>> that foment ethnic or sectarian conflict. so in short, due i to the myriad of actors, it's difficult for activists to develop counternarratives. despite these complications, there is at least a consensus that groups killing civilians trying to create ethnic discord

and those who are engaging in the fear, particularly pitting shias against sunnis, that these issues can be starting points to frame narratives against extremism. media and communication networks also remain underdeveloped throughout the countries, there are fewer opportunities for organizations to speak out. there's also significant misconceptions of civil society objectives despite some of the initiatives i highlighted earlier. corruption, nepotism are also cited as significant problems. another common complaint is that the international community is still limited largely to engaging with english-speaking, kabul-based civil society activists. financial liability, is, of course, a chief concern. many registers csos are reliant on international funding and many have developed donor dependency, and if funding were to be significantly cut, you could have a very drastic impact on civil society. we're likely to see a high increase in unemployment

particularly amongst youth as well as fewer peaceful outlets for people to air their political and social grievances. finally, the vast majority of csos still lack institutional capacity. addressing this will take time, and activists suggested that programs like usaid's initiative to promote civil society, that these are great programs that should be continued. so what are our next steps? our interviews offered a number of recommendations specifically for peace-building and encountering violent extremism. first, groups recommended that we go local by engaging community leaders in peace-building initiatives. this is something that development experts noted worked really well with funding community development councils or cdcs. so, basically, for any local scheme like an irrigation project, the government would

provide a certain percentage of funding, and the community would have to raise the rest. so you had imam fund raising on pulpit and tribal leaders in their public gatherings. according to one of the experts we interviewed monitoring these programs, these projects also help offset radicalization. interesting connection, because people want to retain ownership of the projects and don't want to succeed the sorty to the -- sorority to the extremists. currently, the debate on the future has generally been limited to kabul's urban elite. we can encourage the development of apolitical third spaces like universities that can bring together local civil society activists to contribute to the discussions on the future. in addition, we need more leaders to participate in major state-building concernses and discussions. something, again, to keep in mind if there is another conference.

third, it's important to diversify religious engagement to include apolitical, traditional muslim groups that have the grassroots credibility and which are not associated with earlier war crimes. finally, youth should be included in all aspects of peace building. this is a particularly important reminder considering that 68% of the population is below the age of 25. so in expanding our base of partners, more refined screening processes won't actually be required which take into account organization and individuals' past history. participants should be sought out who have consistently denounced terrorism, suicide bombing, anti-terrorist activities. it's important to identify those who ascribe to shared values. and in working with former militants, extra vigilance will be required to make sure they don't say one thing publicly and another thing privately. in fact, one of our interviews with an international ngo after

a long discussion with an aid worker about religious leader engagement in public health issues, we were really surprised when he told around and told us how happy he was to meet young muslims working on these issues, and he recommended that when we return to the u.s., that we could set up a muslim organization like al-qaeda. the same way the great sheikh osama did. so you can imagine we were quite shocked someone with such extremist views was working so openly with a nationalist organization to. needless to say, we ended that interview quickly. [laughter] so all this, of course, requires that our cultural competency training efforts need to be scaled up. afghan community leaders agree that if more foreign personnel had received such training, it could have reduced cultural offenses, could have reduced distrust and even green-on-blue attacks.

furthermore, we should have training modules on identifying radical ideologies and the root of extremism so that officials engaged in outreach can better identify partners. our report also goes into some detail regarding international efforts to engage civil society groups. so from iblp exchanges that are organized through the state department to capacity building in imam training programs, while these efforts have been very well received, we need to develop follow-up initiatives starting, perhaps, with the graduates of these programs to really forge a network of peace builders who can ultimately develop national campaigns. one area which will require special attention will be networking between faith-based and the secular organization toes which to date rarely collaborate. finally, community leaders constantly asking that afghanistan's civil society be networked with their international counterparts, particularly from countries like indonesia, turkey, pakistan, all of which are facing similar issues of either insurgencies or

violence extremism. so civil society organization toes still need institutional capacity development. the most common needs expressed to us are listed here, and i'd just like to stress that training should also include guidance or becoming eligible for funding from international donors, particularly as we move forward. one of the main impediments for local organization toes to access international funding is fisa grants, smaller organization toes which are based out of kabul tend to lack the capacity to carry out larger projects or simply to compete with bigger organizations. they said they would prefer to have micrograms that could be better managed and reducing complicated reporting requirements, extending grants beyond one or two and even expediting grant allocations. and finally, given the quick

turnover of u.s. government staff in kabul, we need mechanisms to insure continuous engagement with civil society actors that we have been working with despite the difficulties of the past 12 years, there are a host of organizations that are still interested in receiving sport from the international -- support from the international community. as we mentioned, many of the groups we met with insisted that we work with them. so i'll just end here and add that we encourage policymakers and the community here to refer to our resources, and ultimately, we hope that this can help foster increased civil society engagement beyond 2014. >> great, thank you very much. while all of you are formulating your questions or figuring out how to make them more concise, i will begin -- [inaudible] [laughter] what do you foresee given the american public attitudes, given the political, the political will that's been declining

