afghanistan simply don't warrant a dangerous calendar driven withdrawal of u.s. forces. the committee meets this money to consider the nomination of eric fanning to be secretary of the army. we understand your mother is joining us this morning as is .ur tradition, mr. fanning we hope you will take the opportunity to introduce her and any other family and friends joining you today. the u.s. army is at war tested by 15 years of war. the army is confronting growing threats and increasing operational demands. by the end of the next fiscal year, the army will be cut down to 450,000 active duty personnel soldiers down from a wartime peak of 570,000. these budget driven force reductions were decided before the rise of a soul or russia's

invasion of ukraine. are allowed in cuts to return, the army was trained , resultingtroops that in a crisis, we would have too few soldiers that could enter a fight without proper training or equipment. as global instability increases, the army must be able to maintain an uncommitted force in readiness to respond to unforeseen contingencies. as the army shrinks, readiness suffers. just over one third of combat teams are ready for deployment and decisive operations. the army is woefully behind a modernization. the army must modernize for the harsh realities of 21st-century warfare. our soldiers must be trained and equipped for an increasingly diverse and complex range of threats for that they must be and to win against peers

arms maneuver, and a hybrid warfare condition, and determined unconventional insurgents. our army is organized as it was the 1980's. the main difference is it is smaller. many enabling forces like have been engineers reduced to levels compromising the army's ability to field campaign quality forces. part of that is the legacy of the army's acquisition record, said iscretary mccue too often a failure, too many underperforming or canceled programs, too few successful feelings of developmental designs, and far too many taxpayer dollars wasted. that's from your predecessor, mr. fanning. the army must learn the lessons of the failed acquisition

programs. together with the experience of more than a decade of war, these lessons must gut critical acquisition programs, including andjoint tactical vehicle the armored multipurpose vehicle, acquisition authorities passed in the national guard -- national defense authorization 2016, opportunities for the secretary and chief of staff to lead to a positive change. abramsaders like general transformed the army before. they re--- they transition the army to an all volunteer force while revolutionizing training doctrine and they built an army that won the cold war. we need this kind of transformation again today. i'm deeply concerned about the dangerous choice we are forcing on our army, with increasing velocity of instability combined with continued reduction in

defense spending will lead to do , modernizationts problems, and deteriorating morale. these are just among the challenges the u.s. army faces. fanning, if confirmed, he will take office with less than a year remaining in this administration. some may question what you can realistically hope to achieve but as you have been patient waiting for the state it testified, i challenge you to be impatient with confirm secretary. our nation's soldiers do not need a secretary to mark time, they need one that realizes there is much to be done and not a minute to be wasted. senator reid. senator reid: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank you for holding this hearing to fill the critical position of secretary of the army.

i like to thank mr. fanning for his willingness to serve. it's my understanding from others in the audience and i welcome her. of fanning has a wealth experience having served in senior level positions throughout the department of defense. this includes us serving as the underine -- as the secretary of the air force, overseeing the annual budget and serving as the chief management officer. and he served as a deputy under secretary of the navy. confirmed, your experience of doing your tenure would be critical in order to lead the army during a critical time when it faces a multitude of challenges. the army continues to draw down its strengths for the final goal of afford hundred 50,000 in the 450,000 in theof

active army. i welcome your comments on whether the u.s. can continue to meet its commitments overseas with this a smaller army. aware, the army modernization program has been challenged. many programs have been canceled. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on how the army can make targeted investments in modernization and how it can improve its acquisition progress that process. i welcome -- acquisition process. it is my understanding there is not been a request an exception to policy. as a general testified last july, there is no doubt that woman can engage in ground combat with enemies because they

have than doing it for 10 years and i strongly agree. since that hearing, three woman have graduated from the ranger school, the premier training school for army combat officers. the graduation rate at ranger school was only 42% so this is an example of the significance of this accomplishment. all of those people prior to these individuals were men. these women represent the army of today and of the future and i look forward to the full integration of women into all of the roles in the u.s. army. i look forward to our proposals, plans, ideas to continue to lead and serve the army. thank you. senator mccain: it is custom of the committee to ask several standard questions so i will begin them now and we appreciate

your answers. in order to exercise its legislative responsibility and other appropriate committees of the congress are able to receive testimony and other communications of information. have you a here to laws and regulations of governing public's interest? >> i have. >> have you undertaken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? actings appointed secretary but after you notify the president that was in violation, i did resign. for the record, on november 30, i notify president obama that mr. fanning's appointment as the acting secretary violated the federal vacancies reform act of 1998. a copy of that letter will be included on record of this hearing. i further note the senate in this committee takes of the

utmost seriousness the senate's constitutional responsibility to provide consent on presidential nominations. that important requirement is fundamental to the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. until a nomination is confirmed by a full senate, no president and no nominate may conduct themselves in a way that would present confirmation. intoinformation nominations they would avoid. it allows nominees to prepare for the important duties and responsibilities they will undertake is confirmed by the senate. nominees who disregard that guidance presuming confirmation. do you have any comment on that? >> i do not. fanning indicated, he has resigned from his position

