tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 13, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EST
>> going back to the 80 were giving -- when you go into different countries there is turkey syria lebanon -- when you are going into the different countries the human rights we stand by are going to be different than other countries. freedom of religion, freedom of expression, those kinds of things. so when the chairman brought up -- the different areas of abuses like gender abuse, women's rights how do you go about enforcing that? is it different from country to country? how do we hold government accountable? >> that is an interesting and important question, congressman.
it was either with you are chairman smith -- asking about working with faith-based organizations. we do work with that. in fact, we visited with the archbishop in kurdistan when we were there to talk about the work they are doing. i know the king and jordan has been very open in meeting with different religious leaders both sort of from an islamic perspective to reduce the lore of isil, but also how do we work with the various religious groups. syria was one of the most tolerant countries in the entire middle east before all this took place. it is important but there are many groups we work with to try and reduce the tension that is going on. >> is there a way to hold those areas that you have the refugees in -- going to school and being abused with whatever type of
abuse that is. gender abuse, we will say -- how do you go about making -- you said you are helping those countries deal with that and trying to make sure they are protected, but how do you go about holding that country or that government accountable? helping out a bad situation, and they are not living up to that standard -- what do we do as far as holding those people accountable? or do we not get into that? >> we do in the sense that there are international standards that these countries have signed on to through u.n. convention. that is one advantage of working through the u.n. system. we can hold them accountable for those standards. >> you feel it is working? it is something that we turn a blind eye to commerce a they are supposed to be doing it? i have seen that in other parts
of the world. is that what you are seeing over there? >> maybe to give an example of trafficking cases or smuggling cases -- normally the aid partners we would work with, those cases are brought forward. they would work with the local authorities in terms of ensuring follow-up. refugees are detained, seeking access to prisons to find out whether or not it was a rifle detention or what the due process is for that case. that is part of the protection part of what the organizations do that we support. i think the broader issues as part of our dialogue -- i think it goes well beyond the humanitarian sphere but is obviously connected. >> you have brought up that there has been 158 workers killed. is that taken into account missing ones, those that
could widen as hostages? -- wind up as hostages? do you have a sense of how many are unaccounted for? >> as far as we know, there are no americans held that are unaccounted for that we know of. most of those 150 our local syrians who are working with different organizations that we support. >> i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you very much. they key for your tremendous leadership for providing the two subcommittees with your very interesting insights and incisive testimony. we will brief other members of
congress -- thank you. you are saving lives every day. i think the american public -- i have traveled with some dart teams. we were in sri lanka. i was in the van. i have never been more proud of people who were just absolutely can do, trying to make the situation better for those who had lost like and property -- lost life and property. thank you for your leadership. the meeting is adjourned. >> coming up on c-span, remarks by fbi director gains cody online -- james comey. that is followed by u.s. health debate on charitable contributions. >> friday, mike allen sits down
for an interview with mail -- with the mayor of london. you can see it live on c-span3. later, liberia's assistant minister of health speaks at the center for strategic and international studies about his response to a bola. we are bringing that event live at 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span3. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. there are 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats in the house. there is also 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house and the first. woman veteran in the senate keep track with c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has information on each session.
>> fbi director comey spoke about race relations and the need for community policing. the remarks came during a speech during the university. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage the dean of the court public school of -- john degoia, president of you georgetown university, and james d comey, director of the federal bureau of investigation. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. and welcome to gaston hall. it is a great pleasure for our
university to host this important conversation this morning. i wish to thank the many members of our georgetown community and our guests from the fbi who have joined us for today's event. we gather now to hear fbi director james comey offer his perspective on questions of law enforcement and race, a topic that demands our most careful and serious attention as a nation, as its members, as members of our communities. this is a topic whose importance and urgency has been exemplified in the events from ferguson missouri, to cleveland, ohio, to staten island, new york. at this moment when our country seeks a greater understanding, a renewed sense of responsibility for one another, a stronger mutual trust. we're grateful for this
opportunity to provide a venue for dialogue on these matters. we're thankful to have our mccourt school of public policy as an academic partner for this morning's event. after director comey's remarks, our audience will have the opportunity to ask questions moderated by our mccourt school dean, edward montgomery. and i want to thank dean montgomery for playing this role today. i wish to take a few moments top introduce director comey, who took on this position leading the fbi in 2013 after a long and distinguished legal career. a religion major at the college of william and mary and graduate of columbia law school, director comey has served as u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and as deputy attorney the at department of justice before assuming his current role. as leader of the fbi, he has advanced the bureau's mission of protecting the lives of our nation's citizens with a personal attention to ensuring
that this mission is accomplished in a manner that recognizes and protects the liberties that are at the heart of our shared values as a nation. for many years, the fbi has required all its new agents to visit the united states holocaust museum here in washington as part of their training. when mr. comey became director he added to that training a visit to the martin luther king memorial, not far from our campus here, to bring a deeper understanding of our nation's history into the bureau's current practices. as director comey put it, a reminder of the need for fidelity and rule of law and the dangers of becoming untethered to oversight and accountability. we gather this morning here in gaston hall as we have throughout our history. now for more than a century, this hall has served as one of the important places for public discourse and discussion here in washington.
and today we deepen that history as we come together to engage in this dialogue. it is through such dialogue that we build a more inclusive society and strengthen the trust that forms the fabric of our collective well being. so, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming director james b. comey. [applause] >> thank you, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. thank you for inviting me here to georgetown university. i am honored to be here. i wanted to meet with you today to share with you my thoughts on the relationship between law enforcement and the communities we serve and protect. like a lot of things in life that relationship is complicated. relationships often are. beautiful healy hall, part of
and all around where we sit now, was named after this great university's 29th president patrick francis healy. healy was born into slavery in georgia in 1834. his father was an irish immigrant plantation owner, his mother a slave. under the laws at that time, healy and his siblings were considered to be slaves. healy is believed to be the first african-american to earn a ph.d, the first to enter the jesuit order, the first to be president of georgetown university or any predominantly white university. given georgetown's remarkable history, and that of president healy, this struck me as the appropriate place to talk about the difficult relationship between law enforcement and the communities we are sworn to serve and protect. with the death of michael brown in ferguson, the death of eric
garner in staten island, and the ongoing protests throughout the country, and the assassinations of nypd officers, we are at a crossroads. as a society we can choose to live our lives every day raising our families, going to work, and hoping that someone somewhere will do something to ease the tension, to smooth over the conflict. we can roll up our car windows turn up the radio, and drive around these problems. or we can choose instead to have an open and honest discussion about what our relationship is today. what it should be. what it could be. what it needs to be. if we took more time to better understand one another. unfortunately, in places like ferguson, and new york city, and in some communities across this
nation, there is a disconnect between police agencies and the citizens they serve, predominantly in communities color. serious debates are taking place about how law enforcement personnel relate to the communities they serve, about the appropriate use of force and about the real and perceived biases both within and outside of law enforcement. these are important debates. every american should feel free to express an informed opinion to protest peacefully, to convey frustration and even anger in a constructive way. that's what makes this democracy great. those conversations, as bumpy and uncomfortable as they can be, help us understand different perspectives and better serve our communities. of course, they are only conversations in the true sense of that word, if we are willing not only to talk but to listen too. i worry that this incredibly
important and difficult conversation about race and policing has become focused entirely on the nature and character of law enforcement officers when it should also be about something much harder to discuss. debating the nature of policing is very important, but i worry that it has become an excuse at times to avoid doing something harder. let me start by sharing some of my own hard truths. first, all of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty. at many points in american history, law enforcement enforced the status quo, a status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups. it was unfair to the healy siblings and to countless others like them. it was unfair to too many people. i am descended from irish immigrants. a century ago the irish knew well how american society and law enforcement viewed them.
as drunks, roughians and criminals. law enforcement's biased view of the irish lives on in the nickname we still use for the vehicles we use to transport groups of prisoners -- it is after all, a paddy wagon. the irish had some tough times. but little compares to the experience on our soil of black americans. that experience should be part of every american's consciousness and law enforcement's role in that experience, including in recent times, must be remembered. it is our cultural inheritance. there is a reason that i require all new agents and analysts to study the fbi's interaction with dr. martin luther king jr. and to visit his memorial in washington as part of their training. and there is a reason. i keep on my desk a copy of attorney general robert kennedy's approval j. edgar hoover's request to wiretap dr. king. it is a single page.