pretty rapidly in washington, the strong likelihood that attention is going to continue to wane from the international community in afghanistan and for the next few years, could you spell out for us a little bit what your concerns are and maybe bound them in terms of what's a reasonably rosy but realistic situation given the declining political will and what's your biggest fear? >> [inaudible] in the last year. obviously, we have to keep in mind that there's many, many positive sides to elections, and people are very excited about it, but, obviously, there's trepidation when change happens. we're going to have, obviously to, two sets of elections at the leadership level and then at the parliamentary level as well eventually. in the last year, this compounded with 2014 and the possibility of pullout, you've already started seeing a lot of local organizations which are less likely to engage the matter

of extremism directly. so it's very hard in the last, let's say, 8-12 months to name names anymore because there's an uncertainty about which 2345eu78s may be out there after the elections, and god forbid, if there is any further conflict that emerge, you may have retaliation after fact. after the fact. then, of course, there's the simple irk shoe of the correlation between funding troop presence, elections as well and that, obviously, people have started to feel that. in fact, almost for the last 24 months you have a lot of csos who have been in this mode drawing down a lot of their operations. at the same time, well, again, we'd like to be positive about it. we do have faith that there will be members of the international community who, especially after the tokyo commitment, will devote a substantial portion or a good portion of the $16 billion towards these kinds of

objectives. in the end, i guess what i need to -- what i'm trying to say here is that it's not a, it's not a multitrillion dollar enterprise, engaging civil society. you don't necessarily need budgets of countries, you don't necessarily need to go into a deficit situation to solve this problem. it's just some smart maneuvers and using money wisely. >> i'd also like to call attention to the importance of the countering violent extremism portfolio for the u.s. government. so i had one u.s. official tell me, he said it's about to go stratospheric with the global fund created by donor countries with the united states involved, the global counterterrorism forum, the uae, i think the issue of building resilience against militancy in afghanistan will continue to be important, and it'll continue to be an important u.s. national security interest. and so it was important for us to have people realize that the

religious leader engagement is such an important part of the cbe portfolio and hoping that we'll continue that investment going forward. >> thanks. >> as well. >> please wait until i call on you and until the microphone gets to you. and please identify yourself and keep your questions short. >> george -- [inaudible] a policy consultant for counterterrorism special operations. you alluded to it, bob, many your last answer -- in your last answer to the question. but i look back at what happened to us in vietnam. we pulled out, we said we'll go ahead and provide the logistics support and funding for the national security forces. two years later congress said a pox be on your house and cut off all the funding. you can talk about, you know, this isn't that expensive an enterprise, but all your operations have to operate under the security umbrella. and my concern is, and maybe you

can talk to it more, that what's happened in the past, the american public and congress saying what's the national interest of this. and if we pull out that kind of support, then how critical are all your operations having to operate under a security blanket where it be isaf or now the afghan security? >> thanks, george. >> you know, this issue actually comes up quite a bit, and i'd like to say that our researchers, they went with absolutely no security. so i understand the importance of building a road and bringing, like, a rack to have from japan -- tractor from japan and all of those pieces that require a military convoy to execute. the kind of projects we're talking about do not require security. so these are small, local initiatives building up a hanukkah social welfare capacity, building up a imam training program. these don't require a lot of security because be internally amongst community members they don't need security against one another. so it's only the influx of

foreigners that somehow brings a very, very serious security component. i mean, that's my impression. i don't know if you guys have -- >> if i could just add something, we have models on the ground of groups that have really functioned very well under difficult security situations -- >> with no security. >> with very little security. and so you will have these groups which are actually, i mean, they will approach a community, and you will have communities where it's very difficult to differentiate between who may be pro-state, anti-state, taliban, anti-taliban and then gray spaces in between. but there are certain needs which i think a lot of communities share, and this is really where the building blocks emerge. i mean, this is, this is conventional wisdom in development, right? i mean, i think a lot of development specialists will tell you this is really how you go about dealing with conflict zones. but i think, first of all, we should put aside -- i mean, we should keep the fear and the security element in check. we have to be realistic. but at the same time, we should

realize that there are whole areas we can work in without, again, these tractors and huge military installations. >> let's get another question. gentleman on the side, please. >> hi. i'm dennis scotch, i'm a consultant for logistics management institute and a veteran of the u.s. foreign service. the buzzword now in washington policy circles that deal with foreign operations of this type, of the type in afghanistan is partnering, and i'm not at all cynical about that. i think that's a good concept to work with toward. partnering. >> collaborating. >> well -- [laughter] now, it seems to me there's a dilemma, and i'd like your thoughts about it. and the dilemma is this: if you, if you partner, then, of course, you play into the concern that

what you're doing is a foreign-manipulated process. and if you don't, then some of the drawbacks that local institutions have -- funding, institutional sophistication or development -- work to limit their effectiveness. so how -- you referred to a few examples of partnering, usaid, usip, how do you kind of work within that dilemma, if it may be called that? >> thank you, sir. >> yeah, sure. i think it boils down to certain issues of cultural competency. when we talk about these various programs across, in fact, let's saw across the world where you're having problems with extremism, our philosophy is that local groups on the ground have been dealing with the problem of radicalization and, treatmentism a lot harder and -- extremism a lot harder and longer than we have. we found this in pakistan as

well where you have local communities who face the fire of radicalization. they're the ones who the recruitment comes out of. we've seen this in afghanistan and other parts of the muslim world, and they have certain answers. now, the answers are not perfect, the answers are not comprehensive, they're not the complete, perfect answers we're looking for, but they had answers that they actually want some support on, and then one can offer them certain institutional support to make those answers more proactive and more effective. so there are many ways of actually creating change on ground without having the stamp of your respective foreign government. and i think a lot of groups have done that. and this is, actually, something we have seen internationally that in many cases the u.s. government and various agencies have -- let me put it the other way around. we see fantastic projects that, you know, reconvene local projects. and later on it's determined that it's funded by usaid or funded by this or that. so it is possible.

