tv U.S. Senate CSPAN November 16, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
variety of tax exclusions and deductions that are scaled back modestly. and that's about it. it scaled-back beans count in some way i think i would agree completely with what peter said. >> i think we will see some of those things brought back. it will neither be 39.6 more 39.5. it will be somewhere between and i would guess the dividends are not the same as the capitol gains. >> all right we have some common ground among the economists where we are going to end at the end of the date. thank you for joining us very much, and thank you all. we appreciate peterson foundation allowed me to participate and i know that pete has a conversation to wrap things up. >> as i contemplated how to close i remember the nobel prize winner of the university of chicago where i was presumably educated. if you have no alternative you
have no problem. so i thought about the alternative of delivering the letter delivered to dramatically of course. thank you very much. i deeply appreciate quality of the panel but also the quality of the audience. so thank you and goodbye. [applause] >> president obama met at the white house with key congressional leaders including house speaker john boehner, house democratic leader nancy pelosi, senate majority leader harry reid and a republican mitch mcconnell. the first meeting since the election. they discussed what to do about expiring busheir tax reductions
and across-the-board spending cuts set to hit in january called the fiscal cliff. they allowed cameras in the room before the talks. >> i want to welcome the congressional leadership and thank them for their time. we have -- factors don't go on middle class families that our economy remains strong and we are creating jobs and and that's the agenda that democrats and republicans and independents all across the country share so our challenge is to make sure that we are able to capri together and work to find common ground, make compromises and build consensus. all of us agree on this they
want to see us focused on that but not our politics here in washington. my hope is this is the beginning of a process where we are able to come to an agreement that will reduce our deficit in a balanced way that we will deal with some of these long term entitlements and we will also be focusing on making sure the middle class families are able to get ahead is i want to think the leadership for what they've done and with that we are going to get to work. thank you very much. >> there's one other point i wanted to make and that is my understanding is tomorrow is [inaudible] birthday so for those of you that want to wish a happy birthday, we didn't know how
>> [inaudible] and while we are going to continue to have revenue on the table it's been the incumbent for my colleagues to show the american people we are serious about cutting spending and solving our fiscal dilemma and i believe that we can do this and avert the fiscal cliff that is right in front of us today. >> this is the first time that we have dealt with these issues. we feel we understand what the problem is. and we felt -- i feel very good
about what we were able to talk about in there. we have the cornerstone of being able to work something out. we are both going to have to give up some of the things that we know all our a problem, so it's like we are at the point where we know something has to be done. there is no more let's do it some other time. we are going to do it now. we feel very comfortable with each other and this isn't something we are going to wait until the last day of december to get it done and we have a plan we are going to move forward on the thanksgiving recess. we are going to meet with the president when we come back the first week as i understand it so it was a very constructive meeting. i feel very good about what we were able to talk about. >> it was a very constructive meeting. we have a recognition that every
person in america knows we must reach agreement. the speakers spoke about the framework going into next year and i was focusing on how we send the message of confidence to the consumers to the markets in the short run, too. that is to say that we should have a goal in terms of how much deficit reduction we should have a deadline before christmas and milestones of success so that confidence can build in as we reach our solution because if we do not reach agreement, not only will we miss the opportunity for doing something good for our economy and lifting the spirits and confidence in the country we will have an economic downturn that must be avoided. we understand our responsibility and that it has to be about cuts and revenue and growth.
it has to be about future. so as we cut investments and as we talk about revenue, we have to do so in a way that promotes growth and supports the future. it was good. i feel confident that a solution may be inside. >> i can only echo the observation of the other leaders that was a constructive meeting. we all understand that where we are. i can say on the part of my members that we fully understand the you can't save the country until you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of changing america in the coming years. we are prepared to put revenue on the table, provided that we six the problem. even though most of my members i think without exception believe that we are in the the glove that we are in not because we tax too little but because we spend too much. one final observation on an
approach the evidence of the case. here insists both tawes -- calls bald and moodie murder lee harvey oswald for their own personal reasons. now, on the other hand -- on the other side we have the grand conspiracy. and frequently they are rather vague about what they think i did the it could it happen and who was responsible. but they are absolutely convinced that there was a very large conspiracy, usually involving figures in the u.s. government, and a massive cover-up.
democratic national committee chairman wasserman-schultz celebrated gains for women in the election for the first time there are no all male state legislatures and 81 women in the u.s. house and 20 in the senate. representative wasserman-schultz spoke at an event hosted buy emily's list for about one hour and 20 minutes. >> since we have a devotee situated i realize we are a standing room only. it's great. thank you all for joining - stephanie schriock. [applause] and i am the president of emily's list. [applause] thank you on behalf of emily's list for joining us this morning. we are so, so excited to be here. can i just start by saying we won. [applause] and we won across the board.
it was a historic night, just a little over a week ago, and we wanted to bring folks together today to share in a celebration but also to talk a little bit about what we learned through this election as we move forward. it's really about women, it's about moving voters and women candidates and the leaders and that is an incredible place for all of us to be as we go forward in this country. we are going to have a few special guests for you today and then sit down with this incredible group of women leaders to talk specifically about the research and other things that we solve regarding the women voters and what happened and how they were thinking about things throughout the election cycle. just to step back here and think about emily's list and our 27 years of work to be standing here today, emily's list is a simple addition we elect pro-choice democratic women to
office. that is our goal, that is our mission. we do it by recruiting women by training and supporting our candidates and a building in network that gives financial and moral support to the women that want to take this on. i was just talking to elizabeth on saturday and reminiscing about our very first conversation which was during the recruitment phase of elizabeth warren a year-and-a-half ago, and she reminded me that i said to elizabeth she could win this race and it's not going to be that bad. i said i don't remember saying it wasn't going to be that. i thought it was going to be a tough go and that's what we do. those all the conversations that are so meaningful for all of us because it's we are with you the entire way for our candidates and we are so proud of all of them who did so well.
.. and we have three new emily's list senators, all of which are the first to represent her state in the united states senate as a woman. we're still breaking through a lot of glass ceilings across this country. think about the united states senate. there are 20 women in the united states senate for the first time in our history.
16 of those women are democrats and that has been a lot of hard work since our very first election of barbara mikulski at emily's list. i'm sure senator mikulski will be very happy this week as they all come in. we have 16 new emily's list congresswoman coming in this year, 16. three of them under the age of 40. we have two women who will be the first to serve in the house of representatives who have seen combat experience. that's what it means, our network is bringing together. women with so such diverse paths to bring to the debate that will move this country forward. i will look at some of these little stories. i don't know if this is such a little story. in new hampshire, in new hampshire, we have the first state in the union that has a full female federal delegation and a woman
governor. that is an incredible story. [applause] it has taken us a while to get there. and we did it by having this massive growth of membership. i said, i just said we have two million women and good men who are with emily's list. that means we've grown five times over in the last two years. that is the kind of growth that really was the engine behind this and those folks helped us raise over $51 million for our organization, our program and our candidates this year. it just has been an incredible, incredible cycle but we couldn't have won all these races without the women voters. the women voters were key in this. and we realize from the research that we did on election night and we're going to hear more and more about some of the research our other partner organizations did as well, that this was not a one issue election. i think is important.
our research showed the economic issues mattered just as much to women as the social issues. they are both incredibly important. 78% of the women polled, and this is post-election, 78% of the women polled ranked equal pay among the most important issues. who could disagree with them? 80% said the same thing about medicare. and while women understood and rejected, rejected all aspects of the gop agenda we found that they were even more motivated for a candidate. this is important. 76% of the women we polled reported that they voted for a candidate and only 16% said they voted against a candidate. so that inan incredibly important piece. that means we're on the right side of the agenda war with these women. more than any one issue women were excited to vote for candidates who thought
they had the right priorities. 89% of the women rated that very important, had the right priorities for the future. when women get that, they really understand i should say that something big happened last week. when we told respondents that we had a historic number of democratic women elected, 56% thought that was going to make a positive different recognize for this -- difference for this country and only 8% felt the opposite. i don't know who the 8% are. people know the importance of electing women and this will move our country forward. and women saw the gop agenda and harm it would do to their rights and freedoms across the board. they reacted by sending a group of to washington they knew and they could trust that had the right priorities from president obama to our historic numbers of democratic women. and out of the problems we test and we asked them about
everything because you know how this polling goes. i'm thrilled they were thrilled to do one more poll after the election, the candidates they voted against they were really concerned those candidates were going to take us back to the failed policies of the past. they got it. they don't want to roll the clocks back. they want to move forward. and more than being wrong on any issue of debt or health care or taxes, women recognized the total "mad men" gop agenda is what they did not want and they reacted that way. i say the growth will be sustainable in years to come. we have the right agenda and we just need to keep building and talking to our women, our fellow sisters across the country and the men who stand with us because they know that together we can make a great, great difference. and with that, i think about just some of the incredible women who have done so much
and we do have a couple of special guests here today and if i'm correct, i think, i can hear one walking down the hallway. that is pretty good. and i -- [inaudible] let me do a quick thing here. you're going to hear very shortly from senator mccaskill, who is a dear, dear friend of mine and someone who i came in as chief of staff for senator jon tester six years ago she was also coming in and had the opportunity to get to know her and her staff, an incredible leader for this country. and we know that she, she has one hell of a race, from the very beginning but from the very beginning she knew what she had to do to win that race. so don't think it was just by chance. there's a reason claire mccaskill is still in the united states senate and it is because of claire mccaskill. she figured this out early.
she made it happen. she knows missouri better than anyone else. she is an independent voice. she is one of the smartest people i ever met when it comes to understanding where the independent voters are. in missouri that is where it's at. particularly it is women and she got it. you will hear from her in just a moment. there is another leader here who just came in, we'll announce very shortly. i'm going to move this, switch it up a little bit. but we're going to have debbie wasserman schultz who just came in speak shortly too. before i do that i will have senator mccaskill, the newly reelected senator from missouri come on up and let us cheer you on for making sure todd aiken was not in the united states senate. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you to everyone who is here this morning. it is delightful to be here and first let me thank stephanie schiroc for her leadership. i told her when i greeted
her this morning. she has done something terrible. now we'll expect all these results every election cycle. she raised the bar so high that she has a lot of work to do. i do want to recognize all the people here that work for emily's list besides stephanie. because you all are special. you are smart and strong and you believe in what you're doing every day. you don't come to work for emily's list because you make big money. you come to emily's list because you want to make a difference and so thank you to all of you. and i think it is important to do that. [applause] i did, i am the senator that brought you todd aiken. i need love on that. [applause] congressman aiken obviously became very well-known across the country after he opened a window into his beliefs. and it wasn't what he said
that was the problem. it is what he believed that was the problem. and it crystalized for voters in missouri and across this nation what the real contrast was in so many different elections across the country. it, for a moment, it was like ah-ha, now i understand why this election is so important. in missouri, women made up 56% of the electorate on election day. that wasn't because missouri typically has 596% of the electorate women. it is because women became very motivated, and they didn't just become motivated because todd aiken had very backward views about whether or not a rape victim was entitled to emergency contraception. it was a whole list of things that motivated the women. you understand this is also someone who said that federally-backed student loans were the third-degree
cancer of socialism. this is someone who said he believed that employers should have the freedom to discriminate based on gender. that the government should not interfere in the workplace in terms of equal pay for equal work. this is someone who said we should not, against, raising the minimum wage, that we should abolish the minimum wage. this list of things, and certainly, contraception was on the list, but it was the list of things that disqualified him to so many voters. and if i have any message this morning it is that we can not get so focused on one issue that we lose sight of what the motivation is for most women. it's about security. it's about being the sole breadwinner and figuring out how they get their kids to college. it is about whether or not they're working two or three jobs in order to maybe buy a car so they're not struggling to get their
child to day-care while they're figuring out the bus routes. that's really what the this is about in this country. and i will tell you, after the election was over, and after we were all exhausted from high-fiving and drinking too much, what was really interesting to me was the reaction of the republican leadership. we heard a lot of talk about, well we've got to work on immigration reform because of the hispanics. we heard a lot of talk, well, we need to do more outreach into the urban core because we can't get any african-american votes. but i haven't heard yet any kind of acknowledgement that they do not get why women are rejecting their agenda in record numbers, and if you look around the campaigns, whether it is dee dee myers at the end of this panel, whether it is stephanie, whether it is debbie wasserman schultz who leads our party, whether it's donna brazile who was
running a presidential campaign in this country almost a decade ago. the reason our party gets it, because we respect women and we need women in decision-making positions. and women see that. i will never forget looking at the convention floor, at our democratic convention, and looking at the convention floor at the republican convention and saying, this is why i do what i do. because i am so proud to be part of a party that wants to be america. and as long as we keep focusing on those issues, and as long as we fight every day to make sure women in this country have an equal seat at the table, not just because there is one or two of them but because they're the ones making the decisions. they're the ones that are actually moving the levers
of power, and that's what emily's list has done. you have put w o country iseevers better for it. i am so grateful. i said all during the campaign, to emily's list, i wouldn't be in the senate in the first place without you. i sure as hell wouldn't be back without you. thank you all from the bottom of my heart and keep working as hard as we know how. >> great. thank you so much. senator mccaskill, thank you so much and we are so proud, our entire membership is so proud. our membership raised more money for claire mccaskill this election than we have ever raised for anyone. it's incredible. we are so proud of her. so thank you. and with that i want to make one more introduction of someone who i just, she has become a friend. she's always been a role model and she is just an incredible, incredible leader.
debbie wasserman schultz has taken on many jobs in her life. all the a about the same time. she is a great congresswoman from southern florida. not an easy job. she is a mother. never an easy job. he has done at the helm of our great party. i mean not tonely did she insure the re-election of president barack obama, but she did it by a making sure at that there was a constant conversation about what women were facing, both economically and with their health care and with their lives every day, pulling us together, making sure every woman in this country knew what was at stake. and, i don't know if anybody gives her credit for this but i will. i think she delivered florida, which is also pretty impressive. [applause] but she has just been an incredible leader, and for our membership, someone to look at, and we really do
see her as a role model for some of us. we certainly hope that i know she has three major jobs and i know the folks at emily's list are very much hoping that she keeps all three jobs because we can't imagine sighing the next two years where we have to fight to get the house back. we have one more thing we need to do and having debbie wasserman schultz as chair of the dnc will help us get there. come on up. thank you so much for being here. [applause] >> okay. so i brought cards up because there are some statistics we have to just run through and celebrate but first we need to celebrate stephanie sc h.r. iock. let me, i know these things if women don't celebrate us we see nobody celebrates us or not very often.
any organization like emily's list that goes through generational change faces risks. you know when emily's list was founded by ellen malcolm, this was an organization that essentially became iconic almost interchangeably identified with her. i can tell you that i spent, you know, my whole formative, all of my formative years admiring and really just loving ellen malcolm. my very first check in my very first statehouse race was from emily's list, 20 years ago, when i was 25 years old. so this, the risks that an organization like emily's list face, faces when the next generation, the generation that began the organization moves on it was so tied to that personality and that person that it could never be the same. well, not only is it a credit to ellen malcolm that emily's list was very, very smart and wise about who
they chose to succeed her and to carry the organization to the next level and through the next generations, the person that emily's list chose, stephanie schriock is just incredible. the right ahead leader for the right time for this organization. this election's results couldn't be more of a clear example of that. so congratulations. [applause] in the world of undersung and unsung herro ins for election results we can't say enough about stephanie slir yok's success in this election. i think it is important. women came out for president obama with 55% of the vote. 184 women ran for con greggal office, 40% of the u.s. population has at least one woman senator. no longer a all male state legislature in the country, nowhere. new hampshire which is my home away from home, has all
woman congressional delegation and a woman governor as well as a female statehouse and state senate leader. they're not both democrats but that is okay. they're still woman. we're moving in the right direction. this is my favorite, when the 11th con aggression gavels in this january, all-time high of 21 women senators and 81 women in the house of representatives. which is awesome. that is particularly gratifying we came off, i remember being in a similar discussion just two years ago just lamenting and agonizing we dropped the number of women in congress for the first time since 1982 after the 2010 elections. you know, some of us thought, oh, my gosh, how did we lose momentum? how did we get it back? it is so critical. there was a lot of soul-searching. you know what? rather than spend two years hand-wringing, women got to
work and we got to work recruiting and then thankfully, well not thankfully, we were clearly helped by the republicans because out of the gate they had a decision to make. when they took over the house majority they could have taken a more moderate path. unlikely given the tea party extremists that they elected in 2010. but h.r. 3, the third bill out of the gate if recall was the bill that would have redefined rape. that sent the clearest signal to women what was in store for us across the country. you know, they could have just left it at that. then the assault on planned parenthood. the assault on title 10. the, idea that we should refight the battle over whether we have access to affordable birth control, you know, and the list goes on. and then we know how the rest of the election played out. but i can tell you, and i will conclude with this because you guys are going to hear it. you have an amazing panel
led by dee dee myers who has stayed in the fight and been an incredible and remarkable leader and also a mom. the whole ginger rogers, women do all the same thing that men do but do it in high heels backyards, that is what it is really all about. i would love to have a man spend the day in the life of the women in this room and try to get done what we balance together in order to make sure that we can make everything work and help the people that we care about thrive. but the important thing here is that we continue to move forward. we have to double down. we have to double down in 2014. i mean we've got to make sure we recruit more women to run for office because this, it is not just a slogan that when women run, women win. they do. they do. and when women run, democrats win because we have, it is, you take a look at the, take a good look when the house convenience
after this, after this next congress is sworn in at what our side of the aisle looks like versus the republican side of the aisle. they got whiter and more male and we got, we now have a majority minority and female democratic caucus. first time in history. pretty amazing. [applause] no matter what i do, i will be helping you double down, doing everything i can to make sure that we can move women forward, help president obama move this country forward and make sure that, that when it comes to the issues that matter to women, as a mother of a 13 and 9-year-old daughter, that, and i can look out and see a lot of other moms in this audience, that we make sure that we make live better for the generation of young girls that we're raising and most importantly, in terms of professional development, that we reach, each of us, every single time we're in a program like this, we need to remind ourselves to reach behind us and pull another
woman up on that next rung of the ladder as you move up to the one in front of you. it's critical. we have to replace ourselves. too many women don't make that priority. that is what emily's list is all about, filling up our ranks so we have so many leadership opportunities for women in the future. thank you so much and congratulations >> good to see you. >> i'm going to the democratic caucus right now. >> what is nancy going to do? [laughter] >> a little news being made in the city this morning. thank you for being here again. i will quickly introduce our panel. you've been introduced to stephanie schriock. one point debbie made eloquently and claire. quintupled the membership of emily's list, record raising for fund-raising and record year of electing democrats.
before she was president of emily's list, stephanie was quite possibly the best campaign manager in the country. she ran jon tester's first campaign and al franken's campaign and contested whatever that was. clearly brought that experience to emily's list and helped ilec a lot of women. next to stephanie, ann list ton. she is award winning media consultant with 20 years of experience consulting on and managing top level campaigns. her clients this year. she had two jobs. she ran women's vote for emily's list and battleground state media for the obama campaign. we'll hear from her not only how we turned out women for emily's list candidates and president's democratic priorities. next to her is dawn who is the vice president of ppfa, planned parenthood federation of america action fund. she brings decades of experience in campaign strategy and messaging to planned parenthood and cleo award winning writer and director as well. last but not least is laura
race. secretary treasure of afscme which represents 1.6 million workers. she was elected at the union's 40th international convention in june. welcome to all of you. thank you so much for being here. i will start with you, stephanie. we just heard a lot about where we are. this feels a lot like you're the woman 2.0. the first year the woman, 20 years ago, 1992, when going into that election cycle there were exactly two women in the united states senate and 24 in the house. we made great progress. how do we keep it going? first is this the year of the woman 2.0 and how do we keep it going? >> it was interesting. i was talking to ellen malcolm about this just the other day because, the comparing and differences of 20 years ago as she put it, we knew it was coming 20 years ago. we just knew it. and this year it just, hard-fought every inch of the way. we had to be scrappy for it.
and i think that's, part of where we are right now, is the good news we have, because of the work we've done for two decades, we have a pipeline of women. so when opportunities come up we were able to take those opportunities with incredible candidates. i mean tammy baldwin, maisey her rohn know came surprise open seats in hawaii and wisconsin but they were ready to take the opportunity. moving forward years to come we have the great pipeline. we have great women sitting in the house of representatives today i expect to see running for the senate very, very soon. >> how important is recruiting though even for women already in elected office and what did you find in this cycle or previous couple of cycles as you tried to recruit good women's candidates? >> so much of what which do, we start training women who are running for the legislature in hopes to get them to run for the legislature. it starts there and keep having these conversations of, but, it does continue to
take a conversation. now the relationship emily's list builds with candidates over a period of time allows us to go in, when those meants come and say, okay, this is your time, you have to go. they step back and wait and think about it. we don't let up. we make them run. we make them do it. but the truth is, we really have an incredible pool of women now. now it is not large enough and we have to do a lot more work to insure that we have a larger pipeline, particularly in various parts of the country, but i look at california where we have such immense success. two women senators. we have a freight -- great female delegation out there but we also have folks who have been there for 20 years. many are elected 20 years ago. how long are they going to stay? are we prepared for that? that is our next piece and we will be.
