>> at this time, mr. coffman, we

have 46 contributing nations in afghanistan, including the united states. it's almost a 50/50 split. i think it is 22, 23, one, that a caveat free that can do anything. the national caveats while certainly restrict them are not preempted that it doesn't preclude them from what they can do. so i know the commanders on the ground take a very close look at how they a sign battle space and have it assigned missions to get the maximum use of each of the contributing nations when they get there. i'd have to take a look at the master plan to see in the aftermath of kandahar as we stay there, and days ahead, where the laydown of forces may be. i can get that to you if you need that. >> thank you, general paxton. i appreciate that. secretary flournoy, you were -- i was listing to your statement in defining the nation as it

exists now and this administration. and i think at one point in time you said it's about keeping al qaeda out of afghanistan. and then you qualified that further in terms of al qaeda and their associates. what is the in state? is the end state potentially, said she didn't mention the taliban, is a coalition government that would incorporate the taliban or elements of the taliban? >> i think that the key from our interest, perspectives is to deny any safe haven for al qaeda and its associates. i think that in any situation, a point in strategy, the military commission take you so far. and at some point there is a political set of outcomes that are reached. we saw this in iraq. i think we are -- the afghan --

were working with the afghan government to try to get a better understanding of the processes they will ultimately lead on both reintegration and reconciliation. i think it's very important to set a set of criteria for who will get re- integrated back into afghan society and how. and whether it is disavowing al qaeda, laying down their arms, those are the kinds of criteria that the afghan government will need to articulate as they get to the point of defining what an acceptable political end state looks like. and we will certainly be in deep conversation with him about that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman. secretary flournoy, i hate to beat a dead horse but several of my colleagues have repeatedly referenced a supposedly 30,000

person troop cap. can you give us a one word answer, as the administration imposed a troop cap in afghanistan? >> know we have not impose a troop cap. what president obama did in december was to approve 30,000 troops, additional troops for afghanistan, and a degree of flexibility for the secretary of defense to authorize further troops in support of force protection. >> and has general mcchrystal requested additional troops and? >> there have been a couple of cases such as -- >> in general he has not, sir, because we're in the process employed all three of those packages and the obligation would be that he would take a look at how they met the mission on the ground before he came back. we have made some adjustments to determine combat trainers and combatants on ground. >> do think that general

mcchrystal would continue to feel free to make, to request those kinds of adjustments if he feels necessary? >> absolutely. >> do you think the secretary of defense, the president, or anyone else ever ordered general mcchrystal not to make those kinds of requests? >> no, sir. >> thank you. i want to shift gears will quickly to one more thing before i yield back the rest of my time. on the training issue, with the stopgap measures that were mentioned in the "new york times" article, how do you mitigate the loss of lessons learned in a handover between the stopgap folks for plugging the hole now and the long-term training force, to make sure that we continue to ramp up and build that progress in the wake so that we don't lose the important lessons? >> part of it is, they are all teaching to the same curriculum. part of it is ensuring overlaps so that there's actually a handoff from one group to the next. but it's really, the

establishment of cstc-a with general caldwell is sort of the keeper of the knowledge, if you will, for the training efforts. i think is going to be a lot of continuity on his staff and other people are training the trainers, if you will. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield back. >> mr. wilson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank both of you for your service. madam secretary and general, thank you. general, i had a great honor last august to visit with the marines at camp leatherneck, camp bastion, and it was really inspiring since i represent parris island, marine corps station, to see the dedication of our marines. i am particularly appreciative of the both of you are doing, because i'm the co-chair of the afghan caucus. i visit the country nine times. i have great respect for

president karzai for the defense minister, abdul warnock, i have faith in ambassador michael berry and certainly general mcchrystal and general petraeus. so i feel like we have an extraordinary team of people there. firsthand, my former national guard unit, serve for a year in afghanistan, led by general bob livingston, and i visited with the troops from south carolina every three months. and i found out that there was an extraordinary relationsrelationship between american forces and the people of afghanistan to the point where they identified each other as brothers, american and afghan brothers. so i'm hopeful, perfect, no. but i'm very hopeful. with that, the ever-changing situation, what is the status of cross-border collaboration between afghanistan and

pakistan? and have there been significant changes in the past year? >> thank you, mr. wilson. we were here with the committee last week and talked a little bit about pakistan, and there have been positive engagement and positive changes on both sides of the border within the last year. and this includes a master lay down for supporter ordinations and. some pcc's and jcc's and we been able to work with both the pacbell on their side of the border as was the afghan national security forces in terms of many and equipping those station. two of them are fully operational at this time. we're looking at the location and many of the others. so all that demonstrates the degree of trust, degree of transparency and a degree of equal procedures, if you will, so that it mitigates and lessens the tension on the board. that's a good indication a very positive one within the last one, sir. >> and then i'm hopeful in my

message to islamabad and other parts of pakistan, to me it's so clear, it's mutually beneficial, the security of both country. it's already been expressed concern, but in regard to training security forces, secretary gates last week or recently announced 850 additional trainers as a stopgap measure to fill vacancies. a problem has been our nato allies fulfilling their obligations. and i was very happy working with congressman ortiz who is the co-chair of the romania caucus to find out last week from the ambassador of romania that they are now increasing their participation from 1200 troops to 1800 troops. so there are some positive stories that really should be told, and i know on a visit to bulgaria the people of bulgaria are very proud of their participation and recognition.

but what is being done to increase participation from our nato allies? >> the secretary has raised is at his ministry of, secretary clinton after his. we have made numerous visits, calls, et cetera. and the truth is the majority of our nato allies are stepping up. since the strategy review was conclude in the summer, they are offering above and beyond as to what that aren't offered. they are offering more trainers. the challenge is, you know, the gap is still there so we're all asking one another to step up even further. and so we will continue that process. but i think credit, you know, you're right to give a number of countries have stepped up substantially with institutional trainers with omlt's and pomlt's and with asp. >> and it was encouraging lastly guide the opportunity to meet with foreign minister of the area, and they are so proud of the american bases that are now

in their country. and they did point out, general, they would be very happy such training bases such as noble cello, to provide for advanced training for personnel prior to being deployed. and they have the capability, they've got faces and they have got citizen support within the community. but again, thank you again, both of you, for your services and what you're doing by defeating the terrorists overseas. thank you. >> thank the gentleman. pajamas from mississippi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. flournoy and general for being with us. for what it's worth i've also met mr. karzai, and for what it's worth my reaction was just the opposite. and if i had been president when he decides go to the taliban, my response would've been don't let the screen door hit you in the rear end, for what it is worth. ms. flournoy, i'm reading a book

called the bear went over the mountain. it's supposed to be about tactics. but what is disturbing about is, it seems to me the same ambushes in the same places, going over about a 10 or 12 year period, and they talk about training up an afghan army, they talk about training up a national pleased that the window for years after they left the public government they set up was gone. now, i appreciate the general. he got to be a joke by being a can-do guy. i appreciate you going to work in the department of defense. but what realistically makes you think the outcome is going to be any different this time? >> what makes me think the outcome will be different is the fundamental objective of the mission and focus of the mission is different. institutions built under hostile occupation don't have -- tend to

have longevity and credibility with a population. institutions that are built with the support of the population -- >> man -- >> have a lot more chance to succeeding. that's what we're trying to do with this nsf. >> and i appreciate you saying that. i have not lived in afghanistan. where we stewart did. and he told me after living there for years and walking across afghanistan, that the afghans mockingly referred to karzai as the mayor of the bull, because once you get outside the city he has got absolutely no influence. so how would you respond to that? that's coming from someone who's lived in afghanistan. >> i think that at most, afghans experienced governance at the local level. and building up the credibility and the capacity of the local institutions, district level and

so forth is where it's going to influence the judgment of the afghan people. and i think the progress we've seen at that level, and, frankly, in an increasingly competent national government in terms of the cabinet that president karzai has put together, that is changing. i mean, this poll that says 59% believe that the country, the government is actually heading in the right direction, i don't think you've ever had a poll in afghanistan say that before. and that's in response to changes that they are expecting on the ground. are we there yet? absolutely not. are we at least starting to in the right direction? yes. >> how would you respond in equal perception, to the afghans that think that karzai's brother is the biggest narcotics dealer in afghanistan? >> i don't think -- i want to focus on individuals or -- >> that's the president's brother. that's why think we should focus on it. >> i think it's very important