and is no longer serving. in my opinion, his resignation has cured the president's violation of the law so this consider is ready to his nomination. when you ensure your staff complies with deadlines and communications including questions for the records and hearings? >> i will. >> what you cooperate with congressional requests question mark >> i will. >> they will. >> you agree to confirm and testify upon this committee? >> i do. documentse to provide of communication in a timely manner that a requested by a committee or consult with the committee and providing such documents? >> i do. >> please proceed. >> thank you. it is an honor to appear before

you today. i would like to thank president obama for nominating me and the secretary of defense. if confirmed, i look forward to working with them and congress. my mother is here from florida. she was unable to hear the previous confirmation hearing three years ago. not even the threat of snow is going to stop her this time. >> let's welcome mrs. fanning. i hope, like my mother, you will provide secretary fanning with the same advice and counsel i received from my mother. [laughter] >> no shortage of advice and counsel. and her goddaughter mother allison have joined us as well. no one gets the opportunity to serve in positions like this over a long. -- length of time.

i will always be grateful for their support. i come from a family with a long history of service in uniform. my third uncle served a career in the air force. they have flown helicopters and another cousin was a ranger. i learned from an early age the important of service and sacrifices of those in uniform and their families. i have had the privilege to work in all three military departments as well as in the offices of secretary defense over to administrations. career 25 years ago, as a research assistant, i have seen the army from every length of the table. i was chief management officer of the air force and the arming. .- army are

i look forward to working with this community. viewed bys a force too many as just a number. few understand the complexities of ground warfare like this committee does or how long it withtake to build an army as few casualties as possible. it takes a generation to build an army. it is the seniors that enlist and lead them. few understand the initiatives of the army. the army assures allies, build partners and enables the fight between foundational capabilities and response to national emergencies like flooding and severe weather. the army's greatest strength is its soldiers. there are over one million in the active guard and reserve.

there are 140,000 of them currently serving. today, they are exercising with allies in eastern europe, training and fighting against isis and other terrorist around the world, building partnership capacity across the pacific. if confirmed, the soldiers will be my highest priority, specifically making sure they are ready, which means ensuring their resilience, that they are fully trained and properly equipped. create an, we must environment where everyone can flourish. we must discourage sexual assault and suicide. they must have confidence we will take care of their families. they must know we will take care andhem when they come home ease the transition should they choose to leave the army. we must make the same commitment to the future, by investing now,

so that we have the right capabilities for them when they are needed. i have been proud during my years in this administration to work alongside the navy, marine corps and air force. if confirmed, i look forward to becoming a part of the army's family. i want to make sure they get all the support they need when defending our country, in mission of which they freely volunteered. we asked them to do extraordinary things, we owed them no less area thank you for considering my nomination, thank you for your service and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. fanning. >> i asked the committee to consider the pending military nominations. all of these have come before the committee and require a length of time. is there a motion for these

military nominations? >> is there a second? say, aye.favor how many army and other personnel are now in iraq serving their? -- serving there. bei understand the number to 4500. certainly not a presence that has been three parliament of a iraq. the reason we could not a sustaining force behind in iraq at the time of withdrawal was because we did not have a status forces agreement so it would be

impossible for us to leave. we now have 4500 members in the military, and no one seems to be concerned that we do not have a status of forces agreement with the iraqis. i find that odd. let me ask you a fundamental question. isis, battle against which is to the degree where we will have to attack them in afghanistan and other places, are we winning? >> i think it is too early to tell? . isis, putting pressure on but they are putting pressure on us. i do think we are making progress. 6400 fighters killed in the last three months. we have taken back ramadi. a great deal of work needs to be

done. i do believe it is a long fight. plan?you think we have a mr. fanning: i do not know the specifics of any plan, but we are moving in that direction. we are applying rusher -- applying pressure. >> but you don't know of any specific plan? mr. fanning: i do not, but i do not think i would in my current capacity. >> you work directly for secretary carter? mr. fanning: i do. >> he didn't know of any strategy? >> i am in a different capacity before when i was chief of staff. he has let me focus on this hearing today. i have not been in on any discussions on that.