the entire application is five sentences long. it is without fact or substance. and it is predicated on the naked assertion that there is "communist influence in the racial situation." the reason i do those things is to ensure that we remember our mistakes and that we learn from them. one reason we cannot forget our law enforcement legacy is that the people we serve and protect cannot forget it either. so we must talk about our history. it is a hard truth that lives on. a second hard truth -- much research points to the widespread existence of unconscious bias. many people in our white majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. in fact, we all, white and black, carry various biases around with us. i am reminded of the song from the broadway hit "avenue q," "everyone's a little bit
racist," a part of which goes like this. "look around and you will find no one's really colorblind. maybe it is a fact we all should face. everyone makes judgments based on race." you should be grateful i did not try to sing that. [laughter] but if we can't help our latent bay yas biases with be woo he -- latent biases, we can help our instinctive response to those actions. that is why we work to design systems and processes to overcome that very human part of us all. although the research may be unsettling, it is what we do next that matters most. but racial bias isn't epidemic in law enforcement any more than it is epidemic in academia or in arts. in fact, i believe law enforcement overwhelmingly attracts people who want to do good for a living. people who risk their lives because they want to help other people.
they don't sign up to be cops in new york or chicago or l.a. to help white people or black people or hispanic people or asian people. they sign up because they want to help all people. and they do some of the hardest, most dangerous policing to protect communities of color. but that leads me to my third hard truth -- something happens to people in law enforcement. many of us develop different flavors of cynicism that we work hard to resist because they can be lazy, mental shortcuts. for example, criminal suspects routinely lie about their guilt and nearly everybody that we charge is guilty. that makes it easy for some folks in law enforcement to assume that everybody's lying and that no suspect, regardless of their race, could be innocent. easy, but wrong. likewise, police officers on patrol in our nation's cities often work in environments where
a hugely disproportionate percentage of street crime is committed by young men of color. something happens to people of good will working in that environment. after years of police work officers often can't help but be influenced by the cynicism they feel. a mental shortcut becomes almost inresistible and even rational by some lights. the two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others that officer has locked up. two white men on the other side of the street, even in the same clothes, do not. the officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black. and that drives different behavior. the officers turns towards one side of the street and not the other. we need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between the police and the communities they serve. so why has that officer, like
his colleagues, locked up so many young men of color? why does he have that life-shaping experience? is it because he is a racist? why are so many black men in jail? is it because cops, prosecutors, judges and juries are racist? because they are turning a blind eye to white robbers and drug dealers? the answer is a hard truth. i don't think so. if it were so, that would be easier to address. we would just need to change the way we hire, train, and measure law enforcement and that would substantially fix it. we would then go get the white criminals we have been ignoring. but the truth is much harder than that. the truth is that what really needs fixing is something only a few, like president obama, are willing to speak about, perhaps because it is so daunting a task. through the "my brother's keeper" initiative, the president is addressing the disproportionate challenges faced by young men of color. for instance, data shows that
the percentage of young men not working or not enrolled in school is nearly twice as high for blacks as it is for whites. this initiative and others like it is about doing the hard work to grow drug resistant and violence resistant kids, especially in communities of color so they never become part of that officer's life experience. so many young men of color become part of that officer's life experience because so many minority families and communities are struggling. so many boys and young men grow up in environments lacking role models, adequate education and decent employment. they lack all sorts of opportunities that most of us take for granted. a tragedy of american life, one that most citizens are able to drive around because it doesn't touch them. young people in those neighborhoods too often inherit a legacy of crime and prison and with that inheritance they become part of a police
officer's life and shape the way that officer, whether white or black, sees the world. changing that legacy is a challenge so enormous and so complicated that it is unfortunately, easier to talk only about the cops. and that's not fair. let me be transparent about my affection for cops. when you dial 911, whether you are white or black, the cops come. and they come quickly. and they come quickly whether they are white or black. that's what cops do. in addition to all of the other dangerous and difficult and hard and frightening things that they do. they respond to homes in the middle of the night where a drunken father wielding a gun is threatening his wife and children. they pound up the back stairs of an apartment building not knowing whether the guys behind the door they're about to enter are armed or high or both. i come from a law enforcement family. my grandfather william j. comey was a police officer. pop comey is one of my heroes.
i have a picture of him on my wall in my office at the fbi reminding me of the legacy that i have inherited and that i must honor. he was a child of immigrants. when he was in the sixth grade his father was killed in an industrial accident in new york, so he had to drop out of school to support his mom and younger siblings. he could never afford to return to school. but when he was old enough he joined the yonkers, new york police department. over the next 40 years he rose to lead that department. pop was the tall, strong, silent type. quiet and dignified and passionate about the rule of law. back during prohibition he heard that bootleggers were running beer through fire hoses between the bronx and yonkers. now pop enjoyed a good beer every now and then, but he ordered his men to cut those hoses with fire axes and then he needed a protective detail. because certain people were angry and shocked that someone in law enforcement would do
that. but that's what we want as citizens, that is what we expect. and so i keep a picture of pop on my wall, in my office to remind me of his integrity and his pride in the integrity of his work. law enforcement ranks are filled with people like my grandfather. but to be clear, although i am from a law enforcement family, and i've spent much of my career in law enforcement, i am not looking to let law enforcement off the hook. those of us in law enforcement must redouble our efforts to resist bias and prejudice. we must better understand the people we serve and protect. by trying to know deep in our gut what it feels like to be a law abiding young black man walking down the street and encountering law enforcement. we must understand how that young man may see us. we must resist the lazy shortcuts of cynicism and approach him with respect and decency. we must work in the words of new
york city police commissioner bill bratton to really see each other. perhaps the reason we struggle as a nation is because we've come to see only what we represent at face value, instead of who we are. we simply must see the people we serve. but the seeing needs to flow in both directions. citizens also need to really see the men and women of law enforcement. they need to see what the police see through their windshields, and as they walk down the street. they need to see the risks and dangers of law enforcement encountered on every typical late night shift. they need to understand the difficult and frightening work that they do to keep us safe. and they need to give them the respect and the space they need to do their job well and properly. if they take the time to do that, what they will see are officers who are human, who are overwhelmingly doing the right thing for the right reasons and
who are too often operating in communities and facing challenges most of us choose to drive around. one of the hardest things i do as fbi director is call the chiefs and sheriffs of departments around the nation when officers have been killed in the line of duty. i call to express my sorrow and to offer the fbi's help. officers like wen jian liu, and rafael ramos. i make far too many calls and there are far too many names of fallen officers on the national law enforcement officer's memorial and far too many names etched there each year. officers liu and ramos swore the same oath all in law enforcement do and they answered the call to serve the people, all the people. like all good police officers, they moved toward danger without regard for the politics or
passions or race of those who needed their help knowing the risk inherent in their work. they were minority police officers killed while standing watch in a minority neighborhood. bedford stuyvesant in brooklyn. a neighborhood that they and their fellow officers rescued from the grip of violent crime. for a couple decades ago bedstuy was a shorthand for a place where people could only sit on the front steps and talk. good people had no freedom to shop or walk or play on the front steps. it was too dangerous. but no more. thanks to the work of those who chose lives of service and danger to help others. but despite that sacrifice, that selfless service, of these two officers and countless others like them around the country, in some american communities people view police not as allies but as antagonists. and think of them as someone not to be treated with gratitude and respect but someone worthy of
suspicion and distrust. we simply must find a way to see each other more clearly. and part of that has to involve collecting and sharing better information about violent encounters between police and citizens. not long after the riots broke out in ferguson, late last summer, i asked my staff to tell me how many people shot by police were african-american in this country. i wanted to see trends. i wanted to see information. they couldn't give it to me. and it wasn't their fault. demographic data regarding officer-involved shootings is not consistently reported to us through our uniform crime reporting program. because reporting is voluntary our data is incomplete and therefore in aggregate unreliable. i recently listened to a thoughtful big-city chief
express his frustration with that lack of reliable data. he said he didn't know whether the ferguson police shot one person a week, one a year or one a century. and then in the absence of good data, "all we get are ideological thunder bolts. what we need are ideological agnostics who use information to try to solve problems." he's right. e first step to understanding what is really going on in our communities and in our country is to gather more and better data related to throws we se we arrest, those we confront for break being the law -- breaking the law, and jeopardizing public safety, and those who confront us. data seems like a dry and boring word, but without it we cannot understand our world and make it better. how can we address concerns about use of force? how can we address concerns about officer-involved shootings if we do not have a reliable grasp on the demographic and the circumstances of those incidents? we simply must improve the way we collect and analyze data to see the true nature of what's happening in our communities. the fbi tracks and publishes the
number of justifiable homicides reported by police departments. but again, reporting by police departments is voluntary and not all departments participate. that means we cannot fully track the incidents in which force is used by police, or against police, including non-fatal encounters which are not reported at all. without complete and accurate data we are left with ideological thunder bolts and that helps spark unrest and distrust and does not help us get better. because we must get better, i intend for the fbi to be the leader in urging departments around this country to give us the facts we need for informed discussion, the facts all of us need and to help us make sound policy and sound decisions with that information. america isn't easy. america takes work. today february 12th is abraham
lincoln's birthday. he spoke at gettysburg about a new birth and freedom because we spent the first four score and seven years of our history with fellow americans held as healy -- as slaves president healy his siblings and his mother among them. as a nation we have spent the 150 years since lincoln spoke making great progress, but along the way treating a whole lot of people of color poorly. and law enforcement was often part of that poor treatment. that's our inheritance as law enforcement, and it is not all in the distant past. we must account for that inheritance, and we, especially those of us who enjoy the privilege that comes with being the majority, must confront the biases that are inescapable part of the human condition. we must speak the truth about our shortcomings as law enforcement as fight to get better. but as a country we must also speak the truth to ourselves. law enforcement is not the root
cause of the problems in our hardest-hit neighborhoods. police officers, people of enormous courage and integrity in the overwhelm inging -- overwhelming main are in there risking their lives to protect folks from offenders who are a product of problems that won't be solved by body cameras. we simply must speak to each other honestly about all these hard truths. in the words of dr. king, "we must learn to live together as brothers, or we will perish together as fools." we all have hard work to do. challenging work and it will take time. we all need to talk and we all need to listen. not just about easy things, but about hard things, too. relationships are hard. relationships require work. so let's begin that work. it is time to start seeing one another for who and what we really are. peace, security and
understanding are worth that effort. thank you for listening to me today. [applause] >> so i want to thank the director for these very important remarks and let you know that he has some time to answer some questions. we asked people to come up to the mike and form their question. please, when you do, let us know your name and your affiliation and we appreciate given the importance of the topic if people want to have questions to focus them on the issues that the director has raised here today. so with that, the microphone is open if anybody wants to come up, i'll let -- i see somebody coming up. don't be shy. >> hi. good morning.
