I inc. You are both excellent choices. I think you are both excellent choices. A question about did you start the treaty. You said you did. , i looked at the treaty and there were a lot of commitments made at that time in order to get the votes necessary watch it. It was a close call. I remainhe said concerned that maintaining a is in the midst of a difficult financial time. Modernization is what we are talking about here that was a commitment made that has not yet. Eached its fruition in terms of modernizing. I am concerned about this. About wasconcerned the Nuclear Weapons. Would you have some ported it more insupported it terms of the ratio or the numbers of tax school Nuclear Weapons russia has as opposed to what we have . The is your feeling about tactical Nuclear Weapons . As you have address, modernization is important to us. I would hope that we continue modernizations as well as this that supports it. With recent port with regard to the tactical Nuclear Weapons, anye went into and with treaty, it is important that we are able not just to reduce but able to verify the obligations heard that agreement are in fact able to be carried out. We were able to do that from the dozens of warheads. We solves launchers that. I would like to see the world with less tactical Nuclear Weapons. The same type of rigor has to be in place in order to have an agreement by which we can Nuclear Weapons. Would you have supported it more vigorously if they had included the tactical Nuclear Weapons . The other side of russia was carrying out an appropriate obligation. The warheads are going to be reduced. And we aredown reducing, it would seem to me that the Modernization Program important as we are going through a reduction. Would you agree with that . Yes. I would agree. There has been some discussion about doing a unilateral reduction. Outside of the gt . Negotiations need to be negotiated. I believe that. I would only say for us to be in it would require more testing. With new agree with this . He does all the things i mentioned in my opening statement. Do you think the current strategy of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions would stop someone like kim jongun from acquiring Nuclear Weapons capability . Our present strategy is berect. I think we have to persistent and consistent with that strategy. I also believe in terms of if confirmed the position that i will take there i will have to do everything i can and build new relations in order to bring other countries to bear as well. More influence we have in the region and internationally, and i will have an opportunity to help with that if confirmed, will be helpful in our strategy as well. I share with you the concern about the uncertainty. That is a kinder way of putting it than i would. We are looking at budget cuts. This does not happen in isolation. Do you think that make something to beim more likely militarily aggressive . It may lead to a greater possibility of miscalculations. Thank you very much. Ive had the privilege of working with general caparrotti for many years. Thank you for your service. One of the issues that we face is the modernization of our Nuclear Deterrent. Ofunderstanding is the hope our deterrent missiles are at sea now. Is that a fair estimate . That is a fair estimate in terms of warheads. Modernizations of our summary summer rains is a key priority for the National Defense . Theaid the tour, replacement senator, the ouracement is critical to Nuclear Deterrent strategy and capability. Have the committed to air launched missiles as well. This would seem to me to be the First Priority in terms of modernization. Is this consistent with your views and strategies . The flexibility of having a triad is very important to our deterrent strategy. Form ise ohio last nearing its end of life, it is very important that we replace it in addition to the calculations you just mentioned. One of the things that will be from theto support department of defense to do that. A nos to be commitment to modernization of the whole triad. Since most of our eggs are in the summer rains, we have to do that first. Is that your view . It is not in my purview as to how they are paid for. It is important that we move forward with that platform. We are in the met of a like the 70sts and 80s. Now it is the sea battle. You will be in the midst of that. General scupper on the scaparrotti will be in asia. It is strategically toward the asiapacific area. The battle is comparable in terms of that. Them. One of the key factors we do not have to worry about with the land battle was cyber. In with they work developer of this new doctrine, particularly when it comes to cyber . Senator, you are asking battle and air sea cyber. I would say this is a concepts. It includes all of our capabilities and effort to include cyber. And guess let me go ahead ask the questions. We have been doing this for about 200 years. This is a brandnew dimension. It seems to me given in the press that given some of our competitors have very asymmetric powers with respect to cyber. Air or seaped an battle, we have to make sure we can communicate, that we can control, etc. Key might be the most aspect. I would hope that you and your command would be engaged. Jointhave a series of forces. A disciplinary estimate of the value and do intentions Going Forward . These exercises are large and combined. We do this regularly throughout the year. I think they are essential to the readiness we need to maintain on the peninsula. I think they are essential in terms of the integration where trying to obtain and the forces. Ents of the the milestones that are laid out in Strategic Alliance can be developed through the use of the exercises. Those are the