>> so therefore you wouldn't have any estimate as to how long it would take before we could retake mosul? mr. fanning: i do not. >> for the defense bill, it requires reduction of staff and cost savings by $10 billion over a five-year period. testimony, staff is too large and redundant. some say this should be a single service staff. what do you think about the reductions and about such a fundamental change? mr. fanning: i think the first reductions, i've seen this in all parts of the department of defense and i have been

impressed by the way the army went about it. increase control for supervisors. i think this is something you never stop working on. headquarters grow back if you are not applying pressure in the opposite direction. i think the 25% reduction is a good start area i would like to see how we rationalize that reduction and go further. as to the second part, the question about collapsing the staff inside the military department, i think there is a great deal of potential there. principlesly guided need to be protected and making sure the chiefs have support and resources they need to get military advice. if we keep cutting the headquarters in the form that they currently exist in, we are just going to have weaker product delivered later. we do do have some reform as the next round, and there is a norm is potential there, not just in the military department but with

osd. >> thank you for that. you're uniquely situated to play a key role. i agree with you, flat out reductions is just the first step. a source of frustration for this committee, continued cost over runs on weapons systems. in the made some reforms service chiefs are involved. you are aware, but it still seems to go on. every time we really need something, we use that expedited process, which we use for others.

so i hope you will make that one of your top priorities. we cannot justify eliminating sequestration and increasing defense spending, which the majority of the members of this committee feel is necessary, given the nature of the events in the world today. it is hard to go back to our constituents when we have a $2 -- $2 billion cost overrun on an aircraft carrier and numerous programs that spent billions and never become realities, going all the way back to the future combat systems and the presidential helicopter. you are aware of them. we have to stop it. it is just -- if we're going to

have credibility with the american people, we cannot have these horror stories, and i'm sure you appreciate it. mr. fanning: if confirmed, i would initiate -- it was an effective way for large programs, the bombers. and i think the reform in the nba will help with -- ndaa. of this as well and that is injecting the chiefs into the requirement process, especially as it overlaps to help keep costs under control. that is different than dumping requirements when you have cost overruns because you cannot afford them. it is making wise decisions at the proper times when you have more information to make those trade-offs area i look for to implementing those reforms and think it will help us greatly deal with things faster.

>> thank you very much. again, thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve. given your prospectus in the navy and air force, can you outline what you think the most significant priorities you would bring to the secretary of armies office? >> we need to make sure the soldiers we are sending into , fullyway are ready trained and fully equipped. that would be the first priority. the second, and part of the efficiencies is the end result has to be maximized in the combat power and structure we have. process toontinued make sure as you are looking across all air force structure and keeping the ratio as strong as you possibly can.

i took veryhing seriously and spent a lot of time on in the air force is maximizing the idea of one army, total force, active guard and reserve. and a lot about the army that is just the active component. we cannot do what we're asking them to do if we just think in terms of an active component. have to think more creatively the way forward on how we operate this as a total force. earlier,s a mentioned i would like to focus on acquisition forms, specifically the stand up of a capability's office. the army has some capability on the ground in ukraine in syria, that our over match is not as great as it needs to be, particularly if we do not change course. this is about navigation and timing, electronic warfare and cyber.

i see these as three great problem sets that we can launch in the capability's office. ,> as part of your development i would presume you are going to engagingctive role in ? >> i spent a lot of time doing this. when i traveled to a state, i asked for a tag available for me. this may have been in december or november to meet with all of the tags. i bring a number of relationships with me into the air force and plan on increasing that in the army. issues, and the chairman made references quite explicitly, is the new legislation on which he got it through last year on respect to

the services role in acquisition. i presume that would be one of in getting the army fully engaged with acquisition. can you give us some perspective on that? >> there are many great professionals dedicated for -- dedicatedt professionals in osd. i prefer working in military departments, but i feel those who do are much closer to the troops. that is very important in monitoring requirements. what i would say about this new reform, and i do think putting more responsibility on the military department is the right direction to move in, we need people to inflate the acquisition process. they are fundamentally linked. the requirements process has the

most potential. at various points in acquisition process, being able to make those trade-offs. we learn more as we do, technologyy if the is mature. they should be able to come back and say, i can get this to you a year faster if you cut 5% requirements. i can save money if we do not chase this. these are smart decisions rather than reactions to when all of the green sectors are turned red. >> i think something else you suggest in your comments is holding those program offices accountable. one of the things we have noticed is accountability has been so diffused that they have to take a life on their own. no one is responsible. i assume in your development that you would have

accountability in terms of the program managers and offices under your command. >> that is right. one of the thing i think is most intriguing about these changes, it is hard to have a program accountable based on the process. this gives us an opportunity to work through the process in ways where we can design more fundamentally transparent metrics that we can hold people accountable to. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. fanning. i would like to thank you for your service and it is great to have your mom here. i want to ask you about the size of the army and what your viewpoint is of that. are drawing them 420,002 2018. we are seeing a huge number of

involuntary separations. people have served the country admirably. to get a pink slip after you have served our country, it is pretty appalling. do you think we have the right size army and what about the production -- reduction? brigades are at acceptable levels, and he noted the number should be between 60% and 70%. do you think this problem has improved since july? where are we? >> readiness has not improved since july. we are not ready for what the army would describe as, decisive action. ways to get there,

but there are many impediments in place. this makes it difficult to keep it trained. >> when you shrink the army, you get the ratio that is difficult. >> the demand is not shrinking at the same rate. >> should we be pushing for more resources or a larger army even the threat these days? is that something you would advocate? >> i do worry about the size today. when we were directed to go down 450, this was given at risk. testified toas meet the requirements of 450. the risk is increasing. i do not see that changing. years ago, we did not have these terrorist groups.

