using that as far as you know of? >> not that i know of. >> thank you, i'm out of time. >> i used to fly out of the dulles air force base range complex, and while there was restricted as well as moas realtime traffic provided realtime use statistics of the air space often made it available to civilians, and i think the range complex would be a model that you might want to consider looking at. >> thank you for that, and by the way, i texted my son and said i was in a hearing with you, and he texted back and said a true american hero. that's saying something from a son i'm very proud of. >> thank you. >> senator sullivan. >> i echo those comments. this is a great panel. so, really really appreciate everybody's testimony very informative. we are in agreement on the importance of safety for the

flying public. i want to ask this in a way it's most effective. ms. gilligan, i want to start with you a hearing last week with regard to infrastructure in terms of aviation and as you know a key part of safety is aviation structure, ways to run things, and one of the things that's been, i think, for many americans, many members of congress, frustration is just how long infrastructure projects now take. we have the manager of the seattle tacoma airport testifying last week that it took 15 years to permit an additional runway. 15 years to simply permanent.

do you think the upfront regulatory side, are you willing to work with this committee on suggested streamlining particularly of infrastructure projects that reality to aviation? we need those out there, and, yet, we have a system that pretty much inhibits the ability to do that. >> >> we have an office aware of the safety standards, and we are willing to work with the committee and with your staff on any initiatives you believe are important to consider in the reauthorization proposal. i'm not as familiar with what some of those safety and design standards are as our airport's organization organization, but, certainly, willing to work on the committee with those kinds of questions. >> great thank you.

i have a question relating to the asb plan, and, you know, that is something particularly many ways is pioneered in alaska, and right now leaves approximately one-third of alaska without coverage with regard to altitudes general aviation pilots fly. i know it's not practical to have full coverage, but do you believe there is a minimum operational network that we could have with regard to atsb coverage in the state that is something that would provide safety as well as a target to shoot for, given how important safety is as well as how large the state of alaska is? i welcome comments from either of you. >> senator sullivan yeah, i've flown in alaska a number of time myself in small airplanes and

there's advantages of atsb works in the traffic, and other things in the weather that you can now see so i'm a supporter. we want to get down the path and now started to encourage members to start equipping in the lower 48 significantly, but we want to work with the faa and pockets in places that i think move down the line that really need attention, but we're fully on board supporting the growth and whatever it takes to fill in the last pieces, we're going to be pushing for that. >> great. do you think there is? do you think that we could get to a minimum operational network in a place like alaska where obviously, you're not going to have coverage over the entire state, but shooting for that kind of minimum that's helpful in terms of safety? >> well senator alaska has been a leader in atsb and other technologies to enhance safety with difficult environments like alaska. i don't know that we committed to a particular level of network service, and we certainly can

provide information back to the committee, but, again, we're always willing to work with any initiatives that will enhance safety and make the system more efficient as well. >> good. we would like to work on that and with our pilots on that initiative. finally, mr. baker, you mentioned in your testimony a lot, you talk a lot about the importance and success of the industry working with the faa to address many of the safety issues. one of the things that struck me is that you're doing that in a way that i think is very useful but also doesn't go through the rather formal and cumbersome rule process it can take, again, back to the original question of years. can you highlight examples where you've been working on a more informal basis with the faa to make progress on some of the safety issues that give proper input from industry? >> i think we've work together well on a number of issues as it

relates to angle attack which we covered is a device that shows if you're close to a stall in the aircraft, which i'm excited about getting, but thinking forward, you know we have over 40,000, 20% of the total airplanes built before 19 65. >> wow. >> we have to think further ahead, you know, safety devices like inexpensive auto pilots should be part of the thinking, ipads change the way we think of knave gagsal and situational awareness and now we use them today in the cockpits, completely changed maps. as we work through the future, we have to think about inventory of planes out there, important transportation devices in many cases and important to recreation. there's a number of meetings set up how to we equip further down the line. >> right. thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the panel for the excellent testimony. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call on senator cantwell with an additional question. >> thank you we're trying to wrap up, but i have a few things i wanted to be clear on.