>> great. this was sort of a perception in some parts of the country this was a good year for women because a couple of men said a couple of dumb things. dawn, is that true? was this about a couple of men saying a couple of dumb things? >> they did say dumb things, let's be clear but this year of the woman part because i think that goes to it i pick up on your analogy, this year women went viral. the same way the media landscape is fractured. i think you could say this was the year of the woman candidate part two. this was the year of the younger woman. this is the year of the diverse woman. this is the year of women's uteruses. it was a lot of different levels of women got involved in a way that i think 20 years ago it was more about this group of women running. now it is about a whole lot of women participating in a whole lot of new ways. some of that is just because of the changed landscape of
internet and everything else that gives us this opportunity. but think it is critically important point. those guys were exclamation points at the end of a very long platform diatribe against women and women's health care and i would argue and i love to talk more with the panel about this if possible i really think we're making a mistake to think of this as economic issues and social issues. they are, $600 in birth control costs is, that new car down payment for a lot of women. almost half of the gains over the last 40 years for women economically in terms of pay have been directly traced back to the pill and roe. this is not something women think, i will think about social issues. this is not something i will think about my economic issues. women have the lives debbie wasserman schultz says, if
you have catch breast cancer at stage 1, not stage 3, that has a lot of economic and health and personal impacts on you. this is whole different environment and we can not let the republicans say, hey, if we could just hide this. i don't want to hear how you hide your views. i want to hear how you change your views. >> picking up on that, ann, did you see that in your research, when the message developments reach out to women you had to integrate these ideas of social and economic messages that they are part of a basket of issues that affect women's lives? >> they were part of a basket. i think what is important when we were targeting these independent voters in battleground states, these women were reacting very much to the same messages that most voters were reacting to. i think, when we're talking getting more women into the pipeline, we want to go back to the, i think the big story of this campaign, and recruiting and getting more women involved and sort of really waking up to that
independent female voter votes who is becoming more conscious of these issues but also thinking of possibly running and which party they might align with. one of the things when you talk to women candidates or potential voters who might become candidates, it is the amount of money that was spent in these campaigns that sort of paralyzes these candidates or potential candidates quite often because they look say, how can i even take that on, right? and i think part of our job as tacticians, is to be able to help candidates learn how to raise that kind of money, communicate to these independent female voters that will elect them, if we can communicate to them. and also, in a post-citizens united era be able to teach the tactics of how do we communicate early and define our opponents and talk about issues that will resonate with these independent female voters. >> so, laura, turning out
women, i think what dawn's point, this was not just about women candidates but about women across the board, particularly women voters, how important is that to the labor movement? this isn't just about electing emily's list women although we're all for that but about a progressive agenda. how important is this turning out women to the labor movement? >> very important. afscme represents 1.6 million workers across this country and over half of those members are women, and so, we made sure that our members knew about the issues. we're confident in explaining it to their communities, and made sure that they not only understood and went out to vote but they reached out their hand, brought other people with them. so extremely important. >> particular priority for afscme was turning out women? >> oh, yeah. >> why do you think, why did the emphasis shift or broaden, didn't shift, it broadened?
why were women voters, this is fascinating point, such a bigger part of, not maybe quite told the story about this election cycle, right? it was not just great candidates? it was something else to give a sense of empowerment? >> a sense of assault and sense of empowerment together is the best recipe for turnout, right? it is hope and fear. i think again gave this -- >> sort of all came home to roost in this election cycle but is that something that's been brewing for the last several cycles? >> going to your point before of, you know, so in 2010, they did hide the ball, right? they said we're all about the economy. again like, debbie said, h.r. 1, h.r. 2, h.r. 3, defund planned parenthood. define rape. maybe these are different people who are just focused on the economy. indeed they were the same old thing but they had been hiding those views. this last two years from our
perspective at planned parenthood, the defunding thing. then kind of, as we the komen brouhaha. we're glad that was repaired. birth control refusal. then how we became an issue and other women's related issues. just became part of this nate tiff, what is going on and what do they believe? then this hopeful aspect. hey, there are people talking to my real life and scheme to actually get what i deal with on a day-to-day basis. this kind of one-two punch that was so important. >> you mentioned earlier this was all economics for women. to add to all of the health care issues because, deal with this issue all the time. birth control is only social issue if you have to pay for it. this is really all economics. but on top of that, and underneath and you also had the attacks on collective bargaining where so many of
our women are members of unions, afscme and other public unions, well, they're already not getting the same pay as it is. equal pay is already an issue. now we have attacks on collective bargaining on top of wonder what will happen with health care. then there is this concept of voucherizing medicare which is their only hope. some of our polling over the summer, and some of our focus groups were just stunning where we were asking folks what their biggest concerns were. we were getting statements that said, i'm afraid i'm not going to be able to retire with dignity from people who were both in their 60s and in their 30s. 30-year-olds worrying about this because of everything that was going on. there was no sense of security as senator mccaskill said. security is such an important part. this is security, and economic security, safety and just having some voice in your future. and so i was just going to ask on the union side of that i think it is a huge
piece what we saw particularly in wisconsin and ohio, a lot of states across the country. >> it's huge. when you talked about whether it's, you know, health care or social issues. these are we're talking about everyday lives and so i think, with my experience and my sister and brother's experiences with all of this, we're talking about the everyday person and getting through the day and being able to pay your bills and going to the doctor and, in my experience traveling during this campaign, i'll share a story with you. i came across a sister who has a severely disabled son. 26 years old. cerebral palsy, he himself is worried about his future, and just wants to live independently, afraid of that medicare being stripped away from him. just wants to be able to get to work and come home and get out of bed. and then his mother, middle-aged woman, she wants
equal pay. worried about losing her job to privatization. and then also on top of that fear is will i have health care? because if i'm not healthy, who is going to care for my son? so this is all intermingled, i agree with you wholeheartedly. >> you find again in messaging and reaching out to independent women and others that you have different messages for different age groups? or were those concerns largely the same? how did you target those? >> it was interesting. so, i had the unique opportunity of running around the country in these battleground states and shooting a lot of these women and the younger women would say to me, i can't believe we're talking about these issues that my mother talked to me about and beat the battles back in the '70s. how could this be an issue now today? and then, you know, we put the mothers in the seat, i dealt with this 30 years
ago. i can't believe this is coming back. so from both side of the sort of age, generational gap there was the bubble up of frustration and sort of a rejection of about the candidates and policies from the past, regardless whether it was tommy thompson or mitt romney or any of these other kind of jokers across the country, yeah they were, just sort of collectively said, not them and it's got to be someone else. >> so they basically closed the any age gap that might have existed? >> i mean women's health issues particularly around reproductive health, obviously younger women have different concerns than older women, do you find there is age divide on these issues? >> it was interesting we did much more significant modeling than we ever done in the past. we not only did the traditional choice models, if you will, do you support safe, legal abortion, but we also looked at favorability
around planned parenthood and we did a model based on birth control and the president's policy of expanded access and with insurance companies. when we crunched all that together in the formula and kicked out these folks, it did reveal an entire group of people who were frankly less concerned on the abortion front. they weren't really bad but really less concerned who we could talk to but who were definitely from an age perspective very concerned about birth control. we added them into our mail programs, walk programs. of course we were in tight partnership with emily's list and with our friends in labor who were also focused on this sharing models and sharing targets and working on the independent side. so there was definitely some age gap. and an enthusiasm builder i think that helped us not just match but, surpass the turnout of younger voters from four years ago that
obviously republicans bet against young people. and all of us in this room bet on them. >> speaking of that, republicans were doing research. they were seeing some of the same things that you all were seeing. what was their response to? to ignore it? why don't you take it and anyone else who wants to jump in. >> i'm not sure they were seeing some of this. there were lots of reports out there their polling was flawed and quite honestly, i also feel like from a tactical standpoint, i don't think they had anywhere close to the kind of polling and data mining that we had. just from the obama campaign, it has been written about and probably will, for years to come, we had an entire analytics department that went on for an entire year. these were mostly mit, university of chicago ph.ds who were mining data,
particularly focused on independent female voters, and in realtime we were able to adjust our conversation. so whether it was access to birth control or outlawing abortion in cases of rape, whatever that might be particularly on women's health we were able to online, in the mail, on television, cable, communicate to them and really have this long-term conversation with them about issues that they were telling us that were important to them at the time. >> were those different issues than democratic women were responding to? >> not necessarily. not necessarily. but the democratic women have a tactical standpoint we didn't talk to them just as much. we were going out to independent female voters and then in some cases republican female voters too because they were reacting so strongly to our message. so we just expanded, expanded that universe. >> i think the republican, the republican party continues to, as dawn started with, there is economic issues and there
are social issues. and so if we can focus on the economic issues and we'll try to tamp down until somebody says something crazy on the social issues we'll be okay. they're not understanding that for women an families these are all tied together. as we looked at these post-election polling that were just really diving into now, i mean it is so clear that all of this is tied together for women voters. and you can't separate them out. you can't separate out your economic security with your ability to get access to health care. it is the same thing. >> some of the, excuse me. it was really interesting in our earliest focus groups that we did back in june where we talked to women and kind of thought, oh, this is the role these issues can play. for some people they were determinative, right, for some democrats? some people said, i'm saying no to these folks. there was a whole group what it looked like we could do was expand the amount of
time they were willing to give the president and the economy to recover. so we could kind of hold them in undecided by, in particularly on the presidency making mitt romney questionable in their mind on our set of issues. might not be able to totally close the deal with them but could keep the elevator doors, hold it open until we could see that the economy starts to come up, see the president's campaign do that closing argument that really did finally tip them over. i think that was kind of the role that we played in there with a lot of these independent women. just kept them from out of frustration going to your point, i'm frustrated. i don't know about the future. i'm just going to go for change, no, wait. got to learn more about this guy. >> is there a difference in the way you talk to voters if you're, you know, trying to get them to vote for president obama versus trying to get them to vote for a woman running for the
senate or the house? you are kind of in the middle of that. both of you were in the cross-section of that a lot of ways. a lot of women's vote was in the cross-section of that. >> who should start? >> one -- wisconsin. >> well in the tammy baldwin, tommy thompson campaign, you know, there are differences and similarities on the obama campaign and tammy's campaign. i think overall it was rejection of the policies and candidates of the past. whether that was tommy thompson or mitt romney. i think, i think, from a paid media perspective, and someone who is sort of calling shots whether or not we're putting resources into mail or television or online, we, you know, as i started out, we started this campaign with a healthy fear of citizens united and what the other side was going to be able to do. so both in tammy's campaign
we knew that the day after the primary we needed to define tommy thompson as quickly as possible and make sure everyone, particularly female voters, who needed more information about a guy who they had known for years as their governor had gone to washington. had lobbied for big corporations and sort of left those in wisconsin and was going to take care of folks other than the middle class in wisconsin. if he was to return. so, our job was to define him quickly and maintain that sort of competitive edge. the shocking news was that they gave us about 30 days free and, they didn't come in and give tommy any cover. same thing on the obama campaign. we sort of spent our resources early and we were lucky enough to remain competitive the entire time. >> we'll leave this discussion now to take you live to the national press club here in washington,
if you hear applause in the audience, we know that members in the general public are attending to so it isn't necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic object devotee. i would also like to welcome our c-span and our public radio audiences. our luncheons are also featured on the member produced weekly podcast from the national press club available on itunes. you can also follow the action on twitter using hash tag npclunch to read after we conclude we will have a q&a and i will last as many questions as time permits. now i would like to introduce the head table and i would ask each of you to stand up briefly as your name is announced. from your right, john, editor for the institute for defense analysis. ann roosevelt deputy managing editor for defense daily. ben duly, staff writer for kyoto
news. andrea stone come contributor to the huffingtonpost.com. jim michaels, military writer for usa today and a former marine infantry officer. captain danny hernandez public affairs officer for the chief of naval operations in the guest of the speaker. don leinwand usa today and former president and sycophant the speaker for just a moment, jennifer sean byrd anchor for the television show the wall street report and the speakers kennedy liaison who organized today's event. bill holland, associate editor of classglapdaily. jam, a retired navy reserve capt national press club member vietnam veteran and a member of the american legion post 20 at the national press club. ken a free-lance writer commander and the american
legion post 20 at the national press club of. john rosenberg a policy adviser strategic information and communications group. thank you for joining us today. [applause] >> admiral jonathan grew up in a pittsburgh suburb in butler pennsylvania. the son of a steel worker he was the third of six children. he was the all-american kid growing up. he worked not won a paper route but to. he was on the swimming team, student council, a member of the national honor society and the arcuri club, and to top it off he and his buddies were also members of the major club, a group that offered them a return at a ball game or at the rotary club dinners. accepted at the university of pennsylvania, the military academy at west point and the united states naval academy, she made a smart choice following in
his footsteps in the naval academy. the study of nuclear power to serve as a submarine officer. the open the academy from 1975 and you will find a few tidbits about the admiral. it describes him as a man always colorful and religiously nonacademic known for a colorful weekend. it concludes with his personality, good works and quick wit that he is bound to be a success. coming from a navy family, know how choirboy and your books can be. admiral greenert has successfully commanded all levels including the uss honolulu where he earned a vice admiral a word for inspirational leadership. he has also served as the commander of the submarine squadron he 11, commander and naval forces and the u.s. fleet command. he most recently served as the vice chief of naval operations.
adel greenert is a decorated member of the navy having been awarded the distinguished service medal six times in the legion aboard four times. he is the 30 chief of naval operations. please welcome admiral jonathan greenert to the national press club. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen i can assure you you won't find all of those words in my biography. i really do not know. thank you very much. i am very honored and privileged to be here ladies and gentlemen, and i would like to give a big shot out to the pastry chef who made these cupcakes. i am about to burst into tears because bill logo on my cupcake was my last fleet command until
i became a bureaucrat. this is very saddening in a strange way. it's been 14 months in the job here and it's everything they promised me. an amazing group of sailors, civilians and their families they always impressed me and want to do more than something for themselves and i've been honored to serve them. thank you for the invitation. i would like to talk about two things today and then take some questions. our position, what i call position report today in the navy and since my time was the chief of naval operations and rebalanced to the asia-pacific a very important initiative as we work to comply with our defense strategic guidance. our position. we started the job, again, 14 months ago and i looked out
there what is the channel would look like? i saw the budget control act and the arab spurring going on around us. the operation freedom and the changes taking place and the new defense strategy on the horizon i want to make sure that our folks in the navy from the board room to the board room to the ready room from aviators focusing on the things though really important and i would break it down into three tenants to work for things and they're still applicable today. number one, fighting has to be first. has to be in our mind that is what we are put together to do and that is why this nation created a navy to be sure that we can assure our security, as necessarily everybody all of our folks are central in that regard in the primary responsibility. number two, we need to operate for word. the navy is at its best when it
is out and about and that has been our heritage and our legacy and tradition through the years. as we celebrated the commemoration of the war of 1812 during this past year and are still doing it today means using innovative ways to make sure the ships that we have for where we need to be. and it's not just about necessarily how many ships we have but how many ships we have forward. being ready means just more than maintenance, more than fuel and also means we have confident and proficient blues that are ready to do the job and get that job done. so those tenants that i just laid out to you remain applicable today in the key to how we view things in our leadership in the navy. first today if you look i've passed out some charts for you to help you follow along to make some points here there are 50 sailors out deployed on about 110 ships that are deployed
around the world. they are in the asia-pacific region and it's been that way, so about ten years. about 45 to 50 ships over deployed in the asia-pacific. now about half of those ships deployed in the asia-pacific are there all the time. bigger the forward deployed naval force and we get great leverage having the former deployed naval force. number one or number to the build relationships and assure our allies, and number three factoid to keep one ship for word from the continental united states requires total ships. one is their forward deployed and one has just come back. one is about ready to go forward and there's a process where one is indeed maintenance. so if we can leverage to operate our ship's forward to keep them
forward to me get a good return on investment they are in the middle east and the arabian gulf and about a dozen plus or about 18 ships in the mediterranean deutsch of the issues in the mediterranean. the key here for me as you look here you will see little signs if you will laugh like all the maritime crossroads. the roads from morocco and the straits of hormuz and the streets of canal and of course the panel can now. we have to have access. we have to have access to those places. those are the maritime crossroads. that is where the lifeblood of the economy travels through, and that's where we need to be able to be able to become maintain and sustain the world as a point of our primary jobs. so, we develop also and nurture places and you will notice places like diego garcia and
djibouti and the camp in spain. these are places they are not our bases they are allies that allow us to go and refresh to resupply to increase our logistics, and you look around, these are important places for us to continue our mission as we look out there in the future. and in my view, they are very important to our ability to continue to execute the defense strategic guidance. you will notice last that there's a little box on the lower left and it lays out how long it takes to get from the east coast or west coast to the suez canal to the strait of hormuz and in fact in some cases it is true delete to two or three weeks. if we are not ready to get the job done menendez went to take some time so again, operating forward is important. now i mentioned recently that i published a position report.
in the navy when you are out at sea once a day you provide what we call the 8:00 report that's usually done in the morning were the 12:00 report at noon. it's the position report. it says here is where we are. some things may have occurred. we may have been set off of our course deutsch of the wind and current and i promise this position reports to lay off in the navy where we are after my first year on the job. we have been set if you will a little bit on some emerging challenges since i have taken the job and we have to adjust our course a little bit. some things that have emerged since i've taken a watch that we have to focus on right now in the near term one, sexual assaults. we haven't moved forward to let and really reverse the trends of the events during my time here. for me sexual assault is a safety issue.
our sailors as they serve of all genders and everybody deserves a safe place to work and it's a safety and readiness issue for me. we need to focus on it. we have a strategy. we are moving out on it and it will receive my attention. my full attention over this next year if it is a crime because that is what it is. next, we have had concern on a an increase on the number of suicides that we have had in the navy. we measure it by the number of suicides per 100,000 so that we have a consistent measurement and regrettably, a few years ago we had about 13 suicides per 100,000. now it's 15 per 100,000 so we are creeping up and we have to address it. we have to empower our sailors to be able to deal with stress and lookout for each other, and we have to in bed that in all of our shipmates to make sure that if somebody is reaching out we are ready to take care of them.