it's not an unsurmountable obstacle. >> and i, for example -- oh, sorry. a simple example, one of the schools in pakistan has a network of schools has asked us, you know, we are competing with the, you know, gulf-funded extremist schools. we don't have modern resources. we need textbooks, can you give us math and science textbooks? i mean, that's not -- it has nothing to do with the, you know, u.s. government's stamp or seal on a project, it's just helping them to compete against the resources of well funded extremist groups. so little micro projects that can have a tremendous impact on their ability to keep and maintain students, for example. >> broader ons ovation -- observation just globally from conflict and looking at sub-national governance and sub-national conflict worldwide, be there is a community in the middle of afghanistan and the people who live this that community are still alive despite 40 years of war, it

means they've figured something out. [laughter] and what they've figured out has always been an underutilized resource in the international community. and so it's something that's worth paying attention to. next question, please? sure. >> thank you very much. i'm with the kabul-based think tank called afghanistan analysis and awareness. i have two questions. one is, well, at the same time that we have these good activities we've got, also, groups like -- [inaudible] who are relentlessly working to radicalize the population. they have been very, they have been successful to some extent. did you go over there, matters of activities and radicalization

in your study as well? and my second question is considering the importance of the interventions with regards to engaging the civil society network and religious leaders and this marley becomes important -- particularly becomes important considering the fact we have such religious cultural foundation in afghanistan for that considering the fact that sufi islam has been historically -- afghanistan has been big place, so why has the afghan government and instructional community has failed to tap into this opportunity? because extremism is, well, afghanistan is in the front line, but the growing threat to the security of the whole world. >> thank you. [laughter] >> conspiracy theory aside --

[laughter] we, i've heard a number of responses to that question. you know, why aren't we utilizing these various groups against this threat and why can't we position ourself toes better, why don't we vet the partners, why don't we rely on people with shared values, and we make point -- i've been making this point for decades. but -- [laughter] what a lot of people, what i've heard the response is we're not going to pick a good islam. we won't pick the right islam or the right actors. and for some reason that translates into it's not our place, we're not going to, we're not going to make decisions based on the ideological or the theological position of our potential stakeholders. and so, and, like, i grapple with this, i pontificate on this issue quite often thinking that is it because a lot of these people don't understand the power of theology or religion in these countries?

like they don't understand that this is an integral part of these stakeholders, or is it because they don't want it to be an integral part of the stakeholders, or is it sincerely not wanting to be in the middle of this issue? so i can't really say which if not all three of those reasons are a factor, but i'm inclined to think that it can't go on indefinitely. as i mentioned, you know, cbe is about to go stratospheric, the whole world is taking on this issue. even the saudis are developing a counterradicalization program. so i don't think this issue is going to go away, and we may see some development or movement towards, you know, developing a what exactly is violent extremism in the muslim context, and what are the solutions to it i'd ideologically and theologically. >> yeah. my program of study is this issue about how the united states engages with religion globally for a number of years. we put out a report about a year and a half ago and the final bit of that program.

and, you know, why -- we asked agencies throughout the government, you know, why don't we really engage with this issue, and a lot of it is part of the establishment clause of the constitution, they're not really sure if they're allowed to promote religion or not sure if they're allowed to get involved in these issues. and i have been hearing that there's still a reluctance even today -- this is something we've been looking at for about eight years now -- very happy to see that within the bureau's operations they're taking this exact issue on pretty strongly which i'm very happy to see. i think we have time more one or two more questions. i think jim in the back. >> i'm jim sheer, formerly office of the secretary of defense. thank you, bob and the panelists, for a very interesting discussion. a nonstratospheric question. how does, how do efforts to

counter violent extremism, cso-led, not the conflict and stabilization ops but civil society organizations, how are those efforts facilitated or made more complicated in afghanistan especially in the south by efforts to counter poppy cultivation, counter narcotics, that whole issue on the other side which a lot of us worry about? thank you. >> thanks. >> [inaudible] it's -- yes, they are complicated. i think that goes without saying. i think this really boils down to the fact that as was alluded to, there are obviously several -- this problem of radicalization and violent extremism in the afghanistan case is really a confluence of different factors, right? on one hand you've got groups which are ideologically driven

that you were alluding to, and i think a lot of religious scholars know very well who these people are and that it's a very foreign ideology. so there's the ideological component. and then you've got different groups which are basically militias which are supposed to be maybe helping out local communities that may be causing trouble, obviously to, drug money comes into the whole picture. so i guess maybe this is a bad answer, but, yes, i think you're absolutely right, the opium production does complicate everything because there are a lot more let's say beneficiaries from violence. and then, of course, one of the things we saw was that certain forms of violence get covered up by other forms of criminality and violation. you're not exactly sure which is the chicken, which is the egg, which came first, and then they feed upon each other. and this, essentially, makes it difficult for civil society os which are trying to d organizations which are trying to pinpoint where it begins and then get to the source of it.