i am concerned this is keeping us from making the army ready and keep it whole. i know you directed the chairman of the joint chiefs on the army specifically, which i think will be very telling, next month . >> i look forward to achieving that. especially as we look toward this question that is fundamental to our strength and force. i think this these to be a priority for you in this position. i want to talk about an issue we have seen in a new hampshire with the guard. in new hampshire, the condition of our centers is unacceptable. according to the national guard readiness center transformation master plan, if you look at where we are, we are ranked 51 out of 54 states evaluated nationwide for our infrastructure.

the new hampshire national guard, if you look at our -- allss centers, except except one are poor or rated failing. we do not comply with building codes, lights, safety or any anti-terrorism protection .tandards areas i hope the army does not continue to postpone request for funding for the new hampshire national guard. very deplorable situation. we are 51 out of 54. i hope you will commit to examining the allocation of military dollars, not only between the active and reserve component but the national guard's to ensure the army is

prioritizing what our guards need. we know this is a total force situation. we could have fought in afghanistan, iraq, or what we are doing with isis without the guards. >> i absolutely will. we need to take a fundamental look at the total of dollars as well. this is where we take the greatest risk. this includes ranges, testing facilities that have become a readiness issue. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. fanning and your family. you have quite the resume. all of the experience you have, which will be a tremendous asset for the army. the thing i would like to ask that no one is talking about, our force. i agree with you on the reduction of forces. given the ratio, if adjustments can be made, because we all know

, no and i can tell you this one would sacrifice we have the military -- sacrifice the military we have to defend our country. they believe we sometimes become top-heavy with contractors, and every time some of comes before us, they tell us how they would reduce the force and talk about command centers being high and contractors being high, but people that want to duty fighting, they are critical need . there have to be adjustments. >> first i its a, there are tremendous individuals and products that come out of the combat forces in how we fight. that said, we realize we lean on the contractors to serve more than we need to.

we do not do a good enough job of them rationalizing afterwards, much like efficiencies. the contract workforce is something we need to be analyzing continuously. >> i need to interrupt you. i am so sorry. being a former governor, we know we were in charge. we were commanders in chief of our national guard. it is our responsibility to do the things to get done. we are the ones that led that charge. with that being said, we think there is so much more our guards can be doing in a role we are playing -- paying contractors to do. we already have a guard in waiting that is ready and trained to do a job. if we do not see the correlation or that commitment to using resources we already have. >> he is talking about using the force in the guard more.

spent two years working very hard in the air force. not only do we need to do it, it is the right thing to do to make sure we are utilizing the components properly. nowre introducing something on the national commission's report of the army, and i have dr m optimistic. we need to rationalize this all of the time. in the navy department, we started something called contract support. it doesn't interesting thing, because you would see each national strip, cancel. you would have to rationalize that pretty well. we did it in the air force with great success in the army has something similar. >> have you gotten a handle on how many contracts we have?

i cannot get anyone to give me an accurate count. wethat is the first thing need to know, the number of contracts. it is amazingly difficult to figure out that number. it is frustrating. time someone ask you, do we have enough money and force, you want to say we need more. on the other hand, if you only x amount to work with, what can we do to be more effective in use it in a more prudent way? >> my experience is they are additives. flexibility tore the program managers, those people you are holding accountable. that includes anyone in a leadership position, but also us inside the organization, so that -- the program

managers spend the vast majority of their time briefing people rather than running their programs. we are not nearly as agile in institution as our adversaries are or even private sector companies that do not want to compete with us because of the barriers we put up for them to do so. weould look for ways where can strip out some of these requirements that slow us down, allowing us to be more agile, better tapped into innovation and processes so we can iterate more rapidly than we are now. >> i think you are uniquely qualified because you have the background in all three riches of government. i think we give you the ability to do what you can. i hope we make sure our front-line forces are strong and we have the right people to do the job, make sure we do not

have an abundance of contractors, using our guard more effectively in building the force to protect our country. we will be behind you 1000%. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. fanning for your service and your continued willingness to serve. i have a few questions. you and i have talked a lot about what is going on with regard to russia, the russian buildup in the arctic as well as their other provocations in the past two years. you know the two generals testified and so russia is the biggest threat to the u.s.. testifiedcarter also in how we were late to the game in the arctic. he came on to say we are not even in the game with russia area do you -- russia.