my name is anabe. i'm a junior. government major, spanish minor. i was wondering, mr. comey, what has been your most disappointing moment as fbi director and how did you and the bureau bounce back from that. and on the flip side, what has been your proudest or happiest been your proudest or happiest moment as director and how has that impacted you and affected you going forward? >> thank you for the question. maybe i'll take it in reverse order. my proudest moment as fbi director, something i've said throughout the fbi, is actually related to the topic we're talking about here today. i sent dozens of agents wearing rain jackets to ferguson and they knocked on hundreds of doors and every door opened and everybody spoke to us, whether they were white or black, young or old, male or female. i think because they saw the fbi.
you've seen the jackets on tv, right? they saw the kind of orangey-yellow "fbi." i speak about this to graduations of agents. i said, that is a priceless gift, to be believed, to be seen as somebody who cares about the facts and getting it right. we have to protect that gift. that was my proudest moment in my 18 months so far. most difficult, there's been a lot of them that relate to other subjects. terrorism and the loss of innocent life. obviously i deeply am involved in our hostages overseas trying with lots of other folks to get them home. that's been heartbreaking to me. one of the reasons i'm giving this speech though, one of my other disappointments has been i felt like we have not -- i don't want to tell people what to say but i have felt like we haven't had a healthy dialogue and i don't want to see these important issues drift away. we have a tendency to move on to other things as busy people. but these issues, especially
about race and law enforcement have always been with us and we can't let it drift away and then talk about it another day. so one of my disappointments has been i've seen dialogue i didn't think was balanced, but i've also seen it start to drift away. and i've been determined not to let that happen and to try to encourage good people who all see the world differently than i do surely to talk about it. >> thank you. >> hi. good morning. my name is nicole mckim. i am a freshman in the school of foreign service. and i would like to know, sir, besides an improvement in the manner in which police incidents are reported, what other major infrastructural changes would you like to see within the justice system of america? >> that's a big one. there is a lot of things that are being talked about. i mentioned body cameras.
that's an important discussion. i actually think the most important thing is -- i guess there is a risk in saying this it will sound vague but i think it is critical. i think it is hard to hate up close. and that the police in our country need to get out of their cars, both literally and figuratively and get to know the people they serve and the people in the communities need to know them. one of the things we've experienced with economic challenges we've had over the last seven or eight years is police departments have lost funding for all kinds of things that used to allow that to happen. police athletic leagues. right? we run in the fbi citizens academies where we invite citizens to come in and learn about us. most police departments used to have those kinds of things. they started to be eliminated and drift away because of lack of funding. that seems like -- as i said kind of a vague thing but that is actually critical to people's trust in the entire justice system. and if we neglect it, we can have all the rules and all of the technology in the world but
underneath it will be a lack of trust and a misunderstanding that will be corrosive, no matter how good our process and technology is. so i think that's the way i think about that. >> thank you, sir. >> hi. i'm claire. impea'm sophomore in the college. if i understand you, i think what you were -- what i understood is that you said that the disparate treatment of blacks and whites by law enforcement can often be traced to different situations facing black and white communities. so i was wondering how you would explain then the disparate proportion of drug arrests despite almost equal levels of drug use in those two communities. >> that's a hard question. the best answer i can offer is i don't know enough about the data on drug use arrests, but i flow a lot about the drug dealing arrests. and so i think in the communities where police are patrolling, especially where we're focusing on the hardest-hit communities where the dealers overwhelmingly turn out to be people of color. not just black folks but
hispanic folks as well. end up being locked up a lot for drug dealing. lot of overwhelming users of drugs are caucasian. something we don't talk about enough. i think you've alluded to it. i've often thought just focusing on the dealing is like dealing with a hole in your boat just by bailing all the time. you got to deal with the demand side of it which is overwhelmingly driven by employed people who are from the suburbs and caucasian. another hard truth people don't talk about a lot. >> hi. my name is jack lynch. i'm a freshman in the college here at georgetown. my question is, you mentioned earlier that officer ray moss and officer liu, the assassinates officers in the nypd were both minorities working in a predominantly minority neighborhood. do you think it is part of american law enforcement to try to ensure that the racial diversity of their police forces working in certain neighborhoods are approximately equal to the proportions of racial groups in the neighborhoods they're working in?