>> so just another point to consider is that often when we used to engage groups and just to quickly respond to your question, our interviews would usually try to lay the ideological groundwork for us to understand what kind of groups are involved in these issues, and then when it comes to the issue of extremism because there are so many different factors and actors at play here, one of interesting ways that we were able to pull data was to ask communities, okay, how do you prevent militancy? how to you prevent drug abuse in your commitments? because that was really seen as a gateway toward other forms of violent extremism. so utilizing the drug reduction campaigns can really be an excellent inroads to addressing the cbe issue. >> and i'd like to give you the final word for the day. >> oh, my goodness. [laughter] well, thank you. thank you all for coming, and i hope -- >> actually, please turn on your

microphone. >> i keep doing that. i keep turning it off because i don't want to -- [laughter] i hope the report will be a useful tool for those of you many government or with aid organizations that are involved in cbe work or involved in afghanistan, and we would like you to reach out to us if we can be of assistance any further. we've been working very closely with a number of these groups, so we're happy to facilitate relationships or partnerships between these groups, and we look forward to the continuing investment in the afghan people. thank you. >> so our program's work on afghanistan, pakistan, south asia and other issues related to con to flick is at c3.csis.org, at word.org, presumably you can find this report and others including some work that they've done on pakistan and other places. i would like to thank all of you today for coming -- >> thank you, robert. >> and thank all of you, and please give a hand to word.

police departments. >> and coming up here on c-span2, defense secretary chuck hagel. he'll be talking about defense budget cuts and the needs of the military. he'll be appearing alongside joint chiefs of staff chairman general martin dempsey, and that's scheduled to start in just a couple of minutes from the pentagon briefing room. we'll be taking you there, 1:00 eastern time live. of. and over on c-span2 -- over on c-span, also scheduled at 1:00, the chair of the house armed services committee, buck mckeon, he'll be talking about the u.s. mission in afghanistan and the withdrawal of troops by the end of the year. we'll bring you that live from the national press club. and congress is back from their presidents day recess. the house will be in tomorrow. the senate in today at 2:00 eastern time. angus king of maine will be delivering the annual reading of

president washington's farewell address. and at 5:00 they'll be taking up debate and a vote on a u.s. district court mom nawtion. you can watch live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. >> if this deal is completed, i think it puts comcast at the nexus, the center of every major media policy debate we're going to have. i don't think the fcc -- i don't see it being in the public interest, i think the fcc should block this merger. it's why we have antitrust laws, to prevent these kinds of deals. and i think for most americans a deal like this seems unthinkable and that we've reached -- that it's gotten this far, it's being debated, i think, it really says a lot. but for me, there's really no condition that's good enough to let a deal like this go through. >> transactions are frequently used as a way to shape markets. so there are a lot of conditions that could be placed on the country's largest internet service provider be it net neutrality, low-cost offering,

being, perhaps, a buildout to schools for the president's connect ed initiative to upgrade internet access to 99% of america's schools. there are a whole host of things that are similar to conditions that comcast agreed to a little over three years ago when it bought nbc universal. so i can see it being seriously considered at the fcc as being something they would approve but with a lot of conditions. ..

>> this is supposed to be starting live any moment. [inaudible discussions]

[inaudible discussions taking place] >> waiting for the remarks to begin by defense secretary chuck hagel joined by martin dempsy on how the cuts on the military will fulfill the needs. we will look at military equipment that is not needed anymore. this is from today's "washington journal" >> this is the weekly your money series looking at how the

taxpayer dollars are spent. $300 on the aging army tanks in 2013 to upgrade them. we have the defense and government contracting report for the "washington post." what tanks are we talking about? >> we have the traditional one with the tank on top and we have the bradley vehicle that is used to move infintry into the field. it is smaller. but just as lethal >> what is happening with the tank and what is their use and what is their future? >> these have been a central part but budgets are getting

tight and they are thinking maybe they don't have the money to keep putting in >> how are they used? >> the abram is used to fight and the bradley is used to make sure they are safe and protected and get to the battlefield. >> where were they used? >> in afghanistan and iraq they played an important role. they come back to the united states damaged from the years of fighting >> what is the military doing with them after they come back from afghanistan? >> the military is trying to

referbish with lot of them but money is tight to and they would like to put it in other places. they are trying to kind of think about what else could we do, but the fear is if they stop putting money into combat vehicles and if they slow down the process so much the facilities that work them may have to close. >> have they started the sl slowdown? >> the companies that make them are expressing concern even. >> this is had spending on the abra abr abrarm tank and the bradley fighting vehicle. did the military want that amount of money?