mr. hart ux you believe we should close the loophole as it relates to cargo pilots with the sleep rule, is that correct? >> that is correct. we have medical fitness, a most wanted items and that is fatigue that applies to everybody operating complex equipment. >> and the faa made the recommendation before, and then it did not get through the process at omb or something of the nature? >> the notice that proposed the change to flight duty included cargo community, but as we've completed the process, for that rule, it was determined that we could not sustain that requirement, and as i pointed out, we do believe there are other ways this can be fully addressed and inspectors work with the cargo carriers to make sure through the safety management systems the cargo carries are looking at schedules to determine whether in fact, fatigue is an ailment and, if

so, that they address -- >> made the recommendation for it, right? it's just a matter as we have ntsb who made the recommendation, believes that we should make all pilots under the same fatigue rules? the faa you're saying, is looking at this previously looked at closing the loophole? >> we have proposed it that way but as i said, we could not sustain that proposal through the final rule but again, safety management systems require that the carrier look for risk. they have to identify if they have any part of their operation where there's a hazard, and when they find that, they must address it and do that in cop junction with our inspectors. >> what are we supposed to think about the issue that popped up in seattle? a man falling asleep and the issue of outsourcing maintenance and possibly, you know, saving dollars,ing? of that nature and finding someone who falls asleep in the cargo hold? look at the maintenance crew and their operations and systems? >> again, through the -- >> sorry --

>> mr. hart. >> our fatigue recommendations are broad in the applications. it's not only pilots, but maintenance, air traffic controllers, everybody in the system. >> okay. thank you. >> with the safety management system, the new rule going into place, the carriers will have that responsibility. they need to ammize where there's hazards in the system, whether it's a specific rule or if it is some operating procedure or process that they have, which is introducing a hazard. if there is fatigue in how they schedule maintenance workers or how the maintenance work is completed, they need to analyze that and correct it. >> well, certainly it's a wakeup call, and we have to ask the questions and faa just recently said to united airlines, we have concerns about what you are doing, and so i think we got to make sure that everybody is complying with what we believe are the best

conditions for flying. do you have a comment to add to that? >> i certainly do. sms and fatigue risk management systems are important, but there's additional layers and safeguards. we have to close the loophole solve the fundamental problem ensure that the cargo carriers have to build schedules that comply with federal aviation regulation 117 which is the fatigue rule that the passenger airlines have to comply with, not try to fix it later with quite frankly, a band-aid approach. we have to solve the problem. fatigue is fatigue teak whether it's passengers or packages and maintenance. >> thank you. >> thank you. would like to call on senator peters. >> thank you and thank you for the hearing certainly it's been a fascinating hearing, and i enjoyed the conversation from our panelists, and i know there's been quite a bit discussion on the required hours and pilot experience prior to being a co-pilot, so i wanted to explore that further, if i may,

and ms. black, you talked about the pay structure of regional airlines in the 2 it to 24,000 starting salary. how's that compare to the major airlines? what do they pay their pilots? >> i'm not as familiar with the main line pay scales, but i can say i have one airline that's paying more than some main line counterparts, but at both regionals and main lines first year pay is often lower. it jumps in both cases by -- releasing the regional case by 3 it % by year two and 50% by year five. >> now, for most of the folks who are coming up because, as we've talk about earlyier, we don't have as many military pilots as we had which was a source of pilots with significant hours, but we have folks basically training themselves and they seek out training and pay for it on their own dime. do you have any numbers as to the amount of debt the average student has coming out of

completing training? >> i don't, but i know our university partners do and i'd like to get that back to you. >> i'd like to know that. captain, you had a long history in the airlines. do you have any idea the differential in pay between a regional airline and one coming into the majors? >> i imagine at least 50%. >> minimum of 50% coming in? >> and i would add that this widespread perception that jobs, entry level jobs at regional carriers are not good ones is deserved. it's become more widely known. i think to the extent that there are people making other life choices for themselves and families, it's because of that. this is something that they've done to themselves. it's easily reconcilable if they simply offer starting wages in working conditions that attract qualified candidates, which are out there but who are currently do other things.

