good defensive capability to deal with the consequences if these were to be used. and to complement both of these and really enhance the deterrent capability is constant operational readiness of our forces in the theater. this is what the department of defense brings to bear against this. i have to agree with you, north korea is an outliar 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 leaders were there and everybody's getting aboard to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and decrease that danger. north korea is an outliar. in addition to what we're doing in the department of defense, we're also supporting broader international diplomacy, nonproliferation efforts to try to deal with that threat. >> appreciate what you're doing. very important. thank you so much. >> thank you, miss 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're finding in terms of i think morale of the -- those 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 grades. which are predominantly there on a one-year assignment. and that, as you can imagine,

that constant turnover affects the crew's stability inside the second infantry division so that's something that commander has to deal with. in regard to the number on tour normalization. we have roughly today around 3800 families that are command sponsored. there's another 1700 that were soldiers elected to bring their family member there is that are non-command 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. i determined that that is not feasible at this time. >> do you have other concerns

that really are affect iing basically the quality of life for service members that are there and is there -- you wouldn't -- 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. >> 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 operability 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 fleet 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 shape. 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, what do 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. while we don't assess that they have the kind capability that you outlined today, 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 which 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.

>> c-span's congressional directory is a complete guide to the 112th congress. inside you'll find each member of the house and senate and contact information, district maps and committee assignments. also information on cabinet member, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.95 at c-span.org/shop. rich aerd lugar is being challenged in the republican primary by state treasurer richard murdoch. you can see the two debate live

from indianapolis on c-span starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. republican presidential candidates mitt romney and newt gingrich speak at the national rifle association's meeting friday. also addressing the nra house majority leader eric kaernt and rick perry and scott walter. april 15th, 1912, nearly 1500 perish on the ship called unsinkable. >> once the lookout bells were sounded, once the lookout sighted an iceberg ahead they struck the bells three times. ding, ding, ding, which is a warning saying that there is some object ahead. doesn't mean dead ahead, means ahead of the ship. it doesn't say what kind of object. with a lookout, they struck the bell, he went to a telephone and asked them to call down to the officer on the bridge to tell

them what it is that they saw. and when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was what do you see, and the response was, iceberg right ahead. and the response from the officer was, thank you. >> samuel helper on the truths and myths of that night. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> martin luther king is a man of all the people that i met and talked with and spent time with over the years, is a man that i most -- the american individual -- that i admire most of all, of all of them. for me, he is my personal hero. why? because martin luther king put his money where his mouth was.

>> his career spanned over 60 years, cbs' mike wallace died this past weekend at age 93. watch any of his almost 50 appearances in the c-span video library, including interviews with iranian presidents. every c-span program since 1987. this summer the u.s. and a number of other countries will start negotiations on an international arms treaty. arms control officials with the u.s. government and nongovernmental organizations recently discussed the issue at the stockholm international research institute. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. good morning, and welcome, everybody. my name, and i'm the executive director here and this is the

u.s. research center are the international stockholm research peace institute based in washington, d.c. now, as many of you may well know, we are an independent and very international research institute dedicated to research on armments, arms control, disarmament, but also regional entransnational security issues. i think many of you might be familiar with the annual yearbook, which provides very authoritative information, data and analysis on security and conflict, military spending and armament, nonproliferation, arms control and disarmament issues. what you may not know is that we are increasingly present in the major decision-making centers of the world. a few years ago, we opened an

office in beijing, in china, and since february 6th, we now vhav an office here in washington, d.c., and i must say i'm absolutely delighted that we're collated with a distancing center. the aim of this north american office is to bring new global, innovative voices to the security and foreign policy debates across north america. to strengthen cooperation between european, american and international experts and institutions, and we will be doing that by bringing our colleagues from stockholm to this side of the atlantic by organizing events and roundtable discussions like the one today. by seeking partnerships with other institutions, university think tanks, governments, on this side of the atlantic and by

doing original research. now, in terms of the research, we will initially have a focus on four main areas. one is on women, war and peace. gender issues, if you want, and we have already a number of projects in the pipeline. we have a conference on sexual violence in conflict and post conflict settings that will be held in november later this year, and a multiyear research project on the implementation of u.n. security council resolution 1325. this was the resolution adopted by the security council some 11 years ago that demanded states to pay greater attention to the participation of women particularly in peace negotiations. a second area of research will be on global house and security,

a third on regional security issues and here we'll have a particular focus on central asia and what is going to happen in that region, broader central asian issue, after the draw droun of drawdown of allied troops. last, disarmament, bread and butter issues. now, back to today, this is actually one of our first eve s events, first big public events, and i think it is very fitting that it features one of the flagship programs. namely, the conventional arms transfer program. each year poll holdham and his colleagues of the expenditure program due a superb job and provide us with authoritative data that many inside and outside of government have come to rely on. i think these types of data are crucial, if we want to better understand what is going on in the security field.

it allows us to identify potentially destabilizing buildups of weapons. to identify emerging regional arms races, or as paul likes to call them, reactive arms acquisitions. enhance in theory it also allows us to define policies to de-escalate potential areas of tension. i think the data for 2011 shows that the conventional weapons trade doesn't seem to have suffered much from the economic crisis, and while we're all preoccupied particularly in this town with nuclear proliferation, the conventional weapons are the ones that are actually killing people around the world. 2012 is going to be an extremely important year in terms of conventional weapons. we might see the conclusion of a treaty that will regulate the global arms trade. this treaty will be negotiated

in july in new york, and in august we'll have a program addressing progress made in light arms and a plan of action adopted in 2006, and a preparatory committee for that conference actually met this week in new york. now, today we really have a terrific panel with, i would say, really, the leading experts in the world on these issues, and we will examine and look at the trends and efforts to control the transfers of conventional weapons. we'll start off with my colleague, paul holtham, the direct are of the arms transfer program, and who will introduce the others and sort of set the stage. before joining in 2006, paul was associated with prestigious institutions. in germany, in russia, in the uk

and has also worked wore the council of europe. paul has expertise in russia and east european issues, since he did his ph.d. on that particular issue. he has written extensively. let me just -- i'll make a little plug for you, paul. just written "implementing an arms trade treaty" as well as another publication on china's energy and security relations with russia. after paul -- i'd like to turn to matt schroeder who is a senior analyst as the federation of american scientists and a consultant for the geneva-based small arms survey. matt is also a prolific author, and is the co-author of the small arms trade, and the coordinator of the first comprehensive global studies of the authorized trade in small arms and light weapons. so matt will talk a little bit

about what is happening in the small arms field. and talk in particular about transparency issues. we will then turn to rachel. rachel stahl, who's a fellow here at the stimson center. a fellow of the managing across boundaries program. and we've asked rachel to look a little bit at the future and particularly look at prospects and possible impact of the arms trade treaty. rachel has been an expert in this field for a long number of years on both sides of the atlantic. at chatham house, the british, the royal british institute of international affairs, she was also a senior analyst as center for defense information in washington, d.c. she's been a consultant for many organizations who have recognized her expertise in these issues including the small arms survey and the u.n. and then finally, but certainly

not least we'll turn to bill who is the deputy director and senior coordinator for multilateral control of conventional weapons in the state department. he is -- participation in the u.n. register of conventional arms since 1995, and i think that is almost the beginning of the effort of the register. he has been the u.s. expert to u.n. groups of governmental experts throughout the '90s, and in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009. he's also the deputy head of the u.s. delegational arms trade treaty so, bill, you have great responsibility coming up in july. so without further ado, let me turn it over to my colleague, paul. paul?