do you agree with that? >> i do believe we are not in the game in the arctic nearly as we should be. korea.specific was north do you agree with that? >> i do. are you supportive of the president's measure? >> yes. >> last year, the army decided andet grid of a joint base 5000 airborne infantry troops, seven to eight hours can be anywhere in the northern hemisphere given the strategic clip. credit he has's reevaluated this and thinking it is a strategic mistake area does the u.s. army have an airborne

grade that is ready to fight and win in subzero mountain climates like those in the arctic or north korea? >> not those. >> the four to five is part of 425 is part of the reserve. it was called the over the hill calvary that could be there in seven hours. do you think removing these forces emboldens the unstable leader of north korea question ? eliminating the only trained soldiers in that part of the world. to roll these back if confirmed. supportinganguage

how we should be cutting forces in the asia specific -- pacific. how does cutting the only airborne combat team in the asia civic support this area -- asia-pacific support this area? think that will increase the number of soldiers overall? >> there are 100,000 today since 2007. >> if the army retained this at the full strength, would it send a strong message, strategic message to north korea, russia and our allies about america's commitment to protect our strategic commitment in the arctic and support our allies? >> i think that would send a strong message. the army last year had to balance cuts it had to make

across all of the requirements and priorities it has. number.e get to the 450 i think it is low, way too low, strategically risky. >> i do think it is a risk. i have testified this. >> to his credit, and you have already touched on this, the general is working hard to balance the ratio, making sure teeth rather than the tooth category. >> in the 450, i believe the number is 1500. >> how many prisoners? >> 1100 are counted as prisoners. >> how many soldiers are out processing? >> combined total of 15,000. >> when we talk about the 450,

there are literally thousands who are not employable and capable of fighting. .> that is correct o >> does it make sense that the army is considering cutting healthy soldiers to make room for tens of thousands of non-deployable and non-effective soldiers. ? >> it would be nice not to count them toward the 450. profiles, orical legitimate reasons. they are training now. they are already deployed. when we say we are headed toward army, that isonal not necessarily people ready to be deployed. >> we have had a lot of

discussions, but if confirmed, i need your 110% commitment to ensure the very last soldiers that we are cutting are the combat effective, strategically located infantry soldiers who can fight tonight if they need to, as opposed to so many of the other soldiers we are talking about. in other words, that you would pola to cut the trigger ullers last. can i get that commitment? >> you absolutely have the commitment. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. fanning, thank you for being here. to your mom, thank you for being here. thingsning, one of the

we have seen again in the third quarter is a big spike in suicides among guard members. what are your plans to improve mental health services? >> we have seen a spike. with the sheer size of the army, the numbers in absolute terms is too large. the army has made some impressive progress, increasing access to health care by vetting it at the brigade level so that it is more readily accessible. in terms of care across the suicide,havior health, that is a key component in making access to care as easy as possible for our soldiers. i think also, a lot more work has to be done, fighting stigma against seeking behavioral help.

>> one of the thing that has been done in the israeli army is they have pushed down, to be platoon level that the soldier in charge keeps an eye out for the other members, and reports behavior. to you looking at anyways push the decision-making down a little bit further as to enabling them to have the say, hey, maybe we need to help this person? >> absolutely. the army is already looking at this and has a number of programs like that. a senior master sergeant in the has a structure called, not in my squad. part of that is training people to look for indicators they should act on and report.

it really helps to reduce the numbers. armyu said before, the recognizes tactical importance in the enduring requirement to maintain a capable fleet. do you think the army will continue to rely on a large ?umvee fleet recall, after they rationalized requirements was to maintain 50,000 humvees. this allows them to call out the newest and best maintained of what they have. it will end up being relatively young and maintained fleet. >> looking into the middle east, one of the things that has struck me is we have seen refugees all throughout the world. at the same time, we have put in a no-fly zone for safety right

in the same country where those refugees are coming from. putting in place a no-fly zone or a safe sound? not studied those proposals enough to give you an opinion. i am happy to come back and talk to you area did i do think we have not done enough collectively to prevent the crisis and deal with the crisis, which is unlike any refugee crisis i have seen. >> would you work with the department of defense, secretary of defense and this is a critical issue to all of us. we need to provide the truth of your opinion to him. i wonder if you're going to look into this and start to put this information to gather and come to some conclusion on this? >> i will, senator. the secretary's responsibility is to ensure we have the forces already trained in these

measures. i am hopeful that secretary you, i think this is why it makes sense and here is why it does not make sense. >> i commit to you that i certainly will give you might unbiased opinion whenever i am asked. on occasion, if you see something sideways, would you take him aside privately and say to him, look, here is my view of this? >> yes. >> mr. fanning, you have served this nation well. we appreciate everything you have done for our country. thank you for being here today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. fanning. i would like to begin by thanking senator sullivan for bringing to your attention some questions and comments that he has about our concern that we

have with russia, especially in the arctic. i think many times, we do not focus on that because of the truly large challenges we see all around this world, but i do appreciate his comments and i do share his concerns that he has about the 425. i thank you for the commitment you made to him. i know one of your main challenges is going to be balancing the investment made against teacher threats alongside the demands we now face with readiness and modernization and forced structure. you said your top priority is readiness. you noted to me last month there needs to be more investment in facility sustainment. how do you plan to prioritize all of those remaining demands if we are going to be able to address needs in the future and

be able to balance those? want to seee -- what your thought process is. >> we take risks in all parts of our budget right now area -- now. uncertaink at, is the fiscal environment that we have been planning. sometimes we lose sight of the aggregate risk. that is what i am trying to get out now and has been confirmed by the army. one of those places where we have taken in aggregate risk that a lot of people have not fully realized yet is facility sustainment. it really is becoming a fundamental readiness issue for all of the services. ranges are earlier, a part of that. we need to make sure we are not mortgaging our future.