>> ms. black? >> if i may, it's part of the career progression. that's a natural fact. first year, first officer wage in particular are lower for a number of reasons, first of all, the market place, and second, as you know, in many cases, they are collectively bargained. i have to point out with wages, we have several examples of regional airlines who attempted to unilaterally raise first year pay rejected by the yun yos, so when we talk about pay and i think we should we do need our labor partners to acknowledge there's a role in that process too. we agree it's important to phrase those salaries. the good news is we have raised the salaries. the marketplace is reacting. as part of the career progression that jumps again and again, and it's meant to be a seamless progression from regionals to main lines. >> the reason why a young person's going to question whether or not to go into the career, it's not because they do not love flying. i would have loved to be a

pilot. i wear glasses so it was difficult to do. it's changed now, but the economics is a difficult process. you have to pay for the structured flight training, and what's the number of hours you come out of structured flight training? >> 350 to 550. >> and you need another thousand hours of flying time, and if you are flying you are in a different aircraft, not in a jet, but probably with an instructor and does that impact, captain, even though someone has 15 00 hours you know, if they pay for it on their own dime they have to minimize costs because they do not make money when they first come out, does that alter the aircraft choice or job opportunities for them? is that really adequate training when you step into the cockpit of a jet? >> there's several things i want to make clear here. first is that pilot passion will only carry you so far. same as passion for any profession will. at some point, like everyone

else, like all of us, we are going to want to be able to buy a car, have a family, or buy a house, and have a life. we need to have a career path that's going to enable us to do that. that is why the regional airlines had so much trouble because they have been offering for years a sub standard set of wages in working conditions to continue to make fit in the real world of broken economy models. simply by correcting that, all that follows from it will be much better. i have to set the record straight. a lot has been talk about structured versus unstructured training. they make it seem that there are two things out there that exist that do not. one thing that does not exist, it does not matter. first of all, the regional airlines compared to the majors in spite of the improvements made that have been essentially forced on them by airline safety act in 2010 still are not up to the same level as the large major airlines in terms of their

training. they just don't have the same kinds of environment that the majors do. majors depend upon having pilots show-under-par who have the qualifications. again, it's important that everyone who gets into the first seat of a regional airliner or a major airline is a pilot, is fully qualified from the outset. the other thing i want to clear up is that there's somehow something wrong with having other flying jobs and having real world experience. let me explain to you the difference between the structure ed hand holding training environment and messy real world oergs operational flying. in the real world, you have to develop judgment. you have to have the skills. you have to have the knowledged too to do the job. that's something that's built over aperiod of time. that's as important as having

the training environment, which is really a much more sterile environment. when you are not as able to make those judgments, are not as able to develop that skill. both are important, that dichotomy imposed on this debate, and, of course, we need -- we must -- we can have both. >> rights. >> thank you. i think my time expired. thank you. >> senator? >>. >> thank you. i appreciate the comments just now, captain about the difference between the real world and training environment and the qualities that are necessary to deal with the real world as they are in many endeavors and challenges which are different from what can be experienced in the artificial environment in training. you mentioned those skills and

experience and passion for flying. and i think, you know one quality that sort of pervades all of them is mental health, and i don't know whether you have given thought and i would invite the rest of the panelists as well to whether there should be better screening for mental health, periodically as we do for physical health because men menialmen menialmen mental health can impact qualities, skill and even fatigue where we are here today in part because in 2009 the tragic crash of flight 3407 in buffalo was the result of, in

part fatigue, but fatigue often masks mental health issues. so my open ended question to you, and, by the way, i appreciate that nap si's sister is here today, and my question to you and maybe the other panelists, if they wish to answer, is whether mental health should be the subject of screening, whether it should be not only an issue put to the pilot, co-pilot, but also to his fellow pilots and co-pilots because they are the ones likely to get to know him or her and see whether that person comets to have passion for his or her work, a focus in concentration, a real ability to function in those demanding circumstances

when the challenges are greatest. so i invite you to address the topic. >> senator, thank you, i'd be glad to. this obviously, is something i have not only thought about, but i recently written about. in fact, the germanwings crash unimaginable to pilots, stands in the face of everything we believe, is illustrative in several ways. first of all this particular pilot with 600 hours could not under under standards in the united states could not have been a pilot, did not have the reck requestion sit experience and he was not vetted repeatedly by a series of different employers and flying jobs or observed for