>> yes. in fact, i don't think it is just a goal. it's actually -- i don't know whether there is a word more important than goal. it is imperative for all of us in law enforcement to try and reflect the communities we serve. big challenge for the fbi. right? the fbi is overwhelmingly white and male among my agent force. i've got nothing against white males. i happen to be one. but i -- the first e-mail i sent to my entire work force was about this topic. i said it is a matter of morality doing what's right and effectiveness. so if you're not sold on the morality of it, the effectiveness is critical. right? we can't understand the communities we serve. we can't understand the perspectives of the people we serve if we're all 6'8" tall white guys who are slightly awkward and grew up in the new york area. we just can't. ok? so it is an imperative and we have a crisis in a lot of parts
of law enforcement. nypd has done a spectacular job. other departments less so. my own organization struggles with that. so the answer is yes. sorry for the long answer. >> thank you. >> i'm nicholas. i'm in the school of continuing studies and my question is, the problem with a lot of ferguson and some of the other incidents that have happened also stems -- it can also be as much to blame on the culture and the communities that we're in. as it is, the law enforcement environment it seems the blame is equally because they both have their preconceived attitude so to change one community's attitude towards law enforcement and law enforcement's attitude towards a community, it would seem that the logical step would be to incorporate the two. so what is the fbi doing to hire or incorporate young black men and women or young men and women
of different backgrounds into the agency, into the department of justice as a whole, because i think if we lack young black men,men men, seize a number of black fbi agents and officials that are going to be more receptive and more trusting than -- not to say affirmative action is needed, but how are you addressing being able to hire people of more diverse background? because right now the standards are nearly unobtainable for someone who grew up with nothing. >> great question. i don't think the standards are unobtainable. i think there are lots of great agents of color, women who could come work at the fbi would love work rg ating at the fbi. i just got to get them
interested in it. i could talk all day about this but i'll try to be very short. one of my challenges is -- the average age of entry for an fbi agent is 29 because we're going to give these folks great power. we want adults who have developed judgment through experience and so i don't know what your plans are after graduation but my challenge is if you're as good as you probably are, because you go to school here, coca-cola is going to be after you, microsoft is going to be after you, apple is going to be after you, exxon-mobil is going to be after you and they're going to throw all kinds of dough at you. then when you're 29 you'll be thinking, not so much. go work for the government. so i'm trying to figure out how do i get people in earlier. so i put tremendous amount of effort in my 18 months into hiring right out of college, because if i can get you right out of georgetown? you will find out how amazing it is to do good for a living in a different role, in a support role, in an intelligence analyst role. then when you're in your late
20s you'll be so in love with this work that you will stay with us and become a special agent. that appeals to me as a strategy to deal with this. but a big part of it is getting people to know us. so we are now devoting tremendous resources to going out to campuses, historically black colleges and all kinds of colleges, get to know us. what kind of people we are, what we care about. because as i said, it is hard to hate up close. it is hard to misunderstand up close. if you see our work, the things we care about, the kind of people we are, and i can get my hooks in you before the private sector puts the golden handcuffs on people, i think i can change my numbers. because i agree with the premise in your question -- i have to change the numbers. thank you. >> thank you. >> so we'll see you -- i don't know when you're going to graduate. we'll see you in a little while. >> hi, mr. director. my name is jason smith. i'm a first year masters candidate in the security space program here. you mentioned before that these discussions, they all wane off after a while, whether it is a couple weeks or months. in your interaction with local police departments or any other level of policinge inging or law
enforcement, how do you think that kind of these issues can be more formally institutionalized into the actual departments and how can we make these so at the local law enforcement level so they don't just become passing issues? >> great question. the answer is we have to make sure that we. law enforcement take this conversation and push it out to our police leadersing with, all law enforcement leaders, and encourage and push and prod and beg them to continue the conversation in their communities. all politics is local. all relationships are local. one of the challenges we face in this country, we have almost 18,000 police organizations. we got the big cities, but we got lots of little jurisdictions. ferguson is a little teeny jurisdiction. it is not just about reaching the big city chiefs who are a very thoughtful bunch in my
experience. it is about pushing the conversation beyond that to the hundreds of others that are smaller. one of the things i did is i talked to all of my fbis in nearly every community in this country. i have almost 500 offerses. i've asked all of my field commanders, take my speech. we have citizens academies, we have lots of relationships with local authorities, engage them. i'm not telling them they should think about it the way i do be with but take this into the community and see if we in the fbi can help foster this conversation. the good news is the chiefs, i've already talked to a lot of the big city chiefs. they are grateful for the conversation. they don't want to see it drift off because they know we'll have to talk about it at some point. it is not going to go away by virtue of us just moving on to something else. that's what we're trying to do. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is kevin mr moreore rel. i'm a stun yore at the school for foreign service studying history. my question relates to historynd a the question of law enforcement. llg martin luther king said that an unjust law is a human law that is not tethered to an eternal or natural law. and it seems to me that in our discussion of law enforcement and justice, the conversation is mainly focused on the question of the rule of law.
but, what discussions of the rule of law and enforcing rule of law can sometimes miss is at times the laws that law enforcement are commanded to enforce are in fact unjust. we've seen that in our own nation's history. so my question is what is the role of the fbi and of law enforcement in. general when they're commanded or ordered to enforce laws that are in fact unjust? >> that's a very thoughtful question. if we believe them to be unjust, i believe our obligation is to raise our hand and to speak out. to raise it within -- i sit within the justice department. to raise it to the attorney general. to raise it with those who make the laws that we enforce. i don't think our job -- and one of the things i am very proud of
the fbi about, the fbi today is full of people who care about doing the right thing, not just doing the thing. if that makes any sense. and so i think our obligation is to try and understand -- this is why it is critical to understand that people we serve and protect and are locking up, are we doing something that seems off track to us and inconsistent with our notions of what the right thing is? if we see those things, we got to raise our lands and we got to shout about it. >> good morning, mr. comey. my name is erica. i am a freshman here in the college. you mentioned the lives of the two fallen officers in new york and i was wondering what you think we can do to restore the relationship between our criminal justice system and the citizens they serve, not only to restore the faith in the system, but also to preserve the safety of those officers. >> well, i think a critical part of it is what i emphasized phrasing i took from bril bratill bratton, this notion
that we need to see each other. i think we, in law enforcement have to drive an effort to have people understand us and the kind of people we are. weaver's flawed because we're human beings. but who we are in the main people need to see that. and as i said, that is a block by block, precinct by precinct local effort inviting people in. i mentioned getting out of your cars, both literally and figuratively. invite people in, have them see us and understand us, especially in hardest hit neighborhoods. those police officers were there in bedford to protect a great historical community. and it was -- i think it is critical that we continue to just see each other up close. there's lots of other smaller things but frankly, the most important thing to me is, do we know the people we serve and do they know us. empathy is often very short supply in human experience. that's where i mentioned the empathy to understand what that young black man walking home from the library might be thinking when we encounter him? that's critical for us. and it is really important for him to be thinking about how we
see the world and why we're in that neighborhood patrolling. i think that -- i worry that sounds vague and mushy but that actually is i think the answer. more so than fixes to policy or technology. >> thank you. >> good morning, mr. director. my name is tomas. i am a spanish student. i am a freshman. i wanted to ask a two-part question. the first is about the trend in the military implementation of police coming from europe seeing police with handguns or machine guns is something that seems strange. and the second is whether you think prisons or jails are accomplishing the role of not only putting away criminals but also of helping them throughout their time in prison to then come out and be able to live in society? >> the second one is easy to answer. no. better. lots of good people. it's one of the things that i think unites sort of -- don't know whether spectrum makes sense, right and lefrtt in america and understanding we have to do a better job at equipping people. every arrest, every conviction
is a failure of us as a community, of a family, of an individual, helping that person come back out and be productive. we've long not done a good enough job we've long not done a good job at that. that's easy to answer. the military one is harder. here is how i think about it. it is not about the stuff. the stuff is neutral. a shield, body armor. automatic weapon. we in law enforcement need that stuff. in this country, unfortunately we often face adversary barricades in a location who are firing high powered weapons trying to e kill lots of innocent people. so i expect in every garage of every fbi officer in the country there will be an armored vehicle and automatic weapons and the ballistic plating. i need the stuff. the issue is how do we use that stuff? and how do we train people to
use that stuff. do we use that stuff to confront people who are protesting when they are concerned about something in the community? >> do we use a sniper rifle to see closer to a crowd? that is where it breaks down. so i see this in chiefs and sheriffs all over the country. i've been all over a the country and visited all 56 field oufszs. said to every chief it is about the training and the discipline and judgment how we use it. it is not the stuff. that is how i think about it. >> good morning. i'm jamie scott, a staff member here and a recent graduate. i appreciate your discussion of the need for good data and i'm curious to hear your thoughts why you think local police departments don't report data
fit's voluntary and what specifically the fbi can do to compel or mandate or otherwise encourage departments to provide data? >> i don't know fully the reasons why. i suspect among them is, especially for smaller department, it seems like a lot of work. filling out a federal form may be a big deal to folks. we have developed a system called nibrs, national incident based reporting study guide which is -- data. so i'm limited in my way to compel anybody. but i think i have a bully pulpit in a way to be able to encourage departments to use the nibrs system to collect the data. i can go and google right now and figure how many people does the cdc count went to emergency
rooms of flu systems last week. you can tell me the absolute number who bought a particular book on amazon. it is ridiculous that i can't tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country, last week, last year, the last decade. it is ridiculous. so i intend to take that notion that it's ridiculous to the men and women in uniform and say it's ridiculous. do you agree? if you agree we got to fill out and form and collect it. . and i suppose the next step is legislature getting involved to compel it. i don't have that authority. i have the persuasion of argument and reason. >> thank you. >> good morning. karina robinson, graduate of 2004. and having served in the army in combat along the jttfs and certainly learning through my denominator program in homeland security, i'm so glad you brought it full circle to probably what we really need the discussion to be about community or oriented policing. where you get out there and know the community and spend several years building that are rapport and trust. remember hearing chief la near talk about how anonymous tips. as soon as they came in she
dispatched a team and there was immediate respect from the community that they are there to help us. so perhaps the challenge for state and local sheriffs and police departments is not to buy all that high-tech militarized commitment, new patrol cars. it is to really get the training to build their confidence to get out in the communities, not to be afraid, establish that security and stability. but i feel that the lynch pin is really getting the stats and the algorithms and all the data up to members of congress so they truly believe that the funding is necessary so get that job done and it is not going to be easy. so the fbi, department of justice, major organizations seem to have a lot more, i guess, clout in getting that money a lot faster than the local or state level folks. so what would you hope from a community member that we call
our mayors, we call our state legislators and members of congress and say don't forget community oriented policing. >> in many places they are starving the police department making it really, really hard for them to follow my advice to get out of their cars and get to know people. take the city of detroit. i met with a detective there and he was explaining to me not long ago there were 5 nousthouls police officers in detroit. today there are 2,000. how do you patrol a city of that size with less than half of the officers you have long had. how do you walk out your car and see people? you are covering an area that is enormous. and cities across the country have cut costs.