third, up-tempo has been a little higher than i expected at this time a year ago. we are offering higher than planned coming and we need to reconcile how we can continue to support that. right now we have committed to providing the carrier strike groups in the arabian gulf through march. we've been doing this since 2010 and we are committed to that as i said through this march. we need to take a look at that and we will be with the joint staff and the service to see do we need to continue this? what do we need to do to adjust the training if necessary, our industrial base and maintenance process these to be sure that we can respond as necessary? we need to look at our up-tempo from the perspective of our people. we call that individual tempo which is the measurement of what each sailor's requirements are going to see coming back and then rotating out as opposed to the unit. and i think it's important for
the help of the force that we continue to do that. last, manning at sea. overall it is acceptable. but the leadership skills in certain positions and certain ships has to be adjusted to make sure we get the right so that as we responded to the increased tempo we have the right leadership in the right place at the right time and we will pursue that. during this past year, i've done some studies and found that there's a few initiatives that we may not have thought about a year ago that are important. we want to make the electronic magnetic spectrum and cyber a primary fighting domain. we are accelerating our effort in this regard, and it goes something like this. i have some folks take a look and say what frequencies are we using the electronic magnetic spectrum? how much energy are we putting out there? our people measuring it? and do we know what we need to know about that?
the answer was you know, we did a pretty good job at this during the cold war some of you may remember the mission control and that was a consistent effort that we had but not so much now because frankly we just haven't had to do that. so we need to do i guess what i would call take care of our electromagnetic hygiene to know how much energy we are putting out there that is being picked up if you will and how we use the frequency, can we hope frequency as we build new systems because it would be important because a lot of our potential lover series and a lot of new systems are coming in that measure exactly that. some electronic magnum and spectrum lenni to understand our dominance in the undersea domain and that is continuing and network approach. it's important to have submarines. they are the main part of dominance in the domain. but it's also a matter of having systems. it is the aircraft, its systems
on the bottom and it's a man under our vehicles that it can be autonomous and we are not far from being able to deploy just all of those systems and the integrated unmanned aerial system to operate from the carrier. here in the fiscal year 13 will be a demonstration of an unmanned vehicle from a carrier and we will be able to use that system within our air wings and provided that persistence because if you want to have all of the systems that support the pilot, that we'd come extra weight, extra payload, extra systems, extra capability. and that will be an important part of our future. a few words about our rebalanced to the asia-pacific. in our defense strategic guidance which was released just about a year ago, it was clear
to us that we were -- that we needed to rebalanced, we were directed to rebalanced to the asia-pacific while maintaining the appropriate key devotee in the middle east. it's been a long time focus for the u.s. navy. five of our seven treaty allies are in the pacific. six of the top economies and the largest in the world are in the asia-pacific so it makes sense to we would do that. as i have mentioned on our graphic there come about half of what we deploy annually in the asia-pacific and half of those are home ported so the important area typically we measure when we make changes and we've rebalanced the ships until you ladies and gentlemen as much more to this reva once the bishops.
it will be for the structure and the ships and if you look on the chart you will see the tamara pitcher if you will, the navy tomorrow and you see the listing to 20 how we will migrate and how we will evolve our ship comes to the asia-pacific and the arabian gulf and other areas around the world. the innovative ways that make sense. we will have new ships coming in, the combat ships which will deploy and operate forward and take the cruise. that will free of some of our largest combatants and destroyers to be able to deploy elsewhere, high speed, 30 plus with a hilo deck to take care of some of the missions and the
african command and the european command again freeing at the ships to deploy elsewhere. an ounce of a reship built from the basics of a tanker and the centerpiece put in that you can battle to get a balance of and down and with that fuel flight deck and an opportunity for a lot to bring comfort to the hadr and to the special moderating force, and we are bringing the staging base in. again that will free up the entebbe's ships to do other jobs in other parts of the world. so, as we bring on perhaps ships that were more likely resonating with some of the missions that we need around the world we will be able to resupply and redistribute our forces around the world. i will tell you the key to this is a recent initiative where the government of spain provided to
the opportunity to deploy and put the ships and the families in spain. four of our eda jeeves. top mons, ballistic missile defense capabilities for the defense of europe. as i mentioned before, they will be there in a theater and remember what it takes. we have them there all the time, so ineffectively we would free up the toll, six ships to redeployed elsewhere that we would normally say. samore presence to the asia-pacific through the structure. that's number one. number two we will face more ships and aircraft on the west coast to read as they retire through the remainder of the portion of the decade we will replace them on the west coast such that by 2020 we will have 60% of our ships on the west coast and the pacific comported and 40% on the east coast. today is 55% west coast and 45% east coast. so that's number two. and number three, we are fielding the new capabilities
and our rebalanced to the asia-pacific. guided by the bell concept of operations, we will increase the capabilities in the underseas. as i mentioned before distributed systems, a thomas underwater vehicles we will also bring in a network under see capability to connect and cover a large broad area. we will bring in the replacement for the maritime patrol aircraft vastly increasing the coverage and the undersea domain. the area capability will be deeded to bring improvements in our anti-ship cruise missile capability to begin to detect further out the cruise missiles and be able to therefore engage them further out in that capability we will have that in the surface kildee there in the western pacific. and we will have improved air to air. we are bringing in the joint strike fighter and she will deploy the western pacific first and will be an improved weaponry
and improved radar to extend the range. and last, number four the rebalanced should be developing partnerships and what i call a three balance of intellectual capital between the alliance is in the western pacific, and we have a foot up on that today. as we speak in japan, our folks, our operations folks at the seventh rate and that the commander-in-chief self-defense fleet for japan are co located in the operations for certain operations. in japan the same exists. we are co located with our brothers and sisters in the republic of korea navy in singapore, the singapore government and military have offered us a site the operations that are in treaty in singapore using the port and the facility
there from the staff talks and major exercises and the western pacific and we do one ander 70 ship to ship exorcises a year. we will be focusing more on the western pacific as a benchmark in the arabian gulf and what is needed there that focus and the benchmark will be the western pacific command excuse me our focus and the capabilities needed over the western pacific within a doctrine of the systems for r&d and science and technology and by means which we
will rebalanced the ships were important to meet our strategic guidance in this regard. i commend that to you as the future and how we see things today as we prepare our budget for fiscal year 14 if the support in this very a4a that i mentioned to you in this regard in the defense and strategic guidance. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. [applause] how do they plan to your strategy? >> mission by mission i think and by alliances that we have had, and let me speak to the
alliance. i just spoke to the western pacific. the japanese maritime self-defense force plays that we cooperate with them to share what we call long-range search and track mission and the mission there in korea this should interest to continue to do that in a similar manner so the alliance as we have we are taking those. with regard to the kind of policies in the gulf of aden they played a major part we have a major collision maritime force that is called 151 in the gulf of the damage has been led by pakistan but then led by cochrane loranne and the navy takes part not in the coalition, that the operating with us and that area the chinese operate in that area.
the russians operate in that area. not necessarily in a collision but in the sense of with alliances we share this but also it brings together an international community that has a common concern to estimate as tensions between china and japan over their claims on the caucus increase, how concerned are you about the possibility that a miscalculation by either side might lead to heightened conflict? >> if i were to pick a word to describe the concern is exactly that there is a miscalculation causing escalation i think the key is a common set of protocols to deal with interactions in that area. i've spoken about the counterpart, the japanese maritime self-defense force, the singapore navy and the philippines, and we all agree that what we need is a consistent set of protocols laying out very clearly where we
stand, freedom of navigation and international waters. consistent set of protocols about how we describe that and discuss that with any medium that area with regard to china in that regard i think we need to continue the dialogue and build upon the dialogue that we have today. we have a series of talks that are sponsored by the military maritime consensus agreement that was reached years ago where a group of 06 from the chinese navy and the u.s. navy sit down and discuss common sense agenda items. they sit down and discuss that and in the department of defense we now have the little bit strategies for engagement in the chinese military, and i think it's important that we continue on that as again, to be where we
stand and work on these issues at hand what is the global strength? >> what is the biggest challenge understanding the intent the strategy that china intends to unveil in that regard making great headway in the surface ships making great headway and tactical aircraft and it appears to have a definite interest in improving their submarine technology i think the biggest challenge will be to the dialogue and learn how to operate together in a cooperative manner that are important for freedom in the season for the economic development. those in the western pacific and improve operations like i mentioned the gulf of aden.
canada but the marines from okinawa to hawaii? it's clear that the footprint of marines in the western pacific is changing and is going to change in the rotation of the deployment aspect to australia our job would be to provide the maritime left for the marines and a rotation of the deployed to the door when australia. that will grow and will double and grow towards the end of the decade by 2020 will have a marine expeditionary unit size
about 2500 deploying their. it would be to ann readiness group at that time to provide the left and provide them the means of working together to operate in the southeast asia. >> how close are the chinese to the navy base nuclear capability and should the u.s. be worried? i would say that bringing on a nuclear program we certainly learned that throughout the years we certainly say a vigilant is where i would say i'm very confident in our ability to operate wherever we need to in the undersea domain. can the u.s. navy build and maintain the pivot to the pacific.
there's a set of missions that we are required to bring forward this is all underwritten by what we call the global force management plan. i'm comfortable today that in the future as shown by the charts of the senior has devolved to operate forward using the innovative means with the current shipbuilding plans to meet the requirements of the defense strategic guidance >> will they return to old basis such as places like the philippines. in the consultation with the philippine government today we fly with the european forces on what we call the maritime command awareness rights with
the rp3 they have crewmembers on the board. we do this about once a month. >> george washington was there not that long ago as was the eisenhower i believe it was and we somewhat routinely make the calls their and to return to a base requires the series of deliberations if you will that we have to work out the status of forces agreement which expired and would have to be renegotiated and require the long term commitment the those are the new discussions. >> can you elaborate on how the wall would assist your impact you with respect to ongoing confrontations in the china sea? sanibel all of the sea treaty and in the case of the south china sea it would give a
document reference to continue these as i mentioned before dialogue that we have with the chinese navy and with the chinese military a reference to articulate things like what the international exclusive economic zones and how they are laid out in the territorial seas and the freedom of navigation and with those protocols are coming and that we could then continue the dialogue losing again a common document that those nations have signed up to ratify. we have already seen some examples of countries, southeast asia countries, vietnam and the philippines worked out using the law of the sea treaty and the means to determine the territorial result in some cases territorial disputes least clearly laid out and you can have a trail and a path for the further deliberations. >> the mobile landing platform has been assigned to the central command and will feature to the
specific command and what other narrative such as diprete positioning? >> the precise assignments for the noble landing platform are not complete yet. i would tell you certainly deployed to the pacific command because what it brings, the global landing platform again, remember as i describe it, it's a former tanker is a large tanker but then the answer instead of the tanks space and a volume that you can blast down and you can then bring landing air cushioned craft on board that you could bring small boats up to, so its volume, its persistence, its major fuel and maintenance support that you can bring to bear for the long time at various places around the world. as we see the african command and southern command and some elements of central command to the key as you mentioned already we're seeing the payback in the
central command for the staging base. >> the carrier eisenhower won the carrier on the nine month deployment given the iraq iran afghanistan situation and the new emphasis on the western pacific theater when do you expect them to get back to a six month deployment? >> well i don't think six months deployments are in the future for i would say the next two or three years at least. the reason is twofold. the requirements for the deployment around the world as we see the global force management allocation plan that we signed up to. secondarily, we need 11 carriers to do the job. that's been pretty clearly written and is underwritten in our defense strategic guidance. we have ten carriers today as the eisenhower returned from her last deployment just a week ago. and she is getting ready to the commission. it will come into being as
commission around 2015 on the deployment about a year plus the rate to seven months in a week for the carriers. each of the shift placer's have a different level if you will of notional deployment some folks kind of group it together on the carriers that that is what all of the ships deutsch but six months remains notional for our submarines, six months remains notional for some of our maritime patrol aircraft crews and some of them were other class's and ships, but seven months is more emotional i think for the skill if you will the notional term for the carriers in the future. >> with the current carrier up-tempo to build the new carrier why did the navy extended the enterprise for another five years?
>> why did we whacks the enterprise is almost 51-years-old, and anything from the cable was degrading. just the insulation was sold. her reactor plan was built for so many years of operation, so after numerous and very close and comprehensive evaluations of the plant to the flight deck if you get the point, she was tired and was time for them to complete their service. >> the combat ships are requiring more shore based maintenance than originally planned to beat is this sustainable? >> the combat ship is still a program that is coming into being. we have one ship, the freedom who's been operating in somewhat of a routine. she does require a bit of
maintenance, and we are learning a great deal about what exactly maintenance scheme we will want. would be the balance of using organic or you might say typical navy means of giving naval today versus using the contractor for maintenance. and so, as we speak today i stood up a combat council and placed the senior three-star admiral in charge who used to be a commander through all of the surface force commanders. we want to get in a place very quickly what planned maintenance as the ship need and what will be its maintenance plan, what will be the maintenance scheme, how much to be operated and do we have the manning about and he has a pretty high level group and comprehensive group looking at this, so we can respond and bring about class a and like it means to be brought in because it will be very important part
of our future estimate the gao in this of 221st 2012 report said the navy's training and maintenance plans were vulnerable. what is your reaction? >> our training and maintenance plans will always need review. i don't know. i would have to understand the context but i'm not familiar with the context in that specific report, but we are constantly reviewing better ways to do maintenance and training in the surface fleet we have done a very big round term and study and one of the maintenance requirements on the surface ships are the end of these ships, destroyers, cruisers, patrol craft, countermeasure ships to ensure that all of the ships will reach their expected service life and we get what the american public should get for the cost of the ship. >> why are men and women at the naval academy wearing the same covers and are you planning to move it from the academy to the
whole fleet? [laughter] >> interesting question >> we have a pilot and it was the uniforms designed to be as uniform as they can be as it makes sense. so what we have in place is merely a pilot so that again the folks that are now in uniform to see if the same makes sense and we are using the naval academy as a pilot. >> can get an update of 98? >> i'm afraid you won't get it at this forum that is a good question and i think i will take that back and send you a report on that. >> what's the future role of the carrier? >> the carrier i wrote an article of weigel back then was called -- as i was looking at
the platforms and how platforms have devolved how we buy things and put so much money into them and how well do the dolph and are we getting our money's worth and if one looks at the enterprise when she was built over 50 years ago the type of aircraft that she used she had vacuum tubes in her radar. she just completed deployment where she employed the most cutting edge strike fighter that she had, the cutting edge radar and she was the ship on this point supporting operations in afghanistan supporting the troops so i think the future of the carrier as it has a volume, it has persistent being the nuclear power it certainly has speed and it certainly has the ability to employ a panoply of aircraft and i spoke earlier about bringing unmanned aircraft to the carrier so i think it is almost the imagination can
expand on what we can do with the aircraft carrier given that it has persistent speed and volume and a tremendous capability >> if we need less ships will be imposed with smarter once? >> smarter ships in the context for efficient fuel and better centers, yes we will definitely. will we need less ships? we should think of the number we need based on what to the leadership brings for what mission and what parts of the world and for what portions of the future and what if read it may deal with. i think that is a better evaluation. but one cannot make any mistake that you need a certain number of ships could quantity does have a quality of its own and as i have shown on my hand out here
it's not just a number of ships it's the number of ships forward and for what mission around the world >> how has the force structure changed over the past year and can you get your thoughts on shipbuilding today and in the future? >> in the past year we started with to under 85 ships, and we have grown to 287 chips. now, there hasn't been a change. that is the net change. the good news is we have the last six ships that we have commissioned that we have accepted in the navy in the industry have been under budget or on budget and it's been ahead of time on contract time that includes the nuclear submarines and a little combat ship to you
can see many different class of ships. we have a predictable stabilized shipbuilding budget the industry has the opportunity to make a profit and to reinvest that if you will to hone their skills with their labor force because they have a predictable labor force and all of that is on us to make sure that i bring. the multi-year procurement that is to lightings and economic quantity in this past year has been a reflection of what can happen as we have grown and we've gotten things on time or early or on budget and early in the quality where they've gone quite well in the ships. >> how have they performed so far and is the navy had the with that performance? >> in a word i would say
exceptional performance that anecdotal feedback if you will and the consistent feedback is the females that have integrated ballistic missile submarines in kingsdale georgia. they've gone on the patrol at least three crews and that would be 12 per ship on deployment. the junior officer skill and level is who is chosen to be the engineering officer to watch when you have an inspection when you return from the patrol and on two of the ships one of these women were selected to do that of their dedication and ability to integrate so they will continue in a similar manner in
the mice trajectory. >> more than 20 commanding officers have been removed this year. what is the navy intended to do to remedy this high rate of firings? why have intended to fail, one a grounding or incident or collision, number two, regrettably just incompetence, not cut out to be a commanding officer. number three, unable to deal perhaps with the stress and one might become abusive and overbearing and then fourth, miss dieter such as the affair was something of that nature, and by the factor of at least two to one as you look at these 20 has been this behavior, so i don't understand why they are
misbehaving and i am concerned about that and i am looking into that, looking into it very hard, what we need to do, and what we have been doing in this regard is is one evaluate what a performance mcfate. we did that in 2004 with the navy ig radio in 2010 and we're implementing the findings in the 2010 report that we have out there to really have to evaluate that. number two we will be a stunning. but i mean by that is making sure that our track the way the merger our officers if we are bringing them along the way we screen them for the command is consistent across the navy and the dominance core there's a consistency to the screening process and the evaluation
process so that we see that we are taking to account those matters and then we are also developing the character for our officers as they grow up and inherit more stress and responsibly that's important. last we want to shape that. we want to take what we have learned from these reports and in bed that in our leadership continuum and shape our officers to make sure that the character that they have is the character of the commanding officers that the american people deserve. the command of any navy unit the department of defense i'm a firm believer in what we call the charge of the command that this individual has a unique responsibility account of the people on the country. >> how would the petraeus ellen
scandal affect the officer's the election process and training methods. stat well, i don't think it will affect the officer training selection process. i can't imagine and i would have to give that some great thought. we have been introspective as a result of the events in the past week. the service chiefs look in at ourselves and talking with the chairman and the tank is a meeting of the service chiefs with the chairman and vice-chairman to sit down and talk about what are the attributes what took place here, what matters, what are the facts involved with this and how do we view ethics and accountability and behavior and where might there be weaknesses as we look across our four-star francs in the respective services in the joint community and then look internally to be sure that our flag and the general officers we are leading them properly and as
i just mentioned on the commanding officer peter are we developing character right? are we ensuring that we are looking at ourselves as closely as we would want to look at our support and men's and bringing them all together? >> shettle three that doesn't involve a senior support image relationships still be punishable by the ecmj? >> welcome today i will choose not to question the issue. it is ucmj and i know it is my responsibility to carry it out. >> the military had been on the forefront of the change over the years such as race and gender equality, expectation that persons on the job drug and alcohol free and a gay-rights. can you anticipate any which way the military will again lead the way in social justice, social justice in the future? >> well to be the subject is
diversity, and to me we have to have a diverse force, and it's all about survival. we must go in line with the talent is. we have to have the talent, and that involves if you will ethnic diversity, it involves gender diversity and it involves the geographical diversity, kids from all around the country. it's brought together with a different view. as we've said, go mine the skills and bring them. about one out of for folks in high school qualified to be recruited into the navy. only one out of four so you can try to picture that in the future that's our challenge. so we have to recruit properly and then develop those that we
recruit, and if it is somebody that may be -- it's not a minority, somebody that isn't used to doing what is -- what we do in the maritime forces encourage them to see that they can do this if somebody wants to fly, you can fly, give it a try. if a woman wants to have a family and have a navy career it has been done. we have great role models to see that that can be done etc. and then i'm working very hard and i tickets important that our leadership understands the diversity has to be sort of institutionalized and be kind of a second major aspect when you go out to hire and recruit and put people in you have to think diversity and you bring diversity and a great value. >> the secretary of state and defense have visited vietnam. how important is viet nam to the u.s. strategy? >> i hope to visit vietnam going
to the asia-pacific next year and that is one of the places i hope to visit. vietnam is the key, geography is important. they have offered via devotee or at least to talk about maybe perhaps opening increasing the number of visits. we do a poor visit in vietnam. i can't say exactly how many times a year the pacific command kind of coordinate's that. but it is happening with our ships. we are increasing cooperative opportunities. they have joined some exercise is particularly in search and rescue, and like i said before, some of the maritime security aspects the verso important, so there is an opportunity here and will be a matter of moving forward we need to respect ourselves and respect really believe to where they stand on their security matters. what is the downsizing of the navy to the global security as well as our allies that count on us for an added layer of
security? >> the chart that i showed you we will grow the navy from roughly 287 today to 295 ships by 2020 the navy personnel frankly we are not downsizing. we are growing over the years. the need to delete a number of people are going at it. in 2005, 2006 we cut too many people out of some areas that we thought we could and we are restoring that from three to some maintenance roughly 2,000 here so we have a nice short rotation so kids can develop their skills in the shore and then return back to see that
much better. >> what is your sense of whether the iranians would shut down given the crippling sanctions that the west have imposed and 80% of the revenue comes from oil? >> it's difficult to say whether they will attempt to shut down the street of hormuz. i'm confident that we have the capability to open the straits of hormuz if you will shut down. we've made great strides in the warfare to the programs we did increasing the emphasis on the skill, and in fact just a few months ago we hit an international mine exercise, and it was a pretty good success. we were able to test new technology, underwater vehicles and neutralizing mines and we brought an international coalition together. we hoped to get about 20 countries here with 35 countries to take part in this exercise. 20 of them brought ships or
helicopters or the means. we had a staging base that we used before if you will the flagship, the command ship for the coalition operations and so, we learned a great deal. we learned that there is a lot of synergy that we can bring together and we knew that unmanned underwater vehicles to work on the countermining and that you don't need a countermeasure ships and a large helicopter dragging this led to clear these things out to be effective but in fact smaller ships that some nations with smaller navies bring to bear on this and become very, very effective participants in the mission. >> we are almost out of time but before we get to the last question i have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all i would like to remind you about our upcoming lunch speakers on december 18th. leon panetta the secretary of the u.s. to put the defense will be speaking here. second, i would like to present the guest with our traditional
national press club coffee mug and a version of the challenge. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> my last question what is your prediction for the army-navy game, and you have a wager with your army counterparts? >> well, i think we will win by a field goal. there is something about the field goal and i use that close. you may or may not know that we what defeat the air force this fall. [applause] and army defeated air force, so this is the commander in chief trophy this is a big deal. general odierno and i have the same as last year and the loser where's the jersey of the winning team and poses for a picture.