>> that is the amount extra that congress added. congress has been consistently adding more to make sure they get enough money to get their factories open and workers employed. and these congress members say to keep the capabilities in the united states. they worry if they lose them it will be expensive and time consuming to bring them back. >> here is what what said by senator tommy: do you think we should continue funding for the 2015 budget request? we believe this could be the most fiscally responsible plan to avoid a large-scale shutdown of the bradley base and reduce risks to the army capability gi

given the envisioned use of the vehicle. why would they say that? >> they represent districts that would benefit from this. but congressmen are trying to be responsible saying it will cost us more if we shut it down. some groups accused these members of congress to protect jobs and bringing home the bacon to the district but a lot lot of members say i may benefit from the jobs, but i have the cou country's interest at heart. >> they are being upgraded. what does that include? >> technology has gotten better and they can do a lot for the capability within the tank. they have more battlefield

awareness in terms of the technology now versus the '80s. >> what are they saying about the future of land wars? >> a lot of people are thinking we will not do world wars again. maybe we are shifting to pacific and will need more naval equipment or drone. but there are people saying we are not good at predicting what the next war is so we should remain agile. >> today we are going to the brooking's institute and they are going to talk to generals and army members from the marine about this future land power. brooking is saying we have to prepare for the possibility there might be another land war >> that is the question.

in our record of predicting the next conflict is pretty much a disaster so i think a lot of people agree we want to be ready for whatever the conflict is. there are predictions we will not have the land war we had in the past, but those are also saying who knows. >> today we will hear from the secretary of defense hagel and general dempsey, they will be talking about the military budget cuts and what they are facing and their strategy for that. we will have live coverage at 1 p.m. on c-span 2. let's talk about the companies that build the tanks >> both have prime contractors. bae systems and general dynamics and then they have networks of hundreds of suppliers that supply parts from transmissions

to engines and down to little things like a seatbelt or a little mechanisms in the building. their nextwork of suppliers, the small companies that feed the vehicles is vast. >> and the suppliers came to congress to tell them not to do away with the tanks >> the suppliers have a more convincing tale. they look at the defense secretary saying you will be find loosing a program but you go to a company and this is their life blood and this contract lossage would be devastating so these companies have made convincing cases to the lawmakers >> focusing on the $313 million to upgrade the aging tanks. we would like your thoughts on this. you can start dialing in.

we have the republican line, democrat and independents and all others number. you can send us a tweet or e-mail as well. how many jobs are we talking about here? >> i think it is hard to get an exact number, but there have been thousands at the bae plant and general. i know bae has 576 supplier companies so you can imagine how many each employees they have. >> why can't the contractors adjust to the new weapons coming for the future? drones or other types of weapon systems. >> maybe they can. one option is maybe they can sell these victims to foreign militarys and adapt to new things.

but these are specialized skills and the idea is if you redeploy these assets you will loose what is there. that is the case the companyeri companyeri companyerizes are making >> why do we need to build more tanks when the doe is considering cutting the budget? how many did we have? how many do we have now? what is the future projection? >> there are 1100 fighting vehicles in the army's inventory. half are upgraded and ready to go and half are obsolete and in long-term storage or awaiting up great. so there are 5,000 plus thanks tanks in use right now and ready for use. >> radical on twitter says what

armored vehicle is being supplied to local police? is there a domestic use? >> these vehicles are very heavy. we did deploy some trucks that were meant to safely get you through roadside bombs and those might be useful on the border but it is hard to picture them thon roads we drive on. >> i don't see any case. should every job created by a federal government be maintained because it creates jobs in a small town? ken, democratic caller, is on the air. >> what happened happened if journalist lived up to their professional ethic code and used

their information to talk about what really destroyed the buildings on 9-11 -- >> we will move on to jerry >> i don't think we should put more money into the those tanks. they have been obsolete for the last 20 years. we should pea be taking care of the armed forces. we have too many right now. we have to cut back and we don't have to be defending all over >> i think that is exactly the debate that is happening right now. what the leaders are saying and what you will see in the budget later today is it is time for hard choices and i think one of the things that comes up. and once they are injured and out of the service, theories are the hard choices that are going

to be made in tight budget times >> your call collying -- collying -- colleague wrote that are keeping troops in afghanistan, what does barring does that play? >> it matters in terms of the budget. it is very expensive to be in afghanistan and have soldiers abroad. every choice comes with a tradeoff and that is what the defense department is going through. >> alan in alabama, independent call e caller, hi, alan. >> i was listening to the program and she is talking about tanks become obsolete and i

don't understand where that mindset comes from. they would never be obsolete in any type of war. >> i am not taking that case. the argument the army is making do we need more than the ones we have. we have these but do we need to invest in more or the capability to produce more. that is not my judgment. that is the decision that the pentagon is going through. >> john in franklin, tennessee, democratic call. you are on the air. >> i cannot believe i am on the air. but anyway, the $300 million is just a drop in the bucket for all of these tanks. >> that is the argument that a lot of members of congress are making. they are saying it doesn't cost that much relative to

multi-billion dollar budgets to keep the factories going. they are saying it put as little money toward preserving a capability we may need and that would cost more to restart. that is the decision that has to be made and that is the argument we are hearing from the members of congress >> why would it cost more money to restart? >> the argument that companies have explained to me is if you moth-ball them or close them down, it is expensive to get the lines going again and perhaps what is more difficult is getting the right people. you have people with generations of training and they have seen a lot and if you let them go they will move on and they will not come back and you will have to trade a new workforce that has to go through decades of experience to rebuild. that is the argument that the contractors are making. >> does the army say they don't need any tanks at all? >> no.