a longer period of time. and the 149 people in the african-american paid a horrific price for those failures. it's also important that we realize that in any domain and know for 40 years and having a history of using aviation safety self-reporting systems that there are some critical safety information only gleaned by self-reporting and no other source, so whatever choices we make whatever improvements we suggest based on what findings are ultimately of this crash we need to be careful that we do not decrease self-reporting because my understanding of medical knowledge is that it does not quite yet enable us to predict when some one person may have a break. in spite of the fact that we do

screening, we have regular medical exampleinations and training to demonstrate our knowledge, our skill, our judgment in spite of how close the working relationship is in a dock pit where you are literally elbow's length from each other you spend sometimes 14 or more hours per day locked in this little cockpit closet where no interaction goes unnoticed, it's really difficult to know exactly who that other person is in spite of the fact we have professional standards committees for our pilots unions who can go to fears who are trained to intervene in cases like this or go to the chief pilot and faa can pull someone in for a special evaluation. self-reporting is one of the most powerful ways for the pilot, whether it's a family member, or person themselves. >> so self-reporting really has to be preserved and encouraged? >> yes. >> the consequences for self-reporting should not detour

at self-reporting? >> yes, senator. what that means is we have to create and maintain a just culture and not a punitive one. we need a clear pathway for the pilot to say, i need help, to get the help the need when the condition is resolved to then be able to get recertified and eventually come back to work. the pilots not fit to fly should not fly. thank you. >> thank you, senator and thank you to the panels, witnesses for being here today, we appreciate it very much, and the witness stays open for two weeks, and my colleagues are free to submit written questions and hope you comply in answering them in that time period. i plan to submit a couple to the faa and mr. hart again, thank you to all the witnesses. i know you'll continue to follow work on this issue. we're adjourned.

>> since 2010 ten states saw their largest fires on record. coming up on c-span3 a hear on the government's role in wildfire management. and a little later in the morning at 11:00 eastern on c-span former orz governor mike huckabee joins the 2016 presidential field making his announcement in the hometown of hope, arkansas. again again, that's on c-span. in a recent pentagon briefing the commander breedlove voiced a concern that russia could be gearing up for an offensive in ukraine and spoke about the flow of foreign fighters related to isis moving in and out of

europe. >> all ready? >> sure. >> so thank you all for being here. it's already been a long and productive day, i do have an opening statement, and i'll get to question but first and foremost i want to welcome young juliet back there, who came to work with her dad and request i put my coin in your hand? [ applause ] big hand for juliet.

as many of you know i just complete the the testimony with the sask, had a great exchange which i believe many of you watched, but for those who did not, i'm going to follow a few other points that i made there. europe faces a very different and much more challenging security environment, one with significant lasting implications for u.s. and national security interests. russia is attempting to change the rules and principles that have been the foundation of european security for decades. the challenge posed by a resur gent russia is global, not regional, and enduring, not temporary. the situation on the ground in eastern ukraine is volatile and fragile, and we remain convinced the best way to bring the conflict to an acceptable lasting solution is through a political settlement. one that respects state's sovereignty and territory integrity, and while many question the kind of assistance

the u.s. should provide, we need to expand the conversation of it to ensure we include all elements of national power to support ukraine, using the dime formula that we use in the military of diplomatic informational military and economic. we cannot fully be certain what russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp putin's intent, but we can and are doing is learning from his actions, and what we see suggests growing russian capabilities significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent. we know that putin only responds to strengths and seeks opportunities in weakness. we must strengthen our deterrents in order to manage his opportunistic response. nato and alliance are adapting through, and improving our readiness including our

responsiveness adapting to the challenge and increasing our own collective security. coupled with the challenges posed by russia, europe faces a surge of violent extremism from foreign fighters returning home from the fight in syria and in iraq. spread of instability to europe and reach of transnational terrorism could have a direct bearing on the national security of the u.s. homeland and facing both of of the serious challenges to the east and to the south, we are working closely with our sisters, nato partners as well as allies and other international organizations including the e.u. addressing these challenges means our own efforts in europe remain utterly essential more important now than any other time in recent history. our reassurance in atlantaic resolve demonstrates resolve to keep the presidents and our nation's commitment to article 5