[applause] >> thank you for coming today. i would like to thank you the national press club staff in putting its journalism institute for organizing today's event. finally here is a reminder that you can find information about the national press club on our website. also if you would like to get a copy of today's program, please check out our website at www.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> the miami book fair international is live this weekend on a tv with today's of nonfiction books. at the panels, interviews and your calls, e-mails and tweets. they panel includes his widow. live coverage saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern and sunday at noon on c-span2's booktv. join us on live with exclusive offer chat on facebook. president obama's nominee to lead the war in afghanistan win before the senate armed services committee yesterday for his confirmation hearing. general joseph dunford is currently the second highest ranking officer in the marine corps.
his testimony before the committee is about two and a half hours. >> [inaudible conversations] >> we will consider the nomination of general joseph dunford, junior, united states marine corps to be the next commander u.s. forces afghanistan, and command of the international security assistance force. this morning's hearing was originally scheduled to also include consideration of the nomination of general john allen, to be commander of the
u.s.-european command and supreme allied commander. general allen of course currently holds the positions for which general dunford is nominated. however, earlier this week the department of defense requested the general alice nomination be put on hold pending a department of defense inspector general review. we have agreed and hope the review can be completed promptly. general dunford brings to this nomination a distinguished military guerrillas over 35 years of military service. he is currently the assistant comment and other marine corps, and has commanded combat forces in iraq. general, we thank you for your many years of service, and for your willingness to once again answer the call to serve this nation. let me also extend our thanks to your family, who support is so essential. as is the tradition of this committee, i would invite you to introduce your wife ellyn, and any family members or friends who may be here with you this
morning when you make your opening remarks. today's hearing comes at an important time, and follows a string of negative reports in the media over the last few months that if raise questions about the race aspects of the campaign and the performance of the afghan security forces. we hope that this morning to general dunford can provide the broader picture of our goals in afghanistan, the progress in building the afghan security forces, what the prospects are for the next two years in terms of transition to afghan control, and what steps the united states coalition and afghan leaders are taking to address and mitigate the insider threat. the recent increase in insider attacks by afghan national security force is personnel or impersonators against u.s. and coalition forces threatens the essential trust between isaf forces and our afghan partners. at the same time, according to
isaf data, the number of enemy initiated attacks over the last three months is down 5% compared to the same three-month period a year ago. if confirmed, general dunford would assume command as the security transition in afghanistan enters a critical phase. in the afghan security forces in the lead for security continues to be the key to the success of the afghanistan mission. afghan security forces are moving into the security lead in designated areas around the country, as coalition forces step back more and more into a supporting role. the areas under afghan security lead now cover approximately 75% of the afghan population. afghan security forces will have primary responsibility for
security throughout afghanistan once the transition process is completed next summer. isaf forces will continue to provide support, including combat support if necessary, and till the end of 2014. afghan security forces have in general shown that they're willing to fight and the afghan people want to have their own forces rather than coalition forces keeping their communities secure. a key element of this transition, which general dunford will be overseeing come is a shift in the isaf mission from having coalition combat forces partnering and operating with similar units of the afghan forces to a security force assistance mission. now, in that mission, made great officers and senior noncommissioned officers form security force assistance teams,
or sfats, which are embedded in small units as advisors within afghan forces to help build their capability, even as afghan forces continue their move into the lead for combat operation. general dunford will be responsible, if confirmed, forever cementing the president's decision on the drawdown of u.s. forces in afghanistan, during the next two years to post 2014 levels. an important milestone was achieved at the end of september with the drawdown of u.s. forces to the 68,000 level and the completion of the withdrawal of the 33,000 u.s. search force. secretary panetta said earlier this week that general allen at the white house are in the process of discussing options for the yes enduring presence in afghanistan after 2014.
a process that secretary panetta hopes will be completed quote within the next few weeks closed quote. secretary panetta stressed that the u.s. enduring presence in afghanistan would be based on the missions that u.s. forces would be carrying out, nations like counterterrorism, advising and assisting the afghan forces, and providing those forces important enabling capabilities. general, would like to hear from you this morning about the pace of the drawdown of u.s. forces on the current 68,000 troop level, to the level of our enduring presence after 2014. you expect the drawdown to occur at a steady pace as the president has said. or do you anticipate the pace of the drawdown remaining at 68,000 through next year's fighting season, and then dropping rapidly sometime thereafter? finally, the united states and afghanistan have begun
negotiations on a status of forces agreement, or sofa, as required by the bilateral enduring strategic partnership agreement that president obama and karzai signed in may. the sofa will provide the necessary protections for u.s. troops deployed to afghanistan after 2014. and we'll be interested in your thoughts, general, on the importance of the sofa for signaling to the taliban in afghanistan's neighbors that the u.s.-afghanistan partnership will be an enduring contribution to regional stability. and we would also hope you would address what you see as the u.s. red lines in those sofa negotiations. so we look forward to your testimony this morning, and a nuke -- i now call upon senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank our distinguished witness for joining us this morning, and for his many years of impressive service in uniform or let me start by saying a word about general john allen, our
command in afghanistan, who we had expected to testify today on this nomination to be commander of u.s.-european command and supreme allied commander. while the committee a way to the conclusion of defense department's inspector general investigation, i continue to play that general allen is one of our best military leaders, and i continue to have confidence in his ability to lead to the war in afghanistan as well as to serve in the post for which he has now been nominated. general dunford, i'm grateful for your willingness to accept hithishis nomination to serve as commander of u.s. forces and international security assistance force in afghanistan. i also believe that if you're confirmed you'll have a difficult road ahead of you. i think our mission in afghanistan is a very serious, is at a very serious and troubling crossroads, and much of the recent reporting is
deeply worrisome. unfortunately over the past few months our enemies have been rather successful in carrying out so-called insider attacks that have killed and wounded many american and afghan troops. as i'm sure you would agree, general dunford, it's hard to overstate the damage these kinds of attacks due to the morale of our troops into our broader mission of supporting the growth and professionalization of afghan forces. it's hard for our troops to work effectively with their afghan partners when they have reason to mistrust some among them. while i support the decision to suspend many of these partnering efforts, it is harmful, nonetheless. we're also seeing more and more reports of declining security in afghanistan, including in a province which was once one of the safest places in the country. al qaeda is working harder than
ever to reestablish safe havens in eastern afghanistan. in what was perhaps the most brazen and please report attack this year, a small unit of taliban operatives fought their way into camp basking in helmand province in september, and managed to destroy six harrier aircraft at a total loss of nearly $200 million. talk about asymmetrical warfare. two marines were killed in that attack, including lieutenant colonel christopher were able, a marine aviator who lost his life after running towards the fight and maybe fighting heavily armed insurgents with only his hind sight on. not surprise me, this growing insecurity is heightening ethnic and other factional tensions in afghanistan which could be a renewal of civil concept.
earlier this week the new york times reported that a powerful tajik warlord who was responsible for some of the worst violence of afghanistan's civil war is calling on his supporters to we arm and prepare for resumption of conflict against the taliban. these comments were echoed by marshall mohammed fierstein, another powerful former warlord ended to sheikh, who stated quote if the afghan security forces are not able to waste this war, then call upon the mujahedin. all of these problems in afghanistan are compounded by the two major strategic challenges we face. the continued corruption and ineffectiveness on the part of the afghan government, and a safe haven for taliban leadership and other insurgent groups that exist in pakistan. and which continues to go unaddressed, or worse.
none of these developments should be surprising. they can all be traced back to the fundamental doubt about america resolve in this conflict. a doubt that are shared among our friends and enemies alike in afghanistan and the region. the president's repeated emphasis on withdrawal, without laying out what would constitute a successful and sustainable transition is only fed to believe that afghanistan, the united states is committed to getting out regardless of conditions on the ground. this doubt has encouraged all actors in afghanistan and in the region to hedge their bets, which increases the worst instincts of the afghan government, and increases the chance of a return to civil conflict in our absence. our mission is now at a crossroads. and we can go down one of two paths. the first is the one that if you're the president will embark
on. implementing an aggressive cuts to our forces in afghanistan before 2014, and then leaving a presence of supporting forces that is not equal to the task they need to perform if a new security agreement is concluded at all. this path would constitute a rush to failure, place unnecessary risks on our forces, and i could not support it in any respect. there is, however, another path. we could delay the for the withdrawal of u.s. forces until 2014, so as to give our commanders maximum flexibility and combat power to achieve our goals. furthermore, we could conclude a robust security but with the afghan government that would maintain sufficient numbers of u.s. forces to perform the tasks that will continue to be essential beyond 2014, counterterrorism, intelligence
and training of afghan forces. both of these steps could former military bases of a political strategy to foster better afghan governance, better cooperation from countries in the region, and ultimately a negotiated end to the war on terms that are favorable to our afghan allies and us. general dunford, if confirmed, yours will be a key voice in shaping these decisions. i hope that you advocate for actions that can limit the risk to our mission and increased our chances of success. i also hope that you speak truth to power, and resist the kind of precipitous withdrawal of support for afghanistan that would be a sure recipe for failure. all of us look forward to hearing how you would tend to execute the major responsibilities that will be entrusted to you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator
mccain. and general, let us now turn to you. >> chairman levin, senator mccain, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity of you before you today. i'm honored the president has nominated me to commend international to commend international security assistance force and u.s. forces in afghanistan. joining me today is my wife, ellyn, whom are whom are very fortunate to have her love and support. she's a great mother to her three children, now young adults, and also serves as a times advocate for military families. she's unquestioned by the most valuable player in the dunford family. i'd like to begin by thanking this committee for their support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines over the past 11 years of conflict. due to your leadership our young men and women in harm's way of well trained, well-equipped and well supported. their performance in the strength of our military families reflect that support. as we all know and september 11, 2001, members of al qaeda murdered almost 3000 innocent people. we know the attacks were planned
in the base of operations in afghanistan with the support of the taliban. for more than a decade, americans in uniform in their civilian counterparts have responded with extraordinary courage, commitment and self-sacrifice to deny safe haven to al qaeda in afghanistan, and to prevent the taliban from overthrowing the afghan government. throughout that time we have an shoulder to shoulder with our coalition and afghan partners to as result of our shared sacrifice and commitment, our goals are within reach. in the months ahead, in accordance with our national objectives in lisbon commitments, we will complete the transition to afghan security lead and set the conditions for an enduring partnership with the afghan people. i recognize that much work remains to be done and the challenges will be many. but with continued focus and commitment, i believe our goals are achievable. if confirmed i look forward to working closely with our partners to overcome the challenges to meet our objectives, and to make certain
our shared sacrifices matter. if confirmed i also look forward to the opportunity to their young men and women in afghanistan, and i will do all he can to ensure they have the wherewithal to accomplish the mission and return home to their families. with that, i thank the committee can four-line me to appear before you today. i'm prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, general. we have a standard set of questions, which i know it here somewhere. we ask of our nominees, so let me now ask them of you. would you adhere to out local laws and resolutions governing conflicts of interest? >> i have, chairman. >> do you agree when asked to give your personal views even if those views differ from the administration in power? >> i do, chairman spectaculars and any duties undertaking actions which would appear to resume the outcome of the
confirmation process? >> i have not. >> will you ensure your staff complies with deadline deadlineh requested communications, including questions for the record and hearing? >> i will. >> will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> i will, chairman. >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisals for their testimony or briefings? >> they will. >> do you agree if confirmed to appear to testify upon request because i did spin and you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms and communication anytime and matter when requested by a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> i do, chairman. >> thank you. let's start with a seven minute first round, if that's okay.
one of the keys to success in afghanistan is building the size and capacity of the afghan security forces. and the plan calls for those forces to reach 352000, or they called for, reached 252000 by october of this year, although it's been reported recently that the schedule for the building of those forces slipped by a few months. do you know where that is? >> chairman, i do. all of the individuals to meet the 352000 goal have been recruited, not all the individuals have been trained, and my expectation based on my recent visit is that training will be completed in early 2013. >> now, senator graham and i have to i think others on this committee have urged a retention
of a large afghan army and security forces, and that it not be reduced to the 230,000 model which has been apparently adopted for starting and i believe 2015, which was adopted at the nato chicago summit. we really feel that this is a very good investment of dollars, and it's a heck of a lot better than having a larger number of american troops there. and even though there's obviously a greater cost to us and our allies, we are helping to maintain the force of a larger level at 352,000, instead of after a few years is reducing that number to 230,000. nonetheless, we are very concerned about that model. we believe that is based on presumptions about what the
security conditions will be years from now, and they saw the affordability of afghan forces rather than our commanders best military judgment. would you assure us that in making any recommendations on the future size of the afghan security forces that you will provide your best military judgment, independent of the affordability considerations? >> chairman, i would. and i am aware that the current size and a timeline for the drawdown of the afghan security forces was basis of analysis done by the center for army analysis a couple years ago, and if i'm concerned, one of the first things i will do is revisit the assumptions associated with that plan, ensure that we maintain the capabilities and capacities such as they can meet their security requirements post 2014. >> thank you. now, what is your assessment of the performance of the afghan security forces, particularly in those areas where they have moved into the lead for providing security?
>> chairman, i actually came back from my recent visit encouraged by the capabilities of the afghan security forces. i can remember clearly my first visit to afghanistan in 2008, when at the time we attend coalition members for every afghan member come every member of the afghan security forces, and there have been very little training and very poor equipment. on my recent visit, i was encouraged. we actually had core level operations and regional command south planned and executed by the afghans alone. from my perspective today, the afghans have the capability with the support we're providing to provide security. 76% of the afghan population is currently secured as result of tranches one, two and three at the security transition. they are secure by afghan national security forces, and i believe based on a trajectory of development of the afghans since we started this effort through 2014, it -- with the assumption
i make post-2014 with a level of commitment will continue to provide, i was the afghan national city forces will be able to meet the security requirements in afghanistan. >> the president, our president has indicated that he expects that the drawdown is going to occur at a steady pace. is that your understanding of what his statement was? and what is your own belief as to that issue? >> chairman, i think if i'm confirmed what i need to do is make an assessment of the capabilities and capacities that will maintain over the next two years, such that they meet our objectives. first, when he does necessary security to meet milestone 2013 this coming summer. we transition to full security lead by the afghans. second term we need to ensure that we have set the proper
conditions for successful elections in 2014, and finally we need to ensure we have a proper forces to smoothly transition in the semper 2014. as i make a recommendation, i will look at the strength of the enemy, i will look at the capabilities and capacities of the afghan national security forces, judge the capability and capacities of the coalition forces, if they make a recommendation on what our force contribution to be between now and 2014, and then beyond as we go into the decade of transformation. >> okay. the afghan people apparently continue to have a very high level of confidence in the afghan national army. with 93%, according to the polls, saying that they have a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in the army. indeed, their confidence has even been grown in afghan national police, with 82% of the afghan people, according to those polls, expressing some
level of competence in the. do you believe that those numbers, percentages are accurate when it finds a significant majority of the afghan people have high confidence, or a reasonable level of confidence in the afghan national army and in the national police? >> chairman, i do not have a sense for the methodology that was used to be developed of statistics, and if i'm confirmed that would be an area i would look deeply into. >> all right. earlier this week it was reported that afghans energy and water minister, mr. khan, and, any well known warlord from iraq called for militias in afghanistan to we arm educate at the defense of the country. this would seem to indicate a lack of confidence in the afghan national security forces and in suggesting that he would rebuild
his militia forces, mr. conn has raised tensions among afghan leadership and fears that other warlords may rearm, threatening to weaken support for the government and increasing the risk of civil war. i'm wondering if you, can you give us your assessment of mr. khan's statements and the challenges that rearm the militias would post to political stability and to plan for the transition of full security responsibility to the afghan national security forces? >> chairman, those militias would absolutely have an adverse effect on stability. i think was necessary now, you alluded to a lack of confidence, senator mccain in his opening remarks also alluded to that. i think was necessary by that is that we have a clear and compelling narrative of commitment from our country, from our partner nations and their capitals to and from the afghan government. that compelling narrative needs
to be consistent. and that's an i think we need to work on your the next couple of months to address those issues like the one you referred to with militias spent thank you very much, general. senator mccain. >> i would ask the committee's indulgence for senator inhofe to make a brief comment. he has responsibilities that the environment that the environment and public works committee to i believe he is going to post a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. >> first of all -- >> how lolita. >> you were supposed to be there, too. >> thank you, senator mccain. i do have to get up to the committee. committee. i did appreciate it let me ask to short questions if i might, and one, i want to get on record in agreeing with the comments that senator mccain made about general allen. secondly, in response to a written question, general, it said you agree to follow recovery of 33,000 u.s. search
force in afghanistan for the reduction in u.s. worst level should continue at a steady pace to 2014 be your response was i agree that there will be further troop reductions through 2014, but the pace of the withdrawal over the next 25 months would depend on several factors. one of this is the readiness. we had a hearing, may 10 and you testified at the hearing. i've always considered you to be one of the real top individuals, understanding and evaluating training. and you and i talked about this before, experiences we have had in watching the training that has taken place with the afghan national security forces, specifically in kabul military training center. which i've been to several times but i think most of the people in a panel have. would you give us kind of an evaluation of the level of training? that's what's going to depend on a lot of the rate of withdrawal, in my opinion, or should anyway.