the army has never said tanks are obsolete. they are saying we think we are good. we have enough and we need to deploy the money we have into other things. they are encouraging the customers to look outside of them. they are the only customers for these vehicles. but perhaps other countries might want these. so they are saying consider other ways besides us to stay afloat and we need to put our money into other priorities at the moment. >> how many soldiers can be carried on each tank? >> the abrams is less likely to be have soldiers. the bradley carries up to ten men. it is meant to get to the field. it is very tight. i have ridden in one. but you can fit a few men and

women. >> is that what they need or the capacity to carry more? >> i don't think it comes down to the capacity of the vehicles. they are saying we have these, they are good vehicle and we need to do other things >> kim in toledo, ohio. >> this is tim. >> oh, hi, tim. >> people need to get down to the basic question. we complain about how the debt and then say we can afford the biggest military the world has seen. we have to decide if we want the giant military it is going to be expensive on the taxpayer. if we want to get down to a rationale military we can save a couple dollars. people need to listen to basic

questions. >> i think that is the simplest way to look at it is what do we want. those are the tough choices. but not everyone agrees and i think the point we are trying to make is you have three key decision makers: the army saying here is what we want, congress saying you decide what we get and industry is influencing both sides. the military says we need to take money from this pool or that pool but congress says no sometimes. so these are the debate and the difficult part, not so-simple part is who is the ultimate decision maker and it is congress because they appropriate the money. >> when we hear from hagel and dempsey what do you expect them to say about the size of the military? >> i think they will say it will get smaller. you should view the rollout as

just the beginning. this is what the military says it wants to do, what it can afford and some of the proposes might be unattainable to congress and this is the beginning of a debate in the budget. whatever they rollout is just the first step. really this is just an opening and a negotiating that will go on >> and then congress weighs in. harley in florida next. >> good morning, i have a bad cold so i will try to speak fast. homeland security bought 2700 light tanks and i know one meant to miami and i would like to know where the other 26,099 went. >> i am not familiar with that, i am sorry. >> why is that important? >> good afternoon. first let me acknowledge and

thank chairman dempsey and vice chairman, our chiefs and secretary who are here as well as the comp controller and our acting assistant or deputy secretary of defense christine fox for the work they have put in over the last few months, in particular to get us to this point, where we have a budget that we are going to present to the congress next week. i want to talk a little bit about that. chairman dempsey will also add his remarks but i am very grateful. i know president obama is grateful to these men and women

who have spent time in putting this together. i particularly want to note the comp controller, bob hale, this is his last budget unless we call him back into duty. but i am particularly appreciative of his willingness to stay through the budget which wasn't an easy task for bob hale. you know the kind of service he has given this country and department for many years. thank you for all you do and your team. we are grateful. today i am announcing the key recommendations i have announced for the 2015 fiscal year budget and beyond. these recommendations will adapt and shape the defense enterprise

so we can continue to protect the nation in the era of change. as we end the combat in afghanistan, this is the first budget to reflect the transition dod is making after 13 years of war. the longest conflict in the nation's history. we are repositions to focus on the challenges and opportunities that will define the future. new technologies, centers of power in a world that is growing more unpredictable and in some instances more threatening. the choices will define the years to come. chairman dempsey and i worked in a pragmatic and clway to work together with the chairman and

chiefs in developing these processes that began with the management review last summer. i want to recommend the senior enlisted leaders in each of the services for their contributions and their involvement and leadership and what they continue to do for the count ray and their help and input for building the budget. we are building on the president's 2012 defense guidance. this defense strategy is focused on defending the homeland against all strategic threats, building security globally projecting aggression and remaining to be prepared against any advisary.

they will continue tofocus on the asian pacific and pursue global terror networks. we have two new realities: the development of more advanced military technology of other nations. we are entering an area where american dominance in the seas, sky and space can't be taken for granted. defense spending isn't expected to reach the levels projected into the five-year plan submitted by the president. given these realities, we must adapt, innovate and make difficult decisions to make sure the military is ready and capable.

as a consequence of budget cuts, we will have additional risks in areas so we packaged the interest and matched them to budget resources. this required difficulty choices. we chose reduction in every service, active and reserve in order to sustain the readiness and critical capabilities like cyber resources. we chose to delay or end some programs and chose to slow the military compensation cost that will preserve the force and free up critical funds needed for training. before describing the pacific

regulations, let me discuss the decisions mind the decisions making. one year ago, abrupt automatic spending cuts were imposed around the country. for dod these cuts amounted to $37 billion. they came on top of the $487 ten-year defense cuts required by the budget control act of 2011. the president submitted the 2014 budget plan that would have repealed those cuts in favor of balanced deficit reduction and that would have given dod the resources to implement the january's 2012 defense strategy and maintain a ready and modern force. two months ago, rather than