of the net washington treaty. our ability to be as responsive and to reassure quickly rests on the fact that we are there in europe. forward. and ready. there are semimy no institute for our forward force presence in europe. it's the bedrock of our ability to ensure our allies, detour real and potential add ver stairs and respond in a timely way should deterrence fail. presence is a substitute for permanent is no substitute for permanent forward presence but generally and fully funded rotational presence can play an important role in helping meet requirements in our theater if it's heel to toe and properly resourced. they are complimentary and both forward and u.s. rotational forces. increased readiness gains associated with forces has added value because of the flexibility

i have to assign them throughout the theater for exercises and training which is meant to assure our allies and partners. the advantages are at risk because of challenges and tradeoffs we face now based on the budget control act, which have already forced them to assume significantly greater risk. our time lines are longer our preparations less robust, and fundmental ability to detour and defeat in a timely and effective manner is less sure than it could be. our security challenges in and around europe only grow sharper and more complicated and will be made much worse if sequester occurs. with that, i think i'm ready it take questions. >> thank you very much. the hill your comments here, on the twitter feed, your very forward leaning of your

assessment of the seriousness of the threat of russian military activity in eastern ukraine to a degree that the white house is not. i wonder if you feel the policy response from the obama administration, the gradual ratcheting up et cetera, meets the challenge, meet -- as you laid out here, meeting the challenges in europe putin only responds to strength seeks opportunity in weakness there's a mismatch between your description and the policy of obama. >> so there are things that we are doing broadly in europe which i do believe addresses putin's calculus. thing we do with our nato allies to build insurance measures that happen from north to south, air land, and sea. these are strong responses.

our nations reply in the european initiative taking almost a million dollars to build that infrastructure that we need in the eastern most portions of the nato nations to bring exercises, which you see playing out now, training which you see playing out now, helping not only nato allies, but nato partners, great partners like georgia, the second largest troop contributor in our resolute portions in afghanistan today, and so i think we are taking broad measures which mr. putin does understand. and the concern i have about what's going on in the east is base on what we've seen across the last year as russian operations continued. >> general breedlove, in the testimony today, you also said that russia's recent activity in build upduring the reset gives you pause that leads you to believe they are preparing for

another offensive sometime this spring, and i wondered if you can please provide details what was you have seen and what you think is going to happen. >> so i think what i said was that these preparations are consistent with the possibility of an offensive, and that's what we've seen. through several of the previous pauses, in eastern ukraine, what we saw is a pattern of resupply, training what we call refurb and refit for any future actions. we have seen that happen during this lull during this cease fire since 12 february agreement. so we can't know what mr. putin has in mind. we can see what he's done in the past and what he's done during this pause and that does concern me. >> >> if they were to go forward after the reset, what's the

object ifives objectives? specific questions, are you prepared to say there's russian underwater activity? >> talking to the objectives first. we don'tputin's objectives are. i can offer personal opinion, not the opinion of either the commander or the nato supply commander in europe. you know, i believe that mr. putin, and he. wants west out of ukraine and ukraine out of the west. i think until that simple formula is met, mr. putinments ukraine as his sphere of influence. you've heard this. he wants a state that's not leaning towards nato on his

borders. i think that he will continue to pressure towards that. that's my opinion. as far as defense i know as much as you have i've been here preparing for testimony for the testimony and working that and followed what you have followed in the press and i'm not dodging the question i just don't know anymore. we know they dropped them shallow, and i think they are signaling. that's what's been in the press, but i do not have anymore ex exquisite information. >> the european missile defense at about this time, is that still on track? are the sailors going to deploy there? if they get there and the site is operational, how does that change the situation described between us and russians or nato and the russians? >> so i have a very broad understanding of the schedule. it's not down to when sailors are supposed to leave so i

can't address specifically when they are supposed to leave. what i can address is that the program of standing up this first site is on track. i would say to be intellectually honest, very slightly behind in construction. the navy and nda is certain they can turn it over for technical occupy on time. it's on budget. that's also a good thing. so right now, we are on time to deliver and stay on the schedule to bring this side up. it will be important. it will be the first of those sure sites that enable the epaa, the europeernan adaptive approach, and allies are right next to us.