>> i did have limited opportunity once again to see the training that was ongoing in afghanistan. i am as you are encouraged by what nato training mission in afghanistan is doing to enhance the training of the afghan national security forces. from my perspective the true test of our training is the performance of the afghans, and as i mentioned a minute ago, i really believe over the last 18 months their performance has been significantly improved as result of the training, been provided by ntma. >> i appreciate the. the second two things i'd like to ask you for the record, one would be, you know, it's been a year now, 2011, when international forces in afghanistan seized a shipment of 4822-millimeter rockets from iran. i think they are still denying that those were iranian rockets that were sent, and i'd like to know, for the record, the
current level of iranian activity in afghanistan, and perhaps somebody else will be asking this during the course of this meeting. and then, one of the questions i issue in my office, the blue and green attacks, if you could respond for the record some of our conversations concerning the. and your concern for the future. would you get forced? >> i will do that. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> okay. senator levin, chairman headley for a moment and he asked me to go ahead with my questioning. general dunford, thanks for your extraordinary record of service and thanks for your willingness to speak on this critical leadership position at this really important time. this thing happens to take place on the same day that u.s. and afghan officials are meeting for
the first time to begin negotiations for a bilateral security agreement, under which we would agree to keep some number of forces and presence of associated in afghanistan after 2014. we spoke about this when you're good enough to visit my office this week, and i'd like to give you an opportunity to speak about it here. it may seem that the immediate decisions about drawdown and support of afghan nationals to go victory forces are more important they are very important, but i think may be value jumping ahead and then coming back because i do think what we begin to do with this bilateral security agreement, or whether we'll have a presence in afghanistan after 2014 or what will be will affect what happens before the. so let me ask you, how important
is it, in your view for the u.s. to conclude immigrant with the afghan government to keep some military presence troops, et cetera, in afghanistan after 2014, and why? >> thank you. i think first and foremost the bilateral security agreement would be a clear message and commitment for our long-term strategic partnership to we signed the strategic partnership this past may, bilateral security agreement whereby technical details associated with implementing the strategic partnership agreement, what's been raised in a raised in a couple of occasions this morning is a lack of understanding of that commitment. in some cases and lack of confidence that we are committed to the long-term. i believe the bilateral security agreement will have and will create momentum on a strategic site for that narrative. i alluded to a minute ago. i think will be a clear message, both of u.s. presence but also would expect that our coalition
partners once the agreement is signed will also look to affect the bilateral security agreement with the afghans as well. >> okay. so let me ask this question. do you think that one of the, the signing of a bilateral security agreement with the afghan government caching is endemic in what is your sense of an ideal timeframe during which we would reach an agreement on this bilateral security? >> the requirements set forth in the strategic partnership agreement is not more than one year. that agreement was signed back in may, so i believe we need to have the bilateral security agreement signed not later than may of 2013. >> so let's talk about, first, some of the effects of signing that agreement in that timeframe. do you think it would have any
effect on our forces and isaf forces between now and the end of 2014? >> senator, i believe there would be an effect on our forces indirectly. icann, insofar as it supports the narrative commitment which i believe will assist operations being conducted on day-to-day basis. >> so is that equation of our row of are forced? >> know, senator i think it's a question of confidence in the afghan people that we remain confident in the afghan national city forces that we remain, confidence in the capitals of the coalition that we remain. and, frankly, confidence in regional actors as well that we remain. that's what i believe is the most important effect of bilateral security agreement is, the clear and compelling narrative that no one the are we there now but we intend to see this through to transition in 2014, and we also intend to, and, of course, with agreements in chicago and tokyo, see through the decade of
transformation and needs to follow in 2014. >> is really important as. let me draw you out of it because i particularly appreciate what you said about the effect that are reaching a bilateral security agreement with the afghans by may would have on other capitals in the region. and i presume that would begin with islamabad? >> senator, i believe it would have an effect on islamabad. i think pakistan hedged its bets on base with a blue our long-term commitment to the region would be, and in their calculus will be changed as a result of their knowing that we're not only going to be there through december of 2014, but we will be there beyond 2014 to secure our national objectives. >> right. what other capitals did you have my? >> the other capitals, first and foremost with a 49 capitals of the coalition. i also think the other capitals,
iran, russia, china, all the countries that have interest in afghanistan. their calculus would be affected by signing a bilateral security agreement. more important, signing an agreement reflecting the commitment that was initially made in may 2012. >> i think it's a very important answer, and i have the same feeling, i think islamabad is the first couple that we affected by the pilots who could agreement, the whole argument refer to that part of the reason they continue to be tied to some elements of the pakistani government to terrorist groups like haqqani network and haqqani network and i is eyes, as they're hedging their bets for what happened the day after we leave if we're not leaving. presumably. they lose that argument. but there is, every situation is different, i can't help but relate this to iraq, that it seemed to me that nobody wanted our discussions with the iraqi
government for our presence in iraq after our troops left to fail more than iran did. in fact, they were working on that, and the fact that it did fail, we have no continuing presence in iraq i think is part of the reason why iran's influence has spread there, and so incidentally as al qaeda reemerged again. so i think those are warnings to us about how important it is to do exactly what you have called for. which is to have a good, a much smaller but a real american presence. let me just ask you to talk a bit about, i would assume you don't want to talk numbers of american troops in afghan after 2014, but what are some of the kind, besides the psychological effect or the message effect that we've talked about, what are some of the kind of actual missions that follow on u.s. presence would have in
afghanistan after 2014? >> i would foresee our two main missions being counterterrorism operations and then advise and assist to the afghan national security forces. i believe that advise and assist will is an a role and would extend past december 2014. >> thanks general. the final question, do you think the afghan government is favorably inclined toward a bilateral security agreement with us at this time? >> my understanding from an initial conversations with ambassador warlick, and with general allen and the leadership in kabul is that the afghan government is favorably to a bilateral security agreement. clearly the details are being worked out right now, that both governments have come to the table with terms of reference. both governments appear to be serious about signing a bilateral security agreement, and i'm cautious and optimistic we'll be able to do that in accordance with the timeline. >> thank you to much and i wish you well. thank you. >> thank you, senator.
>> senator mccain? >> general, again, we appreciate your willingness to serve. i must say that isn't it true that you've received daily briefings and visits to afghanistan, keeping up with the situation? >> i have made a recent visit to afghanistan. >> daily briefings i hope. >> i do, senator. >> so you've reached some tentative conclusions? >> i have, senator. spent almost every answer you give as well, we're going to do studies and assessments. so i hope you at least have some initial thoughts and impressions as to how we should proceed. so, i guess my first question is, is do you know what recommendations the command in afghanistan has made to washington about the tasks that u.s. forces may be needed to perform beyond 2014? i'm specifically talking to force levels, whether they're
maintaining at 68,000, or they should be gradually drawn down? whether they should stay there until 2014? do you know what those recommendations are? >> i have not been included in those conversations. >> boy, that's interesting to me, i guys going to take over the command has not even been included in those conversations. do you feel prepared to assume these responsibilities? >> iq prepared to assume these responsibilities. >> you have no impressions or ideas as to whether on a troop drawdown issue between now and 2014? >> senator, i think i've been understanding of the framework with one which that decision ought to be me. identified where think most important variables that need to be considered. but again have not been involved in the detailed planning. i would've soon -- >> so you were a blank slate. do you believe that any strategy in afghanistan can be successful while militants continue to
enjoy safe haven in pakistan's? >> i think over time safe haven in pakistan needs to be addressed. >> do you believe that the issue of corruption, if we can succeed with the level of corruption that exists throughout afghans and? >> i believe corruption is the most significant strategic challenge to meet our objectives in afghanistan. >> so do you have any thoughts about how we would go at this issue of corruption and? >> senator, i do. i have reviewed the framework within which corruption is being addressed by the united states central command by the u.s. embassy in kabul, and international security forces assistance. i also -- >> do you think it is succeeding? >> i think there's been progress made over the past 18 months, in particular since the tokyo meeting. >> dvd there's been any progress in a safe haven issue in pakistan's? >> it's not apparent to me that there's been any progress with a safe haven issue in pakistan.
>> if confirmed we provide this committee with recommendations that you ultimately make through your chain of command with regard to the size and pace of the drawdown of u.s. forces from afghanistan and? >> i would, senator. >> the reason why keep raising this issue with you, and why i feel so strongly about it is that, every time i've been there and talked and had candid conversation with our commanders, literally all levels, they believe that we need to keep the 68,000 there until the 2014 date. and if we start a quote steady pace withdrawal, that we will not be able to accomplish a lot of those missions there. if we can't accomplish the mission, i'm not sure why we should stay. and that is something that i think a lot of us have to wrestle with.
because we're going to start drawing down right away, from 68,000, which i know that our military leaders believe there is absolutely necessary, that i think we need to look at other options, that this attack that destroyed six carrier aircraft, does that concern you? i'm sure it must. but isn't that an example of the brazenness and capabilities of the taliban have? >> senator, i think it does reflect the capabilities the taliban has. >> and you're confident the afghan forces will be able to stand on their own after 2014 without significant assistance from the united states? >> senator, i believe the afghan national city force are going to require some level of assistance from united states as was coalition partners in order to be successful both 2014. >> do you think we're winning the war in afghanistan and?
>> i think we're making progress in this image in my opening remarks, i believe our objectives are achievable. >> do you have any conclusions that future from your recent trip on the security situation in afghanistan, particularly in southern and eastern afghanistan? >> i do, senator. broadly speaking, one of the statistics i found compelling is that 80% of the violence happens where 20% of the population is. another statistic is a 76% of population is currently secured by afghan national security forces. the vast preponderance of violence is now taking place outside of populated areas. the taliban have been displaced from the population, and i do that as a sign of success. >> do you believe that al qaeda is growing stronger in afghanistan? >> i do not believe afghanistan is growing stronger but there is al qaeda presence.
>> does this recent warlord rearming, mr. khan, issue concerns because senator, it is. >> well, there's i guess three of us here, general, been going over there for the last 11 years and we haven't seen the progress that we had hoped would take place. and reduce the quite often sentiment on the part of afghans and their neighbors that the united states spends most of its time announcing withdrawals, dates for withdrawals, rather than recipes for success. and some of us, as i say, we have been observing this for a long, long time, make many, many visits, many, many briefings,
are deeply concerned. and so i hope that you will, in your assessment, and your ability, taking to serious consideration our ability to complete the mission. and that is a staple afghanistan that is able to defend itself over time. and, frankly, i'm not sure that's the case today. and i'm not sure that if we start drawing down immediately that we may be able to achieve that goal. we have sacrificed a lot, as you know far better than i do. and we are going to one, have an assessment as to whether this nation can actually succeed or not. and i thank you for your willingness to serve. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb.
>> thank you, mr. chairman but i'd like to begin by expressing my strong confidence in general dunford's delivery in every sense of the word. i have tremendous respect for his leadership, his integrity. when you look at his bio, i don't think people have really looked at it very closely this morning. albie have in the past, but the greatest reward in the marine corps for leadership is to give someone command. general dunford has command of the platoon levels, three different times at the company level, commanded battalion, regiment, and his commanding general of the first marines expeditionary force. in addition to that, he has a masters in government from georgetown university and a masters in international relations. been privileged to no general dunford for more than 20 years. i think he is not only well
prepared but he's a person we need over there industry difficult and complex assignment. he has a sense of duty that i admire. he has a greater understanding of the role of the military and our government process. and as we've seen this morning he has the willingness to provide unambiguous, direct policy advice. that's what we're going to need as we begin to sort out what direction the country should be going in afghanistan. i would like, general, i would like to take, first of all, where senator lieberman left off in discussing this bilateral security agreement. as you know, the president was over in afghanistan to sign what they call enduring strategic partnership agreement.
i think a comment was made at the time that this was a binding agreement. i have had a problem with this, the way that we've addressed these long-term agreements, beginning with the way that they were reached in iraq i think in some ways, we are paying the price of the way that the strategic framework agreement was reached in iraq. i warned at the time that, by allowing an executive agreement to determine the long-term national policy, by excluding congressional participation is really kind of strange. in terms of how our governmental systems should be working. the iraqi parliament voted on the strategic framework agreement. we didn't have the opportunity to debate it, much less vote on
it. i am informed by my staff that there was a conference call with senate staff from admiral willard, deputy special representative talking about this agreement. is, was, i'm reading from stafford, the agreement will contain no binding commitments. and as result, there's no need to formally bring the document to the hill. and at the same time again, he says the afghan department will review and approve the agreement. i think whenever you have an agreement that is going to propel action here in a congress later on, that we really should have direct congressional involvement. this is a clear long-term message for a relationship between two countries. this is not something that is completely in your bigoted but i would like, this is something
that the congress should be directly involved in, and if it's not you will see the same kind of problems we've had in iraq. you and i discussed a number of times when i mentioned to general petraeus in admiral mullen, almost four years ago when we were meeting in this escalation in afghanistan that my great concern was that the success measurements, the metric for success was going to be largely determined by two factors that we really can't control. one is the validity of the national government. and the second was the growth of the national military and police force to a size that had never, by quantum numbers, that had
never been achieved in afghanistan's history. so i'd like your thoughts on those two metrics, as they affect your responsibilities. >> senator, i believe that the most significant and strategic event that will occur between now and 2014, the elections in april of 2014. without successful elections in april 2014, i'm concerned that the conditional contributions that were pledged to do and in chicago both for developers and for security forces won't be there, and those are critical for our ability to sustain the check is in the our objectives. i think legitimacy of those election in the eyes of the afghan people are going to have a lot to do with their willingness to support the afghan government and, therefore, not support the taliban. so i couldn't agree with you more that the national government, the legitimacy of
the national government, and more importantly adequate elections 2014 are a precondition for our success. with regard to the afghan national security forces, i don't know what afghanistan will be able to sustain over time well past 2014. i do believe we can sustain a force of 352,000 through 2014. i think it's important that we look at sustaining the right level of force post 2014 as well. but at some point when a coalition resources are no longer available, the amount they will be available in the initial years of the decadent estimation, and at some point when he was resources are not ideal, but i think afghan national security forces will have to bite sized to meet their security requirements within their resources. >> we tend to characterize the challenge simply as talibans versus the present government. yet when i go back to the bonn
agreements where the structure of this government was agreed to come there was a lot of concern that the structure itself may not fit the history of this country in the longer-term. you may end up seeing the need for an actual different structure, a devolution, away from a central government before you can have stability. do you have any thoughts on that? >> i think one of the most important aspects of our endeavor is both from the government decided to decide, what if we come up with has to be sustainable over time. that clearly will require uniquely afghan solution to governance. so as a look at the election of 2014, our primary role is to provide support to the afghan national security forces, as they secure the elections. and our primary role as a
government is to support the afghans as they conduct elections that will be seen as legitimate to afghans. so i do believe that the organizational constructs the afghan government overtime needs to take into account the culture and the requirements and the desires of the afghan people to be sustainable over time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator webb. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general dunford, for your distinguished service to our country, and i appreciate your tremendous qualifications for this position, and certainly i give the best to your family as well. i just want to ask a very straightforward question, which is understandably many of my constituents, americans, have grown war-weary. and what i would like you to tell us is why does the outcome in afghanistan matter to
americans? and one of the consequences of us, if we were to make the decision right now to say we are going to pull out right now? could you help us with that? and i just want to understand that in terms of, because we have made tremendous sacrifices there. of our men and women in uniform. >> senator, thank you for that question. that is the most important question i think you. >> and people and one we should be able to answer very clearly. in the wake of 9/11 we went to afghanistan because there was essential for al qaeda and the attacks of 9/11 took place in afghanistan. that area is still ripe for sanctuary for al qaeda, the region is ripe for censure for al qaeda. will so want to establish a government in afghanistan, and assure the taliban were no one in a position to harbor al qaeda in that part of the region. those objectives remain.
that is, to deny sanctuary to deny the billy of the taliban to overthrow the government in afghanistan. now the nation is to ensure that those gains that we've made over the last several years, particularly in the areas of development of the afghan national security forces, and the games will make as a result of the election and 2014, providing a government will ensure the afghans can do what we have been doing over the past decade. i would be concerned at this point if we didn't complete the mission and again as i mentioned in my opening comments, i believe the objectives are attained by. we didn't complete the mission, we would have an area in afghanistan where al qaeda can continue to operate. ..
>> that whatless sops do you also take from iraq? one of the concerns i have on a secondary, but equally important issue, is when we look at iraq, for example, we have someone, a detainee who is a hezbollah leader involved in the murder of the five americans who the iraqis are going to let go. we have individuals, do we not, in custody in afghanistan that may be third party nationals, others too dangerous to release. i see that an as issue to be negotiated going forward to ensure we're not releasing
terrorists back out into the open to harm us and our allies. >> senator, with regards to the first question with lessons learns, the critical lesson is allow sufficient time for negotiations to be complete. interimmized lesson learned as a result of the partnership agreement signed in may that set a time line for having the bilateral security agreement signed within one year, may of 2013, still six months ahead of our plan, full transition to afghan control. i think in that regard we internalize the lesson learned and optimistic we have the sufficient time to get that agreement signed which is so important. i think our negotiations in iraq, perhaps, started later than they have started in afghanistan. the other important lesson learned is that the functions that are currently performed by the international securities force in afghanistan and some 400 different functions, must eventually be sent out to other organizations where those
functions can be performed on an enduring bases. functions that are enduring. there's a detailed effort ongoing in the international security force assistance force as well as here in washington in the capitol to identify the functions and ensure over 25 months we have a logical, responsible, deliberate way of passing functions off so there's continue newty into the -- continuity in the period of transition in the 2014. on the strategic level, those are two important lessons learned, and there's evidence we learned that with iraq's experience. with regard to the individuals that need to be detained, i look at that as a force protection issue. there are clearly individuals, al-qaeda and other members of haqqani networks and other extremists, who are absolutely irreconcilable. they need to remain locked up for the security of the forces as long as we're in afghanistan
and the safety of the american people and their entireses after we come out of afghanistan. >> are we still, though, facing a challenge with respect to the administration not adding anyone else to guantanamo bay, as to making sure if those individuals remain in custody in a place like afghanistan, that we could assure they wouldn't be released? i think that's one of the challenges we faced in iraq. would you agree? >> senator, it was absolutely one of the challenges we face in iraq, and i know at least from the prief rei the administration is working on the frame work on which that issue can be addressed. >> it has to be. we can't keep releasing people who have the blood of americans on their hands and clearly the individual woo -- who will go out and commit terrorist actions. this is an important issue in terms of the protection of the american people and our allies. one other final question. the wartime contracting commission found that 6 $60 billion of u.s. contracting
funds had been wasted, misspent, or went in the wrong hands. as a result -- excuse me -- in iraq and afghanistan. as a result of that, senator brown and i had introduced into the defense authorization bill in 2012 provisions to cut through the red tape so you can cut off contracts sooner if our taxpayer dollars were getting in the wrong hands or god forbid to insurgents, which did happen as well. how are those provisions working? what more can we do that? can you give us an update on whether that's been helpful for you? >> senator, first, thank you for your assistance in parting part of the national defense authorization act last year. general mattes who has that authority usedded that authority a great deal over the past year. i understand at least $12 million that otherwise would have gone in the hand of the taliban did not because he had the authority to cancel those
contracts because of the association of the contractors with the taliban. i also believe that over the past year, and i did spend quite a bit time on this on the visit they changed the organizational construct, the central command at isaf and afghan government to provide, and, of course, our embassy lead in afghanistan to provide better oversight to contracts and ensure that the money that we provide, that the coalition provides, achieves the effective desire in terms of growing the capacity of the afghans. i believe it's a good news story. part of the ndaa and 12 allowed us to be effective p on -- effective on the battlefield. they are appreciative of the authority and they have used it. >> thank you very much, general, and, obviously, if there's anything more to give you the authority you need there to make sure the money doesn't get into the wrong hands, we would look forward to working with you on that. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here this
morning, and i want to echo my colleague's comments that i'm looking forward to your appointment and new afghanistan or additional task to your already long career in the military. thank you for being here this morning. let me ask you one -- we, last week, i think it was lack week, the guardsmen returned from kandahar from providing security for the provengessal reconstruction team stationed at joint base, and also has now in the process of redeploying to kandahar, did a great job, and i think, you know, all of the folks, 421, 125 did a great job there. in your opinion, tell me, and i've heard about it today, but i want you expand more, how do we
continue to have the success that i think they did as we start drawing down? as we start drawing down, did great impact over the last year here being deployed, but how do we ensure that drawing down making sure the afghan force is ready to lead and take charge. i know you have repeated what you have been saying, but i want to hear more. >> senator, to date, the growth of the afghan national security forces is fair to say focused on quantitity. we have grown the force to the size it is now, 352,000, at least in recruited and in the process of being trained. i think the focus over 25 months has to be addressing the quality of the afghan national security forces. that certainly indicates improvement in literacy, communication improvement in leadership, and there's a number of enablers that have to be grope in order for the afghan national forces to sustain themselves post-2014.