times we can bring together all of the services as well as combined services. As has been mentioned, one of actors that influenced this is china. Have made some statements or they contributed to them as suggesting to the world but their ultimate glue goal is to nuclearization. Helpview of how you can facilitate the diplomacy between between the United States . China is key. As a part of my present duties, to help with china on economics. If confirmed, i have a relationship now that i have begun to establish with the staff. Chief of they know me. In terms of my position if confirmed, i also have a relationship that i have developed with north korea and south korea. I think these are very important to our objective of dude nuclearization. Thank you very much. Thank you. Want to thank you for your service and the sacrifice of your families. We appreciate it. I want to followup on the question that senator im half and half cirencester in senator inhoff asked you. He did say he would seek a one third reduction of art of floyd nuclear weapon. It was not clear at all whether that is something she would only except through negotiated exception or whether it would be would something he consider it unilaterally. What would your advice be to him on a unilateral reduction . Thank you for that question. My advice would be that we negotiate a bilateral that also has verifiable components so we can have reduction that would work. If you would have proposed a lateral reduction yes. How important do you think it is before we receive any more reductions that we fulfill the modernization requirements in section 1 1043 . Well aware. Re are wel how important do you believe that we filled the modernization . It is very important that we modernize our Industrial Base in order to maintain sustained weapons that we have. It is so important to have a safe and Nuclear Deterrent. If we are continuing to diminish the resources which is what is happening right now under the new treaty, do you think it is advisable that we further reduce our Nuclear Deterrent without meeting those responsibilities . I think this is agreed upon and is satisfactory. For the knowledge i have the fy 14 budget it supports the modernization of that Industrial Base. With sequestration it is a question of how well we will be able to do that with further cut across the board to include this modernization unit. Announcese president that he is going to seek a third reduction, it seems that unless we further fulfill our commitments to modernize our deterrent pursuant to the existing treaty obligations then that would not be advisable, particularly if we do not know we have modernized what we have now. In that regard, i want to ask you about the recent Missile Defense agency test so that the chairman asked you about. This issue needs to be prioritized. Isnt it true that the last time this have been tested was 2008 . That is my understanding it has gone to a number of tests. It is operational. Test we haveflight 2008. S since 2000 here we are in 2013. If we are going to have the equipment to the defense that we need to put resources that will further test it. This was cutting funding for this program. , what do youard hope the priority should be in terms of making sure it that our Missile Defense programs are supported . My priorities would be that we invest in reliability of the of the missiles. And that we do adequate testing to ensure that reliability exists. With regard to an east coast Missile Defense site you said to the chairman that you felt there. Ere further threats to iran do you dispute what has been the report from the national air and Space Intelligence Centers from earlier this month that concluded they could test an icbm capable of reaching the United States . I am not here to dispute what you just said. What further once we need to conduct . It wouldhe agree that be providing additional battle space . We have to continue to study how we are going to adjust that. As thentioned earlier, fire are missiles to address this problem that we had the right targeting. With that i also supports that we move forward with the Environmental Impact agency. Allow us an option in the future. My time is up. I will follow up. In the written answers, you have talked about additional analysis about the threat. 2015 is when they may have ice icbm capability. I am not sure what were waiting for additional analysis. Even Going Forward, it would take several years for us to stand that type of site up. Then they have the missiles. I appreciate it. I will followup with you on that. I want to thank you both. Thank you. Good morning. I want to add my voice to the members of the committee. I chaired the subcommittee. I look forward to working with you in that capacity. It is good to see you again. O know we will Work Together to given the challenges you will ace as the head of the u. S. If i can turn to you initially, i want to pursue the same line of questioning. You think this will allow us to maintain an effective Nuclear Deterrent and to be able to early fully respond to a Nuclear Attack . As fully stated in this earlier questioning, the new sensetreaty numbers make to me. We ought to march toward that goal. That weentally believe should always look for the right balance in all of our capability. Piece. Not studied this if confirmed i would be willing to come back to this committee. I think you can respond. If reductions were made we would be able to maintain those weapons that were reduced in a status that would allow them to be redeployed. Is that correct . It would really depend on any future agreement that we had in terms of what were the basis and components that was relative to what we would retain. Prison the present