>> this is a big movement for the russians, though, they are very upset about it. if it stays on track as you describe, is that only going to increase the stress for everyone on the continent right now because it's one other thing to upset them? >> so as you know, we've many a long conversation with the russians physics is physics, and their public position on this is that it's not good. that has not change in a long time. i'm not sure that this will be any new incremental leap in concern. >> you had back and fort this morning with senator reid about -- you said that the offensive weaponry should be considered, consider arming ewe inging ukraine with offensive weapons. could you expand on that? what type of weapons are you talking about? >> so thank you for asking that. two and a half plus hours of one witness testimony this morning

and after i left i thought i went good, and the staff said, sir, you said offensive weapons twice. so, thank you for letting me clear the air here. what we're talking about is what we have always talked about which is the defensive lethal weapons. i use those words and did not owe i used them. let's clean that up with the sask and make sure that all understand this is not some big policy leap or change or anything, it's just a fighter pilot doing two and a half plus hours worth of testimony in front of the senate. my position has not changed. that is that in ukraine, in crimea, georgia, all the other places, russia brings all elements of national power to bear when they begin to exert influence on a nation, back to that dying model, diplomatic informational military and economic. in ukraine, intense diplomatic pressure, trying to discredit

the government of ukraine and try to bring pressure against all supporting organizations in the west that are standing inside of ukraine. informational, i don't need to tell you all how strong deep, and wide the russian misinformation campaign is out there. militarily, this is probably the biggest change in the last two decades. we've seen now russia that will use its military to change the international borders of a nation. and then economically, we see intense economic and energy pressures on these. so russia's bringing to bear all elements of national power. what i have said continuely, said it here, not all that long ago, is that we should not unnecessarily take off the plate any of those tools to include military tools defensively. >> defensive weapons, sir? >> i don't discuss individual weapons. i find all too often that we get very limiting conversations when

we choose one thing to talk about. we have had an opportunity throw our joint commission in ukraine, the u.s.-european command had over 25 visits into ukraine. many of them before august of last year, and we had to go repeat a few of those because as russia came across the border in august of last year, they very much changed the face and complexion of the ukraine military. we went back and revisited this part of the joint commission with a firm understanding of what ukraine military needs and the good news is it matches fairly closely to what it's asking the west to help it with and it is broad categories of capability. i don't think it's useful to talk about any single one or two types of weapons. >> you outlined the threat posed by russia and president putin and what you call the broad range of responses that you've had, but i think it's fair to

say that there's a sense of frustration among some people in the senate arms services committee today that the united states and its nato partners are not able to take action to bring about resolve consistent with u.s. national security policy goals, and that they find the description of what's going on now to be somewhat unsatisfactory. what is your response that when you sense that frustration, that the united states is not able to do more to bring about a result more favor m -- favorable, what's your response to that? >> i have a role to play, combat and command of the area, bring my best military advice to the region and military and that's what i do. i continue to work with a situation. observe. do what we're doing specifically in ukraine and other nations we are doing all the same things through our joint commission to

determine what's appropriate, and i pass advice up and we allow the policy makeser to make their decisions. >> are you saying there's not a more satisfactory action option to offer at this point? >> i'm having trouble understanding what you've asked, but i'll grade my own paper, we put good advice on the table, and it's being looked at. >> thank you general. earlier today, you talk the about sharing resources and i want more detail on the forces you share there what percentage, if you have them, numbers, specifics, and how often does this occur? sir, i know you don't like hypotheticals, but if there were a major conflict to occur on the european andcontinents could they handle this with the

numbers they currently have? >> that's a great question. i love to answer this one. first of all, the shares agreement we have is unique. we did not have this authority before, and because we are so closely linked in where we are in the world and because so many of our allies are so closely linked to the issues in africa, and as the cause of so much of what happens in europe is affected by the flows out of africa, it was important that rodded rodriguez and i have the ability to quickly use forces without having to go through a cumbersome process which goes back and allows for the transfer, et cetera. secretary hagel and his team looked at a proposal that we put forward between rod and i that would allow us at the deputy levels to agree to use forces back and forth without going

through more cumbersome process processes processes, so literally just about everything in africom is share left and right if we have to do that. that is positive. we've dope it numerous times saving great time in responding to an issue when rod and his team comes to us and says, we really need these c 130s and these 2 2s, and this to do this and boom we're off. so this sharing arrangement i think is a model for the future. it's kind of started off because, first of all, general rodriguez and i have a close relationship, and then we decided we'll make it happen, staffs follow, and then we were able to make it work officially through new authorities that we have now. now to the question on major conflict. i have to just say that the forces in europe over the past 20 years have been sized for a situation where we were looking at russia as a partner.

