they aren't following the directive of the county commission to go further upstream for sanctuary that decide to ignore federal law. i think we have to make the repercussions of a sanctuary city deciding to ignore federal law. >> i think the language that's in the davis-oliver act is comprehensive in addressing the problem. i do agree with you that money takes. in many cases, these are not -- in most cases sanctuary policies are not something that law enforcement agencies ask for. they're imposed on them usually by political elected officials. and so -- but money is a way to

target them. we can come up with objective way to define what a sanctuary is. and i think it should be a jurisdiction that does not comply with all detainers all of the time for all types of people who are removable whether they've committed serious crimes or not. and i do think that the policies of the obama administration in enabling sanctuary jurisdictions and greatly restricting what i.c.e. agents can do despite the plain language of the law also ought to be given attention through legislation through congress. we know that the administration is not going to make an effort. they've said as much. they're not going to address this on their own. congress needs to reassert its constitutional authority over these matters. >> chief during your testimony you commented that resources are finite. it's difficult for the police departments to balance the different needs.

and the federal immigration laws on some level are a distraction perhaps in balancing all of the different demands on your police officers. that's true of so many things today in state and federal government so it's not unique. do you agree with that in. >> i think it raises the issue of where we spend our enforcement resources always. how do we prioritize what we do? in fact that's what every police chief and every sheriff across this country does. that is what the federal administration is attempting to do. i would believe as it relates to the immigration policy. to try to do everything, we do nothing well. we're very strategic is how we deploy resources. >> if we boil it down, what we're talking about with respect to today's tragedy that led to this hearing is a phone call, right? >> i think i've already testified that notification should have been made.

in fact i think we need to move a little bit back upstream that the federal government had the capability to act on that deportation without ever involving san francisco authorities. and i have heard that comment on much today. the authority existed. the capability to take action existed and somehow that is not being recognized. >> in your testimony you kind of suggested that sanctuary cities maybe have helpful insofar as unlawful immigrants are not afraid to report crimes. ms. voung disagrees with that, suggests it's a myth. do you want to comment on that? >> we see that differently. i yield to my experience. >> sheriff jones, the p's policy is just to seek custody of folks who have been convicted of

crimes, not charges. do you want to comment on that in. >> the only vehicle for that to happen, the only vehicle for the federal government or i.c.e. to be notified to have that is the detainer process. as i've tried to illustrate the detainer process is not working. we're not able to honor i.c.e. detainers for one second. if they're in jail, i.c.e. can have a relatively accurate idea of when they're getting out and for those folks it might still be effective. but for the 58,000 people that i book in any jail every year that overwhelmingly get out on recog any zans bail they get released from court, that happens with no warning to i.c.e. and they don't have the ability to run down to the jail before i have to release them. >> thank you. i'll close with this. the head of amtrak apparently couldn't find time a few months back after the tragedy in philadelphia to call the eight families who were affected by

that. apparently there's a pattern and practice here in washington of people not being sympathetic. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. steinle, i want to thank you for beautifully capturing the essence of who your daughter was. and i have read everything that i can get my hands on and i, last night, watched the clips of various family members describing your daughter and she is precisely the kind of person that our country desperately needs. so i want to thank you for sharing her with us today. >> if i may, i would like to recognize my sisters here in grief that's supported us during this. they've been there done that. and we're going to carry this forward and hopefully some good will come from kate east death.

thank you. >> which is a perfect segue. i was going to thank chief bealle and sheriff jones and tell the men and women who work with them how grateful we are for folks that go into that profession and call and i suspect that the chief and the sheriff and the men and woman that work with them would tell you there are lots of hard parts of being in law enforcement. the crime scene photos lever leave your head. you never get them out. the crime scenes themselves you never get them out. but the hardest part for most law enforcement officers that i've talked to is having to talk to the families like the four ladies sitting right behind you. because they got really good questions. why? why did this happen? how did this happen? and those questions go all the way up to the theological.

those aren't just law enforcement questions. they're life altering lifelong questions. so tell the folks that you work with how grateful we are. sheriff, this is something that i am struggling to understand. i.c.e. had probable cause for mr. front cisco sanchez lopez, lopez sanchez, correct? it's a five-time convicted illegal entrant. i think some of the members of this panel could have won that case in court. we had probable cause. >> that is my understanding. >> why not a warrant? why a detainer? >> you know i wouldn't claim to be an insider in the dynamics. i've talked to some friends in i.c.e. about that case. there were certainly failures but it's an overarching decision to not challenge or enforce the existing immigration laws or

challenge contrary laws that led to part to the release of this suspect. >> but surely even sanctuary cities like san francisco would have to honor a federal warrant. >> clearly. >> because the bureau of prisons honored a local warrant. >> yes, sir. we've head this discussion about why don't you create the detainer process into a probable cause declaration and have them reviewed by a magistrate. caseload prohibitive. if we were to supply one additional magistrate to each of the districts i'm sure they could handle the workload of reviewing the probable cause detainer declarations. these things are easily fixable. there just has to be a desire and the political will to be able to do that. >> i want to give you another way to fix it. san francisco wound up dismissing that warrant, correct? >> and i would expected that.

quite honestly in my experience i would have been shocked if that case would have gone forward. >> but they could have dismissed it while he was halfway through his federal prison sentence. >> absolutely. >> they could have dismissed it when he had a month to go. >> that is correct. >> that could have dismissed it at any point so therefore he ne would have been returned to the city of san francisco. >> that is a fact. >> and if i were mr. steinle, those are some of the questions that i probably would be ask is you knew you were going to dismiss this warrant, you knew that. hell, i'm not sure that drugs are still illegal in san francisco. you knew that case was not going to be prosecuted. why did you wait until he was in your custody to dismiss it leading to this result? i want to move to one other thing. to both my law enforcement officers, have you ever noticed

throughout the pendency of your careers that folks start with misdemeanors and then they work their way up to aggravated misdemeanors and then they get into felonies. rarely do you go from zero to 100 miles an hour, rarely. and when you do go from zero to 100 miles an hour and commit a murder or a sexual harassment or a kidnapping you're in jail. if you've got a decent prosecutor and a halfway decent case, those folks are already locked up. so since we accept the fact that you don't go from zero to 100 i think we're missing the boat if we focus solely on felonies when it comes to background checks for folks who want to be in this country. i think you ought to look -- look, all misdemeanors aren't the same. speeding is a violation. dui is worse recidivist dui are

worse, property damage dui is even worse. i get all of that. but this obsession we have with only felons we can only deport felons sheriff has that been your experience that people who commit misdemeanors always learn their lessons and never graduate? >> clearly some do but the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. there's an escalation of criminality especially when you don't have the consequence to try to deter the behavior. it's only aggravated felonies that are getting deported. >> all right. i'm out of time but i want to ask one final question because this deals with broader issues of immigration. i want to assume for the sake of argument that there are 11 million undocumented folks in the country. let's assume that. and i don't know what the percentages of. of that 11 million, what

percentage have either felony or serious, what we would kb to be serious misdemeanor criminal histories histories? >> i don't know the exact answer to that. i.c.e. estimates that there are more than 2 million criminal aliens in the united states. >> all right. let's do this. >> 1.9 million are removable because some of them have green cards. >> just for the sake of conservatism, let's cut that in half. let's say it's a million. what is the administration's plan for removing those 1 million? to wait until they reoffend? does anyone know the plan? this is not a -- this is not a rhetorical question. i'm honestly asking if the strategy is to wait until those 1 million reoffend, somebody is going to be apologizing to a

whole lot of moms and dads. is there another strategy that either of the law enforcement professionals or ms. vaughn, is there a strategy other than simply waiting for that 1 million to reoffend? if you can't ask about status, if you can't place a detainer, how are we going to identify that universe, however small it may be? if you're mr. steinle, it doesn't matter if it's one. what is our plan to identify that universe before they reoffend? not all at once. >> mr. chairman i just would suggest that the federal government, i.c.e. certainly should have an idea based on their database which isn't shared with local law enforcement of who those individuals are and who poses significant risk and they have the ability the take action. and if they need the assistance

of local law enforcement they certain ki can request that. >> when yes say take action, you mean wait for nem to do something else wrong? >> they are the ability to take proactive action just like any police officer. >> but there are less i.c.e. agents than there are in big cities in the united states. i'm out of town. i can't ask about the visas. i'll close in just a moment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i first would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record the priorities for removal. there have been several comments made here that are just not correct. the priorities for removal are priority one a b, c, d and e and priority two a and b, what that is terrorism gang, any felony as well as any aggravated felony under priority two and this is equal with 1.