agreements do allow that as an option. Is that fair to say . That is my understanding. It it just is deployed and nondeployed and adjusters launchers. Launchers. Esses talk about the benefits you see them associate with the proposed changes to our Nuclear Employment strategy . Do you think they outweigh the risks . I believe the benefits relative to the new treaty provide us the adequate members of Nuclear Weapons and launchers to address the threat now and into the future. There are some who i respect that modern conventional weapons have provided us with capabilities that once would have been divided by Nuclear Weapons. We simply do not need as many new. I would say that as you look nukes, the combined capability is also important. Just the significant quantities we have had. It is pretty interesting and how we have made significant reductions while still retaining quite a few weapons. We haveentally believe to be careful and look at all of our capabilities matter what was , that it is also part of our countries capability and what we can bring to bear. As long as other countries have Nuclear Weapons we have to have a safe means to address that. You are saying the conventional arsenal we had today is advanced and it complements our Nuclear Weapons capability. Is that what youre saying . I am saying i do not have a that it equals this capability. We are talking about a significant difference in the capability when we look at a nuclear weapon. Turn to the be 61 bomb. Do you support that modernization plan . I think the Modernization Program is very important to our nation. I fully support it. I also believe we can, we will be at risk if we do not support it. Through the modernization it also reduces the number station the numerous nation of other Nuclear Weapons we have today and brings it down to one type model series in order to have a safe and secure platform for our use, particularly in terms of the technical nukes associated with the program. You paid me the honor of a visit. We talked about this particular plan. We also talked about your willingness to work with senator sessions on the subcommittee to bring down the cost of the program. I want you imply that to make sure that you have a chance to clarify. You will work with us to bring down that price i can do everything possible. Is that correct . I will work hard to look at costs in every program. Thank you for that answer. Let me interrupt you. We only have a minute left. There was a miscommunication here. We are right at the end of the boat. We only have about five minutes to get there vote. We are going to have to for 10 minutes or so. We will let them know we are on our way. We have to recess. I am sorry to interrupt you. We are going to hold off on that. He can continue. If other folks come back, do want to finish . The issue of the management i think you are well aware of it. If we have Public Access to that bandwidth it would be a great economic benefits. Do you believe the lower 25 megahertz of that spectrum could be vacated within the currently proposed timeline without julie affecting our military missions . As we go forward, as much as it is also becoming extremely utilized the we had to be very at the cost associated with taking the spectrum away at the area of the military is using. There will be cost associated with migrating those of governments to a different day. In your answeron but i want to continue to work with you on this opportunity and to do it right. Thanks again to both of you. I look forward to working with you after you are confirmed. Thank you. Senator donley. Thank you. Be with both of you. I want to thank you for your service to the country and your families for everything you have done on behalf of this nation. We are very grateful to all of you. March the 60th anniversary of the korean war. I would like to recognize our Service Members who currently serve in the republic of korea them for their service. Once such korean war veteran inshe was buried Arlington Cemetery just recently. His body was recovered in 2004 as part of a recovery team. Mia in northl korea. What conditions are necessary for resuming recovery operations in north korea . Let me say that i fully support efforts to reprieve gh and repatriation. It is a service we have as our nation. As part of those duties i will have particular duties regarding the arrangements. I do think in terms of what we should do, to go forward we should ensure that that it is within the priority of our other that weinterests and should assure the security of the individuals who we would put into north korea to retrieve the remains into the operation there. Thank you. , recentlycil haney they put out a report regarding Ballistic Missile systems and said china has the most active and diverse listed Missile Program in the world. Unitsdeveloping qualitatively updating systems and developing methods to counter ballistic Missile Defense. The lastook at that three tests have failed how do we rectify that situation . As we look to the future here it is very important that we are able to continue to work our Missile DefenseSolutions Across to getrd, in particular our groundbased Interceptor Solutions that operating with the conclusions we expect here at we have had a numerous variants. It it is operational. It is operational to the extent that it is currently protecting our country. It is important that we get the portion of this also correct. And that we look at the full range of options as we look at addressing the muscle defense threat. One of the other concerns i at the easte look coast Missile Defense system or the suggestion of whether or not we need one, folks have said there is no point in going further with that he cuts we do