that includes areas, and medical support, fire support, artillery. i sat in a meeting last week, deputy secretary defense carter is personally involved in this with weekly meetings with the stake holders, including those in afghanistan, to ensure there are no bureaucratic obstacles to our meeting those requirements over two years to give the afghans what they need, but from my perspective, we'll continue to address literacy, the institutional requirements for the afghans to continue to train themselves after we leave to continue to provide education, and as i mentioned, to have enablers to operate post-2014. that's the task post-2014, and i think it will be informed by gaps that remain as a result of the efforts in the next 25 months. >> i want to expand on the literacy issue. it's one brought up multiple
times here in this meeting. in order for them to have and understand better enforcement of the rule of law as well as just managing the forces, can you give me thought on what you see as to how you can see the literacy rate? it was higher in iraq, and then the transition moved in another way. in this case, the literacy rate is much lower. give me a sense there because i'm concerned, and i said it before, and i appreciate what you said there, get the quantity first and then the higher quality that needs to be sustainable over the long haul. i'm assuming literacy has to be a critical piece of that. how do you step through that? >> senator, it is a critical piece. i'm aware of of the national training mission in afghanistan now has a literacy program integral to the training of the afghan national security forces.
it's down at the lowest level to ensure that all the soldiers are exposed to that and enhance literacy. it's focused in areas like the units where we have aviation and fire support, where there's a technical aspect of the performance. we prioritize and enhance literacy there is greater. it's a long term effort, and if i'm confirmedded, certainly, i would provide oversight to the afghan national security forces, this is app area of particular interest. >> in regards not draw down and transition, i'm a supporter of it. i want it done by 2014. i also want to say something earlier, it's not a blank slate, you may not have all the details yet of all the elements, but you don't earn stars by showing up one day. you spend a lot of years understanding the military operations and what needs to be done in situations like this. that's why we have one of the best and thee best and mobile
units that can move anywhere. let me ask you, do you think, from what you -- from the knowledge you have today, do you think you all the authorities and abilities to ensure those transfers of power continue as well as movement of the equipment out of the country that needs to be done or disposal of equipment? all the pieces mechanically you need to ensure the transition occurs properly. do you think you have all the authorities you need at this point? >> senator, my assessment is we have all the authorities we need for the retrograde and redeployment piece. i did, in the meetings of the recent visit, sit through general allen's staff brief, and they did not identify areas where they needed additional authorities, but if i'm confirmed, i'll come back if i identify gaps in the authorities in order to facilitate redeployment and retrograde. i note one significant thing that's happened this month on the sec of november to aassist
us in getting equipment home integral in the terms of the campaign, the terms of reference signed with pakistan to reopen the lines of communication. that's been a problem over several months, and i was encouraged by the signing of that terms of reference and pending opening after a proof of concept with the ground lines of communication that greatly assist in the area you identified. >> let me ask you, you made a comment, and i want to make sure what i understood this statement was. you said a decade of transformation was a phrase you used. do you mean as we're -- as combat forces are out, then it's the next period of time or what has occurred and where we are today? >> senator, thank you. thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. the decade of transformation i referred to was a frame work established in tokyo by partners and interested nations that provide the frame work for the decade of transformation that really begins with the
transition that takes place in december of 2014. what i eluded to was a 2014 to a 20 24 so solidify gains made in the past ten years and address the stainability of govern governance, security, and development post-2014. >> very good. i have a last thought. it probably doesn't fall because i know how it operates, certain categories you work within, but in that decade of transformation, has there been hard numbers attached to that, financial numbers, what the u.s. commitment would be, and if you're up able to answer that, and i recognize you may not be able to at this point, can you get something for the record at some point of where people are starting to estimate where the transformation would look like from a u.s. commitment? >> senator, i can do that and take it for the record. part of that will be the
development piece, and that really was the tokyo piece. in tokyo, nations pledged to seek funds from the government in the decade of transformation. the commitment was conditional based on -- but on the need of nations to go back to their congress and be resourced. in chicago, the resources necessary to sustain specifically the security forces were identified and so what i can come back to you with for the record is the amount of money we projected necessary to sustain the after gap national security forces post-2014 in a sense of who is willing to contribute resources post-20 # 14. >> very good. that's a part of equation that government, state department, and so forth, which i can ask that question to them. >> thank you, senator. that is a tokyo piece. i'll come back and address the chicago piece. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, one of the members this
morning encouraged you to always seek truth to power, and i have no doubt you'll just do that. my friend and colleague joe lieberman said when you visited him in his office, he asked you what baseball team you supported, and he's a confirmed, misguided yankee fans, and you admitted freely you were a red sox fan so i think that was a great example of speaking truth to power, and i, of course, commend you on your choice of baseball teams even though it was a rough season for the red sox. i do want to turn to, obviously, a more serious issue today, and, general, twice, you stated this morning that you believe our objectives in afghanistan are
achieve l, and, of course, the primary objective in afghanistan since 2009 has been to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al-qaeda in the region and to prevent its return to either afghanistan on pakistan. yet, national intelligence estimates reports from the international crisis group and the special investigator -- these special investigations for afghanistan reconstruction cast doubts on the ability of the afghan national security forces to consolidate and hold the gains in security that have been made in afghanistan over the past decade, a great cost and treasure to our country and others. these reports also cast doubt on
the likelihood of the afghan government providing good governance and dealing with the endemic corruption such that it would enable the ansf to do its job in fighting the insurgeon sighs. -- insurgencies. given the escalation of insider attacks, the sanctuary that still exists in pakistan and the level of corruption in the afghan government, why do you believe that the objectives are, indeed, attainable? it seems to me the intelligence reports, the lack of progress, the surge in insider attacks paint a very bleak picture. >> senator, actually, thank you for asking that question and giving me the opportunity to put
what i believe to be those reports in perspective. here's what my confidence is based on in terms of reaching our objectives, specifically with regard to the afghan national security forces. as you know, five tranches of transition identified, five gee geographical areas identified to transition to afghan security control. we negotiated the transition in three of the five. in the three first tranches we transitioned over to the afghan national security forces, violence decreased. i think it's sr. important to recognize that the violence that's taking place today is largely outside of the populated areas because the afghan national security forces secured the populated areas. the other reason why i'm optimistic is, again, when i look at the afghan national security forces and where they were in 2008, when i first observed them, and where they are today in 2012, it's the dramatic improvement, and so as i look forward over the next 24-25 months, if we maintain the
trajectory we've had over the next several years over the next 25 months, i believe the afghan national security forces will be capable of providing security. it's important to look at that in relationship to key mile stopes. this summer, we'll go to milestone 2013, and at that point, all five geographical areas mentioned will be in transition so the afghans will be completely in the lead at that point. given what i project to be our coalition and u.s. support in a summer of 2013, i'm confident in the ability of the afghan national security forces to secure those five geographical areas. they will still need, in some cases, combat operations to take place, need us to provide enabling support, and we'll still do the advise assist mission transitioning to a largely advise assist mission in 2013. the next major event are the elections in 2014. again, when i look at the afghan
capability combined with what i believe to be resources that will provide and look at where the taliban is at this particular time and where they will be in 2014, i project the afghans will be able to provide security at that time as well. i think, in addition to looking at the level of violence and where it's occurring, largely outside the populated areas, it's also important to note that the taliban had significant leadership losses over the last two yearsment the average age of the taliban leader now is ten years younger now than it was when they started ten years ago. there's significant forces in the operations who have significantly have taliban leadership. there's financial difficulties, unable to sustain their effort, and they did not achieve objectives in the campaign in 2012. senator, i don't, for a minute, understate the challenges associated with this endeavor. i recognize what has to happen between now and 2014 to continue to solidify gains made with the
afghan national security forces and make those sustainable, and i recognize we need to provide support to them post-2014, but the important thing is look at the relative capabilities of the insurgents against the capabilities of the afghan national security forces with the support we'll provide, and to that extent, we'll meet the objectives, and the afghans can sustain a level of security achieved in december 2014. >> well, general, you mentioned the overall level of violence in afghanistan has declined and i wonder, mr. chairman, if we could ask for some statistics on that. i have read an al terntive analysis that -- alternative analysis that suggests that the surge has not been successful in eastern afghanistan, and that the level of violence in that part of the
country is actually -- has actually increased. now, i understand when you have a surge, you have an increase in violence just because there's more combat, more fighting, but at this stage, i think it would be helpful for us to have a measure of the effectiveness of the surge in reducing violence, particularly to the civilian population, and i would hope that the chairman would ask for that information, and, finally, let me just -- >> let me just respond to the request. >> thank you. >> i have look at it, and i had it this morning, and it's interesting supporting general dunford, but nonetheless, i asked for it to be updated. it's -- it's a month behind, and it's -- we can now get the october and we'll be able to get
the november results so we can compare apples and apples this year to last year. it's an important question you're making, and i hope by the end of next week we have the statistics updated and i'll make them available to everybody. >> thank you. that would be very helpful. quickly, i know the time has expired. i just have to express my deep concern about the escalation and green on blue attacks. i know that you've said that each death has strategic implications, and i know you recognize that these attacks also are absolutely devastateing to the families of the american service members since they are trying to train and help these afghan forces, and then to be killed by them is just devastating. i think that these attacks jeopardize the willingness of
the partners to continue their own missions in afghanistan. i guess for the record, i with my time expired, whether the escalation threatens the possibility whether continue to train or equip the afghan forces and eventually turning over the authority to them. >> i think if you can give a brief answer for that rather than the record. it's an important question. i think our colleagues would understand that. >> chairman, glad to. thank you, senator. first and foremost, the insider threat is a force protection issue, and as such, if confirmed an a commander, i will be personally and decisively engaged on the issue of insider threat. i had the opportunity to look at what isaf did under general allen's leadership to address the insider threat, and i am
impressed to the approach of the insider threat that's been taken. both in home station, enhanced training, and training that takes place inside of afghanistan. there's been a significant increase in counterintelligence resources provided in afghanistan. both inside the coalition as well as inside the afghan national security forces. perhaps, what's most encouraging to me and perhaps is too early to see if it's a result of our success, but we've had a reduction in insider threats over the last couple months implementing new measures, but what's most revealing to me is that the afghans clearly, clearly, the afghan leadership takes the issue seriously. i had an opportunity to sit through what general allen called a campaign conference during the visit. the minister of defense and commanders and corp. leadership there. the afghans recognize this for the threat that it is, and you asked what my perception of the threat is.
in addition to being a force protection issue, it clearly is an issue that could undermine the trust rps the foundation of our relationship with the afghans, and it could also affect the will of the coalition at the strategic level to stay there. couldn't agree more, senator. it's a critical issue, an issue to be addressed. i don't think it's ever solved or should be come place sent. we have to state out in front of the enemy. we have an adaptive thinking enemy, and as we make adjustments, as general allen has, the enemy adjusts, and we have to stay out in front of that. that issue will be in my inbox and personally and deceasively engauged in addressing it properly. >> thank you, general, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator udall. >> thank you. i want to start by acknowledging your service. you served with great
distinctiveness and selflessness, and i know your family sacrificed as much as you have. i want to extend my gratitude to your family as well. here you sit having carried a load much more than your fair share these last years, and you're preparing now to do more. e look forward to seeing you in theater as we discussed yesterday when you visited me. i just want to let you know you have my deepest thanks for your service. if i might move to an insight, you might be able to do this based on service in iraq. afghans, iraqi cultures are different, and the nature of the two wars were different in some respects, but i know there's lessons that you learned in iraq, and i'd like to hear what you learnedded and how that might guide you as you're with
isaf in the next two years. >> sthart -- senator, thank you for the great question. it's capable security forces indigenous, and i think all the lessons learned in iraq, the successes in iraq, was a result of our effort to stand up, capable iraqi security forces, and we certainly saw that that is what happened in the province, what happened in baghdad, and other areas of iraq, as we were able to grow capabilities with the iraqi security forces and provide them with the level of support, they took the fight to the enemy, and from my perspective, that capability that the iraqis had is what was a defeat mechanism for the insurgency in iraq. i think similarly, what we take to afghanistan is a recognition that the critical part of our effort in afghanistan over the next two years is to continue efforts to develop the capabilities of the afghan national security forces. those indigenous forces will be the forces that allow us to be
successful in afghanistan. those forces are the ones to allow our success to be enduring. at the strategic level, that's the thing similar from iraq to afghanistan, and one we ought not to lose focus on. >> let me pick up on that line of testimony and turn to the alp. when i was last in afghanistan with senator jack reed last object, that was a real focus of general allen and a number of his so subordinate commanders. alp forces are locals, far more trusted by villagers and community elders. you support the continuation of the alp program, and are there lessons learned there we could incorporate to other ansf organizations? >> senator, thank you for that question. i absolutely support the continuation of the afghan local police, and i think what our
special operation forces have done in establishing a bill and support operations in afghan local police has been one of the success stories over the last 18 months, but perhaps better to share with you the perspective of the afghans' per sec ptive of the taliban and alp to make that point. i mentioned a minute ago the conference of afghan leadership, and as you might recall when the alp was first introduced, there was resistance among the afghans to implement that program. the only issue that the afghan leadership had about the afghan local police during the recent security conference was how much faster can we meet the full task or authorize the level of the afghan police? 16,000 fielded right now, a full authorization level of 30,000. from the perspective of the afghans, they very much recognize this local solution to security completely linked to local leadership and under the supervision of district police
is an absolutely successful program, but what's most interesting is the taliban's perspective of the afghan local police. in the taliban view, the police is one of the most significant issues they have to address in order to be successful. they believe that as more afghan local police is fielded and more areas come under afghan local police provided with the wind break that the ana and anp provide, they view that as very concerning developmentsment i think both general allen and isaf view alp as a successful program. i, if confirmed, will continue that program, but as importantly, when you look at it through the lens of the afghans and the lens of the taliban, you get a sense for how important that program has been and how successful it's. and how much it can help us meet objectives in 2014. >> mr. chairman, i've been in and out of the hearing this morning, a busy day on the hill, i don't know if anyone asked you
about sequestering and the effect of the plans on afghanistan. submit for the record any thoughts you have because i'd like to turn -- as important as it is, if you would do that, that without helpful to the committee. >> senator, answer now -- >> just submit something for the record because i want to answer another question. >> i will do that, sir. >> i know we are all very concerned about sequestering. you mentioned some of the capitals you're watching closely. i want to ask about one more, and that's delhi. you'll make trips to islaman -- islamabad, and do you think there's hope with knew -- gnu knew delhi and working with them? >> at this point, i don't have insight what the government is
doing to work the relationship between pakistan and i understand ya. -- india. i'm aware that's critical to long term stability in afghanistan, and if confirmed, i'll be involved in the issue providing military advice as the military leadership works through the diplomatic piece. >> speak to the announcement that pakistan's going to release several low level taliban prisoners at the request of the afghan government. do you think this suggests we can work towards a negotiated settlement, or do you think there's just really no path to deal between the afghan government and the taliban without pakistan? >> senator, i do know that i would absolutely support any resolution to bring a resolution to the conflict in afghanistan and pakistan. the special representative is working hard to effect
reconciliation, another partnerships and other organizations. if confirmed, i'll do what i can from a military speer specktive to support efforts for reconciliation. i don't, at this time, have a sense of the probability in the near term, but we look forward to supporting ambassador grossman leading the government in affecting reconciliation. >> general, again, thank for the service, and i look forward to seeing you in theater over the next two year z as we will bring the war to a successful war to a conclusion under your leadership. >> thank you, ?afort. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to associate myself with senator mccain's comments with general allen. general dunford, thank you for being willing to seven ment we'll consult with our desire to understand the value of the
352,000 army to come. the more they do and the more they have, the less they need us. senator, i associate myself with that inquiry. i believe the effort is salvageable, but if not done right, it will not be successful, and trip wires. do you agree with me at the 2014 elections in afghanistan go poorly then that would be a major setback for the future of afghanistan? >> senator, i could not agree more. i believe the elections are critical, critical for two regs. one is the pledges made in tokyo and chicago are conditional, and part of the conditions involve addressing the issue of corruption and having successful elections in 2014. i also think in order for us to give confidence to the afghan national security forces and the after gap people, legitimate
governments have to be established. over the last several years, security has enailed the development of governance. over the last couple years, effective governance will be made during the security. >> president karzai and others indicated to me that he intends not to run. i think that would be a good decision for the future of afghanistan. if for some reason he seeks another term, that would be absolutely devastated in my view, and now, the last card to play, by the united states, would you agree with me, is the security partnership agreement being implemented effectively, robustly, and the bilateral security agreement is really the last card to play in terms of maintaining a bright future for afghanistan? >> senator, i would agree with
that. i think the bilateral agreement, a loming call extension to the security partnership agreement will make the gains that we have in afghanistan -- >> the difference between winning and losing. >> i believe so, senator. >> okay. so we would need, in your view, militarily, not much of an air force, but smart to have them over there, s-14s? >> we have to address a number of areas that are capabilities -- >> talk air power. >> yes, senator, air power is important. >> they don't have app air force that could do that. attack helicopters, that makes sense; right? >> makes sense, senator. >> counterterrorism an insurance policy for america to ensure the taliban doesn't come back or regroup; right? >> it is, senator. >> intel capability, how many drones do they have? >> none at this time that i'm aware of. >> the forces that basically
more human than technical, and all the gee-whiz stuff in afghanistan we own; is that correct? >> to my tog, it is, senator. >> have you severed in iraq? >> i have, senator. >> if you can find time in your schedule, before you make any decisions about what to recommend to the president or this body, take a visit to iraq and see how the place is playing out. >> i will, senator. >> because i want you to go because you and others fought so hard, and it is coming apart. i don't want that to happen to afghanistan. do you agree with me that you could maintain a robust military presence in afghanistan post-2014 with a fraction of the troops we have today? >> absolutely, senator. >> less than we had in korea for decades? >> i believe that's the case,
senator. >> a thousand wouldn't be enough, would it? >> i do not believe a thousand would be enough, senator. >> we're going to let you figure that out. i know you will advise us wisely. now, about those troops, would you agree with me it's ill-advised to leave one military american member in afghanistan post-2014 wows a status forces agreement giving them protections against afghan prosecutions? >> senator, we need full protection for those inup form and appropriate protections for those civilians from our government that are working over there. >> to our afghan partners, that's been the norm in the nation's history in all other wars and conflicts; is that correct? >> it is, senator. >> particularly with unstable governments and people shooting our troops. >> that's correct, senator. >> i've learned a lot about the afghan legal system. fair to say it has a ways to go, but hope springs eternal. i want to let the committee know
as much as i want to get it right in afghanistan and believe losing would be a national security disaster for the ages, if the afghans insist on keeping american soldiers in afghanistan without legal protections as we afforded our troops throughout the world, i would not vote for one penny, and this war would end. do you think that's a reasonable approach? >> i understand that, senator. >> could you communicate that? now, are you familiar with the detainee problem in afghanistan? >> i am, senator. >> i complement the 435 task force because that's where i did reserve duty. they did a heck of a job, and we're in the position and the war of captures been in our detention system in transitioning to afghan
detension. aware of 245? >> i am, senator. >> it's going well, but there's problems i see in the future. one of the problems is the unwillingness of the afghan government to embrace the detention. are you aware of what i'm talking about? >> i am, senator. >> are you aware of the fact if you used the afghan criminal corrode to prosecute people in our custody, it would be almost i want -- impossible in many cases. >> i am, senator. >> do you understand the criminal code does not recognize the difference between a common criminal and insur gent? >> i do, senator. >> would you do everything in the power to influence the afghans to tell them administrative detention, similar to what we do under the geneva geneva convention, should be continued, and would you please let them know that if i see an effort to undercut administrative detention, and it just becomes a catch-and-release program, none of us are going to
stand for one person who's been caught three or four times by american forces going back to the battlefield, killing americans again, that we want them to be in the league, we respect their sovereignty, but they have to embrace the fact they are fighting insurgency. would you pass that on? >> i would, and that is to me, first and foremost, not a legal issue, but a force protection issue. we absolutely have to find a way to keep individuals off the battlefield while we're there. >> in the last question, time is up, is it possible at all to lose in afghanistan and not be catastrophic to the future of pakistan? >> senator, i believe that an unstable afghanistan would be significant risk to the stability of pakistan. >> thank you, senator. senator reid.