for things that seem small but vital. citizen's academies and other things that are maybe less high profile. but those are investments in the future. what we're doing now in cities around the country is -- like home owner thinking. well, i'll save money. i just won't invest in repairing the roof. you are going to be sorry. we all feel some of that right now. you must invest in that kind of maintenance with the community and support community policing which requires resources. >> we have time for one last question. >> i'm grace bren. a sophomore in the college. i have a question how to prompt a national dialogue with different perspectives. a lot of people now see the value in seeing different perspectives from both law enforcement and race. however a lot of this dialogue is prompted through polarized media outlets from both left and right. how do you see sort of the tone changing national, peopling seeing both sides?
and what leaders can do to sort of change this perspective. >> that is a big, hard question. i'm probably not qualified to answer it well but i'll take a shot anyway i'm here with a microphone. not to wax all idealistic on you. but i think we own the media outlets. they reflect us. they are not creating us. we're creating them. so i think it starts with all of us saying, you know, what i'm going to do? i'm going to try to imagine how others might see the world. the central challenge of human existence, right? i can only experience the world through me but i must work to see it through you. and if think we all start to feel that way in a way we own the media outlets, the media is factionalized because of the us. we are responsible if for that. the way we change that is interact with each other. >> i want to thank the director for coming here and hosting us
on this topic. i think it is clearly something that we think reflects our very values as a country and shapes our future. and something that we need to come to grips with both in law enforc enter there is a lunch sponsored by our center for social justice. continue this conversation on george toup's campus. we really appreciate you coming and talk to us at georgetown today. >> thanks for having me. [applause]
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> coming up on c-span, the senate armed services committee hears from the commander of afghanistan operations. then a hearing examining human rights in syria. on the next washington journal mike conaway of texas, a member of the armed services committee, discusses the president's proposal for new authorization to use military force against isis. then more about the president's request with congressman ted lieu of california, the democratic freshmen. live every morning at seven eastern. you can join the conversation with phone calls and comments on
facebook and twitter. the house armed services committee holds a hearing friday on the threat of isis. the former director of the defense intelligence agency michael flynn will testify. live coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. on c-span2. >> here are some of our featured programs. saturday morning, live coverage of the book festival with nonfiction authors and books on the disappearance of michael rockefeller. in the former senior adviser for president obama on 40 years in politics. saturday morning, the 100th anniversary of the release of
the film the birth of a nation. the showing of the entire film followed by a live call-in program. sunday at eight on the presidency, george washington portraits, focusing on how artists captured the spirit of the first president and what we can learn about him through the paintings. let us know about what you think about the programs. you can e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.
>> this hearing is two hours and 10 minutes. >> good morning. the committee meets today to receive testimony on afghanistan and i want to thank general campbell, the commander of the resolute support mission and u.s. forces afghanistan, for appearing before us today, about security conditions on the national security forces and the way forward. general, we've been blessed by a series of great military leaders of our forces and allied forces in afghanistan. and you are a worthy successor to those outstanding leaders, in my view. according to a recent media report, the troop drawdown in afghanistan is now, quote, under white house review. but as the white house deliberates, the current plan is set to reduce the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan to
about 5,500, beginning in the middle of this year's fighting season. the plan was first announced by president obama in may of 2014, before it was known that the afghan presidential transition would require almost six months to conclude, before the appearance of isis on the afghan battlefield and before pakistan military operations sent 200,000 refugees from -- into afghanistan. these unforeseen circumstances illustrate the major liabilities of a calendar-based approach and highlight had the need for a conditions-based approach. like our national military strategy written in 2012, president obama's calendar-based troop drawdown plan for afghanistan no longer accurately reflects the facts and conditions on the ground. like the president's policy against isil, the president's
afghanistan policy lacks of strategic disconnect, providing a list of goals or preferences, but precluding the means necessary to achieve them. perhaps it is time for the president to exercise strategic patience, as our witnesses yesterday unanimously agreed. former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, james cunningham, having just served in kabul and left in december, said, quote, i think that under the circumstances, the timeline is probably too short and the rate of withdrawal is too steep. former ambassador to both iraq and afghanistan, ryan crocker, said, i hope we will take the right decisions on force levels going forward based on conditions, not on calendars. former commander of special operations command and the first navy s.e.a.l. to achieve the rank of four stars said, actual war is too dynamic to
accommodate fixed models. so i would urge strategic and operational flexibility as we move forward in afghanistan. at a force size of 4,500, our force in afghanistan will be reduced to kabul. presently in only one location, one that retreats from the north, east and south of afghanistan, we'll relinquish the area to the drug runners, yield to iranian influence and abandon kandahar to the taliban. the lack of presence creates a vacuum and week of seen what fills that vacuum in syria and iraq. the ungoverned spaces will allow terrorists to foe meant the same disaster in afghanistan as we have seen in iraq, growing instability terrorist safe havegness and direct threats to the united states -- havens and direct threats to the united states. i think our former national counterterrorism director put it into perspective, how we should look at afghanistan.
i quote, should the american people think this is hopeless? the last 13 years have shown us that the counterterrorism fight and protecting the homeland in this region is not hopeless. we've been very, successful at stopping attacks from the region. and i would flip it around. from a homeland security perspective, i think it is close to hopeless to think we can have that same success without some ongoing presence in the region. reducing to a quote, norm allem about asy presence, at the end -- normal embassy presence at the end of 2016 and announcing it to the enemy, gives terrorists breathing room to plot against the west. as ambassador crocker put it, quote, by fixing a date to draw down to a certain number, and then to draw down to basically an office and an embassy simply tells our adversaries how long they have to hold out before they have the field to themselves. by the way i know of no man
more respected than ambassador ryan crocker. if we've learned anything from iraq, it should be that wars do not end just because politicians say so. we cannot let the taliban al qaeda and isis conquer afghanistan. failure in this manner would destabilize the region especially by undermining the security of a nuclear-armed pakistan. i want to thank general campbell for testifying today. i thank him for his leadership. i look forward to hearing his assessment of conditions on the ground, development of afghan forces and the plan for the way forward. senator reid. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming general campbell. thank you, general, for your service to the nation. beginning in the 504 and continuing today. since you took command of the u.s. forces in afghanistan last august, afghanistan has entered what ambassador cunningham yesterday called a pivotal period.
the emergence of a national unity government under the leaders has had an immediate impact on security in afghanistan, with the signing of the bilateral security agreement and the nato status of forces agreement. 2/3 of thing afghans polled want u.s. and coalition troops to stay to train the afghan security forces. your challenge is to successfully lead the u.s. and coalition effort to train, advise and assist afghan security forces and conduct counterterrorism operations. even as u.s. and coalition forces have gone down to postcombat levels in afghanistan. we would be interested in your assessment whether you currently have the forces you feel you need to carry out these two missions. we're also seeking your best military judgment this morning on what further reductions, if any, you would recommend for u.s. forces in afghanistan and under what condition. at yesterday's hearing, referring again to ambassador crocker, he warned that the consequences of disengagement
can be as great or greater than the consequences of engagement. or intervention in the first place. i share the concern of many on this committee that any future reductions in u.s. force levels in afghanistan should be based on the security conditions at the time of the proposed reductions, taking into account the capabilities of the afghan security forces and the status of the counterterrorism fight. we would also be interested in your views on the full range of challenges you face, including the progress that the afghan security forces in building key enablers such as logistics, special praise operations forces intelligence and airlift, the afghan-pakistan security relationship, including border coordination and counterterrorism effort, and the reports of a growing isis presence in afghanistan. again, thank you, sir, for your service to the nation. >> general campbell. >> chairman mccain, ranking member reed and distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today. i'm honored to lead and represent the service men and women of the united states forces afghanistan. i'd like to begin by thanking the committee for your steadfast support of our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, and our civilians. due to your leadership and your commitment, they're the best trained and best equipped force our nation has ever deployed. their outstanding performance bears testimony to your backing and the backing of the american people. i'd like to pay tribute to our military families, they're the unsung heroes of the last 13-plus years of conflict. in many ways, our frequent absences from home are harder on them than on us. without their love, strength and support, we couldn't succeed. i'd also like to recognize the over 2,200 service men and women who have been killed in action in afghanistan and the over 20,000-plus who have been wounded. each day we strive to bring meaning to their sacrifices.