fully repealing sequesteration, congress passed a budget act that provided some relief. it gave dod much needed security, but the defense spending remains below what the president requested in his fiscal 2014 budget request. under the spending units of the bipartisan act, the dod budget is $496 billion this fiscal year or $31 billion below what the president requested. the law also limits dod spending to $496 billion which is $45 billion less than what projected in the president's budget request last year. so dod welcomwelcomes the measu

stability the budget act provided, but it forces us to cut more than $75 million over two years in addition to the $37 billion cut me took last year and the budget control act ten-year reduction of $487 billion. and sequester level rates remain the law for fiscal year 2016 and beyond. the president will soon submit a budget request that adheres to bipartisan budget acts for fiscal year 2015, but it is clear the military will still face significant readiness challen challenges next year. the president will include an

initiative that would provide $26 billion dollar for the defense department in 2015. they would be paid for with a balanced package of spending reforms. it will allow us to increase training, upgrades and repairs to facilities. i strongly support the president proposal. the proposal will contain a new five-year defense budget plan mapping out defense programs until 2019 and predicts $115 billion more in spending and the reason we have requesting this is because the president and i would never recommend a budget

that compromises the national security and sequesteration rates require cuts so deep we c c c cannot shorten the military enough. it would result in a hollow force that is not ready or capable of fulfilling missions. in the long-term the resulting force would be too small to fully execute the president's defense strategy. the president's fiscal year 2015 budget offers a more deliberate and far more responsible approach that protects readiness

and maintain a force large enough to maintain the strategy. this plan balances the need to protect the national security with the plan to be realistic about security levels. dod has complete addd a detaile plan so it will continue through 2016 and beyond. the idea of a changing environment requires us to make difficult choices and prioratize. some of the changes we must make now. for other choices, particular the size of the armed forces, we have built decision points in the plan and we will make them when we have more clarity regarding future spending levels. our budget gives us the flexibility to make different

decisions based on different outcomes. before we recommend any changes in the military size, we focused on reducing dod's overhead and operating cost. i announced a 20% cut in dod's major head quarters operating budget which is expected to save $5 billion in operating cost over the next five years. they will include service in combat head quarters and we are cutting back on spending and personal and improving the quality of financial information and other steps to become more efficient in addition to implement the $200 billion cuts dod has submitted in the last three budget proposals. we cannot fullly achieve the

goals without cutting unnecessary and costly infrastructure. so for that reason they will ask for another round of base unit closure in 2017. i am mindful they have not agreed. but if congress continues this, we will have to consider over tool to further reduce infrastructu infrastructure. we are reducing it where we can, in europe where brac isn't needed, we have reduced the cost and this spring they will recommend further cuts which dod will pursue. reducing overhead will continue to be important, but the savings will not be by themselves enough to meet targets under the

president's budget. we had to carefully examine the military's force structure. and our force structure changes are rooted in three realities: we are no longer sizing the military to conduct large and long operations. we must maintain our edge over the potential advisaries and we must ready to act quickly. our recommendations favor a smaller force that can defeat more technology advanced. we pursued all three level of the nuclear triad and we will

make all efforts to pursue a safe nuclear force. they can kercar carry out a var other techniques such as defeating threats and other things. they can sustain security in the middle east and europe and our engaget in other regions. our recommendations seek to predict capabilities uniquely suited for terrorism and crisis response. our special operations forces will grow to 69, 700 to roughly 66,000 today. let me describe key recommendations for each

military services. for the air force, an emphasis on capability meant we protected the new bomb, jet striker and refueling tanker. and recommended investing one billion in a next generation jet engine technology which we will expect will reduce fuel and lower maintenance needs. it will help ensure a robust base and it is very strong and itself a national asset. the airforce will reduce the entire a-10 fleet. retiring the a-10 fleet savers $3.5 billion and excellerates

the plan. the wart hog is a venerable platform. but it was designed to kill enemy tang tanks on a cold war battle field. as we saw in iraq and afghanistan, the advant of precisi precision means there are many through aircrafts that can execute more than one decision. significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet. because of the fixed cost of

maintaining the cost associated with that aircraft. keeping a smaller number of a-10s would only delay the forcing worse tradeoffs else where. they will also refire the u-2 in favor of the unmanned global hawk system. this decision was a close call as dod recommended retaining the u-2 over the global hawk because of cost issues. but over the last several years, dod has been able to reduce the global hawk operating cost. it makes a better high altitude plan for the future. the air force will slow the growth of the unarmed systems that is affective against terrorist but can't operate in the face of modern air defensive. instead of increasing to 65

around the clock predators, the air force will grow to 55. still a significant increase given the continued drawdawn in afghanistan this level coverage is suefficient to meet our requirements and we would be able to surge to 71 under the plan. dod will continue to by the capable reapers until we have an all reaper fleet. if cuts are reimposed in 2016, there will be more cuts. they will have to retire 80 more including the tanker fleet and the global hawk 40 fleet and slowdown of future plans.