>> thank you, general, thank you to your service, and i think the president made a wise nomination. you've got one of the most difficult jobs ahead of you. it's being admirably performed now by general al help, and i have the confidence you will continue in that tradition of leadership from the front. couple of issues. the plan is, in terms of transition, one of the major aspects of it is the security forces assistance teams that would be nato teams that would be at the brigade level, and operating with afghan forces to be the enablers, coordinators, and in effect, the trainers. can you comment upon the progress to date of forming these teams and les the issue that we had a chance to talk about which is, has potential
huge consequences of the blue on green incidents with respect to being ail to keep the teams at the brigade level or lower. >> >> senator, we have started the field the security force assistance team, and, in fact, my understanding is the first brigade level force assistance organization is currently deploying at this time, and so it's well along the day, and the teams established really all over the regional commands are in place and effective, and i think that's absolutely the next logical step after partnering is to migrate to the security forces assistance team moving towards the long term enduring relationship. with regards to the insider threat, initial data, i looked at, indicates the closer we are not after gap partners, the safer we are. there's few incidents of the insider throat associated with units very closely tied in the manner that the security force
assistance teams would. the units that have had difficulty are ones with more end sodic involvement we have with security force teamings. in addition to the other steps being taken with the insider threat that the security force assistance team construct will actually be effective and be a mitigator, in fact, for the insider threat. again, the data we have is minimal. that's my initial assessment, and if confirmed, i'll pay closer tongs to that. the security assistance forces teams are not just the right mechanism for us to take the after gaps to the next level, but a mitigator that you talked about. >> one of the points that you've already made in testimony is that the afghan national army made significant progress given in the last several years, the training effort that's. led.
the police lagged behind in terms of capability, coherence, and lacking the judicial system as senator graham pointed out, and even governmental infrastructure. going forward, the strongest link is the afghan national army. are you conscious of or sensitive to ethnic divisions within the force since ethnic divisions seem to characterize the country? there's always rumors of, you know, political leaders in certain towns with their own paramilitary as aspirations. can you comment about the state of the force and the coherence of the force as a national army, not an ethic division? >> senator, cant comment in general terms, but i'm aware of the terms, and i know they are sensitive to that and failed to
work with the afghans to ensure the afghan gnarl army and afghan national police reflect the demographic mix of afghanistan. we think that's important. the army has to be a reflection of the nation and not a reflection of one particular ethnic group that set the conditions for challenges down the road. i know they are payer particular attention to that right now. that's an area i'd pay attention to as well. >> one of the major missions you'll have as a nato commander is to not only make the transition, but also to supervise the retrograde of huge amounts of material, equipment that are there. the principle route of end try was through pakistan, the principle route of pakistan. you mentioned, but can you comment further on where you see us in terms of being able to conduct successfully operations and get material out?
>> senator, i can, and absolutely the ground lines of communication through pakistan are the most efficient, most inexpensive way to get equipment home. there's other ways to get it home, doing that over time, far more expensive to do air and transportation back home. i am encouraged the terms of reference were signed by pakistan on the second of this month, november. we are now moving into a proof of concept phase so we can re-open the lines of communication, but what we call frustrated cargo, items sitting for awhile, have started to move and so forth, and so i believe right now the situation is actually pretty good. >> and you're well on the way or the command is well on the way to the planning of the movement of the equipment, identified the equipment that's leaving, equipment that's staying, all of that is going op as we speak? >> senator, it is. i left with a lot of confidence about that during my last visit. i had a chance to spend time
with u.s. forces, afghanistan, and the leadership overseeing that, and then on the visit before this last visit, i had a chance to visit what they call sort lots where all equipment is staged and brought out, and i think that it is being done now, most importantly, integral part of the campaign. it's not just about getting equipment out or moving it across the ground lines of communication. it's about doing our retrograde and redeployment consistent with the campaign objectives, and my perspective is it's well-understood is isaf and u.s. forces and afghanistan and well ahead of where they need to be in terms of meeting their objectives. >> you're the nato commander. have you had any -- i know you've been on the ground in afghanistan. have you had any contact with other nato commanders and leadership in nato and preparations? >> senator, i have. i was able to accompany secretary panetta to the recent defense min steer yal for a couple days, sat in the bilateral discussions with the
nato partners as well as the general session with the defense ministers, and them on the sideline, had a chance to meet nato leaders. if confirm, one of the things i'll certainly do before consuming command is visiting the key capitals of the nato partners and establish relationships i know will be so important in the success over the next couple years. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions. >> thank you, general dunford, for your leadership and service. we appreciate that, and your courage and willingness to go into harm's way to serve intensely for your leadership tour in afghanistan. you and i talked yesterday. i appreciated -- yesterday? day before? i enjoyed that conversation. i believe that you'll be hoppest with us. i asked you them, and i'll ask you today, do you believe there's a reasonable prospect
for the united states to being able to be successful in afghanistan and, by that, i mean the definitions you've given earlier today. what prospects do we have to being ail to depart from afghanistan, from having successfully completed a mission there? >> senator, when i look clearly at the objectives, and the campaign in place now and progress made to date, i'm optimistic that continued commitment, we can meet our objectives. >> and if that were to change, had you report that to the congress as well as to the commander-in-chief? >> senator, i not only will, but feel compelled to report that. >> well, we need to have that. are you familiar with the article in the february 2012 armed forces journal written by colonel daniel davis expressing concern about the performance of the afghan national army?
>> i believe i am if that's a lieutenant colonel national guard officer, senator sessions. >> well, it's troubling. i've heard similar stories from other enlisted personnel who deal on a regular basis with their counterparts in the afghan army. will you commit to going below just the top commanders, when you discuss the condition on the forces there, will you talk to perps, enlisted personal as well as offers, personally engauged in working with our allies in this effort? will you be prepared to adjust your thinking about how well this effort is going if reality tells you it's not going as well as we've. hearing? >> senator, if i'm confirmed, i
recognize any success i have as a leader will be based on my willingness to listen to the people that are actually out there doing the work every day. i absolutely will pledge to you that i will get out and about. i'll make sure i understand the challenges and the opportunities from the perspective of the young marine soldiers out there doing the work, and as i mentioned, i think my ability and willingness to do that is all to do with any success that we have. >> i really believe you have to do that, and, of course, i'm well aware that you can be in one area of the country, get one perspective, and another perspective in another area, but this individual traveled 9,000 miles and more than eight provinces, meeting and dealing with these issues on a regular basis, and it was a very troubling report. i got to tell you, i think it sounded explicit stories of vignettes that occurred giving inside into an afghan army where is not yet where we need it to
be. let me join in support of senator graham in the view about prisoners, detaining prierses who are threats to the -- prisoners who are threats to the force. it is true in third world countries they have a difficult time maintaining people in prison for a long period of time. people are a direct threat to the united states, i believe, should be held in u.s. custody and surprising to me that we can't work op an arrangement where afghans would be happy that we pay for the cost and maintain the security on dangerous threats to their country. will you be active in ensuring that we don't have a reinvolving door if prisoners have. detape or to the released to attack us, afghan civilians and military? >> senator, if cop firmed, i will be -- confirmed, i'll be engaged in
the issue, and it's a critical protection force issue much it has to be addressed in the mission. >> it's more difficult than a lot of people think because i've watched it closely, senator, and as a reserve vies over there, personal -- reservist, personally engaged in it, involved for over a decade, and it's not easy. it's hard to deal with that question. general dunford. there's app -- an interesting article in "the associated press" two days ago noting you would represent the 15th top commander in afghanistan since 2002. that referring to a revolving door of generals that some experts say is detrimental to the war effort. have you had -- how much
personal time have you had in afghanistan? >> senator, i have not served in an assignment in afghanistan. i have certain r serve -- i have served for central command for marines assigned to iraq and afghanistan in the time that was 2010, had responsibility for the buildup of forces in afghanistan and retrograde of forces from iraq. since 2008 in all assignments since 2008, occasion to regularly visit afghanistan and then back here in washington as well as the assignment at the united states central command be involved in issues associated with the operations in afghanistan. >> well, it's a difficult thing to take any military person away from the families and be stationed at total work every
hour to possibly work with soldiers lives, and it's it wears people down over time, but i think we ought to think about this, mr. chairman. this is, according from the article, rotating top commanders on an annual basis, and senior fellow wrote an opinion piece sunday in ""new york times," try running a corporation by swapping the senior executives every year or imagine if at the beginning of 1944, six months before d day general army chief of staff told eisenhower, the supreme commander, it was time to give someone else a chance to lead, close quote, and so i am a bit concerned with life and death situations going on that
we've had 15 commanders in, what, this 1 # 1 or 12, 10-11 year effort. do you have concern about that? what would you do to undertake to overcome to maintain a secure transition? >> senator, what i can tell you is i told the chairman, chairman dempsey, the marine corp., secretary of defense as process went on, that i had a willingness to serve until they thought it appropriate for me to come home. i understand the need for leadership at this time, and if confirmed, willing to provide that. >> well, thank you. i know that's stressful. we also need to provide commanders, however long tours, opt-in to be with their families and get time away from the
stress of combat. thank you for that commitment. you're willingness to serve, i'm uneasy about the situation. we've invested a great deal. we don't know to muck it up here at the end when it could be successful, and we're a little different tactic, a little different policy could allow us to be successful, and would you be frank with the secretary of defense and the president and congress if you see needs that would make a big difference in the success or failure of our effort, would you bring that, fight for that, and advocate for changes that may make a difference in the course of this long war? >> i will, sir. >> thank you. ..
to personally review the reports of cigar that have been issued over the last 12 months? >> i have an opportunity to review the reports. >> i am on a broken record on this, but i've become beyond a skeptic about the part of the claim strategy, the counterinsurgency strategy that out of thin air decided that part of them point strategy was building infrastructure on the
secure environment. we did 62 billion in iraq. if you haven't had a chance to read the final assessment. it's heartbreaking the facilities that are standing empty to say nothing of all the things we've dealt with those tax payer dollars that were blown up. to say nothing of the projects that are crumbled and in ruins because frankly and inability to maintain or sustain what we built. and we are about ready to have a report like that i believe in afghanistan. i cannot give get anyone to give me eni data points to support the notion that the department of defense and even the state department undergoing massive
infrastructure projects while we are trying to train an army, as devilish force and a rule all have contributed to our success in theater. and i would like your comments on that. >> senator, if i am confirmed by recognize it's an important part of my responsibility to be a good steward of our resources. during the recent visit i discussed this issue with general allan. over the last 18 months he's begun to review every single project and ensure that it achieved the desired effect to support the campaign. i am also aware of projects that didn't meet the criteria that you felt needed to be met to support the campaign. i will look at that issue with a matter of great importance. i do recognize it's important. corruption is important associated and identified
corruption in my initial assessment as certainly one of the most strategic challenges and risks that we have in affecting the positive outcome in the campaign. >> maintaining is part of the problem. the other part of the problem is clear that we've funded our enemies in some instances which is just unacceptable. let me tell you one of my problems. i would love to see the list of what's been canceled particularly them power water projects which are a significant part. we know that the projects being built right now are not going to be completed until next year. as one of the things i'm frustrated about even the white tried numerous times to get specifics on this we have put the money for the afghan infrastructure fund. this is an agreement that
happens between state and defense but if they haven't been delineated yet the project refunded two years ago are not completed. i need to be reassured that come 2014 we don't once again have a situation where we are withdrawing our troops but billions of dollars of contract work on the ground for infrastructure particularly in light of the country. the projects are and on what basis they were decided is there any discussion about whether or not that would be necessary? sometimes there is a tendency to keep doing it because we've been doing it, and i think it is time for you all to do a check as it relates to nation-building. we can call it other things that must be honest we are trying to nation-building the middle of fighting. that's really hard, and i just
don't want us to keep going forward without really doing an introspective look at how successful this part of the strategy has been and i don't think anybody has at least to this point show me the point of that part of the strategy can be chopped up as a success and i would look forward to any information that you or your team could give me on that. specifically i also want to talk about the security force facilities and i want to know what our price tag is going forward if you can get it to me for the record. we know 11.7 billion has been spent to construct the afghan national security forces facility. it's almost $12 billion that we have spent. of we know that they issued their report that said that the afghan lead sustainment they can't afford these facilities.
i know that we are going to have to give them money. the figure for the first year as 18 million just to sustain and maintain these facilities. what is the price tag going forward indefinitely to maintain and sustain the security facilities we felt for them and as i said before if we built them for they can't afford what is the price tag for the united states to sustain this? for the next decade? >> i would have to take that for the record. >> it's an important one for us to understand as we all are trying to figure out how we really the money i want to make sure the american people know what we are going to be called upon to form for them going forward for 2014 to maintain not the personnel which is a huge price tag, but the actual facilities themselves so if you would work on that for the record, and we would certainly
like anybody in your team to visit with us about the october report about the security facilities and what you intend to do in the leadership capacity to address the issues that they've raised. >> thank you for your service and i look forward to visiting in theater? >> thank very much, senator mccaskill. senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you very much, general for being here today and for taking on this assignment and what is a very challenging times both for the military and also as we look at the challenges before us in afghanistan. i want to follow up just a little bit on the issue that senator mccaskill raised relative to sigar and we had a conversation about this. i wonder if you could just first of all outlined how you think
the sigar's work is going in afghanistan and how you expect to continue to follow up as commander working with sigar in this capacity and also and as you did yesterday continuing to work closely to not only address the recommendations that are being made, but to talk about how that work can go forward in a way that is cooperative. >> senator come thank you for that question. based on my discussion with general allen, it is clear to me that they take the results of the report very seriously pity it was a continuous dialogue back and forth between the staff at isaf in the specials
investigator for afghanistan infrastructure. as a result of some of the previous reports and as the result of some of the issues that have been raised with regards to corruption with regards to contracts, they've changed the organizational construct of the united states central command to provide oversight of these contracts. they've changed the organization within isaf. general alan has combined corruption with ret finance with targeting and so forth to bring together what were excellence into a holistic approach to deal with some of the issues highlighted in the sigar and also most importantly that the ambassador cunningham at our embassy in kabul has taken us on as anonymization and side of the embassy that provides oversight. so i would see this as a very important role for me to be decisively engaged in the results of the sigar report to take them seriously and necessary to take remedial action. >> thank you very much.
major general kenneth mentioned in an interview in "the wall street journal" that the military has learned a lot of lessons from the transition to the state department mission in iraq and we are already working on preparing the changeover in afghanistan. as somebody who has spent significant time in iraq, can you talk about what you think are the lessons that were learned from that experience and what we should be thinking about as we are moving forward with the transition in afghanistan? >> i think that one of the most important lessons the general referred to is the number of functions that have been performed by the international security assistance force in afghanistan over the past few years and there's an excess of 400 tasks that have been performed by those headquarters and the one thing we learned in iraq is that we didn't start early enough to transition the
task that may no longer need to be done. so it's very important that we work with the state department and the afghan government and our own international partners and governor organizations. so, we can sustain them through the transition in 2014. i'm quite sure that is what the general is talking about. i was encouraged by the discussions in that regard in my recent visit and in the 29th of november, this year here in washington, d.c. there's been a meeting between all of the stakeholders and specifically associated with that task migration to again identify where those tasks ought to be performed and what task lalinde no longer need to be enduring so having that construct well in advance of the transition in 2014i think is quite important. >> when you say the stakeholders are you talking about who is included in that group? >> senator, but will be the central command, isaf
represented as well as representatives from the ngos and the state department, u.s. aid and so forth and there will be initial planning sessions to get it right but i would expect a lot of energy and attention to be spent over the next two years. >> you've raised an important point in talking about the various stakeholders because obviously this remains a coalition effort, and making sure that we continue to keep our other partners, our european partners engaged in this effort is very important as somebody who chairs the european affairs subcommittee on foreign relations looking at nado's role and the continued support of the european countries for our effort in afghanistan has been very important. can you talk about the other kind of work that you see as a part of your portfolio if you
take over this job in afghanistan in terms of working with our partners to ensure their continued support for this mission? >> senator, i can, and i would include the most important partners those are our afghan partners that have the responsibility for all this work that needs to be done over the next two years. i think one of the first things that i need to do if confirmed it is to go visit the capitals and listen to them and make sure i fully understand their plans with between now and 2014 and then what plans they may be willing to support post 2014. i think having good lines of communication back-and-forth between the capitals of the understand the progress they aren't surprised by the decisions that might be made in the context of the campaign but it would engage their national leadership before the decisions are made because they are key stakeholders and obviously the of men and women in harm's way and the right to understand what
decisions are being made that affect the folks there providing also as we conduct a campaign which is first and foremost important, there's also this transition plan and so working very closely with our nato partners how they will redeploy in the context of the campaign is important. how will they get their equipment and other people home and do that in a way that maintains continuity in the campaign at the same time it meets our timeline i think those are among the more important dialogue -- important aspect of dialog needs to take place. >> thank you very much. >> thank you come senator shaheen. cementer blumenthal? >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to join my colleagues in thanking you, general dunford and your family for your service to the nation, your extraordinary service over many decades and the service that you will be performing, and i have every expectation that he will be confirmed. i guess that maybe the bad news
for you in some ways, but again, your tremendous service to this country. many of the questions on my mind have been asked and answered, so i'm not going to repeat them but there is one area where other members of the kennedy coming and i know that the marine corps and all of our services that is the effort to counter the explosive devices that i think now are the predominant or at least a major cause of casualties to our men and women in uniform in that theater, and i wonder if you could suggest to the committee what additional steps either in terms of equipment or efforts to work with pakistan which is still the source of the ingredients that go into those can be taken and
then you would contemplate taking in this new position. >> thanks for that question, and it still remains the largest producer in afghanistan in an issue that clearly i need to be decisively engaged in if i am confirmed in this position. you either did to pakistan in your question and that absolutely is the number one area where we need to make some progress. the vast amount of materials do come from pakistan. i am encouraged by recent progress and development in our coordination at the border. i believe in part that is a recognition in pakistan that they also have a challenge in the threat moving back-and-forth from afghanistan and pakistan as well as we move from pakistan back to afghanistan. about two years ago we established the tripartite
remark between afghanistan, the collision in pakistan. in the next two weeks we will sign the operating procedures in that agreement but what i saw on my recent trip is that we had some successful discussions. there is a working group but most importantly at the port of coordination centers we are starting to see some developments. pakistan has a billboard of ordination centers but they are due to build as a result of the agreement that is referred to. as we look forward to doing that, but what i can assure you if i am confirmed a healthy dialogue and a consistent dialogue with pakistan is going to be very important to address the board area and it's one of the key things that we can do in addition to the other things as a result of the generosity to address the tread that border heriot pakistan coming up with a mutual framework to ensure that
we limit the amount coming in is very important. >> are you satisfied that there is a commitment at your equivalent level in the pakistani armed services to stopping the transfer of those bond making materials? >> senator, i can't comment on level of commitment from personal observation right now, so i won't do that but i am not satisfied with the results and that is what is most important. is that i join you in that and others would as well, and i hope that your efforts, your persuasive efforts and your efforts to lead by example on this score are persuasive to the pakistani s. in terms of the drawdown of troops from afghanistan, i hope that the remaining equipment that is necessary to detect and
counter is kept in place as long as is necessary so that but a commitment is not withdrawn and i assume that is a part of the planning process. >> senator, it absolutely is. >> and the kinds of new equipment that may be necessary to protect our troops from roadside bombs, is that being provided? and i am talking about new protective gear that can be worn. by understand that most, probably all now have that type of year but the new iterations, the new models of equipment, protective gear and other kinds of equipment are still being provided. >> senator, for as long as we have young men and women in harm's way the need to stay in threat and continue to get out and if i am confirmed that is exactly what we will do. >> thank you. i have one more area that i would like to cover, and that is
in terms of human trafficking, senator portman and by yesterday announced a caucus, the senate caucus to end human trafficking. there is an amendment that we have proposed to the national defense authorization bill that would provide new tools and penalties against use of traffic labor by contractors who work for the federal government in other words use of taxpayer dollars on projects that involved slave labor. i think that there is no other way to put it, and i wonder if you have any thoughts regarding the oversight and prevention of human trafficking among the u.s. contractors that you would carry out if he were confirmed for this position. >> senator, i have seen some of the report on human trafficking obviously it is an area of great concern so i understand where you'd be producing legislation in that regard. if confirmed i will certainly do
what i can to help mitigate that threat and working very closely with ambassador cunningham at the embassy in kabul. >> thank you. that concludes my question. >> thank you come cementer blumenthal and i commend you on your human trafficking initiative. general, you've described progress, you've given us some cautious optimism and indeed some real optimism about the ability to achieve our mission in afghanistan and i've seen progress with my own eyes and i happen to share your assessment of the progress which has been made in the reasons the you give for the evidence that you give for your conclusion i think that evidence is very much present. obviously the challenges that you have described are also there but i don't think that the
media has given an accurate overview of the situation in afghanistan because i think basically there is inappropriate focus on problems and shortfalls it is inappropriate reporting on failures where they have taken place but there's been an adequate reporting in my opinion on the progress that has been made in afghanistan and so the people probably have a more negative view of the prospects in afghanistan than the people of afghanistan have according to the polls that we have seen about afghan public opinion. but if that is true it is the product of the free press and not ever going to complain about the free press in the united states. i think it is important that if you're own views continue after you get there that you find ways
to present the positive so that it's not such a concentration in our media that will continue because it's going to be a government that will continue to have corruption and an afghan military that is going to continue to have shortfalls particularly the enablers but also in terms of people who would turn on their own and turn on us. it's printed continue hopefully have a significantly reduced level but there will be those examples, so i hope that you would be aware of what is presented to our public. i don't want anything shaped. i don't want to try to -- i'm not suggesting believe me to anybody that you try to engage in propaganda because that is and what we are looking for. we are looking for just a
balanced presentation of the pluses and minuses that exist and i just don't think it's inaccurate from what i've seen with my own eyes in terms of a balanced media presentation of the situation in afghanistan it's just better i think than the average american thinks it is. i think that is in large measure because it's better than the cross section of the media presentation in this country so you ought to just be aware of the importance that whatever the objective situation is in afghanistan that would be fairly presented to our own people. >> we very much appreciate your direct answers here today. we always appreciate the kind of testimony which you've given much is clear, which is correct.
you have spoken some truths to power right here this morning, and frankly that's always welcome and it better be welcome in a space government that we hear directly from people who testify in front of us with their opinions are and you have given us those this morning. the objective now is to try to get your nomination first of all voted on by this committee, and i would hope that we could do that as soon as we have our -- i believe that the situation on the floor is when to be that we would have the votes today that we come back from our web of for the thanksgiving break is and i would hope that we could bring that up on that day and get this to the floor of the senate so that we could have you in place whatever the future may hold in
terms of when the exact transition for the change of the guard is i think it is currently planned for late january or early february is that correct if you are confirmed if he would take over from the general allan? >> my understanding is early february. >> by the way, i share the positive comments about general allan which have been this morning. there's been some statements made about his being a ferry traffic and fine soldier and hoping that he can stay in that position until the plan date for his departure but i also have seen firsthand his extreme competence and capability, and i also have confidence in him similar to what has been expressed by colleagues here this morning. but we will never know what
tomorrow brings, with the fate has in store for us, but as far as your confirmation is concerned, i am very confident you will be unanimously confirmed. i see no reason that you won't be and we give thanks to you and your wife is with you here this morning. we know how important families are. that's been expressed by adding all of us this morning and they were sincere in that and i think the spouses are aware of our sincerity because we try to reflect that you in our bill in our legislation about the importance of families in various ways and in putting the health care that is provided for families. we hope that we always reflect our rhetoric in our legislation. with that, again, our thanks to you and your family and we will
[inaudible conversations] >> final report? why not? >> it developed. he is ready to take that position if he is confirmed. the plan was january -- that will take place i presume but the situation is a result -- >> t know when you'll hear from alan on his recommendations going forward? there will be report from general allan. >> in terms of the payroll. >> surprised the next few weeks. >> you were surprised? >> was supposed to be done before the end of the year. >> the next few weeks, that he
would know of more than i would. my recollection is the end of the year as well. >> there was a national security compromise? >> i have to see evidence of it. i haven't seen evidence -- >> it has to be brief. >> whether it is brief. >> we surprised that jennifer lonski said he was not involved in consideration of this move forward? why would you not -- if he was executing the plan why would he want to be involved? >> the plan is going to be he is not going to be the one -- the current plan, he would be in that position and that decision will have been made. i would expect he is briefed on the reason for it but i don't
see that he would participate on it. participating or putting in a position, taking steps prior to confirmation. pecan observe. he responded appropriately. >> for the texture of the composition of post 2014 u.s. involvement in afghanistan, something you didn't know already? >> there will be involvement in some of the areas, he had mentioned intelligence, the intelligence reference, he didn't say anything that surprised me. >> your reason for supporting
the 352 number of post 2014, are you concerned that you learned -- lose the deterrent effect, the lower number, less of a deterrent. is that the crux of your concern? >> we don't want to send a message to reduce the security capability after we leave. not the message i want to send. we were less considerate or less considerate of the security situation. we are going to be concerned and conscious. compared to what we invested in afghanistan, the cost to us of
having the larger number of forces opposed 2014 compared to having the larger afghan army, the cost benefit approach makes a lot of sense. >> spending some like $3 billion a month. >> more than that. >> what i mean is compared to $4 billion a year compared to what we spend per month. okay. thank you very much. >> house in the expect to get to congress or the house? >> assuming we finish it the first week, and would expect we could go immediately. >> you expect any major hiccups? >> too early to know. i have not yet got a report from
staff, their discussions with the house staff to try to reach a long list of recommendations, hundreds of provisions so they would be making a recommendation to us, as being -- the counterparts in the house and making recommendations on how to resolve hundreds of differences and they can't make recommendations. i haven't been briefed yet, the most general way, the most general way they think is going well but if there are 10 or 50 or 20 issues they can't make a recommendation on, make a choice recommendation that i haven't seen to answer that question. >> you expect passage of your
bill by when? >> i expect to take it off maybe today or tomorrow morning, if possible land hoping we can make opening statements, maybe even resolve some amendments which we were able to clear and go immediately on our return which i assume is monday. 57 an amendment which is identified and unanimous consent agreement is the first amendment we would go to we make the decision for what the amendment is going to be. even the second amendment or disposition, and all laid out today for the first day we come back so i would hope -- we punch this building three days. we have cooperation from our
members. >> is there any indication of how long it is likely to take to go to the inquiry and when it might be back in your court? do you have a goal for when you like to have a hearing? can you plug in here? >> if we get a report in time. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. watched the public policy events and the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get scheduled on our web site and join the conversation on social media sites. >> for the last half century the discussion of the assassination has been dominated by two schools of thought or if you will -- i will briefly describe
each of them and how they approach the evidence in the case. to begin with, there is the church of the lone assassin whose adherentss insist both of salt and ruby were alone nuts who murdered john kennedy and lee harvey of wall respectively for their own personal reasons. on the other side we have the church of the grand conspiracy and their adherentss are they about what they think did happen and who was responsible but they are absolutely convinced there was a very large conspiracy usually involving figures in the u.s. government and a massive cover-up. >> this weekend on american history tv, the questions remain, lone gunman, the mob, cia, castro, military-industrial complex, what happened in dallas, the assassination of john f. kennedy, sunday at kevin:30 p.m. eastern and
pacific. >> florida senator marco rubio will be in ireland, he will speak at a fund-raiser, and the first trip to iowa. >> earlier this week retiring massachusetts congressman barney frank talked about sequestration and upcoming fiscal cliff negotiations which he believes will cause a, quote, short-term bumps to the economy. he spoke at an event in the atlantic. it is 20 minutes. >> congressman barney frank in his last term as congressman, too big to fail and author of the deal breaker column in the new york times and cnbc, what is it? scrawled box. i watch it every day.
and half of dodd-frank here. >> thank you. thank you for being here. about 100 things to talk about in a short amount of time and a lot of issues related to wall street, given the water cooler conversation seems to be the last 72 hours, general david petraeus and the real housewives of tampa. i figured i would give you the floor to tell us your thoughts. >> having argued to, and to general -- emotion that your in trouble for sending e-mails, i am disappointed -- when i went to work for the mayor of boston i was told seriously there's one thing you got to remember.
you have -- never talk when you can not and never not when you can wind. why these two intelligent men rescinding these embarrassing e-mails is baffling. did they not know, talk about white collar crime, that no one would be indicted if it would not for e-mails. i am sorry for the general david petraeus family. there does not appear to be any public policy relevance to this. i am sorry people are fussing over it. >> it is a major public policy f
when you look at this election -- >> and doing one part of the george bush tax cuts which were adopted after a president got a plurality of half a million votes. if-half a million give you a mandate to put the tax cuts in than 3.3 million plus ought to give you a mandate to put them out. >> how much of the president's vote the you think was about taxes and the argument that he made about higher taxes versus all of his other issues including social issues, immigration and other things? >> just as with bill clinton, got us to raise taxes, i don't think the tax increases we did under clinton as i recall talking about $36, the notion there were people out there having marginal rates going up by 36,000 are going to say oh well, this is not worth it.
i don't think the tax increases we voted under clinton caused the great economic boom but they did not correct it. and in favor of raising taxes, despite the fact he was raising taxes, the development is republican efforts to beat him over the head, it helped him some, but the fact that it was neutral and beyond that, what that stands for was relevant, mandate against severe cuts in domestic spending against severe cuts in medicare. the republicans on the one hand, a major argument about medicare, cut $700 billion you shouldn't have done that so there is a mandate for avoiding the kind of cuts to domestic programs that were important out of this election.
mitt romney did as a favor of advocating for significantly increased military spending. first-time candidate for president said we don't need that. we are better off and that was a factor because clearly a substantial reduction in military spending had to be part of the deficit plan. >> the president and democrats broadly hold the line on 36% when it comes to 215 and above and do they go over if that is not on the table? >> yes. holding it at 39.6 and 250 above doesn't rule out 39.2 if that is what it came to. >> it is not -- we find deductions in this. >> if we do hold on that, more popular than not, if the alternative is of production package that comes out of domestic spending i would say this too.
maybe someone will come up with a list of deductions but one of the deductions they're talking got our oil and gas related and -- >> may be mortgage related. charitable giving. >> there is no way mitt romney throughout the debate, shocked he didn't say pick a number. is this lottery or debate? pick another number, 25,000. the $25,000 cap on deductions you are going to be severely impacted if you have a mortgage in massachusetts the first two years you are almost certainly going above $25,000 on your mortgage interest alone not to mention health care and everything else. i am skeptical. in principle you can talk about cutting loopholes and that is unpopular. i am skeptical there will be a list of loopholes that will be more popular than raising the level. >> the the the the fiscal cliff is not a fiscal cliff and it is
the slope that effectively effectively going over it is not nearly -- >> $1.18 this year. and essay that i wrote in the washington post about the fallacy of metaphors in discussing public policy. i am serious. the domino theory, made a career was dangerous toys like a dagger in the back of japan but unlikely someone will pick up corey and stab japan with it. especially unlikely for me not to worry about that, why was that -- it is neither. it is what it is. if we do not avert it it will cause a short-term bumped to the economy and the question is not whether or not we do it but how long it lasts. if we don't--the sequestration
could be more damaging than the tax increase that could be undone. sequestration is a terrible idea and it could be very disruptive and if we go into sequestration i think that is awful. if the taxes are up on everybody for a month or two, a temporary bump would be slowing down the expansion i think is coming. >> i want to talk about wall street's relationship with washington and the white house. when you look at the response and the way wall street has approached dodd-frank with all the efforts against it, the aggressive nature that wall street took more broadly towards president obama, how do you explain it when you talk to people? >> we seriously hurt their feelings. if you look at the actual damage people are ranting about marginal tax increases, which
they would not even know happened unless they were particularly attentive to what their accounts told them, these are people who could not possibly miss a few bucks out of a thousand. i really believe one of the things people want from us is psychic income. they want to be told they are good, that they are important, they're not just self interested but in the course of their self-interest, we substantially hurt their feelings because they are acting in rationally. among other things, maybe lucky they dodged a bullet. if you look at where the republican party is today and look at what wall street and others want, are they really -- do they want to stop ben bernanke from doing what he is doing? do they want the imf not to help in europe? that is the republican party. the republican party has become the most right-wing element,
totally in contradiction of much of what these people want but we have hurt their feelings so badly they lost their way. >> was that a mistake in terms of getting your legislation? >> we got the bill pass and got the president reelected. [talking over each other] >> it took a lot. [talking over each other] >> let me put it this way. had the president lost -- maybe it is a little bit of the campbell. barack obama is the president. that means the next four years, by the time he is through, the health care bill will be fully implemented and i predict very popular. people will be better and they want to see -- the financial reform bill will be fully implemented, substantially as written, to contribute stability. already people should be -- may be a stock that will step in to deal with the money market issue and i think the economy is
poised after years of suppression to go forward. the business community is making a terrible mistake. they will deal themselves out -- of a turnaround but i was surprised they would take him plenty who ran for president on the democrats's terrible platform and financial services round table. if i was still a ranking democrat and tim pawlenty came in, my first request is please explain my marriage threatened use of much. i am little uncertain about that. secondly do you expect this to work with people who demonize us? >> what do you say to those who say dodd-frank didn't go far enough and too big to fail still exists and high speed trading made the world more dangerous, not less than the list goes on? >> we get it from both sides, didn't go far enough, and we
ended too big to fail. the notion that we didn't, we did say this, there are institutions that are too big to fail without paying attention to the consequences of the failure. the bill says in some cases the federal authorities may have to step in and manage the consequences of the failure but every dollar expended will be recovered from large financial institutions. the secretary of the treasury will violate federal law and extend money to a big bank and the argument that i saw from the guy from dallas, there will be enormous political pressure on the secretary of the treasury. in what universe? right now in america today, if you even think about those institutions you would be impeached. i don't understand how people can misread -- >> you don't believe if jpmorgan or citigroup were really in trouble and look like they were going down the markets were falling apart and everyone
tearing their hair out all over again that we wouldn't find a way to save that term? >> absolutely. the other way around. you must be disconnected with everything going on in the world. any effort to help an existing financial institution, the guy who has -- the main guy who wrote the book who attacks us as well as economists, preventing intervention at that point. and congress would vote to change it, it would be illegal to do anything with the institution until the institution is put out. under the law, sarah palin was probably, we did do death panels but they were for big banks. no aid can go into any institution until it is wiped out. then you can deal with the consequences of it and it may
take some money to pay off some. hank paulson said here is my dilemma in 2008. i can they all the deaths or none of the debt of a failed institution. and it hit the fan. so we said pay only as luann as you need to get out of trouble and the notion, that is what would be controversial. the notion that the political impulse would be bailed out city or wells fargo is exactly the opposite. >> how do you judge the bailout? >> as the most highly successful, wildly unpopular policy in the history of the country. let's start with the auto industry. talking to dave smith with the economy. we thought it was the right thing to do. who knew it would wind up being the major thing but with regard
to t.a.r.p. it could be done better. something i hoped political scientist would write about, one of the things, we risk opportunities to do more about mortgages people didn't focus on the fact that t.a.r.p. was formulated during a transition between presidencies. we voted in october and in comes the election so you had hank paulson operating but the bush did ministration had ended. the obama administration hadn't started. i was frustrated. the president -- president obama said we only have one president at a time and i said that overstates the number of presidents we now have. that was part of the problem but with all that the money is paid back substantially. it stabilized the economy and i know is very unpopular. the and popularity began, at a
particular point in time. when a ig -- >> the democrats if you really think about it -- aig and all that. >> blamed for the unpopularity of t.a.r.p.. it was initiated free t.a.r.p.. it came from the fed on its own but when it came out that aig played the bonus i never saw the public so a angry. successful policy that could have been better and succeeded at what it did and what had to be done. ultimately will be seen as laying the groundwork for a recovery. >> you are not going to be in your job next year. the first thing to deal with wall street, i was going -- the bad joke going nowhere fast but
let's not go there. i want to ask you this. less than a minute left. when you think about washington after you leave, do you have more hope about bipartisan compromise, the world is going to get better? do you have less hope? >> reality will get better and reality shakes this. we have got very functional 2009-2010 and in 2007-2008, a relic of the distant past. when we took over congress in 2007, hank paulson wrote in his book we had been talking a couple months. we began working on the crisis. in 2008 in september, go beyond that or before that in late 2007 george bush goes to nancy pelosi and harry reid and says we need
a stimulus because the economy is in trouble and they said you are right and work 1-out as work 1-out you live with so they did a stimulus with him rather than saying the economy slipped for us and in 2008 we do the aca -- the t.a.r.p. with him and bipartisanship ended by january 20th, 2009, with mitch mcconnell saying the new job is to sink the president. even then we had a constructive to years. so the breakdown is fairly recent because the tea party, the extreme right took over the republicar