flee or more misdemeanors other than traffic and significant misdemeanors which includes a single dui no matter when that offense was included. those are all priorities for removal. i would just note that no system is perfect, and clearly there was a failure here in san francisco. i mean there is no question about that. i think your question about the warrant is a good one and one we ought to -- one of the reasons i think every jurisdiction has a multiplicity of bench warrants that have been issued and there generally is no process for going back and taking a look at old bench warrant to see whether they ought to be dismissed. maybe that is part of the answer. on the other hand, if the bench warrant was not for a drug offense but for a rape, you wouldn't want that dismissed. so we need to sort through with some gran layerty to make sure

that we're solving a problem and not creating new ones. and i would just close with saying that although the system is far from perfect, it is often the case that individuals who have either no status or they've gained status who commit an offense are the subject of enforcement actions. in fact i've made a number of people who are legal permanent residents of the united states who have lost their legal permanent residence because they've been convicted of a crime that allows them to be removed. so i'm not saying it's perfect but it is not -- it is far from rare. i think that as we move forward in this we have plenty of questions and an opportunity to work together to make sure that this whole system works better for the safety of our community. and i thank you, mr. chairman for recognizing me and i yield back general lady yields back. with respect to the warrants, i

do want them enforced particularly if there's a victim involved. but it's really easy. you tell the prosecutor and the local law enforcement agency you have x amount of tomb with which to resolve this warrant. you can try it, plead it, you can dismiss it. that's up to you. but you're going to return this person back to the agency or entity from which they came. you are not going to release them. that's an easy fix. gives california -- give san francisco 30 days. it's 20 years old. good luck finding the witnesses. my concern more is that all of that could have been done while that person was serving a prison sentence. all of it could have been done. but let me just in closing chief bealle, sheriff jones, i don't know if you have people on federal task forces or not. those are pretty complex matters

too. if you've ever tried to unlock a federal federal rico case. your guys are smart enough to do dui laws. i reject the notion that somehow immigration law is too complex for state and local law enforcement. but i want to end the same way i started, mr. steinle, by thanking if you for your courage. for those of us who are a parent and frankly those who are not a parent, i could not have done what you have done. i could not have the grace, i could not have -- i couldn't do it. thank you. ms. vaughn, thank you, sheriff jones and chief bealle if you will let the men and women who work with you let you know how grateful we are for their service. with that we're adjourned.

here are some of what we're covering today on c-span3. at noon eastern time the alliance for health reform host as discussion about the insurance options available to consumers under the affordable care act. and the role consumers play in controlling health care costs. and at 2:eastern an upstate on the new horizon's space probe and the discoveries it's uncovering as it sends back data on plow-to-and its moons. watch live coverage here on

c-span3. it's almost as if they were mat esh and anti-matter. >> freedom breeds inequality. >> he's always to the right and almost always in the wrong. >> i confess that anything complicated confuses him. >> filmmakers talk about their documentary "best of enemies" on the 1968 debates over war, politics, god and sex. >> there's not someone in their ear, very unlike today. you know today i believe there's someone saying you know the numbers are twinddwindling. talk about another hot so righteous topic number two. then, i don't think that was the norm in tv at the time and as morgan said, these guys didn't

need to prodding. >> and morgan k smith was the moderator and really embarrassed by this. he was moderating but he dus appears for sometimes five or more minutes at a time. today you wouldn't have a moderator not jumping in every 30 seconds. so i think really everybody at abc just stood back and let the fire burn. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. army chief of staff nominee mark milley testified at his senate confirmation tuesday. he told members of the committee that russia is the greatest national security threat. general milley also answered questions about the fight against isis, the defense budget and sexual assaults in the military. this is just under two hours. good morning. senator armed services committee meets this morning to consider the nomination of general mark

milley to be the chief of staff of the united states army. we welcome you general milley as a member as well as members of the milley family. as is our tradition at the beginning of your testimony we invite you to introduce the members of your family who are joining you. we know the sacrifices your family has made and we're grateful to them for their continued support of our nation. >> thank you, chairman mccain. and thank you ranking members reid and distinguished members of the senate armed services committee for the privilege to appear before you today. i appreciate the confidence of the president of the united states. >> general i was wanting to ask if you would like to introduce your family first. fist senator reid and i have to e mote for a while. >> aha. in that case i shall introduce my family. and my wife is here holly anne, off to my left here sitting next

to general richardson. and my son and daughter are not here. they're both working. my son peter is down in texas work in the oil industry and my daughter is also work in the oil industry and she's based out of chicago. and i'm very, very fortunate to have holly anne by my side for the last 30 consecutive years of service. >> well, thank you, general, and thank you. you come before the committee as part of a major transition of american military leadership. if confirmed as army chief of staff, you will serve a0 long side a new chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, new service chiefs for the navy and marine corps. as part of this team you'll lead an army of volunteer soldiers that's proven itself time and again over a decade of war in afghanistan and iraq. the army has endured 70% of the casualties in those wars.

and the untold sacrifices of our soldiers and their families did not end with their mission. as the nation confronts the most converse global crises since the end of world war ii, the e chief of staff will be responsible for the total army, remains the most decisive land force in the world. unless washington wakes up to the damage being done to our military right now by drastic reductions in spending, the army will be forced to carry out its mission with fewer dollars fewer soldiers and aging equipment. the army's strength have been reduced from a peek of 570,000 active duty personnel to 490,000 troops this year. and just last week the army announced it would cut an additional 40,000 troops over the next two years, reducing the strength down to 450,000. if defense spending cuts

continue, there's even talk that the army could shrink to 420,000 troops. what's worse, only one-third of the army's brigade combat teams are ready for deployment. the army is facing a downward spiral of military capacity and readiness that in a crisis we will have too few soldiers who could enter a fight without proper training or equipment. wear not cutting the army because the world has become safer or threats to our security have been reduced. in fact the opposite is true. as you have stated, general milley this is budget driven force level reduction and it rested on a series of assumptions that we were getting out of iraq and afghanistan and stepping back from the middle east more broadly, that europe was secure and u.s. forces could depart the continent and that there was no need for

significant deployments to africa. instead we've seen the rise of isil russia's invasion of ukraine, the outbreak of ebola and the growing tensions in the asia pacific region. i think you would agree that when our assumptions about the world change we must either adopt our conclusion to the new realityies or scale back the emissions to meet the reduced means. instead the administration and many in the congress are trying to have it both ways, asking the soldier to take on a growing set of missions with fewer resources. this is not just about reversing the effects of sequestration. it's about replacing the arbitrary spending cuts on defense that were imposed under the budget control act of 2011. that is the only way we will get back to a truly strategy driven defense budget. and yet while i believe there's no strategic rationale for the army's instrength to fall below

its pre-9/11 level of 490,000 troops, in recent years the army's headquarters and administration staff have grown at the same time as it cut brigade teams. that too is wrong. this committee is embarking on a multi-year effort to make major rejunctions in administration across the department of defense. if confirmed, general, i want you to be a relentless partner in this effort. another priority for the next army chief of staff is modernizing the force. they face a challenge in repairing and reconditioning its equipment of 14 years of sustained combat. at the same time the army must continue to modernize to meet the future threats. programs like the joint light tack call vehicle and multipurpose vehicle aimed to enhance tactical mobility, command and control, medical

evacuation and combat functions while significantly improving the protection and safety of our soldiers. accomplishing these goals will require additional resources to be sure. but perhaps more important lit it requires the army to learn the lessons of its failed acquisition programs, a record that has been particularly dismal from coman chi to crusader future combat system to the ground combat vehicle billions of dollars have been wasted on programs that never became operational. these and other failures also reflect the inefficiency and dysfunction that have crippled our defense system, funding instability, requirements creep immature technology, excessive risk taking and concurrentcy between testing and production.

there are diverse views on acquisition reform but one thing is for sure. the status quo is unacceptable. to provide our soldiers the equipment they need to defend the nation we simply cannot continue to have blurred lines of accountability and evasions of responsibility inside the desense acquisition system. that's why in this year's national defense authorization act this committee adopted reforms to increase the role of the military services in the acquisition process and to create new mechanism to ensure accountability for results. among these reforms is an enhanced role for the service chiefs. the army must ensure that its acquisition program stay on schedule within cost and perform to expectations. and if that doesn't happen, general, we will be calling you. general, thank you again for appearing before this committee today and we look forward to your testimony. >> i thank you very much, mr.