we honor their memories and their loved ones by continuing to build a secure and stable afghanistan. and by protecting our own homeland. over 13 years have passed since the attacks and we haven't forget -- since the 9/11 attacks and we haven't forgotten why we came to afghanistan and why we remain. since 2001 the extraordinary efforts and courage of our forces have ensured that another terrorist attack originating from afghanistan and directed against the u.s. homeland has not occurred. it's been seven months since i appeared before this committee and much has changed since then. afghanistan, the region, the enemy, and our coalition have undergone tremendous transitions. and most of these have been extraordinarily positive for us . i'd like to emphasize a few of these today in order to place our current campaign in context. and to reaffirm that the conditions exist for us to achieve our strategic objectives. in september afghanistan completed the first peaceful democratic transition in history. although prolonged this transition was still a monumental achievement.
it represented the afghans' commitment to a democratic, open society. the difference between a new national unity government and its predecessor is night and day. the president and -- have embraced the international community. our coalition and the afghan security forces. our partnership is strong. we now have a ratified bilateral security agreement and a nato status of forces agreement. which grant us the necessary authorities to continue our mission. dynamics within the region continue to evolve as well. the president has made regional engagement a top priority in order to address the shared security and economic interests for afghanistan. nowhere is this more evident than in the pakistan-afghan relationship. the pakistan taliban's murderous attack on 16 december may prove to be their 9/11 and a game changer for our future.
senior pakistani officials recognize they can no longer make the distinction between good and bad terrorists. in the wake of this tragedy, the blame game between both countries has stopped. i've witnessed firsthand substantive changes in the interactions between the afghan and pakistan military leadership in just the last couple of months. they're now talking. positive exchanges between core commanders recently occurred in kandahar, in jalalabad. last week six afghan army cadets are now attending the pakistan military academy and this wasn't happening before. we're doing everything we can to promote their closer cooperation. particularly to address extremist sanctuaries on both sides of the border. we must temper our expectations, i remain optimistic that both countries are working towards a more productive relationship. the enemy remains in a state of flux too. the taliban failed to achieve any of their stated objectives in 2014. constantly pressured by the
n.s.f., suffering from dissention within their own ranks, and lacking popular support, they turned to high profile terrorist attacks particularly against soft targets inside of kabul. the desperate attempt to remain vell rant rsh relevant are failing to win over the afghan population. they're killing innocent civilians and fellow afghans. it's time for them to lay down their arms and rebuild the afghan nation. the possible rise of isil is also a new development. thus far we believe that the nation's presence in afghanistan represents more of a rebranding of a few marginalized taliban, but we're still taking this potential threat with its dangerous rhetoric and ideology very, very seriously. we're working closely with the n.s.f. to evaluate and understand the dynamic nature of this fledgling network. the potential emergence of isil represents an additional opportunity to bring the afghans and the pakistanis
together to confront this common threat. and we will continue to engage with leaders from both countries on ways we can collaborate to meet this challenge. we're all driven to prevent them from establishing a meaningful foot hold in central asia. u.s. forces afghanistan and our coalition have undergone tremendous changes as well since i assumed command. on 1 january, u.s. forces afghanistan formally ended its command mission and we commence with our new mission, operation freedom sentinel. we've also ended all detainee operations. simultaneously troops from over 40 nations, which comprised the new nato mission, resolute support began executing their trained advise and assist mission in order to build the capabilities and long-term sustainability of the ansf. they also assumed full security responsibilities, they're ready and it's time. the ansf were challenged and
test tested but they held their own against a determined enemy. on a battlefield the n.s.f. fought and demonstrated their increasing capabilities. today the government of islamic republic of afghanistan remains firmly in control of 34 capitals and all of its major cities. the n.s.f. successfully promoted or protected eight million afghans who courageously defied insurgent intimidation and voted in two rounds of elections. the n.s.f.'s professionalism and their nonpartisanship enabled them to remain cohesive in the face of an extended political impasse after the elections. all portions of the afghan security forces continue to respect and obey afghan authority. the n.s.f. special forces in particular have proven to be the most proficient in the entire region. they're consistently executing unilateral direct action missions against insurgent leaders and facilitators.
they're leveraging their own intelligence, using their own special wing helicopters to carry out long range things in low illule nation. this is a remarkable capability for any military. afghan continues to be a dangerous place. casualty rates for all the a.s.f. increased in 2014. roughly 5% to 7% higher. however this must be viewed in light of the fact that their operational tempo was four times greater in 2014 than it was in 2013. and that over 100,000 coalition forces norp longer on the battlefield -- were no longer on the battlefield. even considering these higher casualties the a.s.f. attrition rates, which account for all loss to the force have not impacted combat readiness too severely. the army and the police recruiting has not been a problem. afghan youths continue to join the ranks and the a.s.f. security forces are widely
respected and viewed as an honorable, patriotic profession. the afghan national army remains the most trusted institution in the country. and the afghan shield and sword of an exceptionally proud people and a fledgling nation. after watching the s.a.f. respond to a variety of challenges, i don't believe the insurgents represent an exiss tension threat to the government of afghan. however, the a.s.f. still need a great deal of help in developing the systems and processes necessary to run a modern, professional army and police force. they also need sustained support in addressing their capability ga gaps in aviation, intelligence and special operations. to address these gaps, our trained advise and assist mission and mentorship will be vital. our advisors at the security ministries, army corps and police zones are now our main earth. although clearly challenges exist -- effort. although clear challenges exist, i believe that the n.s.f. capabilities or capacity
and the morale will be sufficient. backstop by our advisory efforts and enable our support. this will allow afghanistan long-term security at the end of the resolute support mission. the afghan president recently remarksed, and i quote compelled by tragedy and cremeanted by mutual sacrifice, the partnership between afghanistan, nato and the u.s. has entered a new phase end quote. i believe we're at a critical inflexion point in our campaign. many challenges remain before us, as the new afghan government forms. it's still finding its footing. and it must do so while contending with the security threat corruption and economic challenges. yet the myriad of challenges and transitions over the last seven months offer us a tremendous opening. the administration offers us an extraordinary opportunity to develop a meaningful strategic partnership that will stabilize afghanistan and in turn offer
greater security for the region and the u.s. homeland. there's a new spirit of cooperation in kabul. something we didn't have before. i firmly believe that our concurrent c.t. and t.a. efforts will reinforce and deepen our strategic partnership and shape conditions for a favorable outcome to this conflict. we could offer no greater tribute to the american people, our fallen and their loved ones, than by finishing this mission well. if i could, i think the members have charts at your tables there. i'd like to show you a couple statistics. i'm asked, what does progress mean? have we had success? has it been worth it? i just offer you these two slides. a layout in 2001 and 2014. in every measurable statistic, from roadways, cell phone uses, schools, teachers, females in schools, literacy rate, on and on and on, continues to go up. the one that's quite striking is the life expectancy on the
bottom right there. in 2001 it was 4 years. today it stands -- 43 years. today it stands at 64 years. that's 741 million life years of hope that the coalition, the american people, have provided to the afghan people. the bottom two charts show kabul then and now, 2001 and 2014. on the right is present-day kabul. the fifth fast of the growing city in the world. that's bro pro-gress. that's success. and that can only happen with a coalition of the security that is provided. finally, let me conclude by stating that u.s. forces afghanistan is currently involved with a winter review of the campaign. this review is looking at all of our lines of effort in afghanistan, not just the military. as i stated, the afghan president is a credible and effective partner. he's asked for nato and the united states to provide some flexibility in our planning to
account for the fact that his government remains in transition. i have provided options on adjusting our force sponsor through my chain of command. shoot is how long we stay engaged on a regional level in 2015. once again, i expressed my profound gratitude to all the committee members for your unfailing support of our mission and our troops in afghanistan. i'm humbled and i'm privileged to lead the men and women of their caliber and their courage. every day they make us all proud. liked for to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, general. in an address to the nation on 27 may 2014, president obama said about afghanistan quote, we will bring america's longest war to a responsible end and then announce calendar dates for our withdrawal. the beginning of 2015, we'll have approximately 9,800. by the end of 2015 we'll have redulesed that presence by roughly half and we will have consolidated our troops in
kabul and on bagram. we will have consolidated our troops in kabul and in bagram. one year later, by the end of 2016, our military will draw down to a norm allem about asy presence in kabul -- normal embassy presence in kabul with a security assistance component, and i'm not making this part of his statement up, just as we've done in iraq. general, we're worried about it being just as we've done in iraq. so, i guess the fundamental question i have for you, in light of the fact that there was a six-month transition the government of afghanistan, isis is now locating there, other things have happened since the president made this statement. do you believe that our troop presence in afghanistan should be adjusted, the schedule should be adjusted, in light of ensuing events since the president made his statement on 27 may 2014? >> sir, thank you for the
question. as i mentioned in the oral statement, i have provided options to my chain of command to take a look at, as we do this update, for additional options. >> you provided those options. do you favor those options? >> absolutely. >> thank you. are you worried about a lack of u.s. military presence in kandahar the spiritual home of the taliban, including i.s.r., air power capability and advisors there? >> sir, currently with the forces that we have in kandahar, i'm comfortable where we are through 2015. they provide us the opportunity to continue to do our mission of train advise and assist. down in kandahar, that's what the 205th corps the police with the special operating forces and the air force, and we have the requisite i.s.r. to be able to continue that
mission through 2015. >> those options that you've provided to the president does that mean that the options that you support would not draw down to a norm allem about asy presence -- normal embassy presence in kabul? >> the option i presented to >> there are several options laid out to make sure we can continue with our mission. this is a very first season completely on their own. they had done quite well but this is the first one at the current force levels we are at. as you mentioned, the current land brings us down to kabul by the end of 2015. as we look at that again, we're asking -- the president has asked for some flexibility and in my options, i believe i have provided options for the
afghanistan president and for my senior leadership that would allow us the flexibility to continue to get after the mission. >> a group of us met with the afghan president and he was very strong and adamant that this current lan will -- plan will put the nation in danger and i hope that our leadership will pay attention to him when he comes or a visit here i believe in march. senator reid. >> thank you, general. you have two distinct missions. one is train advise, and support afghan national security forces and the other is to counterterrorist missions. those two missions might have -- require different footprints and terms of where you are located in the country. is that being considered by you and your recommendations to the president? that sort of dichotomy between
two missions? and does that shape your recommendation in terms of what locations and must hold simply for counterterrorism, others you might hold for training? that is accurate? >> they are complementary missions. they can't lament each other and lead toward protection. got to take a holistic look at both of those as we provide options to be senior leadership. we have not shown great flexibility in the past. and the october time frame come it can board for some flexibility and the president granted some great flexibility that enabled us to continue with the mission. >> there is another aspect of the counterterrorism was alluded to by our panel yesterday. that is regional threats, not just solely located within afghanistan itself.