to look at the governance at all levels, and the progress that's been made. across -- >> this is the president's family, man. if the president of the country can't tell his brother to get out of the country them if someone in the united states military is renting property from, if we can turn around and have a condition of our lease on their property, say, by the way, you've got the out of the narcotics trade, where does it begin? >> you know, sir, i don't feel like i'm -- it's appropriate for me. frankly, i'm not qualify, i'm not the person qualified to evaluate specific individuals or cases, but what i can say -- >> who is? >> let me tell you what i say. when i just came, i have seen the place that had no afghan

governance whatsoever for years. and in the last six months after some very difficult fighting on the part of international and afghan forces, we have enabled a district government, governor who is clean to be put in place, working with local tribal leaders, who is working with the international community to funnel aid, to projects that are getting, benefiting the population, getting their buy-in. and for the first time, creating a district governor center that is the go to place for the afghan population. that is the model we're trying to replicate. the fact that it is possible in the arkansas, which has been called the heart of darkness by many authors writing about afghanistan, the fact that it is possible there means that it is possible elsewhere in the country. and that's what we're trying to achieve. >> how long do you think president karzai would live without the american note to

protecting? >> sir, i'm not in a position to speculate. >> don't you think to lease take a some terms of our engagement like narcotics, like honesty in government? >> i'm sorry? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the interest of maintaining this enjoyment and fun you're having, i'll go ahead and ask a question. walking across the street today, somebody stop me instead are just in the president during this momentous occasion is watching a basketball game? and i said no, i'm not offended by whatever the president is doing this afternoon. what i am offended bordeaux is without a fight going on in afghanistan for six months and the marines have been in and not one word about the wonderful success that those men and women have been doing coming out of the white house. a lot of talk from gates and others but nothing out of the

white house. that defense be because i don't care what he cares less spinning his sunday afternoon doing. but the white house has failed to recognize the hard work you're just recognize. so hopefully will get a little more attention to the successes that are coming out of there. >> i just want to say for the record i don't believe that's active. we may not have gotten the president adequate press covers but the present survey has not been silent. >> i'm sure he wants to get what he wants to get out, ms. flournoy. we can have a tell so if you like. that was not my intent. and the plague on a general thing, back in january that report from a general but said the focus on intelligence in afghanistan was overbalanced towards finding bad guys in dealing with bad guys. and that it needed to be more of a balanced approach so that our company and squad and commanders on the ground knew the players

were, the good guys were, the bad guys were, what the crops were. and all the kind of stuff you dominate in order for us to do the full spectrum job that the fight in afghanistan and false. killing bad guys is front of the list, absolutely. general paxton, your assessment as to be balancing, was that the case? we had new resources to the system so that those company commanders do know what's going on around them with respect to the comic of with respect to everything else, it's nonkinetic. and reflection of that report from january. >> yes, sir. a coin play when you're doing this has to be in a focus for sure that its population focus in terms of best strategy but the tactics have to be focused on who you think about kaiser guys are, where you think the bad guys are, what you know about that. so it is a constant for more intelligent. will try to strike the about

whether it is isr over here or whether it is out of a line of sight and what's available for the strategic level, the operational level, the tactical level. i have a good feeling that the flow of forces and the flow of capability is adequately meeting the needs were as projected to be what we think will be current gaps in the needs. one of the additional responsibilities i have for the secretary is to sit on the scene in a gratian group, what used to be called counter-ied task force. dr. carter and i are taking a look about the equipping side and to make sure that we have adequate technologies, capabilities, requisite training so that we can identify ied materials, as well as the safe havens. so we are paying attention to that. >> i guess the focus again, the kinetic side is what they're there for, but by the same token if you're trying to understand

what will make sure that the local folks see us as more of a solution as opposed to just the policeman, making sure those ground-level commanders have as much information as they need. eyeblink on a general thing and i apologize for that, but it seemed to be a little broader than who they were and focus on the bad guys as opposed to information that commanders need to know that they're digging a well over there, this would be very important versus paving a road, that these are the folks within the community who are the opinion leaders and working with him make sense versus others. that kind of intelligence that is broader than just there are three bad guys over there, they've been there for an hour and a half, go shoot them. but the issue, if it's in counterinsurgency i think it's broader than just killing bad guys. >> yes, sir. but i think the development of our human intelligence and the way we train our small unit leaders were spending adequate time on it at the national

training center at 29 palms, at home station training. >> but downrange they have the tools they need to exploit the train. >> yes, sir. i'm convinced they do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> bank is so much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's typical i just received a note, i've got votes in just a minute, but madam secretary, general, thank you for being here. and for your service. i want to go, allowed the question you have been received a very specific that i want to go to a couple broader questions. would you agree that our primary goal in afghanistan is defeating al qaeda? start with expect defeat al qaeda, yes. >> and how does the strategy that we're doing in afghanistan right now facilitate our goal of not just defeating al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan, but world wide? >> afghanistan, pakistan, that

border region has been the sort of focus, the heartland, if you will, of al qaeda for many years. and so i think denying them sanctuary and safe haven there, disrupting them there has a powerful impact on the global network. what we are also trying to make sure that the afghans and pakistanis have the own capability to do that denial in the future. >> would they not simply, assume that happens, we create stability there, with a not simply seek another safe haven? yemen, other places? what prevents that? >> i think some of them may but i think the truth is, the combination of ethnic tribal, other ties to this particular region, makes it their preferred home, if you will. and other places will not be as hospitable to as many, or as to be robust network. >> if they did seek safe haven elsewhere, would you believe that the strategy that we're taking in afghanistan would be

an appropriate one in that location as well? noted is that a sustainable approach? >> i don't think that -- i think each environment has to be dealt with in its own terms. and to the extent where dealing with the network in other places will tailor that effort to the local conditions that are allowing a group to gain a foothold. >> there's been a number of questions on the allies. obviously, the president request for troops assume a certain level of commitment from our allies. where are we in terms of achieving that number? and what impact does our failure to achieve that number or limitations placed on the allies in terms of what they can do affect our ability to succeed? >> i think our allies have stepped up tremendously, and i think that with allied support we are very -- were meeting general mcchrystal's

requirements. i think that going into the future we will need to work with them to sustain the mix of capabilities that we need as the operation continues to unfold. >> at the request for the 3000 troops assume that the 10,000 additional troops from allies, that the use of those troops would be limited? >> limiting in what sense do? in terms of where they go, in terms of what they do, in terms of whether they're in safe areas of the country or not? >> again, i think that isaf has made use of allied forces extremely well. i think our focus and concentration has been on the south and east, many of our allies have focus on the west and the, with a couple of them also coming south with us and east. but i think that general mcchrystal's been able to take into account the very as strings

and caveat of some forces to be able to handle that. >> 's are, anytime you do your assessment, you try to minimize the assumptions, because you realize an assumption you don't have ground to thought, if it unravels than your plan could go. so went general mcchrystal submitted the request last august and when the assessment was we reviewed and analyzed here, in the washington area, for several months there, it was based on the facts on the ground which was a contributing nations, who they were, what they were, what their capabilities were, what the caveats were and then what every so expectation was, with a looking to scale up or scale down. so that's why the assessment itself is open ended because those dynamics can always change with a contributing nations. >> where are we in terms of numbers of allied troops in relation to the 10,000 that we assumed? >> i believe as i said are you we have 9000 have been pledged

since december, and a little -- a little over 4000 actually on the ground right now. >> does that take into consideration the troops that are likely to withdraw, the allied troops that are likely to withdraw? >> i will have to take that for the record. we know which ones we anticipate will withdraw. >> let me rephrase my question. 10,000 troops that were assumed. of that we have 4000 on the ground. is that rice do? that's correct spirit and we don't know whether or not that assumed the troops that are about to withdraw? >> no. as of december when we made the plan, that's correct, sir. >> thank you gentlemen. ms. davis, please. >> thank you. thank you both of you for being here once again. and i wanted to just go back to a concept that i think we've all been working hard on and i really want to commend the administration on what we see is much greater in agency collaboration in this effort.

we suffered through a number of years when we really felt that we weren't able to bring it together, and that's happy. i appreciate that greatly. however, i think has also been a number of reports that which is just that we are not doing nearly as good a job as we could on capitalizing on the popular grievances. against the taliban. and for that to occur, we need to have enough resources really devoted to the political and economic conditions, and then you all have certain recognize that. when you look at the report of the special inspector general for afghanistan, and that would suggest that we are falling short in that area. and so i'm wondering, and in light of last week's discussion as well, the military and nonmilitary resources that are being utilized here, you said probably a good balance in afghanistan, 50% perhaps. what guarantees can we have that we actually, i would think, need

to go beyond that in terms of nonmilitary in afghanistan now in order to be able to capitalize on those popular grievances? where are we as you look at that issue in the way you described it last week? >> i do think that they're, you know, the civilian surge has certainly brought more into agency capacity to afghanistan. and i think the embassy has requested additional growth going into next year, to fill out and push down that capacity from the professional level to the district level, particularly in the critical districts where we think that will have the greatest impact. so i think that those requirements continue to be refined, and they are going up. and we're going to resource, i believe, you know, our state department colleagues and others will be seeking support from congress to resource those

additional requirements. >> and again you be more specific in terms of what you think that those resources should -- >> all of them will be going to district support teams, to again, to empower governors at that district level, which is sort of critical interface for a lot of local tribal structures and villages. to hardist harness develop and assistance in support of it, particularly funding for things like odi coming out of oid. rule of law where there's been a vacuum and the taliban has stepped in. rule of law programs at the local level are very important to competing with them and displacing them. >> and those efforts, is it fair to acknowledge that those efforts are not necessarily the kind of bottom-up efforts that people are asking for? that would suggest that we had a pretty good understanding of the people of afghanistan today.

>> i think that what we're doing in each district, each critical district, is really starting with a needs assessment. what to the people need and want, what do they view as important, what do they prioritize, what do they expect? and will be most meaningful to them. and that's the foundatiofoundation for a lot of the realignment of art assistants. >> some of the articles are suggesting that after eight years we are really not even beginning to do that yet. would you challenge that? >> i would. >> are there some examples of? >> in the critical districts that we identify as key population centers, key to production, key to lines adjudication and so forth, in those areas we really are pursuing a much more needs pay integrated approach. >> it maybe something hasn't happened pass but that's deathly been heading in the last year.

>> and i would just echo what the secretary said, that a lot of the dsps, omlt's, prts, they may be a shill in a new quiz, but they are tailored and tailored we need space, requirement delivered solution. >> just a few seconds. general, when the chairman mentioned the julie -- you cited two examples that would be the most difficult demonstration of good government and the cooperation we generally. could you take a stab on a timeline for when some of those things you think might, there might be real evidence that that was occurring? >> in terms of projecting a timeline, i couldn't. but i will say that we are positive indications in the last year. for example, pakistan, there's an increased degree of cop cooperation both with the u.s. and with nations in the area. i think it is causally evolving and we've had some good news

stories. thank you, mr. chairman. >> this will be my good news story. madam secretary, you mention agriculture a few moments ago. part of the good news story is the national guard troops that are assisting in teaching better agriculture processes to the afghan farmers, and, of course, there's a little program a good number of them have been missouri national guard and troops who are farmers, and that's what they do. this is been highly successful. my question is, what are we doing right in afghanistan that we did not do right in iraq? madam secretary.

>> that's a really hard question, because a lot of what we are doing right in afghanistan i think was formed by both mistakes and what we eventually did right in iraq. as different as the two countries are. i think in afghanistan, given the nature of the society, we are doing a lot more bottom-up, a lot more building at the local district and moving up, you know, up to provincial level. and appreciating the importance of incorporating traditional societal structures, the tribes, ethnic groups and so forth. and seeking inclusivity, seeking balance that will ultimately determine the sustainability of the gains that we may. so i think that bottom-up focused comedy appreciation for the demographics, the cultural landscape is a really key

emphasis in afghanistan. going forward. >> thank you. general? >> mr. chairman, i think the other thing we're doing correctly is we have captured the lessons learned from iraq and afghanistan, and we're doing better at what we call left seat, right seat in terms of turnover on station so you have a chance for engagement with those individuals that will be significant to coming up with the immediate and practical solutions in the area. i think we modify our training continue at our basis of stations here to reflect the situation on the ground as well as the recent success stories. >> i thank the witnesses. mr. mckeel? >> thank you, mr. chairman. early on in my statement and then my questions i asked about the 30,000 cap and you both

assured me that there is no cat. the reason i talked about it and ask questions about it is that's the way it has been reported in the press, and in a way secretary gates talked about it, that the president did approve 30,000, and, but the secretary have flexibility of about 10% that he could work with on that. i like to go back over a little history, as i remember it. in the last couple of years. the president became president in january of 2009, and he approved, i believe it was march, an additional 20,000 troops and came out with his strategy and replaced, but in general mcchrystal and gave him time to come up with an implementation of that strategy. he presented that in august and

went up through the chain of command. we were first, first sought in the "washington post," and we have been given cas -- there hae been lots of talk about it requested from 40,000 up to, i saw reports up to 100,000. the president after the 90 days approved the 30,000 surge that would be sent to afghanistan, as soon as they could be sent. and then they would return, begin to draw down in july of 11, i believe. and be pulled out by december of 11 that there was no -- in the summer of 2010 there would be a

review, and the drawdown of those 30,000 troops would begin in july of 11. am i correct with those statements of? >> what i would say, a little bit differently is july 2011 use the end of the 30,000 surge, if you will. and an inflection point where we will begin a conditions-based process, looking to transition provinces that are ready to afghan lead, with the associated implications in terms of the potential changes of mission, potential changes of force allocation, and some drawdown associated with that. i mean, i think the responsible drawdown model that you've seen in iraq is going to very much a form the approach that you're likely to see in afghanistan. the president has not put a

timetable on that, except to say that by july 2011 we will begin a process. and that date was informed by our judgment of conditions across numerous provinces that some would be ready by then. >> let me also comment, as one other thing i remember about that is when i met with general mcchrystal. he said he felt 30,000 would be sufficient, even though, this is my words now, he had been questioned more is that all the reports we have seen. he said 30,000 would be sufficient, but that the mission had been changed. i think was downsized. now, this 1230 report suggests are a total of 121 districts of interest, but the joint command, isaf joint command feels their own resources to conduct operations in 48 of those

districts. can you discuss this and what resources are we short? >> first of all, sir, we did that but i think general mcchrystal had the view that you can't focus everywhere all the time. you have to have priority. you have to focus in key areas with her campaign. >> and i think when he did his assessment in august, i think he was basing that on the strategy that the president had given him in march. >> right. >> and that's what i think he was given the number 30,000, he had to downsize that. >> i don't, i don't think that's quite right. i think there's only been an intention to determine, you know, where to focus in the country that will have the greatest impact on the country as a whole your and -- >> if he had received 40 or

50,000 troops, he could've probably focus on more of the country. >> do you want to jump in on this? >> sir, if i may, when the strategy was developed and the assessment was underway, there were main efforts supporting efforts and an economy of force efforts, as there are in any campaign. and your inability to prosecute more than one main effort, or to do a shift from a main effort to a supporting effort and do it faster is all driven by the boots on the ground and the amount of forces that you have. so we have not deviated from general mcchrystal's assessment in terms of what he saw the main effort, and then as he moved from what was a supporting effort and brought into the main effort, how he felt the campaign would unfold. so it was focused on the freedom of moment of the taliban in the south to start with. >> do we have agreement on one thing, if he had been given 60,000 additional troops, he could have done more faster? >> is a reasonable --

>> anytime you get more -- >> is not a linear equation, but when you get more, you can do more. >> the one thing i will say, that certainly influence the president decision on this, was the force flow. when he was presented with some, you know, numbers at the higher end of the range than general mcchrystal put on the table, the force flow meant that not, you know, all those forces would not be in place, you know, at one time. and one other things the president said is what approach will get me the greatest number of forces fastest. and that was very much informed -- informed that the ultimate decision. the other thing i would say about the 48 districts just to be clear is, that is based on the forces available, u.s. forces, without coalition forces, and afghan forces who are able to partner. the idea is to focus 48 this

year and then grow that number next year, and so forth. so that again it is trying to ensure that you have enough both military afghan and civilian resources to really fully deliver in those districts over time. >> it's the first time i've heard the comment that you made that all those 30,000 troops would be there by july of 2011. i had always -- >> august, this august. i'm sorry, the flow of forces? >> 2010, all of the 30,000? >> all of the 3000 the president ordered in december, except for one headquarters that mcchrystal doesn't eat until the fall, will be there by the end of august. and the fact that -- >> that's what i -- >> it was originally heard it had been a slower arrival, sir, and that was accelerated, given the sequence of ramadan and

afghan election and it was to get maximum by to pick as a separate case it, there were two significant caveats. one was the absorption rate and what you can put on the ground in terms of infrastructure, and then the second one is always the case of the enabler. so you can get the troops there to do the mission but they may not have the ground mobility or the engineered support. >> i appreciate that. i just misunderstood what you said earlier, that they would all be in place by july. i was thinking you are talking about 201111 when i was talking. >> it's a year-long tour. >> and that's what i had always understood. i just misunderstood you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. if there are no further questions, let me ask, what do you need from congress that you are not receiving now? >> well, as i said in my opening statement, sir, we appreciate the support of congress and

general, but this committee in particular. i think the things that we have before you now, which are both our fy11 request and our supplemental request, your support for those two things would give us the resources we need to fully implement general mcchrystal's plan and resource the nation. >> you have anything to add, general? >> sir, i think the committee and congress for their support for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. the train before they go, the equipment and enabling while they are there. and for those who were injured and wounded when a comeback, and as we mentioned last week in the pakistan hearings, i thank you also for the latitude with multiyear money which gives us more flexibility. so thank you for that, sir. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your appearance and your testimony, and there's no further discussion, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i'm confident that we can come up, we will gain the confidence of the senate and the confidence of the country. >> as the president considers potential nominees, learn about the nation's highest court through the eyes of those who serve their and c-span's latest book, the supreme court, 381 pages of history, photos and interviews with all the justices, active and retired. the supreme court, available now in hardcover and also as an e-book your. >> now a debate for the may 18 special election pennsylvania's 12th congressional district that republican tempered, democrat democrat mark critz and libertarian demo agoris are looking to run out the remaining term of john murtha who died in favor. a debate is being held at richland high school and is cosponsored by wjac tv and the

johnstown tribune democrat. this is an hour. >> good evening and welcome to this debate that featured candidates for the may 18 special election to fill the unexpired term in the 12th congressional district in the united states house of representatives. i am marty radovanic of wjac tv. i will co-moderate tonight's debate with my partner mr. mittermeier. the newspaper and newspaper are proud to cosponsor tonight's debate. the debate will feature one hour in length and it will feature opening and closing statements from each of our candidates as well as questions from both the moderators and members of the audience who are submitting written questions. our candidates drew lots to determine the order of opening and closing statements and questions. we also at this time want to point out that we did invite the libertarian party candidate,

mr. demo agoris to join us but he indicated he would be here. anti--- and he is here. but not quite sure what were going to do now. [laughter] >> i'm sorry, sir. if you will just wait for a second. we did remove you from the podium because we didn't think you're going to be here. so anyway, as were determining as mr. critz a must of been a stage management before, got an idea where we're going. let's at least stop and say what's going to happen tonight. we're going to be asking a series of questions. mr. mittermeier and i will be posting those questions, some of them will come from us and some of them will come from members of our studio audience who are submitting questions in writing. and if the candidate who gets the question left two minutes to respond any other candidate with and have one minute to follow the answer and the original

answer will get 30 seconds for rebuttal. we are going again, are opening and closing statements and order of questions was predetermined by law. and i think at this point it's only best for folks opinion and are waiting for us to begin, we will begin with her opening statement and, mr. critz, your first. >> thank you, marty. and thank you, jeff. thanks to wjac for putting us on. this is wonderful. the folks around here and on the viewing audience can hear the views of the candidates. and really i have to commend the school district. this is a beautiful auditorium. and i'm happy to be here. thank you for hosting us. i have been traveling in the district throughout this campaign that i've been traveling this district for the last many years working with people, talking about trying to bring people together to solve problems. when i've been traveling around addition, what people are most concerned with, what people are

talking about is jobs. was going on with the economy, is the economy going to improve? am i going to have a job, will my job still be here in the next year or so? will my children the able to stay here? that's what i develop a job plan which includes unfair trade agreements, giving tax breaks to small businesses that create jobs that pay a livable wage. ending their tax loophole for companies that ship jobs overseas and also wrapping our arms around the energy industry. western pennsylvania could be posed to be the energy capital of the world. a little bit about myself, i was born and raised in urban, pennsylvania. my mom is from the washington part of the district. my father is from uniontown. went to iep, graduate degree and that's where i met my wife of 22 years, nancy, who has a speech pathology degree. we live in johnstown. my wife is a schoolteacher and a greater johnstown school district where my twins go, say

and show that their fifth graders and the johnstown school district. so you can see, i am western pennsylvania all over. it's in my dna. my promise all your problems. your issues are my issues been and what i'm talking about on this campaign are the issues. this campaign is not about washington, d.c.. it's about washington pa. is about washington township it it's about johnstown. and that's what i'm talking about the issue. that's why i'm running for congress. thank you. [applause] >> mr. critz, thank you. mr. burns, two minutes. thank you, marty, thank you chip. i thank you for hosting this event. it's great to be here because as you know by now this is my hometown. i grew up in horner's down. i worked my father's photography studio, burns photography. i delivered newspapers for the tribune democrat and worked as a bus boy at surf and turf and to work insanity. it is the work ethic that i

learned right here in johnstown that allowed me to start a business in my basement that ultimately led to success. i have never been in politics before but i believe this country is in the fight for its very life. the entire country is now watching this election because of what it now represents. this election represents a battle that is between bigger government, more intrusive government, more regulation, higher taxes, balanced budgets. fiscal responsibility and a bright future for children. the choice you have before you could not be more clear than the choice between a clear bureaucrat who hopes to attract jobs to the district and a proven job creators who knows how to create them. we have a choice between spending away our children's future, or fiscal responsibility. you have the choice between someone who supports nancy pelosi's health care bill and someone who will go to

washington and fight to repeal it. and let me be clear, if this bill stands, here's what it will mean to you. it means a half a trillion dollars of additional taxes. it means over $500 billion in radical medicare cuts. and it means taxpayer-funded abortions. so mark, i ask, if your interest truly do live with this this is, why won't you support repealing this bill? >> mr. burns, thank you. the first question is determined by law and the ghost of mr. burns. as you campaign for the right to replace him, will you carry on the legacy of that support regardless of whether you agree with martha on policy? >> well, first of all, neither one of us, whoever gets elected, no one will be able to replace john murtha. john murtha was the chair person for defense appropriations committee. now that being said, i will

fight to create jobs in this district. and we talk about some of the earmarks, you know, i like most americans are against wasteful spending. but it's pretty hard to say that bulletproof vest for the troops is wasteful spending. it's pretty hard to say that armor plating for humvees is wasteful spending. but it's the air mark processing is going to survive, it has to be one that is open, that is transparent and one that the american people can support. now, there's currently a moratorium on air marks in both parties have agreed to a moratorium on earmarks. and that is because it still isn't the process american people can support. i think we need to come up with a process that is open and transparent, and i would fully support continuing to work to continue the defense industry

here. but you have to keep in mind, like i said, neither one of us will be able to replace john murtha. we have to look to send someone to congress who is not only looking to attract jobs, but has real world experience in creating them. and i have. >> you have one minute to respond. [applause] >> thank you, marty. while i support, will i go forward with congressman murtha's legacy? absolutely. what i see as the job of a congressman is to advocate for the people of this district on every issue as much as you can. as my opponent has said, neither one of us is going to be congressman murtha. he was the chairman of the defense subcommittee on appropriations, and he's able to do things that many people will never be able to do. that what he had was a fire to support this district that he gave his heart and soul for this

district. so what i can promise you is when i go to congress, i'm going to abdicate, i'm going to work, i'm going to do everything possible to create an environment that brings jobs, that creates this economic development at it like he did, to carry on the things that he did. because it takes a lot of work. it takes people working together, and thank you very much, but i will do everything in my power to carry on what mr. murtha did. [applause] >> mr. burns, you have 30 seconds to respond. >> okay. you know, we have to look at creating an environment that is attractive. we need to create an environment where businesses will want to come here, and they can do that by improving the infrastructure. we need good roads to get in and out of this district. we also need good technological infrastructure as well. so there's multiple fronts that we can create an environment for attract businesses.

>> our second question is for mr. critz. if selected, what would be your first priority? >> one of my reasons that had opposed the health care bill was that there is a provision in it called, that wasn't in the bill called the average wage, the medpac proposal. and without it our hospitals are in danger. something that i would immediately do i get to congress will go to work on. but truthfully though, first priority always in this district is jobs. it's about economic development. semi pro in congress would be to go and work on my proposal to create jobs, to revisit nafta, cafta, the most favored nations for china, to make the environment back here in the states useful or usable by american workers for the best

workers in the world. it would be about giving tax breaks to small businesses if they create livable jobs -- jobs that pay a livable wage, because the kind we start rebuilding the middle-class so that we can live the american dream. it's about ending the tax loophole for companies that ship jobs overseas. and in western pennsylvania, we have the coal industry. we have shell gas, we have a solar power company down in mt. pleasant. we have wind energy up here in evans burke and went nuclear power with westinghouse north of pittsburgh. you know, western pennsylvania could be the energy capital of the world going forward. and i think we need to look at that and take care of that, working very hard. because that could be the job, the industry of the future for our children. thank you. [applause] >> one minute.

>> mr. burns, one minute. >> obviously any priority has to start with creating jobs in this district, but in addition we have to go to -- we need somebody to go to congress that can help with the brakes on the liberal agenda. i can tell you that even over this summit is a very good chance that an amnesty bill will get brought up in congress. i would be a vote against amnesty for illegals. we are again trying to bring up this whole idea of cap-and-trade that would not only be terrible for this country, would be devastating or this district. and, of course, i would be working hard to do everything i can to repeal the health care bill and replace it with a true reform and incremental reform. [applause] >> mr. critz you have 30 seconds. >> my opponent out of the cap-and-trade, and it is true that i oppose the cap-and-trade bill. in fact, i was just with governor mansion of west

virginia document how devastating it would be to the coal industry. is also a reason why the united mine workers in a court industry are both supporting my candidacy. [applause] >> next question goes to the mr. burris. mr. burns, how do you plan on making the 12th congressional district appealing to the younger generation to keep them working and living here? >> well, the only reason the younger generations are leaving is because they don't have adequate employment. we've got to create an environment that is attractive, like i said earlier. in addition to the few things i mentioned about creating their infrastructure, we need to stop punishing job creators. in this country and his administration, anytime we have job creation occurring with corporations, businesses, small business, mom and pop, we seem to punish them with our tax policy. we need to give tax breaks to job creators. the other thing, whenever i go around and meet with folks all

across this district in any industry, whether it's the farming industry, the energy industry, the banking industry, they all tell one thing. they all tell me they are the most regulate industry. well the fact of the matter is that ever every industry is overregulate and wendy to reduce the regulation across the board to help allow these businesses to prosper. and the last thing is, we sit on a gold mine right here. we are sitting on a gold mine, huge reserves of coal and natural gas. very district. and we set on so much natural gas, we could power the country for 100 years that is right here. the best thing we could do to promote these industries is to get out of the way. our own senator casey has supported the bill that would give sweeping new regulatory authority on this industry.

it would be terrible. we have to be allowed to take advantage of these vital natural resources and we literally can be the energy capital of the world right here. and when we are, there will be thousands of jobs created and as long as we have jobs, our young people are not going to want to leave. [applause] >> mr. critz, you have one minute. >> i will talk as. yet to create an environment and work for people to stay here. you have to >> you have to work on your educational institution, ujc, we have a multitude of higher education institution for these kids to go to. we want to train them and get them to stay here. a lot of people are talking about the quality of life. we have the trails, water, fort necessity. and you couldn't read that, i'm

sorry. 30 seconds, i'm sorry. so, you know, this is a multifaceted issue. you have to come at it from all directions. that's what we've been working on for years. it's not just jobs. it's other things. quality of life plays a huge issue for young people. we just have to keep supporting awful these different facets. thank you. >> mr. burns, you have 30 seconds if you wish. [applause] >> all right. the last few questions we've taken have come from the audience. this one also comes from the audience. >> i believe it go to mr. burns. >> he chose not to use it. it's begin with mr. critz. would you put a free at the same time give a double load to employees? >> that sounds like a loaded question, doesn't it?

absolutely not. one the things i proposed about the federal budget is i think agencywide, every federal agency, the american people are hurting right now. the economy is hurting. people are worried about their jobs. i think every agency, not one, not pick and choose which policemans and agency -- programs and agency. i think every agency should start tightening their belt. one thing that happened during the clinton/gore years, they were able to shrink the size of government. when someone retired, they didn't replace them. we're not talking about giving raises, we're saving money at federal level. another thing that i propose i think the u.s. congress should share in the pain. i think every member of

congress, every house or senate member, we should have to cut our own budgets by 5%. we should feel the pain that the people in the feel are feeling. this is a way we can start shrinking government of i made a pledge that there would be no schemes to manufacturer to privatize social security. i've made that pledge, i'm going to stick by that pledge. thank you. [applause] >> 60 seconds, mr. burns. >> thank you. when you comes to social security, i'm glad the question was ask. because the first thing i would like to clear up because my opponent is making more fault accusations. even the nonpartisan fact check on org said those were false. there was patterns last week on

false accusations on another favorite. i am not in favor of privatizing social security. there are people who are concerned and rightfully so about any of the social security money going into wall street. as we've seen what happened the last couple of years, i can understand that. i think social security needs tor shored up. we -- needs to be shored up. we need to make sure the people on social security and expecting to go on social security are protected and that we make a bipartisan effort in congress to solve the social security problem so that it is there for future generations. [applause] >> mr. critz, 30 seconds if you wish. >> just so clear things up, i was at a forum last week, mr. burns answered the question

about social security saying all option are on the table. privatization is one of them. you know, you start talking about what one says, what you say some place, i think my opponent should find the pledge that i did. that it's off the table. [applause] >> next question goes to mr. burns. mr. burns, this is another question for the audience. do you believe we deserve better than smear campaigns? why or why not? >> well, i think that -- let me take 15 seconds to address this smear campaign that's coming from my partner here. [applause] >> let me -- [applause] >> let me -- gentleman, i have to ask you please decorum or

we'll clear the room. thank you. >> i have to be -- i'm not familiar with the pledge he's talking about. i will pledge to all of you in pub lick privatization of social security. that's been consistent. [applause] >> i think the interesting thing about that campaign is the -- the accusations that have come from my opponent are based on complete lies. i never once said that i was for privatizing social security, i never once said that i am for 23% tax increases on the middle class. again, factcheck.org said it was a lie. he already apologized for it. by the way, shipping jobs over sees. i built a company in western pennsylvania, i created jobs and

employeed people in western pennsylvania. i sold the company. it still exists in western pennsylvania. many of the jobs that i created are still in western pennsylvania. i never shifted any jobs overseas, and i would never attend to. that's just one more lie comes from the other side. >> mr. critz, you have one minute. >> you talk about smear campaign, i've been under attack the whole time. [applause] >> it's one thing when you talk about calling someone a liar, which i just was and telling the truth. you know, tim burns said he did not support the fair tax. let me read you a quote. a quote.

may of last year, tim burns did an interview that said i would love to ultimately see the fair tax implemented. exposing that is not smear campaign. that's telling the truth. that's what my campaign is doing. [applause] >> until, i'm glad that he brought that up. that was a quote that was taken out of context. i would love to see the fair tax implemented, but over the current irs structure because the irs is broken and the current tax code is broken, but i do not believe it's practical and support it. i very clearly stated that i do not support it. [applause] >> beginning with mr. critz. which is more important taking

steps to help the environment or facilitate industry? >> it's both. industry has to work together to create an environment that we're not crushing jobs to save the environment. we have to work together. we want to live on that planet. we want to have a planet left for our children. you know, earlier, i talked about the different things, quality of life, trails, water, these different things that young people are looking to do. but, you know, there are time where's the federal government, the state government can move too quickly. that's why i've opposed the cap and trade bill. i think the government is moving too quickly, it's going to cost us cold jobs. that's why i came out and why i support, you know, the energy industry in western pennsylvania. which, you know, if you think about it, the united states -- it's not only an energy issue, but a national security issue that we're so depend on foreign

sources for our energy. we need to get off of the dole. we have to get off of using foreign sources. we have resources and intellectual property in south and southwestern pennsylvania. truthfully, that's the industry for our future and jobs for the children and grandchildren going on. thank you. [applause] >> one minute, mr. burns. >> i think it's safe to say there isn't anybody in the room that's for an dirty environment. certainly i'm not, and i don't believe that any of you are either. e want to protect the environment. however, we do not want to prevent industry from being able to prosper. especially in this region. here's what we really don't want. we don't want people in california like nanci pelosi,

dictating to us what we can and cannot do in this district. and there is a radical agenda going on in washington when you talk about cap and trade and other extreme regulatory burdens that they want to place on pennsylvania and on this district. there is a balance, but i can tell you that the state, the state of pennsylvania, they are the ones that should be regulated us. they are the ones that are closer to the industry. they understand the issues. we cannot let washington dictate to us what we can do here in this district. [applause] >> 30 seconds, mr. critz. >> the one comment that i have, i've heard nanci pelosi's name in the campaign so frequently, that i want to remind my component is the this campaign

is the 12th congressional district of pennsylvania. you know? [applause] >> we care about washington. but i'm worried about the towns here and the people here. i'm going to be the independent voice for the people back here in western pennsylvania, not worried about what they are doing in washington, d.c. >> mr. burns, this question goes to you. are you willing if elected to work with the opposing party, would you vote with the opposing party that benefit was the 12th congressional district? >> first of all, i would love for the party to come over to my way of thinking. i would work with then every time that that occurred. [applause] >> that being said. i can tell you that i won't compromise my conservative principals. i can tell you that. but there are areas where i

believe conservative democrats can help solve some of the country's biggest problems. social security is one of those. i certainly wouldn't rule out working with conservative democrats just because they were democrats. again, i won't compromise my conservativeism. let me just remind everyone that nanci pelosi is a smart lady. she's not working hard to get him elected because he's a nice person. which he is. she's working hard with obama and biden to campaign and pelosi raising money for mark. she's doing it because she knows once he's elected, he will be one more vote. don't kid yourself. she's not doing it because he's a nice guy. [applause]

>> mr. critz, you have one minute. >> one minute now. okay. tim, you don't know me very well. you should ask my -- nobody tells me what to do. i do what i think is right. and you better believe that i'm going to work with everyone in congress. i don't care if they are liberal, conservative, democrat or republican. if it serves the best interest of the 12th congressional district, that's my job. that's why you send me to congress is to work for the people back here. that means working with everyone. that's how we solve problems. you don't draw a line in the sand and say you're in this group, you're in this group. we have to work together. that's what makes the country strong. that's what i'm going to do for you people. i promise you. [applause]

>> 30 seconds mr. burns. >> i would like to point out if you are true will are a man of your word, i wonder why you are strangely silent when you said you were against the health care bill because you didn't tell anybody about it until after the bill was passed, i believe at the request of nanci pelosi because he was working so hard to get it passed. [applause] >> don't ask, don't tell, has once been brought to the nation's attention. what is your position and why? >> well, the way i approach this is admiral mullen who is the chairman who said it should be repealed. i defer to his judgment. >> i -- don't ask, don't tell has been working for the last number of years. we are fighting multiple wars.

there is no reason that i can think of why we would want to change this policy right now and district and change the policies of our military service. i think it would be distracting. and i am not in favor of changing the don't ask, don't tell policy. >> mr. critz, 30 seconds if you want. >> well, from my perspective, the chairman of the joint chief of staff, mullen is a smart guy. he loves the military and the country. i would defer to his judgment. [applause] >> our next question will start with mr. burns. both candidates have said you are pro life. what specifically are the plans to eliminate or reduce abortions in america? >> first let me explain, how i got to this position.

my mother is 16 years old when she had me. she dropped out of high school. very difficult. they didn't get a tremendous amount of support from either one of their parents. they got married. they had a difficult life. they struggled. but they made it through. they always taught me the born -- importance of life. i am pro life. that being said, i think we need to do everything that we can to preserve life. i would support overturning roe v wade and continue to support organization that support unwed mothers and programs like that, so we can show women there are alternatives to abortion. [applause] >> one minute. same question. >> i think we reached a water

shed. we agree on something. [applause] >> am i allowed to say ditto? >> you can do whatever you like. >> i too would support the over turn of roe v wade. i am pro life. i stated it over and over and over. in fact, it's been most of my ads. like tim, i think they are alternatives. i don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control. [applause] >> okay. we'll move on. we've gotten numerous questions from the audience concerning taxes. various questions in various ways. this one is the most blunt. will you promise on camera to never raise my taxes, mr. critz we'll start with. >> well, let me tell you something, part of my job plan is the elimination of a tax

loophole for companies that ship jobs overseas. [applause] >> the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy are about to expire. in this economy, we have a government that needs revenue stream. i think it should expire. what i can promise you is that i will fight like heck to never raise taxes on working men and women. [applause] >> mr. burns, 60 seconds. >> let me answer that directly. i will pledge to never raise your taxes. [applause] >> in fact, early in my campaign, i signed a taxpayer protection pledge and that loophole that he talked about, i

can give you a copy of that pledge. no one in the pledge does it talk about any loopholes, whatsoever. i will not raise your taxes, and i have pledged it. >> thank you, mr. critz for 30 seconds. >> i can promise you i'm not going to raise any of your taxes, just his. >> mr. burns, the cost of education is rapidly increasing making a college education out of reach for more and more students. what will you do to make our students collegiate dreams a reality? >> well, you know, college education cost just like cost in virtually every other thing had been going up across america.

you know, one the things that we need to be very careful about is in the latest health care bill where the government is actually taking over student loans. that is a bad thing. student loans, we need student loans to be available. we need this money to be available so students can borrow the money in order to go to college. that process has been in place and it's worked, i think that there should be some improvements that could be made to it. but a government take over of the student loan process is a very bad thing. i would fight to repeal that as well. >> good. use your sign. >> 60 seconds. well, one the issues at hand is that pell pell grants, which a lot of students, including me, have relied on, have not kept up

with inflation. i think it needs to be addressed. if it hadn't been for grant programs like the pell grant, i probably would not have been able to go to college. what we are seeing is so many students that are coming out of college now with huge amounts of debt. and it's crippling them for the first couple of years of their life. it has to be addressed. we have to work on finding ways to make college more affordable, whether it's through cleanups or whatever. certainly -- scholarships or whatever. certainly pell grants is a key issue. we have to allow young people to go to school to better their lives and better this country. [applause] >> 0 -- 30 seconds. mr. critz, the question goes to you. it seems pennsylvania would lose one or two seats following the census could. they believe the 12th district will likely be the first to be wiped out. assuming you win the special

election, why should anyone believe you will be close to effective if you only serve one term? >> my goal is not to just serve one term. i think the message that i've been talking about, about jobs, about working for the people back here will serve me well in congress and will serve the people of this district very well. if we are unfortunate that this district is moved or taken away. i don't think anyone argues that the lines are going to change no matter what happens. my goal is really something i've been talking about frequently is trying to solidify and make the rectangle out of the district so that summerset and fayette are rectangle and we can solidify so that there will always be a congressman from this area. we can't predict what's going to happen in the future. all i can do is do the best job

and rely on that going forward. [applause] >> mr. burns, one minute. >> i think the reality are such that it looks like the republicans will control the state house. they will control redistricting. i think that if a democrat would win this this seat, there would be a very, very good chance the district will be eliminated. i believe if the republican wins the seat, the seat loss would hopefully occur out east. i'm hoping this seat and this district will remain for many years to come. >> mr. critz, you have 30 seconds if you wish. >> i've heard the argument. i find is puzzling. where he lives is a stone's throw from where tim murphy lives. certainly my perspective is,

sorry, if he wins this district is gone. [applause] >> next question beginning with mr. burns. how would you represent the district in tackling the national immigration issue? >> you know, the immigration issue, i think is one that needs to be addressed immediately. we have to stop giving incentives for people to come here inlegally. what are the incentives? first of all, illegals know if they come here, eventually we are going to give them amnesty. we need to stop that. we need illegal to understand illegal means they are not allowed to be here. they shouldn't be here. the other thing that we need to do is we need to eliminate this idea where if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child is a u.s. citizen. again, we're giving people an incentive for coming here. that has to change.

i look at it like someone breaking into your home. all of you are here this evening. if you went home and someone broke into your house, that's illegal. what if the law stated, now they are in, you can't kick them out. by the way, if they have a child, you have to send the child to college. that wouldn't make any sense -- >> [applause] >> that doesn't make any sense for your household and it certainly doesn't make any sense for the united states. [applause] >> one minute, mr. critz. >> certain we have a major issue in the country. we have 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. to me, we have to seal the borders. let's stop the in flow of illegal immigrants. two, the illegal immigrants that are here should not be -- to plant the immigrant that is are doing it the right way. that are following the rules to

become legal citizens. the illegal immigrants that are here have to be moved out to follow the process the right way. thirdly, you know, employers. if there's no jobs here for these illegal immigrants to come into, it's going to be a little bit different. they are not going to be coming in here because there's no place to work. so the employers, there has to be some sort of fine or retribution to the employee. this is not a one-sided argument. without the employer, the immigrant wouldn't want to come -- the environment wouldn't be so right for them to come in. [applause] >> mr. burns, you have 30 seconds. >> i would agree. i would only add that we do need to get tough on sealing the borders. we passed the law how many years ago saying we would build the

fence. build the fence and use structure and technology. we need to get serious on border security. [applause] >> next question comes from the audience. it beginning with mr. crtiz, are you in favor of term limits? >> there are term limits in congress. it's called an election. [applause] >> you still have 1 minute 50 second. >> i could sing, but i don't think i want to hear measing. >> mr. burns, one minute. >> it's a great question. i used to think we could vote them out and that was the term limit. that was before i decided to run for congress. since i've come to congress i've come to learn the special interest groups in washington, they don't give to republicans or democrats depending on how they feel because they have no

ideological soul. they give to both parties the same. they try to keep the imdumb bent in office -- incumbent in office. it's incumbent versus the challenger. the system that we have in place today make it is nearly impossible to challenge a sitting incumbent. that's why upwards of 95 administration of incumbents get re-elected. i believe it's term limits. if it's good enough for the president of the united states, it should be good enough for congress. [applause] >> next question. [applause] >> mr. burns, the race for the special election may 18th and the full two-year term in november will require the candidate to spend a million or

more than $1 million dollars. why should you voters believe if you win, you wouldn't be beholden to the powers that are providing that money? >> well, i can tell you because the reasons that i got into it. i'm not a career politician. i haven't spent my career in government. i got into the race because i believe the country is facing challenges. we need people from outside of government to get in and make decisions based on what's best for the district and what's in the best interest of the country. not necessarily what's in the best interest of getting them re-elected. i have no desire or intent to retire from congress. which is why i'm okay for term limits. i can tell you that i got into the race because i know that i wouldn't be able to look my children in the eye and let them grow up and tell them that i did nothing about it. that's why i got in the raise.

-- race. i can make one promise. i know i can keep it. i promise that every decision i make in washington will be done with my children and your children and grandchildren in mind. [applause] >> mr. critz, you have one minute. >> what i'm thankful for is i've been receiving widespread support for the democrat, republican, liberal, conservative. the reason i'm receiving this support is that the people are supporting me know that i'm going to be the independent voice for western pennsylvania. that the work that i've done over the years has shown people that i'm honest, i work hard, and what i tell you is -- what i say is what i mean. you know, i've been a working man all of my life. what you see is what you get. people know that, and i appreciate their support. [applause] >> if you wish.

>> i really think in these trying times with the challenges that we face, the out of control spending in washington, we have got to send people that are from outside of the system. we have to. we know this doesn't work. it's been -- we've tried it for so many years. we have to get people that have basic business principals, basic home finance principals like you have. you don't and the government shouldn't either. [applause] >> next question is for mr. critz, where do you stand on the choice employee act? >> when i go to congress, i'm going to recommend it. [applause] >> thank you. can i get another water. right below you there. like i said, you have one minute

50 second. you actually have a minute 50 if you want to answer that. oh jeez, i think i just broke my mike. can you hear me? >> there you go. i think you are already. you have more time if you wish to use it. >> okay. you know, the middle class has been squeezed over the last decade and longer. and one thing that i know growing up, if it weren't for unions and the democratic party, many of the thing that is we enjoy now, minimum wage, 40 hour workweek, health insurance, we wouldn't have them now. because corporate america is only concerned about profit. they are not concerned about working men and will. -- and women. that's why i will always be a supporter of the working men and women of the nation. [applause] >> mr. burns, you have one minute.

>> i fully support the right for workers to organization. i fully support it. but i can tell you, i also support the right to a secret ballot. every single one of you have that right when you are going to vote, hopefully for me on may 18th. i fully support the right to a secret ballot when it comes to unions as well. i think it's important and, you know, this idea where mr. critz seems to want to punish corporation and talk about corporation. there are penalty of corporation right here in johnstown, gallecer dairy for one. corporations employee people. we need to not look to punish them, but support them. >> are you done? [applause] >> we're down to our final two

questions of they will both come from the audience. audience, thank you for sending fantastic questions this evening. the next to last question will begin with mr. burns. both candidates have stated they would create good-paying jobs, unquote. what do you consider a decent-living wage? >> i think i consider a decent-living wage, a wage where you can raise your family, you can hopefully work hard, and save your money if you want and spend it however you want, buy a home, buy a car, but i don't think it's for the federal government to determine what your living wage is. i think that's -- [applause] >> see, is the beauty about america is if you want to succeed and work hard, you can achieve anything you want. and that is the spirit of america. that's what we need to preserve. those are the principal that is we need to fight for.

not government punishing people because they want to do well. because they want to do better. those things -- those principals do nothing but hurt america. we can do better. i believe we can do better. i believe it is the right of every american to achieve whatever they want to and that's the beauty of this country. >> i'm actually told now this is the final question. mr.critz will have one minute. >> this is the final question? oh, all right. there was a time in my life that i came to work for mr. murtha, before that i had to work temporary jobs. two days here, nights here, i

needed to do that to pay the build. my wife and i were young, we had bills to pay. that's the type you have thing that we need to protect again. when small business creates jobs that you can work one job and support your family and buy your home and maybe get the go on vacations. that's a livable wage. that's the american dream. that's what i support. [applause] >> gentleman, thank you for your candor tonight. we're going to deviate just a bit. we are going to allow three minutes or a statement. there was a mix up in challenging that caused him to be late tonight. to be fair, we did agree to be here. he will have three minutes to in effect give his opening and closing statement. then we will go in the prescribed order as we choice before with the closing

statement. mr. gores, three minutes. >> i'm the liberty candidate. i'm for lower taxes and the way to do it recontain the out of control government. it's totally outside the bounce of our constitution. and when i first took the obligation of running, i did a lot of thinking. and a lot of investigation. and i've grown grown -- i've come to have a great respect to our founding fathers. they established a form of government that should be contained within our constitution and the reason why it's out of control is because our government officials have gone outside the bounce of the constitution. and we have to put them back within their bounce of the

constitution and the only way that you can do that is to vote for liberty candidates. i have two -- i came across two short videos, one's 8 minutes and the other is 10 minutes long. please go to my web page and you'll start to understand where we have to go. and -- let's see. fend we do start containing our government, not only will we be able to not increase the taxes, we'll be able to lower the taxes. and when i started this process of analyzing our government, i came to the conclusion that it had to be an educational thing for me and for the people.

one minute? okay. and i kind of remembered my mother, i was 24/7 care givers to my mother. and i went into the room are one time and she -- she was a school teacher. she started to try to educate me on everything. and then one time she -- she started talking to me about the birds and the bees. i didn't want to hear the education on the birds and the bees. it's just the mothers try to teach. i'm going to try to teach you about bad government and i wish -- all of your mother's a happy birthday, i mean a happy mothers' day. i think mothers are soup people. they should -- super people. they should have a whole month. and farmers are producers of food.

thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and now by the free selection, we'll go to our closing statements, mr. critz. sir, you have two minutes to close. >> i have two minutes. okay. again thanks to wcg democrats, richland high school, i think that was a great form for many of you to hear our ideas. i've tried to relay what my briefs and issues are. i think you can take home with you is regardless of who you agree with or who you support, you know, you should know that i care. that i care about the people of the district. i've been doing it for many years with mr. murtha. i'm talking about creating the environment for jobs. helping people live the american dream.

when i started working for mr. murtha, one of my regrets is i didn't get into public service earlier. i love my job. because i love the people here. i want to do the thing that is are needed to make the environment better. to make life better. that's what a congressman is supposed to do. he's supposed to be your voice in congress. as i listen to the arguments and the spheres that are thrown, it all comes down to -- this is -- the house of representatives is the people's house. i'm sorry. i did it again. this is your voice in congress. i want to be that voice for you, because i will listen. i will work with you. whether you are from the tea party, whether you are liberal or conservative. i'm going to do the thing that is are needed to make life better back here. i'm going to listen to everyone. a congressman's job is to listen to the people that come through that door. doesn't matter when their party is or their beliefs are. congressman represents everybody in the district. that's what i can promise you. i ask for your support on may

18th. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. burns, you have two minutes. [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please. [applause] [applause] >> mr. burns. >> well, this evening we heard some different opinions on some complex issues. i think this race is really rather simple. you want someone who's grown up in government? or do you want someone who has worked in the real world? do you want somebody who owes obama and pelosi for getting elected, or do you want someone to go to washington that will stand up against them. if you think america is on the right track and this is all the district has to offer, then i am not your candidate. because i refuse to believe this is the best the district can do. we have to use the natural resources. we have the natural resources. we have a great work force. and we have the will power to

become the energy capital of the world. i think this administration is taking america in the wrong direction. i don't believe congress should be focusing on taking over the greatest health care system in the world. i don't think they should be focusing on cap and trade and giving amnesty to illegals. mark critz believes this is the best the district can do. after all, as the director of environment development, we helped get us here. see, i believe we can do better. but it takes a different approach. remember, you don't want to send someone to congress who hopes he can attract a job. we want to send someone to congress who understanding what is takes to create them. i appreciate it. i appreciate being here. thank you so much for hosting this event. god bless you. remember on may 18th, you can vote for me, you can vote for me twice legally. i appreciate the support.

>> mr. burns, thank you. thank you for watching. and remember, vote on may 18. >> i'm confident that we can come up with a nominee that will gain the confidence of the senate and country. >> learn about the nation's highest court through the eyes of those that serve there but c-span's latest book, "supreme court" with all of the justices active and retired. "the supreme court, available now in hard cover and also as an e-book. >> by this time tomorrow night, it'll all be done and dusted. tonight reporter with the three big party leaders, michael, dan, and justin in sheffield.

while our economic senators wonder what offer warnings the crisis might holding with we've got the "newsnight" with the graphics to take the walk of fame. >> how am i supposed to do that? >> our political panel will chew over the campaign and rush in where they thread. and over the labor manifesto. >> house of lords reform. it's so nice to meet an old friend. it was promised 13 years ago. i wonder if it will actually happen. >> look at me, peter may not need to be elected to know what to do, but he sure enjoyed the campaign. well, they've clocked up thousands of miles, taken countless hands, delivered

enumerable speeches, now at lost, it's almost over. gordon brown just finished his final ralley, nick and craig has gone back to the constituents to prepare the bed. after all of that noise, effort, and money, it's as clear as mud. what we can find out though is what the parties say they believe is happening. first let's hear from the political call editor michael who's in david cameron's constituency. >> certainly speaking to conservatives tonight, they think they have done enough to form a viable minority government. some of them think they have probably done enough to achieve a small majority tomorrow. i spent much of the day following david cameron. i caught up with him at lunch

time in the west midlands. >> it's just after midday, david cameron beginning his fifth event after midnight. >> you must be tired. >> i'm fresh as a daisy. >> people have six hours. >> sky news are cooking roast beef. what has "newsnight" ever done for us? >> what have you ever done for "newsnight"? >> he has the good record of getting out and into the hospital and not getting jammed up, that's a big challenge here. >> the ambulance start met here and showed just how undecided p many voters are. >> who will you be voting for? >> i don't know. >> what about you, sir? >> i haven't yet voted. >> i'm undecided.

>> you're undecided? >> it's hard to believe an event like this will switch many votes today on the ground. it's all about the campaign showing momentum and energy. david cameron saying in a way to party workers if i can work this hard at the end of a grueling campaign, so please will you? next in rural mid whales, the fourth country in 36 hours. here, they need 11.5% swing to oust the sitting politician. >> what's the big society in welsh? that's a nice one. how long did that take you? >> in a way montgomery, sir, is a seat that david cameron is a seat that david might prefer not to win. only once has the np elected by

this seat supported the government party? >> will you support him? >> i'm undecided. >> who between? >> all of them. >> what about you? >> this is undecided moment. >> will you vote? >> yes, i will vote, definitely. >> the government on friday, do you end up home second? >> the leader of the opposition, david cameron. [applause] >> finally tonight after 30 days and 8,000 miles, the final campaign event here in the old station in bristol. >> what do we need tomorrow? change? that's what we need. when there are 1 million people unemployed and our economy stuck in a rut, what do we need, change? when the schools are drowning in bureaucracy and red tape, what

do we need, change? when the economy is through the floor, what do we need, change? when crime is too high, we need change. when gordon brown is in number 10 brown street and will do any deal he needs to stay there, what do we need, change? >> david cameron knew tomorrow is unknowns. he acknowledged the possibility of a hung parliament of gordon brown hanging on and holding the balance. not the kind of climax david cameron once hoped for. well, david has been traveling out there. what's the mood out there, david? >> they've all gone home for the night, jeremy. this small community center is a big part in the recent electoral history on the eve of 2001 and

2005 general elections, toni -- tony blair made this his last campaign stop. and those that supported labor in those contest. he said whatever your doubts or disappointments at the moment of risk to our economy, i ask you to come home to hay -- labor. labor is hope tonight. that voters will have looked at the changes message and have a look around their shop windows and asked some questions and still have significant doubts about the big issues about jobs and the economy. as he left here about 15 minutes ago to head for his constituency, did gordon brown really believe that come friday he would still be in a possession of commons majority? i don't know. but having followed him around, i can say his energy levels are undimmed. >> by the time we caught up with

gordon brown, he was already on the third campaign stop of the lead. it's amazing that in the course of these close quarter shopping center encounters, no one gets hurt. somehow the media gets their shots, workers get to cheer, a few voters get close, generally we can find out anyway, no one gets trampled to death. >> what did you get? >> the sign that says love and labor at the moment. gordon brown. >> yeah, i'm going to get it framed. right there. i'm going to get it framed. >> very lovely. he seems all right. >> about 30 minutes after he arrived, mr. brown is being whisked off. they are ready to head to the next location.

but consider this the seat where mr. brown was campaigning, lancaster, is 129th on the target list. if this seat is in danger, then laybour is in a lot of trouble. next stop for the pm is black port. well into his stride now, mr. brown can great voters. >> thank you for everything that you do. it's good to see you. >> it's great to be here. >> the next stop on gordon brown's whistle stop road trip on the last day of campaigning is here on the m6 of the depo in carlisle. they are used to big machines rolling into town. last night it was david cameron and in a few minutes time, it will be gordon brown.

in between his arrival, and meeting staff in the south canteen, there are time for live interview for the 6:00 news. today there is no such thing as down time. >> reduce the deficit by half. >> there are a few more hands to shake after, and then it's straight to the car. >> how do you enjoy the campaign? >> energizing. getting around the country. getting the metsage across. talking to people. i think our plan for the future is the only serious plan for the british economy and public service. >> and you are going to keep on trucking? >> i'm going to keep on campaigning. then going around the hole of -- whole of the country. i feel the message is clear. people want to know they have a strong economic future. they see the events happening around the world. they are a force for stability

and economic growth and jobs. >> one more campaign stop before bed and then tomorrow -- well, tomorrow mr. brown gets to vote like everyone else. >> and finally, justin is in sheffield, how's it look in sheffield? >> well, i must say nick clegg still seems bright and cheerful. he said he'd be happy to do the entire campaign again, enhe joyed it. he may have to do just that. but of course it has been an extraordinary campaign for him with an incredible surge of support after the fourth debate. of course, is his opinion pole ratings has fallen a bit. still as i discovered today, he's still able to draw a decent crowd. there was unpress sented public anger against the political. in other countries that might

have expressed itself with riots in the street or demagogue or dig they tors, not here in britain. >> how are you? how are you? hello. how are you? >> here, we go liberal. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the leader is making his most of the last day of campaigning. trying to reach the part that lib dems has been unable to in the past. >> the question is when nick clegg can deliver, they are only like to get one seat for every three labour. he's the man who would be the

king maker. >> how does nick clegg think his campaign has gone? >> would you describe yourself as revolutionary? >> no, i wouldn't make such. it's nothing like that. but i am a very passionate reformer. >> would you say there's been the fundamental rea -- realignment. >> my own view is you can't put the gee gee gee -- genie back in the bottle. >> the latest polls say you have been slipping. the change you talk about even with the small party -- >> oh. politics. >> you have 24 hours to wait. just wait and you'll see what people think. >> now we're off on the clegg battle bus. ♪