chairman and i want to join u in welcoming general milley this morning. thank you for many years of service to our nation and to the amy and the willingness to continue to serve. and general milley is joined by his wife holly and. thank you for your service to the nation and to the army. i also want to acknowledge mary and peter and wish them well. if confirmed, you've oversee the army at a time when the army is facing a number of challenges. the amount of resources devoted the army continue to decrease. earlier this month it was an outset over the next two years the army would convert two infantry ba grade teams. these changes were necessary for the army to continue to reduce its strength with the final goal of $450,000 soldiers by the end of 2017. the army also intends to cut 70,000 civilian personnel

although it is my understanding the army has not identified which installations will be impacted by the reductions. if the sequester funding levels remain in place, the situation becomes much more ominous for the army. they will need to reduce their instrength further to $42,000420,000 soldiers. i want to know how to manage these reductions if they're called for and what the impact would have on the readiness of the army. in addition to managing the reduction, the army is grappling with how to modernize the force. they heed had to make tough changes. army cannot afford to equip and sustain the total army with the equipment, therefore we must acknowledge physical realities. at the same time, the army

continues to cope with reduces readiness levels. the current chief of staff testified before the senate appropriations subcommittee in march that readiness levels are at historically low levels, specifically stated that today only 33% of the brigades are ready. when our sustained readiness rates should be closer to 70%. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on how the army can make targeted investments while restoring the readiness. the national guard they're more integral n than any time of our history. they perform a vital homeland security mission and without question, the role they played in afghanistan and iraq was critical to our success on the ground. however as the army draws down and resources become more limited, there has been tension between the active and reserve

component ps. most notable example being the army initiative. the make sure that the army does not take the structure changes last year the congress created a commission to take a comprehensive review of the army. the commission has been working diligently, meeting with stakeholders and conducting hearings to provide a report to congress by february 1thststst 2016. i look forward to hearing from you on how you envision the relationship between the active army and the national guard reserve components and what if anything can be done to strengthen the relationship. finally i have repeatedly stated that sequestration is a ensless approach to addressing our challenges and undermineds our military readiness. the chairman has made this point eloquently and consistently and i hope you share our thoughts on this topic -- your thoughts with

the topic with the committee today. thank you for your service. >> general there there standard questions that are asked of all military nominees and i would like to proceed with those before your opening staumt. questions are as follows. in order to exercise its legislative and yofr sight responsibilities it's important that the 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 in. >> i have, chairman. >> do you agree when asked to give your personal rues, even if those views differ from the administration and power? >> i do. >> have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome? >> i have not. >> will you ensure that your staff complies with the deadlines for questions and the hearings? >> i will. >> will you cop rate in providing witnesses and briefers

in response to congressional requests? >> yes chairman. >> will those briefings -- will the witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? >> yes, they will. >> do you agree if confirmed to appear and testify upon request to this dme. >> i do. >> do you agree to provide documents, copies of electronic forms of communication in a timely matter when requested by a committee or to consult with a committee regarding the basis for any good faith and denial in providing such documents? >> i do chairman. >> thank you. welcome. please proceed. >> thank you for the privilege and opportunity to appear before you today. and i appreciate the confidence of the president and the united states and secretary of defense have shown by nominating me. and thank you all for your continued and unwavering support and commitment to the soldiers

and civilians and families of what is your army. your army is the strength of our nation. the soldiers are the strength of the army. and all of their families are the strength of our soldiers. and likewise my family has been my strength throughout my life. both my mother and father served our nation in world war ii as part of the greatest generation with my mother attending the medical needs of soldiers sailors, airmen and marines from the pacific at a military hospital near seattle, washington. while my father served with the fourth marine division in the central pacific making the assault landings, and the bloody battle as a young 19 and 20-year-old. sadly my mother passed over 20 years ago and my father passed just last april, a week shy of his 91st birthday. but i'm absolutely sure that

they're both very proud from above for their soldier son who will always be a source of leadership and guidance for me in the years ahead. i'm also unbelievably lucky to have by my side for the last 30 consecutive years of my service the most dedicated and strongest woman in the world my wife holly anne. she, like my parents, is a constant source of inspiration and love. for many years derg seven contingency deployments on various operations and thousands of days of training, holly anne has e senly been like so many army spouses is, a single parent who has raised two wonderful children who are now young adults, who could not be with us today. but it is for them and for all of our children and the future generations that i and all of us in uniform continue to serve and are willing to go in harm's way

to give our todays for their tomorrows. and i'd just like to take a moment and recognize holly anne as a representative of all of the army families 0, of all of the army spouses and their incredible resilience service and sacrifice. i'd also like to congratulate my predecessor and his wife who have given over 39 consecutive years of distinguished service to our great nation. i want to thank them both for their tremendous leadership in their current chief of staff and leading spouse. our nation has been well served by this selfless soldier and his entire family. chairman, senators service in the united states army is a privilege. it's a distinct privilege. i's not a right. it's a privilege and it's earned the old fashioned way through hard work, meeting. in your army's contract with the american people is a combat

ready force built around our nation's most valuable asset our sons and daughters who become soldiers of character in the best trained and best equipped army in the world. our fundamental task is like none other to win in the unforgiving crucible, in ground combat. we perform them every day in support of our nation's interest. we assure allies, we deter ad very sarry, shape outcomes and build partner capacity. we provide foundation tall capabilities to enable joint forces. we provided needed help to victims of disaster. but our reason for being, our very reason for being at the very core of what it means to have an army, it's to win and win decisively in ground combat

against the enemies of our count friday to american citizens can enjoy life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. and every year they take an oath of allegiance. in in return we make the commitment to develop them as soldiers, as leaders and importantly as citizens. these soldiers are the core of our volunteer army up of three components, active, national guard and the reserve. we are a total army. we have in fact one army. we're america's army. and all of us from private to general come from the people and we are dedicated to give our life and our limb to serve the people. and we do it with great pride in a cause that transcends ourselves. i have huge confidence in our army today. i have served in it both peace

and war. and right now we have the most skilled and combat experienced army in the nation's history. but in this time of increasing instability, of increasing uncertainty throughout the globe we must squarely face and solve significant challenges. as chairman you mentioned manpower readiness and modernization. if confirmed as the chief of staff of the united states army i look forward to working with this committee to get the army the resources it neesds and i pledge to be a careful steward on behalf of the american taxpayer. and finally if confirmed of chief of staff of the army, i will ensure that the army meets the expectations of the american people. the american people have expected your army to fight and win our nation's wars at any time any place and your soldiers are ready to do that today as we have done for 240

consecutive years. today we have a great army and we stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. it will be a tremendous honor to lead the soldiers of today as their chief of staff. and i thank each of you without whom we would not have an army. i thank you for the opportunity the appear here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you general. thank you for your strong statement. as you know, last week there were four unarmed marines and one sailor in chattanooga, tennessee were murdered. what steps do you believe should be put in place immediately to improve the security of army personnel in the united states especially at facilities like recruiting stations? >> senator first, as a son of someone who served in the fourth marine division, i want to publicly extend my condolences of the families. it's a horrible tragedy. force protection is a key task

for any commander, as it is for all of the leaders in the army and throughout the military. specifically there's a wide variety of active and passive measures. as you may know, there were some increased force protection measures and i won't discuss publicly what they are. from a passive standpoint, there's a variety of hardening things we can do, bullet proof glass. actively we can increase patrols and work close whether i be law enforcement. as far as arming recruiters i think that's complicated legally and there's issues involved and we'll have to come to grips with that. >> legal part of it can be resolved. do you think they should, under certain conditions, be armed? >> i think under certain conditions both on military bases and in outstation, recruiting stations reserve

centers that we should seriously consider it and in some cases it's appropriate. >> with regard to afghanistan, should we withdraw with a calendar based plan or a conditioned based plan. >> i'm in favor of a condition based plan. >> which right now would you say that the situation would warrant evaluation and revision of the president's plan to by 2017 to have an embassy based force? >> right now i think talking with john campbell, general campbell, it's my understanding that the plan is continually under review and that we'll execute based on conditions on the ground. >> but that is your view. general dunford has testified before this committee that even with the $38 billion addition that our nation's military quote would remain at the lower ragged

edge of manageable risk in our ability to execute the defense strategy. do you agree with that? >> i do with respect to the army. as we look out and i concur with the general's assessment. >> that we would be at the lower ragged edge? >> i'd probably agree with that yes, senator and then i think he testified to significant risks. if we go to 420, as senator reed mentioned earlier. >> do you believe we should arm the ukrainians with battery system to defend themselves from russian artillery and strikes? >> senator, i think providing nonlethal equipment is already being done -- >> i'm asking about lethal equipment. >> lethal equipment is something we should consider and u would be in favor of lethal defensive equipment. >> in your view do we have a strategy to defeat isis? >> senator, there is a strategy.

i think you're familiar with there's nine lines of effort. the military has go two. and currently there is a strategy. >> and that strategy also applies to syria? >> syria is part of the overall strategy with respect to isis, as i understand it. >> you believe we do have a strategy to defeat isis in. >> i think there is a strategy, yes. >> do you think it will defeat isis? >> i think currently -- right now the way the strategy is laid out, as i understand it is that it is going to take considerable amount of time measured in years to defeat isis if we execute the strategy as it's currently designed. >> maybe you could tell me a little bit about that strategy because the president said they have not developed it yet. >> as i understand it there's nine lines of effort. the two that concern the military are providing a variety of enabled capabilities to iraqi

military and also to provide security force assistance and building partner capacity with the iraqi military. >> in your experience do you believe that we need air controllers? >> in my experience that provides close air support. >> i thank you for your service and we look forward to moving forward with your nomination. and congratulations and all of us would also agree that your predecessor was also an outstanding soldier. i thank you. >> thank you chairman. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. again, thank you general milley for your testimony. i get confused because up our way it's usually miley. i don't know what happened. >> that's in rhode island sir. >> you're from massachusetts. i know. so forgive me if i mispronounce

things. >> as long as we both like the red sox, we're good. >> we like the red sox and the bruins. no. i'll stop right there and ask a serious question. you're facing forced reductions 450,000 active forces, which leads to the request how do you ensure that you can meet all of the requirements that are facing the army? and several possibilityingsbosspossibilityies you've commented on is smoother closer integration with the national guard services so they can come into the fight early. two on obviously continuing to operate jointly and train jointly with the marine corps which is a way to augment land forces. and three, to continue or to increase in fact during frags of our militaries our allies. could you comment on those approaches and will that in any

way help sort of offset the decline in manpower? >> well, first senator, i think that the reduction in manpower down to 450,000 for the active force, 920 or 980 overall frpor the total force, i agree with the current chief of staff's assessment, that places the nation at significant risk. in order to mitigate that risk incorporating element of the national and reserve are key and working with the allies are fundamental. all of those are necessary to mitigate the risks. >> specific to the national guard, what is your approach? we speak of one army and frankly looking back 30 or more years, it is now much more one ashmy than it was previously. what are you going to do to make sure that that's more than rhetoric, that really is one

consistent army, national guard reserve force? >> we're doing many things. as a commander of forces command i've been training readiness oversight for the guard and actual command of the reserves. we integrate at both of our combat training centers down at fort buck and out in california national training center. we're fully integrated with reserve component, national guard element. so integration is key and we'll sustain that and increase that over time. second big one i think is we have partnerships, all of our active component forces are partnered with national guard units and they are fully integrated for home station training and support each other. >> one of the areas of concern and this has been led by senator mccain's efforts is acquisition reform. and he frankly indicated a long litany of major systems where the army couldn't get off the drawing board literally. there are proposals today to

involve the chiefs more directly and not only with authority but responsibility. can you comment about thing a we six process and what you would like to do as service chief in making it more effective? >> thanks, senator. in my view, i think the service chiefs should have increased role across the entire acquisition process where we are responsible for and head accountable for linking the requirements which we do play the service chiefs play a role in that right now. but we are not -- or the service chiefs are not as engaged as could be with respect to the resources and decisions of actual acquisition. so those three pieces linking resources requirements and the actual acquisition in my view the chief should have increased authority to link all three of those throughout the entire process. so not just the inputs of requirement, but also the out puts of acquisition. >> just a final point. we've consistently pointed out

that readiness is being challenged in terms of 30% of army brigades are ready to go and that's way below. that requires some either massive budget relief or internal reallocation of resources. if you don't get the bunch thedget resources resources, what are you prepared to reallocate is this. >> there are three levels. one is in strength, the other is modernization and the other is readiness. our obligation is to ensure that we have ready force. no one should ever go into harm's way not the fully manned, equipped, et cetera. so readiness is the number one priority. it's my number one priority if

confirmed and it would remain the number one priority. so that leaves only in strength and modernization. right now the army has taken a lot of cuts in modernization over time. and then we have in stream. so i have to make a hard look to make sure we balance those three components as we go forward. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you general for being here today. when we met earlier this month, you mentioned two of your priorities. and as you just said, the first one was readiness and you also said investing in future needs. do you believe that the future needs will require the army to primarily focus on modernizeing either current capabilities or do you see a shift to new missions and new capabilities? and notice there has been a lot of talk about the army's role in coastal defense. so where do you see that headed?

>> thank you, senator. as you said, two priorities exist for any chief of staff really. one is maintain readiness of the force. second is to posture the force to be ready at some point in the future. the period of time i'd be looking at if i were confirmed would be the 2025, 2030, 2035 time frame. right now our modernization strategy is to increment talalley improve existing systems. and that's okay right now. but there are a wide variety of emerging technologiesalley improve existing systems. and that's okay right now. but there are a wide variety of emerging technologies that we may or may not have military application 15, 20 years ago. we'll ask the right questions and see this one of those apply to ground forces. many already apply to air and naval forces. so emerging technology we'll take a hard look at. >> do you see a shift to any new missions that are going to be

necessary for the army to acquire? >> i think the fundamental missions that currently exist in the variety of strategic documents that are out there will remain consistent and i don't see a fundamental shift in the mission for the army. >> even with the advancement of new technologies by people who are not our friends? do you see the army playing any role in that on new missions? >> the only one that is coming to mind right now is cyber. we definitely have increased our capabilities in cyber across the joint force and the army is building a cyber force, so we'll continue to look at that because that's critical for the defense of the nation and the army's capabilities. >> and as the current commander of the army forces command i know that you're responsible for providing army units so you can fulfill the combatant commander's requirements. we heard a little bit about the

force reduction and the impact that that may have. right now are you able to fulfill the combatant commander's requirements and where will it be when we look at a force that is reduced to 450,000? >> right now we are able, senator, to fulfill the combatant commander's request for forces that have come in. as we continue to drawdown 450,000 by 2017 2018, i think we are going to incur increased risk as current chief mentioned and it will -- at the end it will be significant risk. we'll have to see. we don't know what the future requirements are going to be. senator mccain mentioned you've got issues in eastern europe, you've got issues with isis, and there is a wide variety of other security challenges around the world. so if demand continues to increase as it has in the last

year, unanticipated demand we'll have to reassess. >> i've been informed reductions will impact the conventional force enablers that our special ops guys rely upon. how do you manage to manage that collateral damage that reductions will have on their capabilities? >> we're very very closely tied as you might imagine with special operations command. 80% of u.s. special operations comes from the army. so we're very closely tied at ft. bragg, headquarters also for u.s. army special head quaugsquartersheadquarters. so we're joined at the hip. and one of the begig lessons is the synergistic effect. so we'll continue to work with them very closely.

we have them integrated in all of our major exercises at the combat training centers and provide a wide variety of enablers. we'll keep that linkage. it that won't break. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate your commitment to making sure that our military men and women are able to perform the missions that they are given. thank you. >> thank you senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your service to your country and to your family's support. you and i have had a good conversation on quite a few things and i'll ask you the same question i've asked most of our confirmees. what do you consider the greatest threat the united states of america faces? >> as a soldier -- >> national security as far as the country. >> as a soldier as a military officer, i'd have to say that it is russia. russia is the only country on earth that retains a nuclear

capability to destroy the united states. so it's ancape at. the activity of russia since 2000le has been very aggressive. they have attacked and invaded georgia, they have seized the crimea, they have attacked into the ukraine. that's worrisome. so i would put russia right now for fr a military perspective as the number one threat. i would also add china north korea, and isis along with iran just including recent agreement that was signed the other day. those countries i wouldn't put them in any particular order. each in their open different way represent threats, security threats, to the united states. >> also we talked about thestaclesjectsstacles that you're facing or that we're facing by using the

national guard to the full extent. what are the obstacles that prevents the army from using its army national guard to the extent that they should be as well trained as they are today? >> as you know, senator the national guard has been key over the last decade and a half and have served very proudly and honorably in both afghanistan and iraq and are fully integrated in our training operations here. it would help if we had greater access to the guard. right now we have the guard has state partnership programs overseas with a wide variety of countries. there are a lot of exercises that we could use guard forces for. and as operations, current operations. some will peace keeping, peace enforcement. others are more active. but fundamentally access to the guard is key. and that all links back to the budget. right now we can only pay for bringing in active duty --

bringing guard duties mobilizing them and bringing them on undough oco funding and many of these operations are not covered with that funding. soo so access and funding. >> i'd sure look forward to working with you on making that available because i think our guard can be used more effectively than what they are right now other than private contractors. and that would bring me right up to the auditing. what is your understanding of where the army stands in terms of being ready for full and you had either byit by the dependsend of fiscal year 2017? >> i've been briefedyou had it by the end of fiscal year 2017? >> i've been briefed that the army is on track and will be ready for the full auditing in 2017. >> if confirmed, will you make improving the acquisition system a priority? >> absolutely. >> i think you would understand the concerns that we have with

the procurement system that we have right now. and it doesn't seem to work very functionally as far as effective or cost effective especially. and changing those systems again, it all ties back to the auditing as quickly as that can be done. and also do you have any idea on the amount of contractors that we have or the army using contract forces? >> i don't know right will this minute army-wide. i do know there were 1.5 contractors to every soldier that was deployed in afghanistan. so the amount of contractors we use is significant. i can get you the exact number. >> if you could sir, i'd appreciate that. because i think the cost of the contractors versus using our open national guard and reserves makes more sense to use people this uniform versus people who have been in uniform and left for the higher pay. that's the rub i've had. so if you could help me with

that, i'd appreciate it. >> absolutely. we'll do that. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, general. and i want to thank your family for their service as well. i wanted to follow up. you confirmed today what had been testified that russia is our greatest national security threat. and i noticed also in your advance policy questions that you stated unambiguously that the army in europe does not have what it needs. what does ucom need does it not have and how important is this? >> i think there's two parts. one is to assure allies and the other is deter russianing a aggression. in both cases, additional ground capabilities are necessary.

pre-positioned equipment for either reinforce forces that are there or to use that equipment for a variety of exercises. there are a lot of tools in the kit bag we can use but i do think we need to increase ground forces on a temporary rotational basis, in order to either deter russia or assure our ale lieslies. >> you talked about access to the guard and one thing that we've seen is a program with the air force that is called total force enterprise active associate unit. so in other words it's total force, so in new hampshire we've had an active duty association between active duty air force and our guard there that has been really effective. so i wanted to ask you if that's something that you would take a look at as actually actively

partnering certain units together to have these active duty associations, because i think this model the air force has had some good success with it and recognizes, as well as you've already indicated today we would not have been able to firt the fight the wars in iraq or afghanistan without the guard and reserve and being able to do training and work together with certain units i think makes some sense. so i wanted to get your thought on that and if that's something that you would look at as a possibility. >> it is, senator are. in fact i met with your tag from new hampshire along with the other tags east of mississippi.are. in fact i met with your tag from new hampshire along with the other tags east of mississippi.re. in fact i met with your tag from new hampshire along with the other tags east of mississippi.e. in fact i met with your tag from new hampshire along with the other tags east of mississippi.. in fact i met with your tag from new hampshire along with the other tags east of mississippi. they brought that up. so i'll see where it applies to the army, if that air force model can apply for greater and fuller integration. as you know, the guard and reserve reserve were integrated under general abrams. and abrams doctrine has served

the nation well and we intend to fully implement that. >> certainly it's a total force needses in terms what have we need to do to defend the nation. so i appreciate your carefully examination of that program which has been very successful. i wanted to also follow up, general, how important is effective and reliable air police still defense to army operations? because one thing that has been brought to my attention as we have the patriot 13 of our allies also rely on the patriot to protect their forces. and yet some of our allies have more modern and advanced versions of the patriot than our troops have. so i don't agree with that and i think this committee very clearly in the defense authorization actually the army requested $106 million for patriot improvement to upgrade our use of the patriot. and that was actually accepted

by this committee. so i wanted to get your sense based on your service in the army, what is your assessment of the patriot air missile and defense system and do you fully support the improvement funding that the army requested for this and how important is this to our troops? >> let me take the last part first. how important it is. to my knowledge i'm not a military historian, but i don't think the united states army has come under enemy air attack consecutively consistently since the invasion of normandy. and that's because of two things. we have the most dominant air force both naval aviators and air force pilots an capabilities. we want to retain that forever. and the other piecediators and air force pilots an capabilities. we want to retain that forever. and the other pieceiators and air force pilots an capabilities. we want to retain that forever. and the other pieced capabilities. we want to retain that forever. and the other piece we are capable of shooting down incoming aircraft. since the modern development of missile technology, that's another component. we have come under missile

threat, in the first gulf war and even in the second gulf patriot play as key role in not only acquiring and destroying fixed wing aircraft but also in intercepting and destroying incoming missiles. so patriot the is a very, very key system to the air against of our allies and our own soldiers on the ground. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you general to you and your family for your service. i appreciated the great conversation we had last week and should you be confirmed i look forward to of course working with you during your tenure. i know you realize the importance of funding for readiness, particularly for hawaii in light of the rebalance to the asia pacific. and i spent some four hours at

company scofield barracks recently and saw the direct effects there when funding is cut or deferred. so i hope that you'll work to make sure their facilities are maintained and modernized so the troops have the facilities necessary to perform the tasks we ask of them. >> i will certainly do that. >> thank you. i also know that you share my view that the rebalance of the asia pacific is more than just rhetoric. the navy's intentions for example are to place 60% of its ships in this area of responsibility. what do you see as the major components of our rebalance strategy? >> i think that right now as i mentioned earlier two of that list of threats that were asked to me of senator manchin included both china and authority korea.

so the united states army plays a key role. 8 of the 10 largest armys in the word are in the pacific. clearly navy and air force that reasons are fundamental to the success. but the army is, too. and we currently have deployed forces in korea that made a significant contribution keeping the peace the last 60 years. we also have forces as you're aware in alaska, fort lewis hk cord mccord in washington state and in the state of hawaii. so considerable amount that play a key role in supporting admiral harris' strategy. >> well, we recognize that -- because of the budget issues that certain force reductions were inevitable, sad to say. and of course while unfortunate, i do appreciate the

consideration that was given to the rebalance to the asia pacific and hawaii strategic location. and the decisions that were made regarding the cuts to our army. can i expect that if confirmed, you would continue to give ample consideration to our strategic position and that of course includes alaska and to the importance of the rebalance? >> absolutely, senator. as we go forward balancing its positions of the army forces in accordance with the national strategy and balancing that against risk is a key task for the chief of staff and i will take that. >> this committee has spent considerable time on the issue of the sexual assault in the military. it's still of course occurs and harassment persists in our military and from your testimony and our meeting, i know you you find it totally unacceptable as well. however while efforts are being made to support and encourage victims to come forward, we are

becoming more aware of the problem of retaliation. can you share with us some of your specific plans to reduce not only sexual assault but also to stop the further abuse by retaliation? >> well, senator, as you mentioned, sexual assaults, there is no place for it at all in a disciplined military force. two years ago, there were i think it was 24000 reports of sexual assaults. that's army corps. s's it's wrong and we can't accept those kind of casualties. we can't accept a corps's worth of casualties and think we'll have a ready army. so either eatit's unacceptable. the army has done a lot and there has been some progress, but it's not nearly enough and i'm fully committed if confirmed to continue the work the problem and bring to

retaliation is a problem that has recently surfaced. i saw a recent study which indicated that 60% of victims report that they have been retaliated against. shall some by chain of command others by peers. i think by chain of retaliation, we can get after that pretty fast through a variety of tools. peer on peer is a little more complex and i'll have to study that to figure out exactly what techniques can be used to him naet peer on peer retaliation. >> this will be and ongoing area of concern iffor me so thank you whatever you can do to improve the situation vastly. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. and thank you general milley. it's great to have you in front of the committee today. i want to thank your wife for being here, as well. thank you for the support that you've given over 34 years or 30 years for your husband.

so thank you. i won't ask about the national guard. we have had some very in-depth discussions in my office and i thank you for your willingness to work with our wonderful national guard and all of those great young men and women that provide great support system to our active component members. so thank you for that. just wanted to mention we do have -- you mentioned the tie as between our active component and the guard and we do have our second bct from iowa the iowa army national guard rotating through jrtc right now. so we do appreciate that partnership. i want to tag on with a little bit the on what senator hirono had also brought up was the cases of sexual assault in the military. i was at the west point board of visitors meeting yesterday and this is a topic that we discussed. and you have over 34 years of experience in the army. and so you've seen a lot of changes through the years.

and so when it comes to sexual assault, in the way that the army reports this prosecutes this, we have seen some changes in recent years, and i would like your takeaway from what we've each just in the last few years and with those changes, is it improving the areas where you think we've seen the most impact. if you could just expound on that a little bit please. >> thank you, senator. there has been some improvement but it's not the good enough. but this has been some improvement over the last couple of year. we know the prevalence of incidents appears to be down and the numbers of reporting is up. so it indicates some shift in trust to the chain of command. but i think the key is to

prevent and/or intervene up front. and that comes with a change of culture and fully educating the force wide variety of train. if an incident does occur though, the first responsibility for that chain of command is to protect that victim and then investigate fully with professional investigators. cid investigators. and then hold those perpetrators accountable. i think the entire key is within the hands of the chain of command. and that's staff sergeants and platoon sergeants up through first sergeants all the way up through general officers. all of us have to be fully engaged in order to get after that. a couple things over 35 years that i've used and seen and have emphasized, one is the roeflt commander. engaged commander makes the differ between success and lack of success. secondly, i would say operate in buddy teams. there is great value in

operating in -- using buddy team approaches like you would in combat. third is control of the terrain which is the barracks. we can't necessarily control outside the forts but we surely as commanders can control the barracks. maintaining good order and discipline is fundamental to the barracks. and lastly is alcohol. we know that in many, many cases of sexual assault, alcohol is a con ten butting factor. so maintaining good order and discipline again and the proper use of alcohol is fundamental. but i think commanders and chain of command sergeants and a captains and a colonels and generals are fundamental to getting after sexual assault and bringing to an end in our army. >> i appreciate that very much. and i do see where we seem to have a lower level of incidents. we have a very long way to go with this. one of the points that we raised yesterday at west point with the board of visitors is that it's

really difficult when you have someone like yourself or even me with a lot of gray hair standing there telling these young soldiers don't did this, don't do this. i think where we can see a lot of shift in the culture and the environment is when their peers are stepping up and saying don't do it. we've talked about not in my squad. i think that's an important step. we have a long ways to go general. i look forward to working with you on this very important topic and appreciating our sons and daughters as they serve. so thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to commend on you your statement. i think it's one of the best statements i've heard about the role and mission of the army should be required reading i think for every member of the army today. one of the questions you answered was would you commit on roy your personal views even if those views differ from the administration in power.

you said yes. i want to underline the importance of that question. all of your experience, all of your knowledge, all of your wisdom that you've accumulated are of no value if you don't share them. and you're operating in -- you will be operating in the highest levels of our government in a situation that often can be intimidates. and i want tone courage encourage you to remember that question and when in doubt speak up. you're where you are because of your knowledge and experience and you have to share it. and sometimes share it aggressively. i hope you will remember that question and remember the commitment you made. i think you have a great deal to offer this country and i just want to be sure it gets to the table. >> senator, i guarantee that. i've been in a lot of combat and i'll be intimidated by no one. >> i believe -- i believe that having met you. more specific question.

are the iraqi security forces willing to fight? >> when we left in 2011, the reports -- i wasn't there in 2011, but was there shortly before that and iraqi security forces were willing to fight. but in the years between 2011 and today, their chains of command have been decimated and they weren't getting proper pay and training went down the tubes. so bottom line if three or four years go by and you lack training, you lack money, you lack equipment, you lack spare parts, and most importantly you lack a competent capable committed leadership, then you can certainly understand why units fell apart last year during isis offensive. so i think there is nothing inherently prohibiting the iraqi security forces from a will to fight with the exception of a lack of proper leadership. and that's fundamental from where i sit and i would like to get a trip over there and talk to the commanders on the ground. but my assessment is they have

the potential and the capability to fight but they must be led just like any army must be led to close with and destroy the enemies of the country. >> it seems to me that when we think about the strategic challenges of afghanistan, iraq, syria, the ukraine all of those are local troops with u.s. support in one way or another. and one of the key challenge is how do you teach the will to fight, how do you train. have we learned that are we at a place where we know what the pressure points are to develop for example the command mentality that is necessary? because we're in a series of disputes around the world, up in of which involve directly many if any u.s. troops. so we're at the mercy of how these local people perform. and i'm wondering about the army's sort of thinking about

how to do training. that may be one of the most essential tasks that the new army has. >> we in the army think that we do know how to develop leaders. the army does many many things and does many things well, but we definitely produce lots of good leaders throughout our force on a day to day basis. we know also how to do that with other armies, with foreign armies, specifically as you mentioned both afghanistan, iraq, we think we can do that. how do you do that? leaders have to have confidence in their personal skills and their competence. that's fundamental. no soldier will follow a leader who is constantly lost, who is incompetent incompetent, who doesn't know how who shoot, move and bring fire on the enemy. so competence is key in teaching them the military skills at the level they're at. the other piece is the leader has to demonstrate compassion

and love for their soldiers. if they see a leader who does not actually care for them, they're not going to follow him. and the third piece i think is a committed leader. a leader who is committed to the cause for which they fight. if those three elements are combined together in iraqi leadership, then i think the iraqi security forces have a good chance of prevailing. >> a year or so ago, senator mccain and i were in leb about a it lebanon training program that involves bringing foreign officers to the u.s. and providing the kind of training that you're talking about. that struck us as a very cost effective technique particularly bringing them here because they see -- they get a lot from their peers when they're the at ft. benning or at ft. hood or wherever they are.the at ft. benning or at ft. hood or wherever they are. is that a program that you think should be continued, strengthened emphasized? >> yes i do senator.

absolutely. s's been valuable in the past over many decades with many arm he is armies around the world. it's value aided for foreign armies. >> how long would it take us to go from a 450 backup to say a 50 if god to bid circumstances required it is this. >> i'd have it take that one for the record for analysis.it take that one for the record for analysis. but to build a brigade to build that from scratch is about a three year period. it can be done, but not it in a very short period of time. >> thank you general. >> thank you for your testimony and thank you for coming by to

see many of us before the testimony. i want to ask uyou about the national commission on the future of the army which was established by the national defense authorization act of 2015. and the army's aviation restructure initiative or ari. the mission is as to evaluate future missions, evaluate the force mix of the total army, and evaluate whether combat aviation assets from the army national guard should be transferred to the army. i understand from sources within the pentagon that the army intends to implement certain elements of the army's ari as early as october 1 of this year. as i expressed to you, making these irreversible force structure changes to the guard before we've had a chance to see

what the commission has to say about ari would not be visible and does not make sense to me. the intent of congress was clear there should be no transfers of helicopters away from the guard until congress receives and reviews the findings of the army commission. i'd like to know your opinion of the ari plan which would remove all combat aviation from the army national guard. do you support halting transfers of helicopters away from the guard until the army commission reports back in february of next year? >> thank you, senator. it's my understanding that transfer by october is in accordance with last year's 15 ndaa and the 16 ndaa. the one under debate right now is the one talking about halting them. so they're actually executing the last written order as i understand it. i'll look into that hoe though.

as far as do i support it or not, i think the national guard has some good points. the national guard makes points that they're concerned it's a slippery slope. they won't be able to be the strategic and operational reserve. fair enough. but there are also key points on the army side. one fiscal. there is a billion dollar a year savings and $12 billion over time. i think that's not insignificant given the current crunch with sequester, either het cetera. and most importantly a readiness issue. three of the divisions are not going to have armed recognizance capability and we'll blind three out of the ten active division commanders with inability to be able to see a battlefield it if they were thereby committed. so on balance i would favor the transfer however i will wait the results of the commission and pay attention to their recommendations and remain continually engaged with the

guard and try to do the right thing for the total army. >> i'm glad to know you're going to a wait findings of the commission. i would say a country thingkup ken country things. from my coveringses, they believe that our program would be set back for a decade. it would take us ten years to get over the loss of these apaches. and i think would do great harm to what we've had in the past, and that is that they have operated seamlessly since 9/11 and it's been good for the country. i think it's unfortunate that policy fights and distrust

between the guard and active army have become previous lapt over prevalent over the past five years. what is your assessment of the relationship between the army and army national guard and will you acknowledge that the relationship has deteriorated to a point where actualliesy it's unseemly? >> well, senator as commander of forces command, i deal with the national guard and united states army reserve on a frequent basis. so i'm coming at this from an operational force point of view. from a fielded forces. i do not see that friction in the fielded forces. we train together. we operate together. we have partnerships together. and i have commanded national guard forces in both iraq and afghanistan. >> you don't see that in the field? >> i don't see that in the field, that's correct. >> you see it here in this city,

do you not? >> well, maybe some things happen where people come to d.c. i don't know. but perhaps there is a -- >> i've heard that. >> as i understand it there is tension here amongst some of the senior leaders. and i will work along with general grass to work with -- to patch up whatever issues there are. from a personal perspective, i think there is one army. that's it. one army. we all wear the same uniform and it says united states army on our chest. and that's the way we have to approach it. the united states army can the not conduct combat operations in a sustained way overseas without the use of national guard and the reserve. we just can't do it. we can do short term operations but sustained ops cannot be done without the guard and reserve. it's one army. they're critical to our success. >> thank you very much for that.

this conversation will continue. we had it privately in my office and discussing it publicly today. and i think we can acknowledge that the national guard is a very integral part of what your mission would be and i hope these issues can be resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner. thank you very much for your service. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you plrgsuyou, mr. chairman. general, thank you and your family for all you've done for your country and thanks for taking the time to do to my office. i just wanted to follow up on that discussion. in regards to military suicides, we talked about the importance of pushing situational awareness down the chain of command pl israeli defense forces said what was critical this reducing suicides is pushing it down the

chain of command so the squad leader, the platoon leader are who could i had tiedentify right on the spot could help. i was wondering what your plans are to make sure that the squad level the platoon leader leaders of those squads and platoons are aware of the challenge and are ready to try to help in eliminating it. >> thank you senator. as you know, i've been in command a lot. and suicide is a horrible tragic thing to see in a unit. the effects obviously on the family, the unit, et cetera, are just like you would have a killed in action in combat. it's terrible, it's horrible. but i think techniques of

intervention, our up innumbers have cropped dropped considerably. second is to continue to reduce the stigma. behavior health, mental health, my view is there but for the grace of god go i. the human psyche is a very fragile thing. any one of us is not so hard, not tough that they can't break under certain correct combination of stressors and pressures. and we have to be alert to those signs and symptoms and we have to reach out and be literally our brother and sister's keeper are. that attitude has to happen throughout the force. it has happened considerably better than it was in previous years. in the last few years, it's improved significantly. and that is what i think is contributing to the reduction in suicides is the increasing situation awareness, reduction of stigma and then the intervention on the part of junior soldiers at the most junior level.

>> i would encourage you in your new position to really bird dog this and to make sure that the squad leaders and platoon leaders though hey, give us -- let us know if you see something going side ways for one of the men or women. let them know there is no stigma. and that they should get help. and i know you'll do that. i wanted to switch to iraq. i was there recently. met with your folks, our whole team. it was right before the push into ramadi and if afaif a luge i can't. and it's like you said, a question of good leadership. and soluge i can't. and it's like you said, a question of good leadership. and so as opposed to this plan or that plan, i'd love to hear your unvarnished advice on what you think our role should be in

helping the iraqi security forces get their leadership back together. what can we do best to help them do that. >> senator, i'd like also the opportunity to debtget over and visit and talk to the guys on ground to answer that question in a more informed and holistic sort of way. but based on what i know now and my own experience in both iraq and afghanistan, there is a wide variety of thins s things we need to and should do to help the iraqi security forces in our advise and assist levels of effort. as he understand it the constraintscon constraints is not so much on what we're doing but the amount of trainees the iraqi security forces are providing. so maintaining robust training advise and assist effort with the iraqi security forces over a considerable length of time is going to go a long way to shoring them up. what senator mccain mention will

willed earlier i think should be seriously considered to improve effective effectiveness of the enablers. adviser going forward with units should be seriously considered, but there are issues with that associated with the risk et cetera. but bottom line, there are things we can do. i'd like an opportunity, though senator to talk that over with commanderses on the ground and give you a aremore informed answer. >> i'd ask you to remember in regards to iraq and i know you will when you said the army's mission is to win, we have to win there, too, in order to have success in syria to help the iraqi forces have that kind of leadership. and the last thing i'll say is our article 5 responsibilities under nato, their motto as you

know is fight tonight. we have to make sure we have the same kind of readiness in knows areas because we have the same obligations to those countries. they have said they would stand with us. we need to do the same for them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. general milley, mrs. milley, con dwrat hags i don't know congratulations. thank you for your service. i want to go back to something the chairman mentioned. and i'm sorry i had to step out. i have a competing committee meeting in view addition areajudiciary that i have on go back to. we have sequestration which i think to a person we all recognize is devastating, we have to get rid of it, bad policy, should have never been implemented. what are your thoughts though about ways that we can save money. in your new position, and i look forward to supporting you in this nomination. but what areas in your opinion

do we have the opportunity to bend the cost curve or increase productivity. and how would you go about doing that in your new role? >> i think there's at least three areas that should be seriously considered. senator mccain has already referenced them. one is i think we have to take a hard look at overhead. the army but not just the army but the military across the board, all of the services to include department of defense are very, very large organization with a big bureaucracy with a significant overhead. a second is acquisition. as already previously mentioned, there's a considerable amount of cost and in many cases waste in the acquisition process. we need to get that under control. and the third and final piece that i think is worth taking a look at, there's a wide variety of emerging technologies that could in the outyears could lend itself to automated processes

and reducing either manpower or manpower costs, compensation cost over time. that's three big areas that would want to lock at if confirmed. >> we have russia creating a looming threat in europe, we have the pacific and china's expansion or i should say increased activity there. we have the ongoing war in the middle east against the fight against islamic extremism. general odierno said a 50 brigade army should be adequate to keep these in check. do you think that managing or facing those threats is possible with a 33 brigade army? >> senator, are you talking active brigades or are you

talking the total army brigades? right now total army, we have 60 brigades today. we have 32 in the act of component today. the plan that was announced a week or two ago will take us down to 30 brigades, active component and we'll lose two. but the bottom line is -- >> that was the active, the 33. >> from a total army perspective, we've got adequate capacity, numbers of brigade combat teams to handle the contingencies that are currently on the books if we do not drop below the 980 force. we have adequate capacity, size. but that is with significant risk. that risk is incurred in terms of time, the time to the fight, the time to mobilize units and get them trained and certified to the fight and it's significant risk and potential casualties. the second piece is not just capacity but capability. the readiness of the force, how

capable it is to handle that type of fight, which is a different fight than what we would have than we've been dealing with for the last decade and a half. we've got ways to go in terms of improving our readiness with the high end type of combat operations. >> generally milley i want to close by saying i look forward to you being in this role. you were one of the first to reach out to me back before i was sworn in to offer information and to help me ramp up. you were very generous with your time when i spent several days down at ft. brag and you've been up here several times. i think you're going to be a great addition as the chief of staff. thanks again to you and your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, thank you. as everyone has expressed, we

appreciate you coming by our offices and a chance to visit one on one. and i certainly appreciated that. i want to talk about the cuts and sequestration and the issue that we have in front of us in the next 90 to 120 days here in congress. the installation level cuts that the army announced earlier this month are based of course on a shrinking to 450,000 soldiers. as you know and have talked about this morning, there's a significant risk that these cuts will not be the last. if congress doesn't provide relief, the army will be forced to cut an additional 30,000 active duty soldiers. this year the republicans are attempting to get around the statutory budget caps by using the overseas contingency operations or the war fund which doesn't have to be paid for. it can be put on a credit card. would you buy back force structure using this war fund?

>> senator, we would prefer, if possible, the budget be in the base. but as the recipient of the money, we'll take it if that's the only way to have modernization. >> this is more difficult because it tramps on whether or not the oco is being used appropriately. it was designed for an off the budget unpaid for on the credit card to be used in an emergency for the purposes of a contingency operation. that's why it's called the contingency operations. we know in your advanced policy question for this hearing you noted that our technological advantage over current and potential adversaries are at risk. we invested in the base budget

in technology and research for decades to get us to the point that we are today where we are the most technologically superior force in the world. if we want the young men and women in the future to have the same advantages that the men and women have today with our technological superiority, can you make long term research and development investments using a fund that was designed only to apply to a contingency? >> i'd have to get back to you on the actual legal use of that fund relative to long term research. i think the answer would be no. i think the oco funds are only for overseas contingencies operations but i would have to get back to you to see if that could be used. i don't think it could but i'll check and get back with you. >> the frustrating part of this is the only difference between the commitment to put this $40 million in the budget, between

my friends and colleagues and us on this side of the aisle is the willingness to acknowledge that we're spending the money. is the willingness to say this belongs in the base budget, let's put it in the base budget, let's not use an artifice, gimmick, phoniness to pretend that somehow we're not making an investment in the base needs of our military but rather in an overseas contingency operation. it's one i'm hopeful we can work out so we don't go down this path and create this precedent that is very dangerous for the long term stability of our military and your all's ability to do your jobs in terms of planning and coordinating and having what you need going forward. i just think it's a very, very irresponsible precedent. on sexual assault, i know

several members have talked to you about it already. i know you're getting after the retaliation. i'll continue to monitor that. but i want to mention briefly at the end of my time the incredible training that's going on at ft. leonard wood for the investigators of sexual assault. this is a special set of training that must occur. and i would like your commitment -- the forensic experimental trauma interview is being trained throughout the military and the civilian world. the expertise that's been developed at the fort on this is unparalleled in terms of how you get after a sexual assault investigation, particularly interviewing a victim. i would like your commitment to familiarize yourself with that training and that you'll continue to fight for the adequate funding so we can get the perpetrators behind bars so they are not besmirching the amazing wonderful military that we have in this country. >> i'll take a deep look at

that. as i understand it, it's the best practice and leads the nation in its skills. >> it does. it does in fact. my thanks to you and your family for your service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your 35 years of service and to your family. i know they've sacrificed a lot. i have a number of questions, as you can imagine, about the army's decision to cut 40,000 troops recently. i know that you weren't in the ultimate decision-making but you're going to be tasked with implementing this or maybe relooking at it so i would appreciate some of your thoughts and views. general dunford last week talked about the importance of the military and d.o.d. focusing on and implementing the defense guidance from the congress and whether it's -- you know, i gave examples of if the cno was told

by the congress 11 carriers we need or the chief of the air force, chief of staff of the air force, we need a-10s, even though the service doesn't like it, they do it. so one of the things that i'm concerned about is in the current ndaa we have a lot of focus on the pacific rebounds. there's strong language, very directive language. the united states forces should increased. any withdrawal of the forces outside of the u.s. would undermine the rebalance. it was put in there to provide credibility to strategy that this congress bipartisan supports. so i've been quite concerned that the army's decision pretty much ignores this. so i would, with all due suspect

to senator hirono, i don't think the decisions were inevitable. i think what was just announced takes a huge chunk, not only increasing forces, not only keeping them the same but dramatic increase. as a matter of fact of the 40,000, a huge proportion was from the asia pacific region. so the idea of fighting tonight, maintaining the rebalance, i think it's all undermined. i think it's dramatically undermined and i think our allies are going to see it undermined. do you think it's been undermined by dramatically reducing forces despite this congress' defense guidance to the department of defense to not do that? >> i don't think it's necessarily been undermined senator. from an army perspective, about 20% of the army's power is in the pacific, even with the reductions. but more to your point, though, i agree that the sense of the congress should absolutely

inform decision-making on and we should take that seriously and i think we will. >> it doesn't look like you did in this case. >> as you know, i wasn't in this position. we will. >> it doesn't look like you did in this case. >> as you know i wasn't in this position -- >> general i have the utmost respect for you. i'm talk about the army's decision. and now if confirmed you're going to have to defend. the department of defense, the army did not abide by the defense guidance of the congress period. if they read that ndaa amendment. >> i'll take a hard look at the entire issue and i look forward to working with you on it. but i do think, is that right, that the army has substantial capabilities committed to the pacific. >> but they've been significantly increased in the last two weeks according to this decision. the only airborne combat brigade in the asian pacific has now

been gutted. >> i would say that the airborne brigade was down down to a battalion task force with the specific intent and design that it could be reversed if funding becomes available over the next couple of years. that brigade doesn't go to a battalion i don't think until late '16 or '17. it's designed to go to a battalion task force with the intent of reversing it if funding is made available. do you think or allies were supportive of this? the idea of fighting tonight in korea, that bct was the reserve calvary for any contingency in korea that can get there in seven years, cold weather unit. you think that our capability has been decreased by this decision? >> the army, marines both have significant ground capabilities that are positioned throughout the continental united states, hew hie, alaska, ft. lewis,

washington and okinawa that can respond. we think it's a capable response to mitigate the threat given the current situation. >> mr. chairman i'll have more questions in the second round. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member for this hearing. thank you so much, general milley for your service. thanks to your family. you've been extraordinary things and i'm so grateful that you're continuing to serve our country. i want to talk a little bit about combat integration. i want to applaud the army for taking steps by opening up 20,000 combat engineer and skill position to female officers in june. as you look at the positions that still remain closed what reasons might there be for army to ask for an exception? >> the only reason at all, senator, there's been no decision yet, but everything revolves around standards and readiness. so the military occupational specialties that remain closed currently, infantry armor, some observers in the field artillery and special operations, special

forces. there's a gender integration study ongoing right now, a similar study ongoing by the marines. they're cross walking their data. i expect to see that information if i'm confirmed probably in september, october were have to make a recommendation to the secretary of defense whether to seek a waiver. i'll take a hard look at the data and make that call at that time. >> we've seen the success of the cultural support teams in afghanistan and how vital the women were to gather information about where the terrorists were and where thaw were being housed. i do hope you'll focus every effort to make sure that all of our best and brightest are serving. i was concerned about the recent news regarding the eight women that failed the first phase of the army ranger school due to

their ability to accomplish evaluated leadership tasks. these women were army officers with years of leadership experience. why do you think the class these women were in such a historically high attrition rate and do you find it alarming that west point is graduating leaders who after five or six years of service are not able to complete leadership tasks that are able to be accomplished by others? >> senator range school is a very, very hard course male, female, no matter who you are there's a high attrition rate. the women who failed, one of the ones they failed are the leadership skills, and because they are not in the infantry already and they had limited ability to train for those, and i would expect those skills would improve over time. right now we have three men who are in the mountain phase as of

yesterday, anyway, and still in the mountain phrase of ranger school and we are observing that to see how that goes. the broader issue of women in the infantry, women in armour, etc. there's a very detailed study going on. i want to take a hard look at that and make sure that the standards are being met in the readiness force. as to whether women can fight or not. there's no doubt in my mind that women can engage in ground combat with the enemies of our nation because they've done it and been doing it for ten years. >> i also want to associate myself with the remarks from senator ernest and mccaskill about sexual assault in the military and how important it is for this committee that we solve that problem.

i want to note one thing. retaliation is not a new issue. we've been measuring retaliation over the last several years because of our dod surveys. one of the biggest challenges we have is this year's survey 62% were retaliated against. it's the same statistic as two years ago. we have a real challenge here with retaliation. and to be clear, the retaliation is fairly diverse. 62% is -- 53% is social realitiation peer to peer. 35% is administration action, 32% is professional retaliation and 11% is punishment for an infraction. if you look at all of those abg furs, 35, 32 and 11 arguably more than half of the retaliation is through the chain of command, so please do study that. there is an issue of perception by female members of the military of discrimination. they said in 60% of sexual harassment cases and sexual discrimination cases it came from the immediate commander.

so you're talking about unit commanders who are perhaps creating a toxic climate. so that command climate needs to be looked at aggressively to make sure that the female soldiers know they can succeed and that their immediate supervisor doesn't have it out for them. >> i'll make that a focus area, senator. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, general milley, for your service to our country and for your willingness to be considered for this position. i really enjoyed our visit last week when we met and i enjoyed getting to know you a little bit better. i want to first join my colleagues in condemning the deplorable attacks against our service members in chattanooga last week. i pray for the friends, family members and the colleagues of the five service members who lost their lives. and i pray for a quick recovery

for those who were injured. the attacks in chattanooga last week were the latest in a string of deadly assaults on military personnel in facilities in the united states, including ft. hood and the navy yard as well as a number of attacks that were planned but that quite fortunately were disrupted before they could be carried out. in the coming months i hope our military leaders in congress can work together and work in an efficient effective manner to figure out how we can better protect our men and women in uniform from these types of attacks in the future. one of the concerns that i've heard repeated he from service members in utah and elsewhere is that they feel inadequately informed by military leadership about some of the persistent threats against themselves, their families and the facilities where they happen to work. they see threats on the news or through social media but they don't feel like they've been given enough information about what's being done to protect

them or proper guidance on how to protect themselves at or away from their workplace. general, what's your assessment of how such information is being disseminated through the army and if confirmed what you might do to approve the effectiveness of the information and guidance that's coming from army leadership on these threats to our homeland and to our service members in particular? >> senator, unfortunately in today's world there's no area in this battle against the terrorists of isis or any other terrorist organization. the area of the united states is vulnerable and we have to do a better job of making sure that vulnerability assessments and information awareness is out

there with our soldiers and their families. there's no doubt in my mind we have to increase that throughout the force, throughout the total army and undeed throughout the entire military. there's things like what to look for, signs, indicators and warnings of reconnaissance and surveillance by enemy and the terrorist on a particular compound or particular person. unfortunately though a lot of these types of attacks are very ambiguous. this one in chattanooga may or may not have had indicators ahead of time. may or may not have been a lone wolf. we don't know yet. so both access and passive information with all of our families and soldiers, airmen and marines. >> i appreciate your insight on that. i next wanted to follow up on some questions that senator wicker asked and some comments