we would be risking other parts of the budget. risk intaken a layered facility sustainment . minute i landed, i could tell the space looked tired. we need to look into that seriously. >> members of this committee are hearing a number of predictions tonight about what the future is going to look like. do you see any kind of major shift on the horizon for the army, and what the army will do, how it will operate and what it will need? said werd gates always have a perfect record at predicting the future, we get it wrong every time. do, or will try to do with the army is not

predict what the future is, but take advantage of some of the reforms we are talking about and make the army more agile at getting these capabilities out to the field. we are losing the competitive edge we have against our adversaries in how to use technology, which is a big part of it. we need to empower people with the tools we already have and incorporate new ideas and technology faster into what we already reduce. -- already produce. >> is there specific equipment that the army has that you believe is outdated and should be replaced? do you have a list of what needs to be ended in order to move forward in the future for what you will need? >> in the current state, there are things we can end.

a lot of the platforms are old what they have new technology on them. there are three phases, modernizing what you have, and using science and technology to invest in. , just becauseyear of the budget pressures, decided to invest more in modernizing the platforms they had and keep the science and technology investment going and taking risks with developing platforms. that is a concern for me. this is an area i would look at closely. where have we taken too much risk in platforms where we are trying to hold on too long? >> thank you. fanning, i appreciate you being here. you are a refreshing witness.

you to carryourage the quality into your work. you have a great deal of experience, great deal of knowledge and i have learned a great deal of wisdom on these issues, share it. do not be hesitant. even if it might cause some fraction, that is your value to the united states. i hope you will maximize the input you have, because i believe you have a lot to contribute. >> thank you. >> there has been a theme in our discussions, and it occurs to me, what bothers me is what we are talking about is turning one of those expensive aircraft carriers and we make strategic decisions that have long-term implications and implementations based on assumptions that do not turn out to be very good. i was in iceland recently, and is there -- if there is a

strategic spot, it is there on the north atlantic. -- aire the air voice base because we thought the cold war was over. but the world has changed and we are in grand competition with russia again. the army size we have been talking about today, the assumptions upon which the decision was made, were valid when they were made, but no longer. concernmy colleague's that we are facing a new round of challenges around the world and we have to revisit that decision. about theo convinced danger of contracts, because the cost of training and the high level of training that are army -- our army, we ought to be using contractors were everything except fighting.

we should not have someone that cost $1 million to train, something the contractors can do. do you agree with that assessment? important,this is an integral part of the workforce. the challenge of getting the balance right and making sure, the contract workforce provides invaluable services. >> it makes sense to do that, rather than use trained army personnel, uniform force to do wargs that are not fighting. >> we need to make sure we have those three components properly balanced. the one that grows the fastest is not properly overseeing can be the contract workforce. it is a major challenge. i would never suggest, and i

some things are best done with the contract , whether it is a search capability. sometimes you do want a uniformed personnel though. >> we will have a review of that, and i hope it is something you will initiate. the third area we are talking about, strategic decisions that invalid is the arctic, as the senator has emphasized. russians iny of the terms of their military buildup. the idea of depopulating or forceshing our availability in that region, seems to me, it may have made good sense five years ago, i am

not sure it makes sense today. have to continue to reassess these decisions and remain flexible in responding to the current realities. the final one is afghanistan. we have to assess what is going on on the ground as opposed to making certain decisions based on a calendar or two-year-old assumptions. this is the importance of flexibility in constant reassessment of what the realities on the ground are. do you share that concern? are alike to say we learning organization, and that does not mean much if we are not willing to make changes on what we have learned. in regards to the arctic and alaska, when i became secretary of the air force about two years ago, one of the first things i did was reversed a decision to move a squadron out of alaska because of the strategic

importance there, because of the range space we had their, because of the proximity to adversaries and proximity to our partners in terms of training and so forth. i have a particular interest in that region for a long time. >> i noted in your testimony several times, you use the words agile and mobile. you remind me of my high school football coach. i appreciate your testimony, mr. fanning. i appreciate your service to this country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. fanning. sonk you for your service in many capacities. i want to thank your mother for joining us today as well. they can, kathy. as you know, mr. fanning, last month, secretary carter announced all military