is that something you are considering in terms of the recommendation to be president? >> both u.s. forces in afghanistan central command, my headquarters, the afghanistan president, take a look at this regional approach all the time. as a mentioned up front, what is different in the last six month as we reach out the afghan president has had, especially to intel. i have seen change in the attitude, military to military talking together. this had not happened since about 2011. that is quite good. i think of they continue to work that very hard and understanding of a common enemy duvets, they have to get rid of the sanctuary on both sides. that will lead to a positive outcome. we do look at it regionally. >> the afghan national police.
the responsibility to train and also to create a justice system overlaps not only with yourself but with many other u.s. agencies. you have talked in general terms about the afghan national army and special operations forces but what about the police? ultimately, it will be the police and the villages that make sure the country is stable. >> there are about 157,000 police. a little bit different trade and equipped than the army. however, they do some of the same missions the army has to go through. when they worked together, the army has this cross pillar coronation. changes in leadership, having confidence, holding people accountable, working together, the taliban cannot defeat them.
they do not have the humvees the intel fusion. none of that. the police continue to work that very hard and they are working through a holistic review of an optimization police on the army and police presence. he leadership has looked to changes of police and how they are organized and how they work more towards their community. i know that is where they want to get to. we do advise at both levels and we continue to work that very hard. >> there are requirements that the government of afghanistan has asked us to fulfill. are there any outstanding requests we have to government of afghanistan that they must the bill -- must fulfill that will ensure our mission is success? >> in terms of troops, equipment? >> troops, equipment, reform of their systems.
it is a partnership and we are focusing on what they are asking of us. i know come under the previous presidency, there was a long list of things we asked and we are not particularly successful in getting at. you seem to apply quite accurately that the president ghani there is a new sense of cooperation. are there some significant issues out there they must deal with enemy west -- and we must be aware with? >> they continue to work very hard with the corruption peace. they continue to work at that. they have embraced the international community. every event i have seen the afghan president the first thing he does is think the american people and the international community for the sacrifices. they are working very hard and president gandhi --
ghani. we would be in a different place if he had been edited -- in a different position the last couple of years. he gets on that. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, general. thank you for the time you spend with us personally on these issues. senator reid brought up about the police versus the army. give us a general idea of the size of these. the army is much larger but tell me, is it 10 to one? >> the army is -- 157,000 for the police. there is an additional 30,000 that are the afghan local police. >> i took a very -- a very
personal interest in the training of the afghan and one reason is the oklahoma played a significant role not just in 2003 but also in 2006 and 2007. i watched what they were doing and i was there when they opened up the kabul military training center. i even commented it reminded me of something very state of the art. kabul is the fastest growing city. how is the training center? does it remain as effective or is it growing? >> it continues to be a bright spot come a training place that embraces the last several years of what we have put into it. each have their own regional training centers. his special operating forces have the equivalent --they are
very good. i told the core commander i wanted to look at his training. he took me out there, walked through the medical training, their marksmanship training, through their protocol. all of those unannounced. it was pretty remarkable. i came away refreshed. all of that training is afghan led. i go confident they continue to do that. >> i was really impressed in those early years because you are -- we were participating and not in a personal way. then the expressions on the basis of the afghans. i thought they wanted to drink they were proud of their competence, particularly at the training center. i never dreamed at that time we would be back here 12 years later talking about it. this has been asked before but for a different reason.
let me reflect. we have the administration talking about 5500 and then ghani wanting us to re-examine that and just yesterday or the day before, we agreed. what concerns me if we are at 10,000 now and we had general mattis told this committee that we should be looking at approximately a recommendation at 20,000 and you are readjusting from 10,000, is that implying that somehow we are going to make an adjustment from the 5000 500 that is not going to be up anywhere close to what general mattis said we needed? >> none of the option recommended increase like that. most of the options i and discussing with my senior leadership includes allowing more flexibility. >> does it bother you that we
are talking publicly about what we are going to be doing, when we will withdraw, when we will downsize? obviously, they know everything we know. does that concern you? >> i think the general blood at best. he said -- put it best. he said he helped there would be more ambiguity. we are where we are. >> but do we have to continue being where we are? when it we go and start making our own plans exclusively looking after our own defense? the last thing i want to mention , when he talked about having to do something on the size of the force, right now, we have iraq, afghanistan, syria africa, jordan. just yesterday it we introduce legislation to try to get more of our help to our very great
ally, those in the ukraine. do you look at the overall picture and talk to the rest of them as to what our capacity is with all of these things going on and is that factored into any recommendation you will have in terms of changing our structure in afghanistan? >> when i look at the actions i present to my senior leadership, i'm cognizant of what is going on in the world. the requirements the joint staff has to deal with. i particularly focus on afghanistan, the impact it has. >> i know that you will make a recommendation that will factor into that. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much.