so we have come down over 75% in the forces since the cold war and staff anded headquarters are the same way because russia was a partner and we did not need the great force structure, and what we see now, of course is russia demonstrated it is not a partner. also we have new challenges from the south in foreign fighter flows and other migrations. we have the issue of syria and iraq on one of our allies' borders, et cetera so i think it is fair to say that we probably ought to look at that fore structure and see if it's not adequate to the task that both africomm places on it. >> sir is it possible to get your assessment of the pace of russia russia's combat aviation controls around europe? has that picked up within the last year? between 13 and 14, queue drupele

drupeleddrupele quadrupled or something. >> we talked about this last time i was at the podium. there was a period where we had a spike in the aviation patrols. we are back down now to essentially norms. so -- >> why do you think that is. >> i can't tell you. there are all other kinds of focus that the russian military has right now, and including the ukraine and other places. they may have put demands on the fore structure that they now have to address in maintenance ways. i really would not want to speculate, but we are back to a pretty close to norm. >> i'd like to go back to the questions asked earlier today about turkey. specifically how they said no to bring combat search and rescues and as operation continues and american pilots are flying every unfriendly area, and you talked how a pilot how important the guys are to you, is there an initiative to bring guard yap

angels in other areas to support the operation? >> this is a subject i just can't discuss with you in open forum right now. >> you also talked a little about this morning about your concerns wayhat are your concerns about isis, potentially using the refugee flow from north africa from libya and other countries, and do you believe isis is using that flow? what is your current assessment about isis's penetration into the nato countries into southern europe? can you keep your concerns about keeping europe safe? >> so it's a tough question. i can tell you i'm concerned that isis will use every vehicle available for moving operatives back and forth into europe, into the united states into west, wherever. i don't think there's any one

opportunity out there saying they would not consider that they will use or not use in the future. i do believe that many of the transient migrant flows across the mediterranean need to be look at. i don't have any one glaring example to point to but this is a concern that we have. >> what is your concern about the ability now to essentially keep europe safe from isis and your current assessment about commercial aviation across europe since that's always a target? >> so i have said before, and i would still say the same thing, that the problem that we're going to face from foreign fighters of which isis could be a part of but certainly foreign

fighter flow is going to get worse before it gets better. i think we all realize that there are a lot of fighters in iraq and syria from all the nations of the west to include the united states, and while some of them answer the call to stay there others will return. they will return with skills and many of them with malicious intent. i think the good news is that the nations are beginning to take action in that for a while nations have been coming together in smaller coalitions in addressing this view that intelligence sharing, policing et cetera, et cetera. you see larger organizations taking this on. in nato, we discuss how to address this. in the very beginning as a

large institution, but some of our nations have been working very deeply together for a long time. >> what do you think nato can do? what do you want them to do to fight this foreign fighter flow into europe? >> what i think nato will do at first is to begin shared intelligence and to begin to work inside the nations to understand that this is bigger than a military problem. each nation happenles intelligence inside their nation in different ways, and it's important that we do an all of government approach meaning those moi or ministry of interior functions and mod defense functions share together. i think what you are see, and i really can't speak because it's a nayjust beginning, but you'll see broad intelligence sharing and being able to cooperate sharing as we track these people. >> talking about the flow of the

fighters, do you know the size of the fighters coming from syria and iraq and, also, do you believe that turkey's doing enough to counter the flow to join isil inside syria? >> so i don't think i have a number to give you on number of foreign fighters returning. i'll make news i can't back up if i throw numbers out there. i'll avoid that. we know there's returners because we're capturing them. they are -- they've been involved with issues in our nations. so as you've seen, three attacks from paris to copenhagen so to

turkey as i'm often asked, in a military relationship, military to military, to turkey, our relationship is strong, our cooperation is strong, and we have seen them come and help us with several things now like training and equipping and other things that are going on, turkey addressing problems at the border because problems to them just like they are problems to us. i don't share the concerns that some do that there are issues here. i see a strong ally that recognizes the problem and working with us on it. >> general, if putin only respects strength, why remove 150 helicopters from europe? >> so i don't think that number is correct that you just quoted. you're asking about the aviation restructuring initiative for