specialties will be open to women. i do support providing women with various opportunities to , as longany capacity as we are not lowering standards to allow participation and that we are not decreasing our combat effectiveness. in order to ensure women are fully integrated into these previously closed positions, i believe the implementation strategy must be thoroughly and fully developed to include having an understanding of the secondary and tertiary effects so that we are not setting are women or our whim up for failure -- for our men up for failure. i have had the opportunity to meet with service people. i was in virginia. during my trip, i was able to

sit down with a number of special operators and paratroopers from the 82nd and talked about gender integration. both of these groups were mostly senior-level ncos or junior officers these were both men and women. they really talked about gender integration. have you had the opportunity to talk through gender integration with soldiers, and are you committing to that question mark -- committed to doing that? >> i have. i have discussed this issue in a ranger school. if confirmed, i would continue. i share your view that we need to get this right. it is critical to get this right. >> absolutely. we need to make sure we are

planning wisely and we are understanding what follow on a will be,be, -- effects whether is is positive or negative. i have heard it should not be done haphazardly. we have seen this recently with short terms of getting plans turned and and short turnaround for implementation. i am directing those comments at the marines. we want to make sure the army does it right and everyone does it right. i do think having such a quick turnaround of 15 days for a plan to work that out, do you think that is enough time? >> i have not seen the marine corps plan or guidance they have been given. i will say, getting this right, means doing this methodically, deliberately and however much

time it takes to get it right. is just that. it is a long-term plan that i think is carefully thought through, starting with validated requirements, what requirements you need to meet to do the job as an infantryman. if you meet them, we will start there. all plans are being reviewed by the secretary of defense. you will not see anything like a rushed judgment. that would set back the opportunities for women and take us more time in the end. >> i agree you have to be very methodical and talk about the implications of the standards and what that might do to orders and promotion opportunities. are we setting are women back or moving them forward? we do not know what those implementations are get.

i appreciate your thoughtful approach to that. do you believe that women, now that we have opened up those areas of combat, do you believe they should be required to register for the selective service? >> i think that is something the administration has taken up and is looking for a recommendation from secretary carter. i do say we are focused on equal opportunity and part of that is equal responsibility. >> thankful. i appreciate your thoughtful manner and to work with our soldiers in the army. what thent to echo senator spoke about earlier regarding the 425, and we want to make sure we are protecting our assets in the pacific northwest. that is a great concern and many of us have talked that through. i appreciate your consideration with that as well. thank you, mr. fanning. i want to thank the ranking

member, and thank you mr. fanning. welcome back. i really appreciate your willingness to serve. you have served this country in many different roles. in particular i want to thank togetherhe work we did . when senator king was talking about the ability to reevaluate information and change directions, that is a skill that is often lost on people, and i think you have it. i appreciate that very deeply. year's ndaa, we talked about a lack of investment and sustainment of major test facilities. the committee noted the test facilities and missile ranges were misused, but others did not

receive direct support in over a decade. the committee urges the department to complete a comprehended assessment of test ranges. i want to ask you if you know what the status of this assessment is that the time? correctly,erstand the direct assessment is done and i have not seen anything yet. i share your concerns on that. this is why i mentioned the readiness issue. scenarios, and it becomes ineffective training. ineffective testing doesn't tell us much.

sen. heinrich: you have thoughts on what metrics you will use if confirmed to assess the quality and capability of the army's testing evaluation and infrastructure? mr. fanning: i think two fundamental metrics, i start with the end user to see what they have from the range and did not get from the facility. but if we are focused on investments in the facilities, a series of metrics will be how often facilities are available for what we need them to be. sen. heinrich: switching gears, morrell, welfare, and recreation programs are a key component to soldier retention and quality of life. as you noted in your advance policy questions, it is important to continue to provide high quality m wr programs and sustain them for the future. i would say that is acutely important. how do you intend to address those challenges in sustaining the programs, given the current fiscal environment, and particular, at those remote and isolated installations? mr. fanning: i share your commitment to these isolated facilities.

one of the most important things to do with mwr is assess what is of value to the soldiers and families. we lay off on a lot of programs and we don't rationalize them and pull money out of ones that are not effective to put back into ones that are and people cannot access because we are not investing enough. and be on the lookout for how things evolve and how needs are evolving to look for new ways to provide services. sen. heinrich: i think that is particularly important because needs change and we need to meet people where they are especially if we will be able to have the kind of people we want serving at remote and isolated institutions. mr. fanning: as a former as a former engineer i was pleased to see your commitment to expanding at a particular

outreach programs that foster stem professionals and we need to make sure we are getting the best and brightest within the army and all the services with regard to the next generation of scientists and engineers. can you talk a little bit about how you are going to approach that issue at the army in particular and how we make sure that we have a constant structure in place to engage scientists and engineers early so we can get them into the services and doing that kind of work? mr. fanning: i think we need to start by explaining what the civilian workforce is and isn't. a gets bandied about in the political process and a lot of people assume it is a large collection of bureaucrats. our engineers, scientists, national treasurers. what hit me the most a few years back when we were furloughing civilians, what was happening to the laboratories and test ranges. these were people that can make more money doing things outside of the government that are

committed to the mission. that's where we can do the most, capturing people. finding ways to expose them to the mission and problem sets and get them excited. as we decrease the civilian workforce and convert from contractor to civilian, we need to make sure we are keeping this talent organically that is very hard to recruit and replace. sen. heinrich: thank you very much. mr. fanning: thank you senator heinrich and i have been informed my colleague might return which gives me the great opportunity to initiate a second round. you bring to this job extraordinary experience and management. one of the persistent criticisms of the department is that it has not been able to successfully pass an audit.

can you give us insights as to how you, and the army, but hopefully influence the department of defense across the board, can get the dod on track for a successful audit? mr. fanning: first of all, success needs constant senior leadership. we got a tremendous a shot the arm by secretary panetta. it's the first thing i would make to this process if confirmed. in regard to the army, there are two things. i've seen them in each military department and its different with what the right rates are. i have long been a proponent of learning through doing. we have gotten to a point across all military services where i think we have prepped enough and it was time to test what we have done. we are learning a lot from that. in 14, just now and 15, the army had an auditor that put down its

pen. and so we did not complete the army -- audit, but we are learning. we are not only learning where we have weaknesses that we need to put more emphasis, we are learning where we have made enough improvements that we can pull resource off of that and so finding the resources. in the army, the first thing is creating a series of work schedules based on those problems and holding people accountable. the second, maybe even more so to the army, the army is fortunate in that some of its systems are more robust and are fielded and making sure that you shut down the legacy systems when you are supposed to because those systems are not audit compliant. you need to force the service and workforce into the compliant areas. sen. reed: thank you. i know my colleague, senator graham, has arrived. let me forgo things in the second round.

sen. graham: have you been following media reports that there may be consideration at the pentagon to take some away from general betray us? -- general patreus? -- to take a star away from general petraeus? i just want to say for the record, i hope there is bipartisanship for this approach. that's a great answer, i think the general like everyone else fighting this war, only god knows how many years was detroit -- how many years he was deployed. he made a mistake. he took responsibility for it. and his military record stands

as one of the greatest in recent memory. and i would urge the secretary of defense to follow the recommendation and not go down this path. as to the army itself, i know you have been asked about the structure. what does it mean to have 490,000 members of the army versus 420 and terms of things you can do? what's the difference? 70,000 more people but what is it mean in terms of engagement. mr. fanning: i think when you look at 490 down to 450 in the current construct under 420, we testified when we first were targeted on the 450 number. general milley has testified the same thing i think it would require a whole new set of assumptions and guidance on what the army is supposed to do. everyone has testified and i would do it today that we could not do even as a total force, not just the active component, what we are asked to do if he went on to what sequestration would force us to do. sen. graham: president obama called for congress to give him authorized military force

against isil. i think that is reasonable. do you think congress would do it? mr. fanning: i do. sen. graham: i think you are well-qualified, would you like to see limitations on time when it comes to finding isil? mr. fanning: i think my preference would be not to have a limitation. sen. graham: if i am in the army i would not want to tell the army after three years we have to start and start all over again i think from a national perspective, we shouldn't have a limitation on time. what about geography? is there any means you want to do to take off the table?

mr. fanning: i don't. sen. graham: thank you. i look forward to voting you for secretary of the army. >> i don't i got a can top that. let me just say as the staff has said, there are no more of my colleagues that are returning. let me thank you. on behalf of senator mccain, the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> coming up on c-span, california governor jerry brown delivering the annual state of the state address and then robert mcdonald on modernizing the v.a. department. today the internet archive holds

a discussion on political television ads. our live coverage from the national press club starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. american history tv airs every weekend on c-span 3. all day saturday and sunday. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories an interview with conservative commentator armstrong williams, part of the exploreations in black leadership projects. >> recognize my father because he had a strong reputation in the county. i extended my hand. said you're a racist. >> what grade were you in, if you want to come to work and intern for me.

>> after the anniversary of the 1773 boston tea party re-enactors recreate the scene in boston. sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the 1980 republican campaign with interviews with ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, john anderson and howard baker. at 4:00 on real america, 45 years ago this week iran released 52 american hostages after holding them 444 days. we'll look back at the iranian hostage crisis including president carter's announcement of a failed rescue attempt and the release of the hostages just minutes after ronald reagan was sworn in as president. for the complete american history tv schedule go to c-span.org.

california governor jerry brown delivered his state of the state address before a joint session in california legislature in sacramento. e outlined his goals for the states that includes investment in infrastructure and health services. this is 20 minutes. and allow four term governors to seek a final term. [applause]