general, what should the role of afghanistan's neighbors particularly pakistan the and the right -- reconciliation process? do you have a role -- concern about the role they are playing? what you see our biggest challenges the? >> president donnie -- ghani said this several times. he wants to take charge of this. this is important for him. he knows it will take some time. he is reached out to pakistan, the chief of the army there and said, i need some help. i think that dialogue continues to go between them. i was in pakistan last week having these conversations. they continue to dialogue. neither one wants to let the other down. i think pakistan, for years, has been an issue. we always said you cannot talk
about afghanistan unless pakistan is enough equation. the general is living in a different direction we have seen in the past. -- moving in a different direction than we have seen in the past. i think there is very good dialogue to move forward. his leadership will make a difference as he works with some internal issues he has in pakistan. if you are in afghanistan from leaving everything that comes at a packet -- comes -- if you are in afghanistan, you think everything that comes at a pakistan is that. we have an opportunity, if we work hard, to make this reconciliation peace a potential reality. >> are there challenges with regard to the border? >> as far as cross-border? there always are. along tokunar, there is
nothing that says this is the border. people have families right across the border. there is more cooperation now between the afghan border police and the frontier corps on the pakistan side. about two weeks ago, the corps met. they talked about border issues. lastly, -- last week some of the border policeman went to pakistan for a week and four different -- toured different spots. we used to have u.s., afghan pakistan. i was up there probably four weeks ago with the chief of the army. they will be a coronation center
at a key point on the border. we'll put another one just south of kandahar. i think we are working very hard. >> i'm grateful for the work you have done to protect women's rights and educate girls. what are we doing now to ensure that progress on women's rights will be protected as we transition into a more advisory capacity and is the afghanistan government capable of sustaining the progress you have made? >> figure for the question. they work this very hard. i have a gender advisor that works with the senior people in the afghan government. we continue to see change in the number of women that join the police, joined the army. they get some very tough goals to try to get to overtime but they are working very hard for that. the police are doing better than the army but they understand how important it is. president ghani has made this one of his priorities. he spoke about this to the senior leadership and meetings i
have been in. he is also trying to incorporate more civilian and women into the ministries. moi is a little better than mod. they have about 10% over the next couple of years, it'll be tough based on the culture. all of them that i have talked to want to get after this. i believe they are genuine. >> what is the status of terrorist attacks specifically against schools with girls? >> i do not have those. >> is at rising, falling, the same? >> i would say it is probably the same. wherever there are soft targets the taliban insurgents can go after that and they will do that. it gives them more of a strategic impact because the media will pick up on that just like they did this tragic incident on the 16th of december. they had a military school and
killed all those children. the afghan people understand they want their kids to go to school, have this education, but i have not seen a spike in those numbers. >> thank you. >> senator. >> thank you. just on that question, to follow-up, if the taliban is victorious, it will be devastating for the rights of women in afghanistan. >> absolutely. >> general campbell, ambassador cunningham told us yesterday, as did all of the panelists, that the rate of withdrawal is too high. i tend to agree with that. i think it is very difficult for anybody to dispute if you analyze it. i believe our congress in a bipartisan way is open to having a more robust assistance to the
afghan forces. i feel it in talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i think the american people are willing to stay the course and help and not an out front way but a supportive way. more than a lot of people think of we articulate that come i think it is important for the president to articulate that. i think it is important for you to be clear to him and the defense department to be clear to alter the present course we are on. i am really pleased that you have gone even further than our panelist yesterday in saying this is not a hopeless case. a lot of progress has been made. we just do not want to let it slip away. i do not see this in any way that we are starting a new war.
we are partners with afghanistan for 13 plus years. we have stood shoulder to shoulder. we have lost over 2000 soldiers. it needs to end successfully. i just hope that somehow, we do not make the mistake that senator mccain has so wisely warned us of in afghanistan to rush out when just a little more presence and support would be there. i encourage you to speak out on that. i assume your advice calls for a stronger presence. i appreciate the optimism that you have. you said there is a new spirit there. it does appear that president ghani is much more in tune with the challenges. a lot of progress is made, but some i have to tell you we have heard that before.
we have been hearing this for a long time there is a new spirit there. i think there is truth to it, but isn't it true that in a combat situation that it just a few u.s. forces with communication ability can embolden and encourage them to remarkable degrees and help them to be successful in a way that if they are out under attack and they do not have that kind of support and confidence, they are not as effective finders? i have heard of low ranking and high-ranking officers say that is true. >> our men and women are incredibly gifted. they are bright, intelligent. one other forces are around them, they learned throughout moses. any -- through osmosis.
they continue to get better. >> and experienced offer -- officer in iraq last week said iraqis will fight and they fight so much better if just a few americans are embedded. it creates a confidence that goes when beyond the numbers. do you agree with that? >> i have spent 19 months in iraq, three different doors in afghanistan. the afghanistan fighters, there is no doubt with the proper leadership, they will continue to fight will stop the difference between afghanistan and iraq is the afghans having nationalistic pride about it. i am not sunni, i am an afghan. they had this ride and they are -- bride -- pride. they can carry the day with the right leadership. >> we are moving to know troops
outside the capital, it appears to a normal state department relationship with the afghan government soon. that is in two years. i just think that is taking a risk. i hope that you will make clear your views from a military point of view. the american people i think will support it. i think we can have bipartisan support for a more realistic approach to the drawdown in afghanistan. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you. thank you, general campbell. i appreciate the time we spent together yesterday going over a challenging problem and that is how we do the requisite oversight of what we are doing in afghanistan and how as we pull into the back and allow the afghan forces to take the lead,
how you protect data that could make them more vulnerable once they are in the lead and once we are in a supportive role. i understand the attention there. i just wanted to put on the record that i think you have worked very hard to reverse some of the confusion that existed around the special -- inspector general's support as to what should and should not be classified. you have taken steps to declassify a lot of that information. the commitment you made it to continue to work on what you bill strongly about in terms of unit data and some of the other data that could put people at risk if it continued to be unclassified. i want to thank you for your attention to that. i think you understand that the oversight is important and i think you also are very cognizant of the risks associated with some of that data of getting into the wrong hands. i appreciate your help on that.
i want to express my sympathy for the death of kayla mueller and the other contractors. this has been a theme of mine for years. that is how do we manage the contract in force in theater how do we oversee the contracting force in the editor, and how do we protect the contracting force in theater? i am worried about that. last year's national defense authorization, there was a prohibition against funding any project we cannot inspect because of security reasons. i want to get your take on where we are in terms of protection of the contracting force. we have contractors that will have to make some of these systems because afghanistan is not ready. they do not have the technical capability of maintaining some
of what we have equipped them with. contractors will be a reality in that for a long time. i think we need to discuss that protection not just that but also contact her protection. >> thank you very much for the question. i concur with you that the protection of our service men and women and the civilians in afghanistan is up most on my mind. we do what we can to give them the right resources give them the guardian angels to provide that protection and support. without going into our techniques and tactics of how we would do that, i would just tell you that this is up most on my mind. we continue to watch that closely. as we downsize, we cannot say we are taking the military out on the we have to add another contractor. we have to take a holistic look
at what the requirement is and there are some places that would say we will not put in military or contractors. we have to mitigate that a different way. we look at that very hard. it was an unfortunate incident two weeks ago with kaya where we did have three of our contractors killed. we continue to learn lessons from that. we want to continue to keep them going down. a lot of that is because of the procedures we put in place. we continue to look at that very hard. >> it he gets big briefly. president bush was the first one who spoke out about the propaganda tool. it continues to be a recruiting tool. can you speak to the issue of at gitmo and terms of the biggest threat we face and that is the recruitment worldwide of
terrorists to join the fight particularly the fight that isis is conducting in a barbaric fashion that has nothing to do with conventional warfare. >> thank you. i think there is a lot of things out there that would incite people to attack americans alread that are preconceived. i cannot tell you how much gitmo does or does not do that. my experience tells me there are people who want to do harm to people in afghanistan and united states. any number of things can make them do that but many of them are preconceived. what i have to do is continue to work hard on my force protection inside of afghanistan and worry about that. i do not go out and look at different pieces and how they recruit.
>> i want to thank you, general, for your tremendous service to the country and for your family and all of those that serve underneath you. i think we are very fortunate to have your leadership. i wanted to follow-up to understand just in terms of where we are in the current plan . in the consequences of it, just so we understand, if we keep the current timeline that was proposed by the administration and they do not adopt some of the options you have proposed to them what does that mean in terms of why the withdrawal would have to start in terms of the fighting season? logistically, what would that mean for you? >> we would never use the term of withdrawal. we are in a transition.
the current state as we have 9800 u.s. 12.9 with the total nato force. we are centered in kabul and baghram. we have several special operating caps on -- camps outside of kabul and other places in the country. we would have to go to a kabul center by the end of the year. >> would that require you to move out of places during the fighting season? >> part of that is physics. >> manning logistically. that would have to be done while you're in the middle of the fighting season? >> we would do scope and try to mitigate that as much as we could. just based on physics -- >> that is something we hope the
president will take into consideration because it is an important matter of physics. we would not normally take to have to do this in a fighting season. is that true? >> we like to have every opportunity to make sure we provide the right rating to the afghans. we are doing everything right now in the winter campaign to get them ready. we are advisory -- by saying -- advising. we do advise at the battalion level with a special operating forces. it would have an impact and we would continue to work through that. >> general last march, you testified before the readiness subcommittee and you had called -- a game changer.
it is ugly, it is loud, but when it comes in, it makes a difference so it would be a game changer. do you still believe that? >> i currently do not have any a tens in afghanistan? the comment i made in march i would still stand by. >> you would agree certainly that thea 10 is our best life form. >> the air force does an incredible job. they are not doing that with a 10's today. i appreciate them supplying me with the best they have.
the air force picks the platform to do that. >> let me ask you about no contracting with the enemy. that is legislation senator brown and i had pushed before the committee and now it has been expanded to authorities beyond the department of defense , state departments. how has that worked in afghanistan? we had money going to your enemy, going to people who were misusing our funds to work against our interest. how is that on the task force been working? >> probably about 780 plus different contractors since 2010 we have taken a look at, embedded those in