- in the west sea because that's shallow water out there. and that's of concern. and also on the east sea. so we watch that very carefully. i can go in more detail in a closed session on that. other maritime capabilities, i think, some of that's atrophied

from what i can tell. the rok navy maintains a robust patrol capability every day. and some of the things we look at with them is, obviously, our inner operablity with the u.s. 7 fleet that supports me out of japan. and for the japanese defense forces, i don't have any purview over those forces other than working through admiral scott swift who is the 7 complete commander. but he's got a very good relationship with the japanese. as well as the rok. >> general, can you tell us what needs do u.s. and rok forces have in the area of ground attack and air assault equipment there to support our men and women that serve there? and also, where are we in relation to manning requirements, training and equipment requirements there in

the region and especially looking at their being a cap of 28,500 u.s. forces there in the republic of south korea. where does that, in relation to our needs and especially in the area of aviation. i wanted to get your thought on where we are there with those equipment needs and where we may be adequate or where we may be falling short. >> congressman wittman, first off with regard to aviation forces, we do not have a full combat aviation brigade there. i've asked the department as well as the department army and back through the paycom and the joint staff to look at adding that battalion back that was repositioned out of there to meet requirements for the war in iraq and afghanistan. so i've asked that be relooked. so i would welcome that

requirement. and that would help with our helicopter fleet there. in regard to our overall equipping posture, i feel we are equipped very well. we're getting many of the new pieces of equipment. we just modernized the 2nd infantry division with new tanks. we got the best tank this nation can provide, as well as new bradley fighting vehicles. the prepositioned stocks are in good sthape. we just issued some of that out. so i am confident in regard to ground capabilities. we're in pretty good shape. i can talk in closed session on precision munitions and will be more than happy to talk about that and some of the other capability gaps we have. >> very good. we talk about conventional capabilities, missile threats. let me ask about this. we made a significant investment in special operations forces and also asymmetric warfare

capability. let me ask you, are we properly positioned from a resource standpoint in that region with our special operations forces and asymmetric warfare capability? and if not, dwhoot we need to do and what do you see as the major threats on the special operations and asymmetric side? >> first off, with the -- in regard to the special operation forces, we have the special operations command there that works side by side with the rok special operating forces. the roks have a very good force. we're working with them to continue to improve that. so if we go to war tonight, that's what i have. and in addition to what would be flown in from u.s. socom. so we're working with the department on those unique capabilities in regard to u.s.

capabilities for soft platforms. as an example. and that's one of the things that as i did my assessment that i looked at, that i think we need to improve on. secondly, in regard to the north korean asymmetric problems, they have the capabilities to infiltrate. and that's probably one of the biggest worries that i see with what they have with their forces. and they could do that very quickly. whether it be through sleeper cells or whatever. and we can also go into that in more detail in a closed forum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. bartlett. >> if north korea were to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that could carry a nuclear weapon and was capable of reaching our shores and they launched it toward our

nation, what would our response be? >> well, sir, i can't speculate on that hypothetical situation. we do not assess that north korea has that capability today. but we are aware that north korea is developing both its long-range ballistic missile capabilities and it is continuing to work on its nuclear weapons capabilities. so it's a future threat we're very concerned about and the department is considering the best responses to this. >> what do you think north korea expects our response to that would be? >> congressman, i -- the way i look at this, north korea uses a coercive strategy. and they use that strategy to get concessions. first off, they will not -- i don't believe -- give up their capabilities in regard to

ballistic missiles because they see that as a means to protect the regime. in regard to the coercive strategy, we've seen this cycle where they demand concessions. they don't get what they want or they get what they want. they antagonize. they provoke and then they go back into an appease mode. we've watched that on a continuous basis. so my sense is they are going to continue to use that as long as they follow their military first policy, which i believe goes to protect the kim family and the whole communist party there. >> isn't there a general perception in this country and their country and any other country watching our two nations that if they launched a ballistic missile, nuclear armed toward our shores that we would respond in kind?