some aircraft return. so, i mean we are all still dealing with the budget control act, the first 478 billion reduction in our budgets, and facing budgets that could be sequestered from here on out, all the services not only the army, have a structure problem, and the services are dealing with those structure problems the way they have to. as to our specific situation in europe, the way that they are back filling with the rotational force will actually leave me probably with more fore structure than i have now. the fore structure i have in europe now is gone about exactly half the time over the last ten years it's been deployed to afghanistan, iraq, or some other place, and that leaves a certain amount of capability. i will be back filled now with a rotational force that arrives ready, i don't have to train it to get it ready arrives ready and will not deploy, but be there with me in order to serve full time, and so if the

initiative is heel to toe, back-to-back, fully funded we will have the capability that we have before. >> what message sends the russians you are taking out permanent aircraft with row takal temporary aircraft? >> i think what is -- what is concerning possibly to the russians are all the other things that are taking on around it. the eri. a billion dollars worth of investment in presence training, infrastructure in the eastern most things, a strong reassurance measure, as you know, into the third rotation heavy armor forces striker forces, paratroopers strong aircraft presence, north, south, and center and, i mean we're -- the presence right now of our u.s. forces in europe is quite exceptional.

>> do you have plans to increase your army units or add more armor to the force? strengthen the force? >> we are talking with the army about numerous initiatives. i don't want to lay them out here because it would be premature, but how we rotate and how we forward prepositioned forces are all being discussed. >> general could you talk about some of the propaganda initiatives that russia has and what are successful examples broadcast, leaflets, that sort of thing, and what you're doing to counteract it? >> so to the russian information campaign or as i like to call it, disinformation campaign, it's a well orchestrated, well run effort across all media printed, internet tv.

some of the tv offered in the baltics is really quite extraordinary. it's very good tv. the programming is very slick and very good. it's -- it itself is not often propaganda, but because it's the programs that people want to watch, they are tuned into the station. in between the programs, you get the message. and so very, very slick, very very well orchestrated, audio, visual visual, radio, internet, et cetera, et cetera, strong if all the media. this is not my number but i used it before,ic i used it here. we have heard essentially they put about 333 million u.s. dollar equipments into their program. this is a big investment. it's clear that they see the

value of getting their story, their narrative out. i would say that in the west all of us, biller than nay know, the e.u. all the west, has really not answered yet. we are -- we find it harder to deal with this. remember that the speed and power of the lie is its fast and it does not have to be backed up, as long as it's accepted it's good. to attack that narrative is harder so we have work to do. >> what are some of the messages that they are getting across? >> rather than going into that, i'd just say tune in rt and watch. >> sir there's a crisis with migration. migration from the north african coast into southern europe. is there proposals to assist in the relief of the effort, or to

assist the countries there? and then another part of the aor, a couple weeks ago, you had the incident with the reconnaissance plane that was buzzed by a russian fighter. do you have app update on that? do you have other information about what happened there? have you got a suitable response from the russians? >> okay. let's talk to ucomm and migrants first. so, yes, there is a problem of flow of myigrants across from the north african continent into multiple european command allied nations along the mediterranean. probably the most demonstrative into italy. italy, for instance had an operation which addressed this issue for a while, and then handed that operation off to the e.u., who may be a little better

suited because they are an all of government sort of organization where it was the italian navy dealing with it before. right now, the involvement that we have in the u.s. is helping them understand the situation on the water that the operational picture out there, et cetera, but we are not directly involved in that business yet. this i think, is something that will evolve. i believe that europeanupon will be evermore involved in this. they are really an proempt organize to deal with it because they have capability afloat, and they have all the connective tissue to the rest of government judiciary, policing et cetera, et cetera, and so that right now is the way ahead. >> aircraft? >> yes we had an intercept that you have heard about that was

unprofessional. i think it's become real clear to us now one of the thoughts we had when it happened is that it could have just been a lack of proficiency. we do believe that happened. we messaged the russians about this incident, and we have had another intercept since that time and it was done completely professionally. >> you stated earlier that the level of interception or level of flights through that region had returned to normal? >> it's about normal. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac