i've been pondering american history with europe while we've been listening to your testimony and q&a back and forth. and it seems after world war ii for 47 years when there was not a european community our relationship with europe was good. then we had the e.u. created seven years worth of phase in and the euro currency comes into play in roughly 1999 and 16 years after and our relationship has been good. so either way america's relationship with europe has done well with and without the euro. so to me the european union issue is more of a focal point for the european nations and they should be the deciders of their fate. and i'm curious about a comment that was made that the european union is better for the usa, quote, end quote. and my question is why? what can you share for us that would help convince me that it is in america's best interest to

have a european union as opposed to not having one in as many as our relationship with europe was good in both context. >> i'll take a swing at it. first of all, the e.u. whatever the current problems may be is a major economic problem in the world and a major trading partner. >> is that good for us or bad for us. >> good for us. >> as they negotiation trade agreements with the united states. >> but as prosperity is growing and one that american investors can send their products and send their money and make investment. >> do you have any proof that it was growing slower before or after the e.u. >> in the 1990s it grew quite well as did we. it has had propped since 2008. we've recovered more quickly than europe has. >> this is outside of the framework of this hearing but do

you have any data that backs that up, from the history of that, while we're talking since 19 45 so somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 years. >> the lowering of trade barriers in europe which was part of the european project clearly helped stimulate economy recover in the 1950s and 60s and allowed free trade in europe and allowed the economies to grow. second thing as been said here, the european union is a source of stability and instrumental in helping the transition from communism and that is good for the united states because it has been until relatively recently a part of the world where we didn't have to worry as much post the breakup of the soviet union. there are other parts of the world we are concerned with. and if europe spiralled toward

rivalries american policymakers will spend more time worrying about that than another problems. and europe is a strategic partners of us and if they are weaker and increasingly divided then when we try to deal with other strategic problems in the world we'll get even less help from europe than we do now. >> one of the important aspects of our relationship with europe is our military alliance, particularly nato and it seems that under the european union, defense spending but the collective of european nations has declined as opposed to when they were a part of the european union let making them less able to help america than trouble spots around the globe. i mention that as a concern of mine. i want to focus my remaining time on the greek bailout impact on america. we've had now the third bailout the first one was in 2010 and

then 2012 sand now 2015 and we are hoping this one would stick when the two prior ones did not. what is the monetary exposure to the united states of these bailouts failing? >> i guess i can take a stab at that. the direct exposure to the united states to the greek bail outs come out through the ifm, the 17 percent -- >> 17.9%. >> and that exposure is about 25 -- i believe $25 billion. so 17% or 16% or 17% of that. however, as we're seeing in the agreement this weekend, actually, the europeans made it explicit they are going to pay -- give greece the money so they can re pay the imf. >> very quickly in my remaining few seconds, is the ifm involved

in the third bailout. >> i believe it is yes. >> and so they will supply funds for the third bailout. >> it will not increase it because existing loans will be repaid simultaneously. >> dube the net? >> sorry. >> do you know the net? is it going up or down. and we have the old and now the new bailout numbers and payoff of some of the old or new. is it a net up or down? >> i don't know what the request from the europeans will be and it depends on the size of the greek privatization proceeds, et cetera but for the next three to four years it will be about even after which it will begin to decline quite rapidly. >> mr. chairman may time has expired and thank you for the indulgence and the extra 45 seconds. >> so the united states will be paying for the sum of the bailout because we are part of the international monetary fund? >> yeah, we are.

we're 17.69% is our quota ownership of international monetary fund so whatever the assets are in the imf and their obligations to greece since we're one of the owners there is an impact on the united states. >> so what is your guess then -- say there is a certain amount of bailout, and how much of that is the united states going to end up paying? >> well the range that was mentioned -- >> through this -- >> yeah. the range that was mentioned of the agreement over the weekend was 60 -- 82-86 billion euros which is just over $90 billion. >> right. >> and then however subtracted from that will be whatever the proceeds assuming the number of greek government privatization state owned enterprises, et cetera, and now how much that will be is unknown but the target is 50.

i certainly don't believe they will reach 50. but let's say it is 20. that takes you down to the mid-70s -- or $70 billion. so one-third of that would be for the imf to cover. >> and how much of that is us. one-third of that is what -- $25 billion. >> give and take. and then 16% of the 22. >> 16%. now what does that leave? that leaves us about $5 billion, just about. >> something like that. >> so isn't that wonderful that we're getting to bail out greece and our friends over in europe for $5 billion. isn't that wonderful. but we can't find any way to use that money any way. >> well it is important to recognize that if the bailout deal were to work, then it is not a handout, it is a loan that gets repaid. all right, so the question is really do you think this is likely to turn greece around,

finally allow it to begin to pay off the debts and lead to a restructuring of the debt and we all live happily ever after. >> excuse me -- what about the date -- excuse me with a member of the panel here, but the banks, when you talk about we're bailing out the european banks -- these people are being bailed out said the banks are actually getting the money. are these privately held banks or are these banks that are owned by the government of france and england and et cetera? >> well, in this instance, the current bailout under discussion is not private banks that own the debt. there was that issue back in 2010 where there were clearly some european banks that benefit benefits from that they were mostly private banks in france and elsewhere. but clearly the european government entered into this process because they were afraid that otherwise they would have to bail out these banks

themselves and therefore make them -- >> so we're not bailing out any private -- this money for bailing out greece does not include money that is going to privately owned banks? >> no. i mean there are -- >> is that right? the other gentleman is that true? >> i don't think it is entirely true. it depends on what you mean by privately-held banks. >> some of the money will help greek banks that have no cash on hand at present. >> it sort of makes it even worse, doesn't it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr., just wanted to follow up on your previous comments about it being better for us and if the e.u. stays together. if you could answer the question, in the opposite way of talking about how we can measure what the impact on our economy would be if the e.u. completely dissolved, or if it ends up that the u.k. ends up exiting the

e.u., what kind of impact would that have for us? >> purely economic terms i think that would be a blow to the euro zone and the e.u. in general as an economic actor and lead to slower economic growth in europe which is already relatively low but that in turn reduces economic opportunities for the united states because if the euro -- the e.u. is growing at a half percent a year and there are far fewer european firms that can sell things or europeans that can buy american products. so we are better off if the -- if europe had a vigorous demanding economy and need for american products. >> do we have a specificity on what impact that would be. obviously you are saying there could be some loss. but i'm trying to look for a little bit more? >> i can't give you a figure a macro economic estimate i don't have that of what the actual

impact on the u.s. economy will be but anything that hurts the european economy will also hurt the united states, not perhaps as much, but it has a negative effect on our economic prospects as well. >> it is difficult to put numbers on this but the united states is now dealing with one economic block. so when the u.s. trades with the european union, it is one-on-one. but if the european union it is one on 28. there 28 sets of separate bilateral agreements the u.s. has to work out with the countries. and access to one market of 506 million people and a u.s. company doing business has access to the entire market. if this breaks down or splinters in some fashion, it adds that much more level of complication in terms of dealing with thesent thesent -- entities. >> with regard to what prime minister cameron has before him,

what do you assess he will try to renegotiate with regard to britain's commitment to the e.u.? >> i can take it. what he has -- it is unclear precisely what he's asking for at this moment from the e.u. authorities but what he has mentioned is he would like to have britain exempt from something called the working time directive which is a european regulation that says you cannot work more than 48 hours a week. excuse me. and then there are other specific times of e.u. regulation or e.u. law that he would like the e.u.k. exempt from. he may seek to be exempt from the opening clause of the e.u. treaty which talks about an ever closer union. which of course would be purely symbolic politics but that is

important in a referendum campaign. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> so we're going to have to go pretty quickly here and i just want to confirm this so we're talking about, in this bailout-the greek bailout, that about $5 billion will -- americans will have $5 billion coming from our pockets. would you like to again go back -- i would like to go back again to who this money is going to? the bailout -- first of all, is it accurate to say that the bankruptcy can be traced back to policies of greek government? >> in my opinion yes. yes. >> okay, so the great government had policies that put us in a spot where banks -- now the banks that will be repaid now because they have been spending this money to keep the greeks

afloat these banks are -- you're saying they are not private banks, they are german banks, french banks? >> no. no no this is in 2010. today the people going to be repaid are in fact the imf itself and the european union and the euro area and a relatively small amount of total outstanding debt 20% is still held by private investors. so there is no direct so to speak. >> so the last bailout we saw private banks being basically being given money bailed out, and they bailed out the greeks but they give it to the private banks. are those private banks are they profit making or government relations. >> they are overwhelmingly private profit making

institutions. >> how much was the last bailout? >> well the original -- well the total bailout so far is $240 billion. >> $240 billion. of that $240 billion, how much went to the private banks? >> i think that is -- i don't have the number off the top of my head but i would say if you look at the direct exposure that these banks had to the greek debt that was restructured, which should also be known that the banks actually took, as i'll private debt holders did, a 50% hair cut on this debt in -- >> well it defends on if the hair cut meant they are still making a profit or whether it means they are going to eat into the resource -- if a bank or if any other private institution, at least in our society is supposed to be if you take a risk -- you are making your money because you are taking a risk in giving your money out. and if the federal government or

if the european union simply bails out anybody who has taken a risk and makes up for it with public funds, i don't see why we're -- why are they making a profit then on this stuff. you're saying those banks didn't make a profit those years? >> well i mean, i'm saying that they are profit-making private enterprises and i would say they definitely did not make a profit on the greek debt holdings because they were compelled to take a sizable debt restructuring, a 50% hair cut back in 2012. >> well i'm wondering, i could see why people are skeptical, regular working people, people with small funds would be skeptical about the transfer of billions of dollars and a lot of it going and bailing out really very, very wealthy people who control the banking system. mr. meeks you have one last --

>> well, i mean -- i'm sorry. it seems as though, from what i've hearing, that the risk to the united states as far as us, it is minimal, if anything. it is not substantial. and the likelihood of us having to pay anything, especially with the special fund that the europeans have set up to make sure the imf -- because the only exposure is through the imf and that seems to be backed up already by the e.u. in the agreement saying they are going to make sure the imf is paid so that would leave $0 that the united states -- as far as being -- is that not correct. >> yes. it is very important to emphasize the imf is the super senior creditor and this will be a firm commitment by the creditor to make sure the imf is paid back and the exposure to the united states is zero or close to zero.

>> i remember when we bailed out mexico. >> you had your time already. >> and all of the money through american banks that never left our shores at all. >> and all i know is we had a financial crisis also in the united states in 2008 and we had to bail out banks to keep our economy afloat. the banks ultimately paid things back. so this is not something that is unusual as far as dealing with a economy, they are not doing anything differently than what we had to do. we rebounded and now we have to get the reforms that are necessary and it is vastful because when you look at the e.u. as a whole for us, we're looking at what is in america's best interest and we have to hope what is in europe's best interest but if you look at what is in america's best interest it is for us to deal with europe as a whole. for example, one of the next big issues that we have to deal with in congress is going to be another trade agreement called t-tip and it would be best for

the united states if we were negotiating that deal and doing it with the e.u. as a whole because that then gives a greater market for our businesses to try to make sure that we get the best deal to create jobs here, et cetera. is that not correct. >> that is correct. >> correct. >> thank you. >> we have skeptics over here. i'm one of them. thank you all mr. meeks. thank you to our witnesses. we have a vote so we have to run. god bless you. thank you.

tomorrow on c-span. >> janet yellen will testify before the house financial services committee about monetary policy and the economy. that is live here on c-span starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and rachel oswald joins us with cq roll call, and a foreign policy reporter and she'll give us some insight on the iran nuclear agreement reached this morning. thank you for joining us, rachel. now that the nuclear agreement has been reached what is the current process for congressional review and whether or not they will approve or disapproval of this deal. >> i think you can expect the senate arms foreign relations and the house and the counter administrators will hold a series of briefings and outside expects and we can expect some classified briefs for lawmakers

to hear from administration ofirms about the -- officials about the deal. and then i think we can see three things happen in the 60 days that congress has to review the deal. they could let the 60 days go by and do nothing. they could take up a resolution approving the deal. which is unlikely considering that republicans hold both houses of congress and have already come out mostly against the deal. and the third option is that the congress would take up a resolution of disapproval and pass it. at that time the obama administration -- president obama would have 12 days to veto the resolution sending it back to congress in which congress would have ten days to try and override that veto. so we won't see this fully resolved unwilling the fall -- until the fall, that is for sure. >> and rachel, what are the key points to focus on in the deal? >> i think one thing of increasing importance is the announcement that u.n. security council conventional sanctions on iran, on banning the expert of weapons to iran would be

lifted within five years in the deal. and that sanctions on the export of ballistic missile technology will be lifted within eight years. now the president had previously said this deal only would consider nuclear sanctions. but some in congress are likely to say well missiles should not be lifted as part of the deal so there could be some controversy with that. and it is interesting to see whether that sways some democrats who haven't previously declared their position, whether they will come out then against the deal. >> and you wrote about president obama and he said he would veto any legislation that blocks this iran deal. what can you tell us from the white house angle of things? >> well that veto threat was long assumed. and what it does -- it essentially -- the president has always had the upper hand here in foreign policy. what congress did with the iran nuclear review act is it give itself more authority to at least review the deal but to stop the deal from going

forward, to stop the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions, it will require both the house and the senate to have a two-thirds majority to overcome the veto. so that will be pretty difficult. we saw that shortly after the april preliminary agreement was announced that about 150 house democrats signed a letter saying that so long as the final deal follows the framework of the april agreement, they would stand with the president in helping him to hold a veto. so it is going to be pretty hard for opponents of this deal to actually block it. it is not impossible. but it will be pretty hard. >> now let's focus in a couple of lawmakers. chair of the foreign relations committee, bob corker and the ranking member ben cardin. what have their reactions been and in other -- democrats or

republicans. >> senator corker came out with a statement today saying that he was deeply skeptical that a deal with iran would completely hold. he didn't condemn the deal but he wanted to thoroughly review and planned to hold hearings on the matter. i don't know know what benjamin cardin said of the deal as of yesterday. >> what is the timetable. when will congress see the text of this deal and then moving forward, what is the time frame? >> according to a statement released by the iranians and the european members of the negotiations we should see the full text of the deal released later today. i don't know if that means it will be formally sent to congress, but it should be available online the main text and the five technical an exes. >> and rachel oswald, a lot of information and we'll keep following you on twitter at oswald rachel and reporting at cq.com. thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. this weekend the c-span

cities tour travels across the country with time warner cable to learn more about the history of lexington, kentucky, edward pritchard was a state hero who had a tumultuous career. >> in the 80s if you asked who was the bright star in politics, someone who will be governor senator, perhaps president a lot of people catherine graham schlesinger, would have said ed pritchard of kentucky. he worked in the white house in his early 20s and he seemed destined for great things and came back to kentucky in the mid 1940s, was indicted for stuffing a ballot box and went to prison. and so that incredible promise just flamed out. >> we also visit ashland, the former home of speaker of the house, senator and secretary of state henry clay.

>> the mansion at ashland is a unique construction. his original home had to be torn down and repair and rebuilt. and his son rebuilt on the original foundation. so what we have is a home that is essentially a five-part federal style home as henry clay had, with italian details and architect and added layer of aesthetic details added by his granddaughter and great granddaughter and so on. >> see all of our programs saturday evening at 6:30 and at 2:00 on c-span 3. president obama has nominated marine core commandant joseph dunford to be chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. last week they held a confirmation hearing. john mccain chaired the 2.5 hour

hearing.

good morning, the armed services committee meets to consider the nomination of chairman dunford. the general is certainly no changer to the members of this committee. we have known him as command ant of the marine corp and our commander in afghanistan before that. he is a warrior and leader of the highest quality and we are grateful for his 38 years of distinguished service. we're also thankful for the sacrifices of general dunford's family has made over the years and the willingness to lend him to the nation in service once

again. as our tradition at the beginning of your testimony, we welcome you general dunford to introduce the members of your family joining you this morning. i would, however like to take this moment to express our special thanks to your wife ellen. we know how much of your husband's service and his future absence will rest on you and we honor the sacrifices you are making through your continued support to our nation and not to mention the downgrade in your residence that will be part of this. the next chairman will have to prepare a military to confront the most diverse and complex array of global crises since the end of world war ii. in iraq and syria, isil terrorist army has continued to succeed on the battlefield, including taking ramadi and

other key territory in iraq and controlling every border post between iraq and syria. the lack of a coherent strategy has resulted in the spread of isil around the world. to libya, egypt, nigeria and even to afghanistan where i visited last weekend. there are troops are supporting our afghan partners in sustaining a stable and democratic future but even as isil and the taliban threaten this future the president remains committed to a drastic reduction of the us presence in the end of 2016, before the afghan government and security forces are fully capable of operating echktively -- effectively without our support. this would create a security vacuum and we have seen what fills similar kinds of vacuums in syria and iraq. given your experience in afghanistan, general dunford, we'll be interested to hear your authorities about the appropriate u.s. and coalition presence going forward.

meanwhile, iran continues to threaten peace and stability across the middle east through the support of terrorist proxies, pursuit of nuclear weapons and developing the missiles needed to deliver them to targets far beyond its shows. in europe, vladimir putin's russia continues the onslaught in ukraine and even as russian troops execute this campaign to undermine the ukraine government and independence, the united states has refused ukraine the weapons it needs and deserves for its defense. and in the asia pacific, shina is continuing a pattern of destabilizing behavior with vast land features in the south china sea and the military buildup designed to counter u.s. milt strengths and the blatant anden deterred cyber attacks against the united states. while our rebalance to the

asia-pacific has shown some successes, spablly in -- especially in deepening of our alliances, this policy has not deterred china from the increasingly assertive course. and yet while worldwide challenges like these grown, the defense department has grown more or less capable and provulnerable to high-tech ones and worse the self-inflicted wounds of the budget control act and sequestration leveled defense spending have made all of the problems worse. army and marine corp strength is dropping dangerously low and the air force is the slowest and smallest it has ever been and nasty is shrinking to preworld war i levels and we will continue the downward spiral of readiness that will compromise each services ability to execute

our defense strategic guidance at a time of accumulating danger to our national security. budget cuts have also slowed critical modernization priorities impairing our nation's ability to preserve the military technology advantage. this isn't just about the weapons systems we hear the most about, fighter aircraft, smeens -- submarines or armored vehicles, these are important, but budget cuts threaten our ability to seize the future and make vital investments in cyber space and break-through technologies such as directed energy autonomous vehicles and data analytics. the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff stated even if the defense department received the $38 billion above the budget caps at the defense budget request our military would still, quote, remain at the lower ragged edge of manageable risk in our ability

to execute the defense strategy. more worrisome, every one of our military service chiefs yourself included has testified that continued sequestration level defense spending puts american lives at greater risk. unless we change course eliminate sequestration, and return to strategy-driven defense budgets i fear our military will confront depleted readiness, chronic modernization problems and deteriorating morale. no matter how many dollars we spend, we won't be able to provide our military the equipment they need with a broken defense acquisition system that takes too long and costs too much. with this year's national defense authorization act, this committee has embarked on a major effort to reform this system, including ways to empower service leaders to manage their own programs and in exchange for greater

accountability. general dunford, we are very interested in hering your views about improving the defense acquisition system based on your years of service. finally, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principal military adviser to the president. more than ever we need an honest and forth right leader that offers his best and unvarnished military advice. the president will not always take your advice but it is my hope that he will always have an appreciation of the military dimt engss of the difficult problems our nation confronts with you at his side. thank you for your willingness to serve once more. we look forward to your testimony, senator reed. >> thank you mr. chairman. and let me join you in welcoming the general and to thank him for his extraordinary service to the nation. during 38 years of the service dunford has served with courage

and distinction and i'm confident he'll continue to do so as the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and finally let me recognize and thank hi family,leen thank you patrick, thank you for being here today. i know joe and kathleen wanted to be here but they are serving elsewhere. but thank you very much for what you've done to serve the nation and the marine corp. the last week the current chairman, general dempsey, released the 2015 national strategy and he stated that the current global security environment is the most unpredibbleable he's seen during military service and global disorder has decreased while some of the military advantage has begun to erode. without question the united states faces a wide range of challenges around the world. if confirmed as the chairman, you'll be viccing the president and the secretary of defense on complex international issues facing our international

interest. possibly the greatest issue is countering the security threat from isil in iraq and syria and spread beyond the middle east region. as the president said this week our counter isil campaign will be long-term and employ all american power including, military diplomatic and economic. you will advice on the u.s. military rode in supporting our broader counter isil campaign, including denial of isil safe havens and building the counter forces to counter isil with training and assistance and air support from the international coalition. the success of the efforts will depend on a broader complementary audit that allowed isil to thrive. i look forward to hearing your opinions on iraq and syria and the most effective role the military can play in supportingef fords on a diplomat

front. regarding iran. while there is no clear out come to the p5 plus 1, the department of defense will play a key role in sharing our priorities with the partners in the region, confronting common threats and working to deescalator possibly resolve these threats. general dunford, if confirm you will bring valuable over sight to afghanistan where you have led with distinction. while the afghan security forces have fought courageously against taliban attacks more needs to be done to build the afghan capabilities and den the extremists. the nenl general will play a critical review in the president's later in year of the size and footprint of the u.s. forces in afghanistan for 2016 and beyond. another security challenge going forward is deterring additional russian aggression toward ukraine and the european neighbors and reinforcing the

minsk cease-fire. congress has made support of military, including defensive weapons to help the ukrainian people maintain their sovereignty and integrity and we will be interested in your views in the situation in ukraine and which additional steps you will make to protect themselves from the hybrid warfare attacks in crimea and eastern ukraine. our men in uniform and women in uniform remain the committee's top concern and i know they are your top concern also. our armed forces are nothing without the people and the department continues to juggle the twin goals of providing high quality of life through fair pay and compensation and exceptional service through adequate training of levels and equipment. in my view it is incumbent bon congress to provide a sized and trained military with quality and character and talent to meet defense requirements and sometimes that means hard

choices especially in the budget constrained forces and the commandant has considered various proposals for mention and health care to slow the growth of personnel so that can be directed to buy back modernization benefits. i would be interested in your views on the impact of such changes are not enacted. and during consideration of the fy 2016 national authorization act this committee had a robust debate on how best to fund defense programs and i repeatedly stated that sequestration is not the approach that we need to address our nation's fiscal challenges and more pointedly it

today. chairman dunford thank you for your willingness to serve the nation and i look forward to discussing these issues. >> before your statement, there are standard questions that the committee asked of military nominees and we've always done that and so i would like to proceed with that before your testimony. in order to exercise this legislative and over sight responsibilities it is important that this committee and other appropriate committees that congress are able to receive testimony briefings and other communications of information. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest. >> i have general.

>> and do you agree when asked to give your personal views even if they differ from the administration and power. >> i do, chairman. >> you have assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would presume the out come of the confirmation process. >> i have not. >> will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines for establishes questions including recordings in the hearings. >> i will. >> will you comply with congressional questions. >> i will. >> and will the witnesses be protected from reprisal from testimony or briefings. >> they will. >> do you agree to confirm and appear and testify before this committee. >> i do chairman. >> do you agree to provide electronic forms of communications in a timely manner which requested by a duly constituted committee or consult with committee with the bathe u basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents. >> yes, general. >> thank you with complying with that formality.

please proceed with your testimony. >> chairman and ranking member and distinct wished members, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i'm truly nominated to be -- honored to be nominated for the chairman of chief of staps and i want to recognize our men and women in uniform and the military families you. joining me today is our wife ellen and our son patrick and our son joe and kathleen were not able to be here. helen is a great mother to our children and has served as an advocate for military families. her sense of humor and flexibility have been tested in 37 years as a military spouse and i wouldn't be here today without her love and support. i would like to thank your committee to our airmen. they are most well train pd and capable military course in the world. i'm mindful of the flexity of the current security

environment. chairman you mentioned that. this committee is well aware of the oppressing challenges in the europe the pacific middle east, africa, space and cyber space, while dealing with these and other issues we need to modernize the joint force in the context of fiscal challenges in budget uncertainty. if confirmed i'll provide the secretary of defense and the president with my best military vice with a range of military options for addressing the future and current challenges to our national security. when asked i'll provide the congress with the best military advice and when delivering best military vice i'll do so with candor. i'll work with the joint chiefs or civilian leaders and members of this chitty to maintain a joint force for our national interest today and tomorrow. most importantly, if confirmed, i'll dedicate myself to leading, representing and keeping faith with the men and women in uniform in a civilian work force who volunteer to serve our

nation. thank you for allowing me to apeep this morning and i'm prepared for your questions. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, general. yesterday -- or day before yesterday we received testimony that so far, with $500 million committed, there has been 60 individuals who have been trained to go into syria and fight against isis. what do you know about that particular situation? chairman, what i know is that we've got major general mike meg yada who has been working at it for some months. the numbers are certainly much less than he estimated. the feedback i received is those

numbers are largely attributable to the vetting process that they think they've learned some things during the process of the first 60 to make other contacts but frankly, chairman, until i have an opportunity to get on the ground and speak to the commanders, what i know now is secondhand. >> do you believe that we should be getting a pledge from these recruits that they will not -- that they will only fight against isis and not assad? >> i understand right now we do have the authority to take action against assad's forces so unless that policy would change, then that pledge would be required. >> given your experience in the military, do you think it is a good idea to train people and send them into a conflict to be attacked and barrel bombed by another entity and then -- and not defending them? >> chairman, i don't. if we train those individuals and they go back into syria to fight, i think we need to -- if we expect them to be successful we need to provide them can the

cape -- with the capability of being successful. >> in other words being barrel bombs by assad which is routine by now. >> i think we need to provide them with what they need to be successful. >> i was in afghanistan over the fourth of july and there is great concern, both amongst our military and with the ghani and abdullah and other afghans about the present proposal to have our force in afghanistan down to a, quote, embassy-sent rick force 2017, meaning, we would be giving up or turning over our bases at kandahar and a force that is only based in the u.s.

embassy embassy, they have great concern -- a great concern was voiced concerning this plan or articulated announced plan by the president of the united states. as you know, the taliban did not respect the nonfighting season. as you know, the afghan casualties are extremely high higher than they've ever been and we now have isis getting ahold and the iranians providing taliban with weapons. is this a wise decision on your part, to have a calendar based withdrawal of american troops rather than a condition-based withdrawal, given your back ground and experience there, i think you are probably pretty well qualified to make that judgment? >> chairman. i'm aware of the consequences of our mission and the importance

of our mission in afghanistan and clearly i also have a degree of personal commitment having spent time there. i can assure you, if i'm confirmed, i'll provide advice to the president that will allow us to meet a desired end state and i think that will be based on the conditions on the ground as you've articulated. >> rather than a calendar based decision? >> chairman, my experience has been that sometimes the assumptions that you make don't obtain particularly with regard to time and that is certainly the case in afghanistan. >> thank you. in ukraine, it's obvious that the russians continue their military build-up. i was in eastern ukraine and watched the surveillance video that was made by the ukrainians showing the gradual build-up of russian forces inside of ukraine. do you believe that we should give the ukrainians counter boughtery -- battery system to

doe febd them -- defend themselves with russian artillery strikes or javelin or toe military systems to t-90 tank grades. >> general, from a military perspective, i think it's reasonable that we provide that support to the ukrainians, frankly, without that kind of support, they're not going to be able to protect themselves against russian aggression. >> general dunford, i would like to repeat again of my appreciation for your service and i am confident that you will serve with distinction and you are the principle adviser to the united states, it is the role as designed in the 1947 act, i believe. so i hope you will keep in mind your obligation to the president but also to the men and women

who are serving who we may have to send in to harm's way and make sure they're provided with the best capabilities and finally, i hope, in answer to some of these questions, because i've run over time, that you will talk about the devastating effects of sequestration on our ability to defend the nation. maybe you will just make a brief comment on that now. >> chairman, i have dealt with the issue of sequestration as a service chief and quite frankly, if we go into sequestration, we will be unable to support the current strategy we have to protect our nation and quite honestly the readiness of the joint force and moderation will suffer what i will describe without xanl racing as catastrophic consequences. >> thank you, general dunford senator reed. >> oh, thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for your service and your sacrifice. and the following a bit on

senator mccain's final question about sequestration the administration and secretary carter made this clear, has adopted any isil campaign with nine lines of effort two principally controlled by the department of defense. if you comfortable with that overall approach at this point? >> senator reed i am comfortable. >> the other lines of effort are controlled by other government state department, homeland security et cetera and apropos the sequestration on the department of defense. are you concerned it could be hamstrung just as much as you would be if the bca went into effect for them? >> senator very much. so i would say not only do we represent two of the nine lines of effort. we cannot be successful in iraq, syria or frankly any of our other endeavors without a whole

government approach. >> let me just ask this since you're the expert. you are if afghanistan, we had a significant military effort. we also had a significant civilian agency effort. state department fbi drug enforcement administration, all of these agencies, i would assume you consider them to be integral and essential parts of your effort and without them or without them to provide resources you couldn't accomplish what you did. is that fair? >> sir, i think it's absolutely fair. i think we have accomplished quite a bit and from my perspective, we have been able to integrate the relationship we had with the state department in afghanistan was absolutely critical to our success. >> one of the most difficult issues you face is building the capacity of the iraqi security

forces and this has been an endeavor frankly, that we've tried for a long time. do you have any sense at this juncture of what we can or should be doing differently or how do we do this? we've heard colleagues come before the committee. your colleagues and suggest that this staff and leadership your perspectives on the length of time to get a credible iraqi force which ultimately will secure the country. >> senator, with the caveat that i have been away 11 months, certainly i will confirm and go back almost immediately the areas of most concern were intelligence logistics, special operations capability and aviation capability and then more broadly the min sterile capacity. frankly, our estimates always were that that was a long-term endeavor. it would take years to grow the

capacity that we have in this country. frankly, what we're not trying to do is develop the capability in this country. something far less than that. the ability of the minister of superior to support tactical level organizations. so i think to continue to stay the course in the plan that general campbell has in recognizing that, that will require continued resources and patience is a way for us to be successful. >> i focus for a moment. your tactical experiences in afghanistan and other places, but in iraq the same capability problem, urinals supplied there also in terms of the long-term need to build up the iraqi security force of the ministries? >> the senator does. in some ways the situation is the same. there is also some vast differences. i think one of the biggest challenges in iraq has been when prime minister maliki was there he eliminated many of the capable quality leaders. so i think at a tactical level, it is fair to say today the afghan forces have solid

leaders. we seen them. they've gone to our schools. i feel pretty good with the afghan leaders. i think we have work to do to rebuild the forces to get them back where they were a few years ago. >> as many aspects of the situation in iraq. one is that this tension, sectarian and geographic tensions in the country, but our policy is that to support a unified government in bag and work with them so that they are able to integrate their ethnic communities. is that the approach you think makes much sense? >> senator, that is going to be very difficult to do. but at this point i believe that's the best prospects for long-term success is a unified multi-sectarian government in iraq. frankly, if confirmed, if at any point, i no longer believe that's possible. then my advice to the president would be to adjust it accordingly. >> thank you very much. again, thank you for your

service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in responding to one of the chairman's questions you talk about you didn't have the authority to go in, go after assad and is is that what you said? you do not have the authority to go after assad? >> senator that's my understanding is that we don't have the legal authority at this time to go after the assad regime and it's also the policy of the administration not to go after the assad regime militarily. >> okay. well, i think for the record i'd like to expand have you expand a little bit on that. because as to whether or not it would be desirable for you to have that short. we have been talking for a long time and with you also at these hearings about the amount of risk that we're at right now. you were quoted as saying our combatant commander is facing increasing risk. we talk about the risk that's

out there. you know, risk equals lives. we talk about all these hearings. but what is -- how do you define too much risk? are we there yet? >> senator i believe today we are capable of providing adequate security to protect our national interests. i also believe we are at the razor's edge, that's certainly going to be the subject of testimony a couple times before this committee. our readiness level is at the point right now we will go below there level, we would have to adjust the end of our strategy. we would no longer be able to support our strategy. >> that's sooner response would any of the rest of them know about the level of risk we are accepting now that we never had to accept in the past. in the ukraine, i was too sensety, i happened to be there when they had the election that resulted from the first time in

96 years but serving in theerir parliament. we've talked about what they really should be having there. are there obstacles if you were to make that determination as to giving them more to defend themselves, the things that we agree they should have, is there an obstacle we should help with, you think you have that authority now? >> senator, from a military perspective, additional capability, to clearly help and to deal with both the separatists and the russian threat in the ukraine. there are some policy issues associated with that that don't fall into the dod lane. >> i understand that. i appreciate that answer they kind of the same thing with the kurds. now, we, they have a need for i guess anti-armor in iraq and a lot of these things. two conflicting stories, one

from some of the top people in charge, saying that sending through baghdad, you have a problem in getting it up there to the fight and that i heard just yesterday from someone who is in charge of that, that problem has been resolved now. is is that really resolved? do we have a problem of getting the equipment that they need up there, those fighters, to effectively fight? >> senator, i watch carefully the hearing on tuesday and in the exchange that took place on this particular issue and you know i have been briefed that, in fact the issues have been resolved and the support is getting to the kurds right away. but this would be one of those issues if confirmed again, iraq, afghanistan, places where our young men and women are in harm's way, would be the first places we go to visit. this issue it's so important. the one issue i would look into personally. >> good. i appreciate that. and this morning's the hill, general petraeus had a couple quotes in there. i would disagree, he said we can schedule an end to our role in

that nation talking about afghanistan, in that nation's conflict. we do not schedule an end to the war there or an end to the threat from al qaeda, the islamic state or other extremists of the global jihad. going to a zero option next year would be playing roulette with afghanistan's future is petraeus, right? >> senator, i think he's absolutely right with regard to the war. we continue whether or not we are there or not. i think you can assume the war would get worse were our presence not to be there. again, my aassessment is it should be based on conditions on the ground. i will certainly go over there and if confirm. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, isis with regard to iraq and syria.

would you generally ascribe to the fact that in iraq it's going to require the iraqis to have the will to fight, to meet isis in iraq and be successful? >> general, senator, our current campaign is dependent on the capabilities of the iraqi security forces to deal with isil. >> go over to syria. now, that's a hodgepodge. how much do you think that the assad regime staying in power would complicate the issue of us being able to take down isis if syria. >> my assessment is it played a

significant role. i think assad's brutality to his people is certainly the primary factor giving rise to isis is at least one of the assessments. i ascribe to that particular assessment. i think his remaining in power certainly continues to enflame isis the recruit and support they need to operate inside syria syria. >> i agree with that. then the question is, when do we really press to have some kind of political settlement to assad exit? do you have any thoughts on that? >> senator, i don't. i'm not involved in the dialogue today within that regard. the political resolution is one of the lines of effort that's a part of our overall strategy and while i don't know i would assume today that issue is being addressed and certainly if confirmed, to be a part of those conversations and know a bit

more than i do today. >> and general someone of your stature, it is going to be very comforting to us to have the confidence to know that those very tough decisions that will be made with regard to limiting the effectiveness and ultimately defeating isis will be made with you sitting there at the table giving counsel. if you just look at a map of who is in control of syria in the different geographical areas of syria, it is a mess and how you bring order, thank you, senator mccaskill has shown, this is syria and the different colors representing the different entities that, in fact, are in control and that geographic

area. so it's comforting to know that you are going to be there giving your wise counsel. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. general dunford, with regard to the control act, which controls the sequester the budget committee, the armed services committee, with a bipartisan strong vote has voted out legislation that will add 19 billion i think 23 billion above last year's spending i believe the appropriations committee has already voted out that sail spending level. it's on the floor. the problem is that the commander-in-chief the president of the united states is insisting on blocking that bill encouraging democrats to

filibuster it until there is an agreement to spend an equal amount on non-defense and i just believe that the fact that we have a crisis internationally and we need to spends more on defense does not require that this nation spend more on non-defense. that is the difficulty we face, you will be seeing more of that i guess as time goes by. general dunford with regard to iraq and this isis situation isn't it true that the threat in iraq is not just a threat to iraq, but it implicates the national security interests of the united states and that we have a national security interest in seeing block a takeover of iraq by this extremist group isis and chops off heads and does other extreme things. >> senator i would agree the issue of isis as both regional

issues is creating instability. we have u.s. national interest in a stable iraq extremist. >> so i think it's a mistake sometimes as to just sit back and say, well we're going to wait on the iraqi army to get its act together we've trained the iraqi army for over a decade. they have italians and companies and organization. they're not well led. their morale is not good. but that i have an army. the question is with key help encourage them to be more effective in fighting back against isis? would you not agree? >> i do agree with that, senator. i would say despite the challenges, we have had as you know some thousands of men and women from the united states central command that have been in iraq and conducting strikes in syria over last year and

despite the challenges they have had some accomplishments to be proud of. clearly, we will do more. secretary carter made that clear on tuesday. we need to do more to assist the iraqis in moving forward and i think that's the plan. >> well the president's press conference two days ago did not encourage me and did not clarify in my mind that we have a good strategy for iraq and frankly i think our general dempsey and secretary carter following up on that were fought very persuasive either in convincing me or the american people that we have a good plan. now, based on your experience, isn't it a fact that if we got a limited number a few, just a, five, special forces embedded with an iraqi be talion of 600, that that can make, give confidence to that battalion, help improve their morale and help them be more effective on

the battlefield. >> senator, it's been my experience is that when u.s. forces have accompanied iraqis or for that matter my experience in afghanistan, that those units are more effective. >> well general dempsey said he had not yet recommended we invent a limited number. a small number of such forces in the iraqi army. but he would do so if he thought it was appropriate. don't think it's time for us to maybe move from being in baghdad in headquarters and move out to help provide this kind of confidence, the air cover, the direction of munitions giving confidence of resupply and american commitment. isn't it time for us to move forward in that direction? >> senator, without appearing to be evasive, what i really would like to do is have the

opportunity to get on the ground, speak to the commanders and flankly provide a more spre hencive recommendation to how we can move the campaign forward in iraq without focusing on one or the other of factors. >> i hope you will do that quickly. just one more thing senator mccain warned yesterday, we could be facing the same situation that he warned about iraq in 2011 when we pulled out prematurely. now we are going to be facing this decision in afghanistan and i hope that you will be clear and firm in your recommendation to the president if you believe this plan we have today, they the specific withdrawal is in eor and i hope you will do that. will you do so if you think it's in error? >>ly do that. thank you. >> thank you. my good friends in colleague, senator session and i have worked together on matters of fiscal accountability and trying to spend less money. i have a different take on where

he was in where we are in terms of the military budget. i can't figure out any reason why we would be putting the $40 billion increase into the war fund instead of into the base budget. i can't think of any reason to do that other than one of misleading the american people about whether or not we're balancing something. because that's the only place they can put the money and not have to pay for it. so they put it there. so it didn't have to be paid for and completely short-changed national security for our country in the form of cyber security port security, airport security, fbi cia, all of which i know you would acknowledge, general dunford is a very important part of the role of keeping america safe. would you agree with that? >> senator, i would absolutely agree, those organizations play an inextrickable role in keeping us safe. >> let's make clear, if we go down this path of pretending we are balancing something, putting

it in a funds we don't have to pay for will in fact the war funds as i like to call them, will they do anything to avoid the four structure cuts looming across our nation if we do not get off this path of misleading the american people, not what we're balancing? >> senator i think all of the service teams that have to balance a budget, certainly me included where i sit right now would much prefer that money to be in the base budget. >> that provides a degree of two main issues we have to deal with. one is modernization of the force. the shots is to get the readiness back to the level we're comfortable with. >> the cuts we seen this week they are a drop in the bucket as to what's coming if we continue on there bizarre idea of putting all of this money in the war fund as opposed to the core budget where the core strength belongs, correct? >> if it goes below what is requested in budget 2016 there will be additional cuts made. >> thank you.

you know how hard we have all worked on the problem of sexual assault in the military. i am pleased that the incidents are down, i am pleased that reporting is up. i am pleased that the efforts that are being made to measure victim satisfaction with command look good. i think it's too early to tell declare, success, obviously. we have a lot of work to do. the core problem that remains one i want to make sure you have at the top of your list is retaliation. i know there have been some initiatives begun but i would like to see a written plan from you as chairman of the joint chiefs with all of the chiefs signing off on, what is your path to getting at this culture? the problem is not based on the survey, the command. the problem is primarily lower level command, unit command and pier-to-pier. not that there may not be outliers there. that's the bulk of the problem.

that's a culture issue. >> that means from the top. i'm disappointed that we haven't had more prosecution, retaliation as a crime. i know it's new. i know people. i would be very reluctant to bring people up on that charges. that's where you guys come. in i would like a commitment from you today that you would be willing to put a plan from writing that we could follow. >> senator i'd make that commitment. i think you have correctly identified pure retaliation as the real issue that we're trying to grapple with in the wake of the iran report and i can assure that you the leadership across the department has been careful looking at that issue in an effort to set the right climate. where retaliation is unacceptable. >> i will patriot question for the record about the unused report that he pointed out in afghanistan. i know there was an investigation that you of course, were not found to be a problem in this. the investigation found not a problem. in reality there was no problem, someone signed off on a

building for 64, for $36 million that is never going to be used. is sitting empty. my final question is, if you don't have time to do it now. i'm just about out of time. i want to make sure you get your take on isis in afghanistan. i know they're trying to move everywhere. obviously, this is a shia-sunni issue. >> that is something that is prevalent throughout the region. with your experience in afghanistan, are you comfortable we have a handle on what isis is doing in afghanistan? >> what i know and the intelligence is we have seen a number of taliban rebrand themselves as isis. but beyond that i don't have a good feel for the depth of the problem. certainly it's one of the issues to look into to conform. >> thank you very much. >> mr. dunford i think are you the man for the job. you have a lot of crises to go

over. i would simply ask you, during the course of your term in office, tell us what you need, come on and tell us what our men and women ned to decide and get the job done. i don't think we are quite there i was privileged to lead a bipartisan house and senate members over the past week to ukraine we met where the president in kiev. he was grateful for the money that this government provided in military assistance during the past year. he also mentioned the need for anti-gel missiles. i think your testimony is earlier today that that is a reasonable request on the part of ukraine and it will be necessary to get those in order to defend your testimony. is that the testimony? >> senator, from a military perspective, those types of capabilities in my judgment will

be necessary to deal with the separatism issue he is dealing with in ukraine. >> separatists that are backed by the russian hire army. would you agree this armor hum-vees, in the ukraine, took over a year to process due to brur kratic delays of dod and state? >> senator, if it took a year to do that, it would be unacceptable. i'm not personally aware of that issue. >> well, look into that for us. also led a delegation to helsinki the os parliamentary assembly before the delegation left the russian delegation left en masse because of a disputed over five delegates being on the os, the eu sanctions list the head of the delegation nikolai

kovalev said russia's neighbors have no reason to be threatened by russia. now, of course russia has mr. putin under mr. putin's leadership, russia has twice invaded, georgia if 2008. ukraine last year and we see now there is a russian official investigating the legality of mr. khrushchev's transfer of crimea back in the day saying that this perhaps wasn't an invasion because crimea was never legally transferred to ukraine by the russian federation. it concerns me that this same official is now investigating whether the transfer of the baltic states, whether the giving of the independence to the baltic states, that lithuania and estonia was also legal. perhaps that wasn't legal at all

this russian official suggests and we can get to the issue this way. i just want to ask you this about our nato commitment. i can envision a situation where there are small jurisdictions within latvia that have a majority of russian speakers, small jurisdictions within estonia that have a majority of russian speakers and the pretext of a plevo site is created at that point. i realize i'm posing something to you that is hypothetical. in light of the officials in the russian federation, i think it's something to be concerned about. brezinski spoke to this committee earlier this year and said we need to create a trip wire in the baltics and that this trip wire should communicate clearly to russia

that nato will not tolerate violation of the territorial integrity of our allies. what do you think of this idea and can you, the steps the dod needs to take under your leadership to send a credible message that this sort of pretext by the russian federation would not be tolerated be i the united states and our nato allies? >> senator, i think our experience in ukraine and in the other examples that you use highlights the fact that we need to update our deterrence and response model to deal with the kind of threat we had today which has been described as a hieber threat from russia, which combines unconventional warfare as well as support for separatists in these countries and quite frankly that needs to be a priority. you are asking what should the department do? we frankly need an effective deterrent model to deal with the kind of threats we are now seeing in russia. quite frankly i think that

threat is one we will continue to see in the future. certainly, we will see that in a european context. >> would an incursion of russian troops, russian-backed separatist troops in small injuries sixes of russian-speaking majorities within latvia and estonia, would that be completely unacceptable to this government? >> you know from a proils perspective, senator, i can't answer that. from a personal perspective, it looks like a violation of sovereignty to me. >> under article 4 of nato in my view, it would be unacceptable. we need to make clear, this administration needs to make it clear. this congress that we will do what is necessary to prevent this sort of idea from ever being considered in the first place senator i agree with that,

the idea of deterrence in response to a changing threat in the 21st century. i think we need to update our models for both. >> thank you sir. >> senator manchin. >> thank you, senator, thank you for your family's dedication and sacrifice they made with you. i know the years sir, i'm sure you have had the opportunity to form opinions on what our threats have been and what our threats are today. what would you consider are the greatest threat to our national security? >> my assessment today is russia presents the greatest threat to national security. >> would you want to elaborate on that to a certain extent? >> senator in russia we have a nuclear power. we one to violate our allies and to do things inconsistent with our national interest, within the process of doing so.

so you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the united states? i'd have to point to russia. if you look at the behavior it's nothing short of alarming. >> you have basically and i have been very much concerned about the same issue. i think we've talked about it briefly before. when you visited my office. but we have, i have been told by major scholars that the cold war is colder today than it was when it was declared because of a lack of communications, a lack of interparty affiliation and we found it to be true and can you change that course in your new position? >> senator, certainly the relationship with russia a few years ago, if you recall we actually were including them in nato meetings and so forth. >> that kind of changes stopped. for my perspective, my role would be even as a relationship is challenged. even with the difficulties we face right now. i think it's important we attempt and maintain a military to military relationship and effective military to military

relationship with our russian counterparts to the extent possible to mitigate the risk and miscalculation and turn the trend in the other direction in terms of trust. >> thank you, general. also, going back to iraq as has been spoken about previously but could you fiernsd at some time recommending to the president for a three-state solution in iraq versus staying the course of the united iraqi government? >> senator from my sper specttive, i can imagine two states in iraq. i have difficulty imagining a third separate state. given the lack of resources that would be available to the sunni and frankly i think if it was without a federal government i think we'd have difficulty exacerbated by the fact it's not a simple government. >> basically you are acknowledging the kurds are strong prepared ready to go if they were given that

opportunity? >> senator again probably out of my lane to talk about what theoof iraq might be in the future. i think from just a pure economic resources and governor's perspective the shia and the kurds are certainly much more equipped to set up a separate state than a sunni would be at this time. >> i know it's been spoken about also us, the mistake of what's leading iraq, pulling our troops out when we did. we have an option to stay. >> senator i was not involved in the discussion at that time the assessment was we did not have an option to stay. >> so basically those of us who believe that maybe there could have been some forces left there or basically the evaluation of malhal maliki, he didn't have his job? >> given what we were demanding of the iraqis, they weren't meeting our demands. i'm not sure that meant we had

no option to stay. >> i've spoken many times about the lack of an audit. the only agency in the federal government that we do an audit is the pentagon and the marines have made an effort i will say they made more of an effort than any other branch, what would be your commitment, especially for us to know about our contractors, how much money we spent, how much contract forces that we have doing the job that i believe maybe our mill taerd and definitely our national guard could be supporting in that effort that we are not doing today. >> senator we can't be effective or efficient with the taxpayer's dollars, if we don't have an effective audit. as you alluded to, we worked out pretty hard in the marine corps. i worked as an aassistant

commandant. we worked internally to get the resources directly under the cognizance of the marine corps with some database challenges outside. i can assure you if confirmed you will have my compliment to press hard in that direction and to support the department to make sure we can come to you with a clean audit. >> general again i want to thank you, you do have my support and i think the confident of the american people, definitely the west virginiaens. thank you. >> general, i just want to thank you for all that you have done for the country and i think that you will do a tremendous job as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i want to thank ellen and your family for what they have done and continue to do. i appreciate it. >> i wanted to add my support about the issue of retaliation. i think this is an permanent issue as we focus on the committee to eliminate and to work to prevent sexual assault in the military and to support

victims and hold the perpetrators accountable. i think that's excellent. i look forward to seeing that proposal from you. i want to ask you about the six as we look at iran and their support for regional terrorism how would you assess iran's current activities and where are they engaging in support, either through direct protections or efforts that are undermining security in the region? >> senator iran is clearly an influence in the most destabilizing element in the middle east today. they are providing support to the houthi s in yemen. they provide support. hezbollah is a clear line influence in lebanon. there are indications they are involved in syria and certainly they're involved in expanding their influence into iraq and integrating, exacerbateing at least the sunni shia sectarianism across the region. >> i want to follow up more on

that i also want to ask you. i saw reports they were engaged in the taliban. is there anything more you can show on that? >> senator, i have seen those same reports. from my perspective in reports is they have provided some support for the taliban in an effort to counter isil. >> do you believe as we you know, think about your experience. i know you demanded troops in iraq but certainly iran has the blood of american soldiers on its hands for what the explosive materials that they provided to the shia militias in iraq that killed many of our men and women in uniform and so we think we look at the situation in iraq and what's happening with the shia militias you referred to, how could they be a malign influence in the longer-term solution in iraq?

sample senator they clearly could be a malign influence which is why i believe we sloul not provide any support to those forces unless they're directly under the iraqi government and not a variety of sports by the iranians. >> thank you. i also wanted to ask you about the situation on cyber. because the fbi director. we've received briefings on the opm breach. but the fbi director said he believes this is an enormous breach. millions and millions of individuals who provided background information have been breached and director clapper has said they believe it's the chinese who have done this breach what do you think we should be when we look at the threats facing our nation, how great do you think the cyber threat is and also how would you assess our current posture with the chinese and how we should be

adressing this situation? >> senator, i would agree with you. the cyber threat is significant. frankly, every week we learn a bit more about the opm breach. my number one concern as the chief is for the dad in the well being of the men and women of whose data that is having been compromised. one of the challenges is of course attribution. but from my perspective if confirmed, it will be to provide the president with a full range of options to deal with these cyber attacks which is yeah the opm breach was. >> so senator manchin asked you what you believe the national security threat was. you identified russia and certainly we've seen this aggression by russia that certainly invading other countries, essentially but what is it as you look at the national security situation, you

think about immediate threats to the country. what keeps you up at night the most? >> senator, what keeps me up at night the most is our ability to respond to the uncertain. i'm very confident, very confident in the joint force today in our capabilities and capacities to deal with the challenges we have today, albeit, we feed improvement in cyber and other capabilities. on balance the force we have today is able to deal with the challenges that we know. there is very little residual capacity. this is the issue that has been discussed many times before this committee and you had some personal engagement on. frankly it keeps me up at night as a service chief were i to be confirmed as the chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate this hearing. thank you. general dunford for your service. i am grateful for your wife and children being here with you. we all know you served together. i want to continue along the

line that senator ayotte started with iran. we are expecting a potential nuclear agreement between p 5 plus 1 as early as today. are you concerned that lifting sanctions might allow that country to invest more money in terrorist activities in the middle east and what can we do to address those concerns? >> senator. there is no question that assigning an agreement will clang the dynamic in the middle east. if confirmed, i know i'd have a responsibility to go with the president to deal with the changing dynamic. with regard to increased resources, for a malign activity. i think it's reasonable to assume if sanctions were lifted iranians would have more money available for malign activities. i'd probably say, regardless of an agreement or 23409. my expectation is iran will continue with the malign activity we have seen over the past several years. >> i also want to continue the line about retaliation. senator mccaskill was correct when she said this is something

we are all very concerned ability. she said it's not just peer-to-peer. she mentioned unit commanders. i want to be spec about this issue so you know the problem you are dealing with. 53% was peer-to-peer retaliations. but 35% was adverse administration action. 32% was professional retaliation and 11% was punishment for an infraction. so you have to recognize some of this retaliation is being perceived by survivors to be done by unit demandcommanders or someone in command xo, perceived retaliation or professional retaliation is serious. so there is still a climate issue that the chain of command is responsible for particularly lower level commanders that is not getting the right message. in fact, the recent rant survey said that 60% of women that

experienced sexual discrimination or some kind of necessarytive behavior came from their commanders, their unit commanders. so you have to recognize as a climate issue that is not being adequately addressed. so when you do your report for this committee, i would like you to look at that issue as well. you also have the challenge that in the reported cases one in seven of the perpetrators who were alleged have committed rape, sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact was also in the chain of command. so you have a challenge with lower level xhanlders thatcommanders that is not being addressed. somewhat related. i want to talk about combat intgrachlths i strongly believe that we should have standards that meet the needs of each position and then allow anyone in who meets the those standards to commit.

if confirmed, you will be one of those individuals who are advising the secretary of defense whether the service should receive any exceptions to policy. do you expect the services, especially the marines, who i assume you have been tracking to ask for exceptions? >> senator i'm not able to answer that question right now. i can just explain the process in the marine corps. we have looked at this issue pretty hard. we put together a task force that is just completed. they'll stand down this week. i expect the data we collected in a deliberate responsible way to be available to me in the august/september time frame. we'll meet the time line established in the letter from 2012. >> okay. what do you think or will you be looking across the services to see if one asks for exceptions in a position who is equivalent and another service does not request an exception for? will you be doing a comparison?

>> senator, my understanding of the way it will work now, if i'm confirmed sitting as a chairman, i'll have a responsibility to look at each one of the requests on its own merits and make a recommendation to the secretary of defense. >> okay. with my remaining 30 second, i want to address cyber. we are constantly being done fronted by our need for a capable signer force. they have been building out those capabilities. there is still work to be done. have you envisioned the force, what do you see as the role of the reserve component? >> senator a visioned force will grow and i would support the plans and i think he is sitting in the right path in terms of growing the capacity of the cyber force the reserve component have been important. in many cases the service chief looked at this some of the skill sets that are unique. we need the physical out a way to maximize and leverage those capabilities. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> snosh fisher. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you general dunford for your many years of service to this country and to the men and women under your command. i'd like to also thank your family, your wife. your son is present today and your niece who is here as well. so thank you sir. i was pleased to see that you listed modernizing the enterprise along the top challenges that you do expect to face in your response to the committee's advanced questions. you also described our nuclear deterrent as the nation's top military priority. do you believe it's critical that we maintain the full try out of our delivery vehicles? >> senator given the nature of the threat today i do believe that. >> and do you support bomb or lake the gravity bombs and the cruise missiles? >> i do, senator. >> and the gravity bombs as you know and the cruise missiles,

they're entire different capabilities. so one doesn't make the other redundant. is that correct? >> it is senator. and my understanding of the issue is it has a degree of complexity and gives us a greater assurance to deliver should that be required. >> great. thank you. as you know, modernization has been delayed and we're at the point where the life of the delivery systems cannot be extended any further as deputy secretary put it recently the choice is modernizing or losing the current capability and the 20s or the 30s. some have argued that these bills are simply too large and we can't afford to retain our nuclear deterrent. according to department's calculation at its peak, the nuclear mix would be about 70% of the nuclear bug. i think it's a little confusing when we hear about our deterrent

described as unaffordable and to me the alternative, letting that deterrent age out, that has the unaffordable cost to it. do you have any thoughts on ha? >> senator. i would say, i'd pose the question, some people would ask, whether we can afford it. i'd probably flip that around and say i think we need to think about hue we will fund it. it's a capability that's required again we've identified that as the number one need to have createding an existential threat. to me it's a question of more how do we work to fund this as opposed to whether or not we can afford to do it. >> that's 7% of the bucket at its peak, though, being the number one priority shouldn't that be what we fund first? >> senator frankly it's more complicated to me than that. i have some experience with that inside the department of navy when i look at the ohio class replacement as an example and what that would do to pressurize the ship building account.

we'd have as to make difficult decisions inside the department on a capability perspective. so while it's clear that's the priority it's not an issue of exclusivity. so cash balance capabilities with the joint force needs i think we need to approach it from that perspective. >> fair enough. i also appreciate the connection that you made between the modernization and the reductions to the hedge of our non-deployed weapons. i think that this linkage is often overlooked. i think it's based on simple logic. if you have a modern stockpile and you have a responsive infrastructure. you don't need to keep as many shares. you are more insulated as well from what's happening in the world. you are more insulated from those surprises and also from technical failure. but to be clear, do you believe

that it would be be premature to make any significant changes to the hedge before we have a mod enstockpile and before we have a responsive infrastructure? >> sir my understanding from the briefings we received that would be the most prudent course for us to take. >> thank you, sir. >> with respect to further nuclear arms reductions do you believe that any reductions below the new start force levels must be achieved through a negotiated treaty and be verifiable? >> senator, i do. i don't think we should take unilateral action in that regard. >> should non-strategic nuclear weapons be included as well? >> i'd like to take that particular question for the record. >> thank you. do you agree that any arms control negotiations must take into account russia's current behavior especially as compliant record.

you mentioned at the beginning you feel russia is our greatest threat? >> i do, senator. >> thank you sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to also thank general dempsey and his family for everything that they have done for the countries. general dunford, you and your family thank you very very much for stepping up to the plate. we are really in your debt. as you know and we have discussed in the past, i believe one of the greatest threats to our troops is when they find themselves in a personal place where they start to think of something like suicide. we lost over 400 men and women in the past year. i know you have worked very hard in this area. you have done a lot of rigorous screening in the marine corps. will you have that same screening used across the branches when you look at recruits and early on in their careers? >> senator, one of the thoughts i have as a service chief so to

ensure once we identify a better way to screen people at risk and take appropriate action, we would share that as best practices across the services. i would look to facilitate that and confirm. >> the other question i want to ask you is a lot of times in talking to the parents, there has been a stigma for the young men and women to seek help. i know that you're committed to removing that stigma. it's a sign of strength to get some help to talk to somebody as opposed to weakness? >> senator absolutely. this is one of those areas where you never can place it. you never are satisfied where you are. i really believe this i would have asked five or seven years, the issue it associated with suicide, it's changed dramatically. even with the way we deal with families in the wake of suicide, if you think where we were a decade ago is completely different. i think the compliemt is much more receptive to somebody today

seeking help than it was in the past and making sure that help is accessible and more appropriate anonymous. again, i'm not suggesting we're satisfied with where we are. but i do believe we've made a lot of progress in that particular regard. >> thank you. last week, i was on a trip led by senator cane and we went to iraq and met with a number of our forces there, there are some leadership. one of the greatest concerns was the iraqi troops in when you look at isis fighters in ramadi compared to iraqi troops it was a very sparce number of isis fighters. the iraqi troops turned and left. i know that has to be a focus. the leadership of the iraqi forces. are we going to send the message that the only way through ramadi is through ramadi? that there is no back door in these kind of efforts? >> senator again you have been on the ground more recently than me. you talked to the commanders.

i had the ability to speak to general lawson and i think they have made it very clear the iraqi security forces how important ramadi is, in fact, they have been working hard to set the conditions for the iraqis to be successful in ramadi. it probably is one of those issues where it's a tactical action. there is no question in my mind from an information operations perspective and frankly from 'perception of the campaign, it's a strategic action. i think the iraqis understand that. >> one of the other groups we met with. i know the marines have shed so much blood and treasure in anbar province over the past years we met with a lot of city drooib tribal leaders. they said, look we are still united with you. we need to know that you are in this that you care, that you will be there. i mentioned this the other day to secretary carter and general dempsey, one of the councilmembers from hadifa said we got people eating grass in our town now. these are people that work with

the united states. they're now eating grass. there is no milk for our children. we need you to help in this humanitarian crisis. and so i think we not only have to win the battles, we have to reacquire the hearts and minds of the people there. they said, if you do we'll move these folks out. i just wanted to get your views on that thanks senator i agree. with regard to anbar, i have a personal stake. we built relationships with some of the people in the anbar province. i couldn't agree with you more. their confidence and our commitment. their trust and our commitment will absolutely have an impact on the success of our campaign not only from a military perspective, from the people's willingness to support us. >> the last thing i wanted to mention was syria. it appears that the plan we have is no plan. we talked about buffer zones when we were in the saudi arabia chairman mccain with a group of

us. we talked about creating no-fly zones there and so we seem to be in search of a plan. my fear is that assad is going to fall and we are hearing that he is on very shaky ground right now. do we then look up the text day and see a race between isis and al nusra to take over the rest of the country which is a nightmare scenario at that point. and so you are stepping into a real challenging portion but i think one of the very, very front on the lens is syria is going to change. it's going to change quickly. we had best be prepared for that change and be ahead of it. or else we will look up and an entire country will be gone. >> thank you. >> general suddenford thank you for being here. thank you for your years of service. general dunforbid, you said earlier, you believe russia is the greatest threat that the

united states faces. i take it that's because in large part rrk is the only nuclear capability to destroy the united states and our way of life? >> that is one of the reasons of course that's combined with the recent behavior. >> given russia is currently an ongoing vials of the nuclear forces treaty. do you believe the united states should consider withdrawing from that treaty? >> senator, i'd like to take that for the record. >> we would like to hear a response to that for the record. because as it currently stands, russia and the united states are the only party to the treaties. >> that means the united states is the only country in the world pro hibbed developing missile range of 500 kilometers. the president has a proposal to pre-position some equipment in our eastern nato allies countries, as a response and the

intention they have displayed to put stresses on our alliance. i find that proposal somewhat under welling although a step in the right direction. are there barriers to stationing troops in those countries up to country up to the brigade level? >> senator i think that proposal is part of a wide range of activities. one is to proposition equipment to move forces into europe. and the other piece is rotational forces as you are suggesting so i think rotational forces are envisions as part of the package that secretary carter announced and the defense minister of nato. >> >> i would like to move to iran. as far as i know there is not an announced nuclear agreement with iran, and they will get a signing bonus of billions and billions of dollars and how do you expect they will use that signing bonus? >> senator again, looking inside, two challenges they

have one is their economy eternally and the other is they usury sources they have available to support the malign activity across the region. >> so you believe that at least part of the money will go to terrorists groups they support and support for the youthies in yemen or shiite in iraq. >> i believe it is capable assume that. >> does the united states have the capability to destroy iran's nuclear program? >> my understanding is we do, senator. >> when you served in iraq and afghanistan, do you know how many soldiers and marines under your command were killed by iranian activities? >> senator, i know the total number of soldiers, sailors and airmen marines, and it's quoted at about 500. we were not always able to attribute the casualties we had to iranian activity and we did suspect it even though we did not have the forensics to support it.

>> 500 confirmed but many more suspected, killed in action and even more wounded in action. you have a reputation for being particularly thoughtful when you deal with the families of fallen service members. what would you say to a family member of a soldier, sailor, airmen or marine killed by iranian activity if we make a nuclear agreement with iran before they change the behavior in the region? >> senator, i what i would say is that my expectation is regardless of whether there is an agreement or not, iran will continue to be an malign activity. i will make sure that our leadership has a full range of options to deal with iranian activity. >> it's been reported that your nickname is fightin' joe, is that correct? >> senator, actually, it is not one i use. >> but it's one that has been given to you, correct?

>> senator, perhaps by my wife. >> do you care to give us the origin -- >> i prefer to talk about that in private, if you don't mind. >> i heard it's because of your activities as commander in the early days of the iraq war as an infantry officer, and given the budget we meet it will be inadequate to meet the forces we need and the long-term monetary, whether it's the long-range strike bomber or f-35, and are you worried about we are going to be taking money from our ground troops to put in capital investments that are clearly needed? >> i am concerned. i think experience tells us we need a balanced inventory of capabilities and capacities in the join the force to be successful. when i answer the question

to the senator earl -- earlier about what kept me up at night, and was the need to respond to the uncertain, and what concerns me is what the future looks like and our experience tells us we don't. so having a full range of capabilities that includes effective marines and soldiers did. >> we're going to break away and pause this confirmation hearing. we'll come back right where we left off. but right now we're live to philadelphia, president obama traveling there to afternoon to make remarks at the naacp's annual convention. live coverage here. here is the president on c-span 3. >> hello naacp. [ cheering and applause ] >> it's good to be back. how y'all doing today? you doing fine? you look fine.

all right everybody have a seat. i got some stuff to say. i've got some stuff to say. >> i love you. >> i love you back, you know that. so see, now, whenever people have little signs you all have to write it bigger because i'm getting old now. and i like that picture of me. that is very nice. thank you. let's get something out of the way up front. i am not singing today. [ laughter ] not singing. although i will say your board sang to me as i came in for the

photograph, so i know there is some good voices in the auditorium. let me also say what everybody knows but doesn't always want to say out loud -- y'all would rather have michelle here. i understand. i don't blame you. but i will do my best to fill her shoes. and she sends everybody her love and malia and sasha say hi as well. [ cheering and applause ] >> i want to thank your chair ros lind brock, thank your president, cornell brooks, i want to thank your governor tom wolf, who is doing outstanding work and was here. the mayor of philadelphia, michael nutter who has been a great friend and ally. governor dan malloy of

connecticut who is here today. and some outstanding members of congress who are here. i want to just say thank you to all of you for your love, for your support. but most importantly for the work that you are doing in your communities all across the country every single day. it is not always -- received with a lot of fanfare. sometimes it's lonely work, sometimes it's hard work and frustrating work. but it's necessary work. and it builds on a tradition of this organization that reshaped the nation. for 106 years the naacp has worked to close the gaps between the words of our founding, that we are all created equal, and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

those words trying to match those with the realities that we live each and every day. in your first century, this organization stood up to lynching and jim crow and segregation. helped to shepherd a civil rights act and a voting rights act. i would not be here and so many others would not be here without the naacp. [ cheering and applause ] in your second century we've worked together to give more of our children a shot at a quality education. to help more families rise up out of poverty. to protect future generations from environmental damage. to create fair housing to help more workers find the purpose of

a good job. and together we've made real progress. including a my brother's keeper initiative to give more people a fair shot in life. including the passage of a law that declared health care is not a privilege for the truefew but a right for all of us. we made progress, but our work is not done. by just about every measure the life chances for black and hispanic youth still lag far behind those of their white piers. our kids america's children, so often, are isolated. without hope. less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to earn a college degree less likely to be employed less likely to have

health insurance, less likely to own a home. part of this is a legacy of hundreds of years of slavery and segregation, and structural inequalities that compounded over generations. it did not happen by accident. [ applause ] >> currently it is the result of continuing and sometimes more subtle bigotry. whether and who gets called back for a job interview or who gets suspended from school, or what neighborhood you're able to rent an apartment in, which, by the way, is why our recent initiative to effect the fairness of fair housing laws is so important. so we can't be satisfied or not satisfied until the opp