is that not a general perception? >> i would just say to you, i don't know what our responses would be right now on that. >> i'm not asking you that. i was asking what you thought the general perception was among observers of this process between our two countries. isn't there a general perception that if they launched a nuclear-tipped weapon toward our shores that we would most likely respond in kind? >> i mean, my sense congressman is that's what fuels the anxiety and concern over the north koreans having that capability. and it's got to be dealt with in some manner. >> could i add to that? >> yes. >> congressman bartlett, i think we have a robust deterrent capability and national capabilities, as well as capabilities in the theater that general thurman commands. and again, we -- it's our policy to deter that kind of behavior

that you're talking about. why they don't assess that you have that kind of capability that you outlined, it is -- the development of capabilities in this regard is something we're very concerned about. we maintain a robust deterrent capability to deter that kind of action. >> they are aware of that robust deterrent capability. i think there's -- it's very unlikely that even if they had a nuclear weapon capable of reaching our shore that they would launch it toward, why would they need to do that if they could simply put a medium-ranged missile on a ship and launch from that ship anywhere on our west coast or east coast against which we have little defense and for which we have little capability of determining for certain who was responsible for it. why isn't that the most likely mode of attack from north korea, if, in fact, they are interested in attacking us? >> well, congressman, i think we have to be aware of a whole

range of possible attacks or provocative actions that the north koreans could take. and over the course of decades of history, they've pursued many different kinds of asymmetric means to provoke the south and us. so we have to be alive to the full array of threats, including the ones you outlined. >> they are certainly evil. i'm not sure they're idiots, nor do i think they are collectively suicidal. i think the major threat is the possibility of a launch which they could do tomorrow with a steamer and even a scud missile which they could buy in the open market and any nuclear weapon could take out our whole mid-atlantic area with an emp, could it not? i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentlemen. the committee will now stand in recess as we move to closed session and we'll reconvene there.

thank you. here's a look at our schedule on c-span3. next, the head of the consumer financial protection bureau testifies on a report dealing with complaints related to mortgages and credit cards. then a summit on the freedom of information act and the importance of transparency in the federal government. and after that, a hearing on mine safety issues, including health concerns. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael green, former member of the national security council talks about south korean security and a possible satellite launch by north korea.

"new york times" assistant business and financial editor gretchen morgenson looks at the oversite of fannie mae and freddie mac by the federal housing finance agency. and thomas mesenbourg from the census bureau and connie potter discuss the first ever release of records and surveys from the 1940 u.s. census. after the expiration of a 72-year confidentiality clause. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. now richard, the head of the consumer financial protection bureau testifies about his agency's report that says it's received more than 13,000 complaints over the last six months related to mortgages and credit cards. he spoke earlier today in front of the house financial services committee for 2 1/2 hours.

>> the committee will come to order. >> mr. cordray, we, as you know, we're going to have some vote interruptions, and i would like everyone, the members to know as well as anyone listening that mr. cordray has agreed to stay until 2:00, which is a very nice accommodation. we very much appreciate that. and we thank you for your attendance today to deliver the semiannual report for the consumer financial protection bureau. the cfpb is an independent federal agency whose authority as many of us have said is far reaching. some have said unprecedented. title x or title 10 of the dodd/frank act confers unfettered discretion, and the

director to identify financial products and services deemed to be unfair, deceptive or abusive and to ban them under what's been described as a highly subjective standard that has no legally defined content. all of us agree on the need to protect consumers. all of us also agree that every government bureaucracy needs transparency and oversight. the simple truth -- if we can have a little order. the simple truth that is there no reason we cannot have both, robust consumer protection and an agency that is accountable for the action it takes and the resources it uses. the cause of greater accountability was not well

served by the president's decision to circumvent the advice and the consent of the senate and install the cfpb's director and a constitutionally questionable maneuver. as i've told you previously, mr. cordray, i believe the agency you head were well served by that decision since it cast a legal cloud over the legitimacy of the bureau's regulatory and enforcement activity, and i've also previously stated this dispute has nothing to do with you personally but with the structure and lack of accountability surrounding the agency you've been asked to lead. the house has passed two bills this congress, hr-1315 and hr-4014 that make the cfpb more accountable without in any way hampering its ability to protect consumers. hr-1315 includes provisions

placing the cfpb under the management of a five-member bipartisan commission. an idea originally proposed by and supported by house democrats. hr 14 -- 4014 which passed the house just this week with strong bipartisan support and the support plaintiof mr. cordray a a -- in the dodd/frank act. given that the cfpb is not subject to the budget process, it's essential to the oversight process. in fact, hearings like this are the only opportunity currently available to congress to exercise any oversight of the cfpb at all. again, i thank mr. cordray. i thank you for your appearance, and now i recognize the ranking

member of the subcommittee, ms. maloney. >> is mr. frank coming, or -- >> pardon me. should we wait for him? >> we're going to -- >> well, first of all, i would like -- should i wait for mr. frank or -- >> i'll allow mr. frank to come in and make an opening statement. or would you like mr. -- >> i'll just go ahead in the interest of time. first of all, i'd like to welcome director cordray and really thank you for your impressive accomplishments so far. i know that when we were doing the mark-up on dodd/frank, i offered an amendment that called for an annual report and oversight by this committee of the cfpb.

that was later amended to make it a semiannual report to congress. but if i had known that you would be before this body or someone senior as yourself would be before this body 15 times, so far this year alone i would not have offered that amendment because you have been very accountable to us and to this congress. and i'd like to say it was great to have you in my district in new york where you discussed and launched an inquiry into overdraft practices. i know that you have made similar meetings across this country with various concerns from student loans to mortgages to just general concerns of consumers. and as we reach the three-month anniversary of the cfpb as a

fully operational agency, i would like to note some of the bureau's outstanding work. while some will undoubtedly ton define the cfpb as an unchecked agency, i believe that the bureau's accomplishments and oversight have been extraordinary. the bureau has initiated an examination into the growing level of student loan debt and its ramifications on our economic recovery. it is tirelessly helping consumers understand financial products and services through the know before you owe program. the bureau has taken great steps to curtail deceptive, unfair and abusive debt collection practices. they have modified and put forward a simplified mortgage application that people can actually understand. and the bureau's resolving consumer complaints, launching

bank and nonbank supervision programs, developing simple disclosures for credit cards and other financial products and is targeting specific abuses aimed at older americans and service members. and have created offices just to address these concerns. i think this is a great list of accomplishments for a new agency. and from what i can see in your report, it's just the beginning. i hope that during this hearing we can focus on what the cfpb has laid out in its report rather than constant complaints that there's not enough oversight or accountability. the bureau's structure, the positive gao report, the very fact that director cordray is appearing today before us in his 15th appearance, or of a senior -- or of other senior staff is a testimonial to the number of checks placed on the

bureau and i would say it is very accountable given the number of times you've been here. and i congratulate you on your fine record so far. i look forward to your testimony. and hearing about the plans for the future to work for safety and soundness of the protection of our consumers. thank you. >> mr. hanserling is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. >> on january 4th of this year, the president made an alleged recess appointment of our witness, richard cordray to head the newly created cfpb. the problem was the senate was not in recess at the time. in fact it was in pro forma session. the sent has the constitutional authority to determine that rules of its proceedings, not the president. under a similar set of circumstances in 2007 when inconveniently for democrat senate majority leader harry reid, a republican was in the

white house, he was quoted as saying, quote, the senate will be coming in for pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments. now one may not like the policy, but it's pretty convincing confirmation that a pro forma session is not a recess. so it's fairly clear the senate did not believe that they were in recess on january 4th. and under the constitution, they could not have been under -- in recess because the house did not consent. therefore, there can be no recess appointment. but had there been a recess appointment, this doesn't solve the president's problem. section 1066 of title 10 of dodd/frank clearly states the director must be, quote, confirmed by the senate. a recess appointment is not a senate confirmation. in 2005, then senator barack obama indicated recess appointees lose credibility because they cannot make it