and sustain ten fewer predator and reaper patrols. the air force will take deep cuts to flying hours. next the navy, under the president's budget plan they will launch an ever to maximize resources available to by and build new ships. the inventory will be allowed to grow. the spending levels would propose the navy to maintain 11 stri strikes. we will have to take a decision

on the george washington. she would need to be retired before the scheduled nuclear overhall and that would lead the navvy with ten carrier strike fleets. it would cost $6 billion so we would have no other choice to retire her. at the president's budget level, we would pay for the overhaul and maintain 11 carriers. half of 11 ships will be laid up and placed in reduced status while they are modernized and returned to service with greater capability and longer lifespan. this approach allows us to maintain the cruisers which are

the most capable. the navy's fleet will be modernized which continues to by two detroyers and two submarines a mere. we have preserved the fleet programs and provided for ship inventory increases. i am concerned they are relying to heavily on the lcs for its numbers. no new contracts beyond 32 ships go forward. the lsc line will continue. the lcs was performed to continue mind sweeping missions in a permissive environment.

but we need to examine whether it has the independent weretection -- protection -- and operating fire to withstand in new technology especially in the asian pacific. if we built it out to 52 ships as previously planned, it would represent 1/6th of the future navy. we must direct future building resources that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict. the navy will submit additional proposals to produce a new existing ship design and modified lcs. they are due to me next year in

time for the budget commission. if the sequester levels return, we will be forced into tougher decisions on the navy service fleet. six additional ships would be held up and we would have to slow the rate of destroyers and that cut would be ten fewer larger combatant ships by 2013. the navy would halt the joint strike fighter for two years as well. the marine core's crisis responsibility and maritime focus make it well-suited to carry out many of the president's wishes, if the

budget is constrained we can avoid those already plans. the marines had 190,000 and they will draw down to 182,000. if the cuts are imposed in 2016 and beyond, they will go down to 175,000. we will employ 900 more to enhance embassy security around the world. finally the army. we seek a ready and capable army. to achieve this, they must excellerate the place of the post-war drawout. there are 520,000 active duty soldiers and they planned to go down to 490,000 but management

reviews and the qdr decided since we are no longer in the operation, an army of this size is larger than the demand. given the budgets, it is more than we can afford to modernize and we have decide to go down to 440, to 450,000 soldiers. and we will redirect the building funds to the generation platform. i have asked them to deliver realistic visions for a vehicle modernization. it would result in a smaller army, but ensure the army is

well-trained and clearly superior in arms and equipment. it entails addition risk even if we have extended ground operation, our analysis show this force is capable of defeating aggregation in one theater and defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces in another theater. if the cuts are reimposed in 2016, the army would go down to 420,000 soldier. the army and national regard will draw down. today the numbers are about 355,000 soldiers and the reserves is about 205,000 soldiers.

by 2017, there would be 335,000 in the army national guard and 195,000 in the reserves. if the cuts return in 2016 the national gart down to 315,000 and army reserve down to 185,000. we have protected them from cuts to the extent possible. but in order to maintain a capealable force, no component of dod can be exempt of reduction. this 5% recommendation in guards and reserve service is smaller than the 13% in active duty. i am mindful of the sense of

saying there should be less cuts since they provide more for less cost. but surge priority is just one factor. we have to prioritize readiness and capability. a reserve unit is the same cost as an active duty unit when deployed. guardsman performed well in iraq and afghanistan. we could not have achieved what we did with them. but better integration should

reside in the full-time force where these capabilities will be more ready and available to commanders. what best service serves the national security and when the force complement the service. the active army will transfer black hawk helicopters to the national guard. these changes to the guard's helicopter fleet are part of a broader alignment of the aviation designed to modernize their fleet and make it more affordable. the force will retire their jets used and it will reduce by 25% but be significantly modernized

over the president's plan. the guard's fleet of helicopter would be going down by 8% but it will get new black hawks and light helicopters. if the cuts are reimposed in 2016, the army would have to cut 50 of the hell coppersers from the guard force. it will still serve as a compliment to our active duty force and being equipped for federal and state requirements for homeland defense and disaster relief. we affirm the value of a highly reserved capable unit and keeping a mind on how to meet the demand given fiscal demands.

we made decisions on fiscal realities and in bias facts. and with the focus on how best we can defend the united states. beyond the modernization there is the challenge of dod cost, civ civilian and military. we have complied to reduce our personal numbers and reshape the civilian workforce so it has the skills for the future. given the steps taken including a three-year pay freeze, no realistic effort to find saving can find dealing with military comp ensation and that is pay for benefit for active and retired troops direct and in

kind. the primary way to reduce primary spending has been discussed: reducing the number of people in military. too small of force adds too much risk to the national security we must address spending on my and benefiting for military benefits which since 2001 has risen 40% than the growth sector. congress boosted levels above what the dod requested. new benefits were also more than what was expected or sought out. i supported the proposals at the time. it was the right thing to do given the burdens on the military members, the recruiting

and the fact we had few constraints on spending. but the dod is facing a vastly different situation and all of the services continue to meet goals. this year we are concluding combat operations in a war that lasted 13 years; the longest war. we must consider fair and responsible adjustments to the military package. we will recommend a 1% raise in basic pay for military with the eshception of general and flag officers whose pay is frozen for a year. basic pay raises beyond fiscal year will be restrained, though raises will continue. we are recommending a number of changes also. we will slow the growth of tax-free housing allowances which cover 100% of housing

coverage until they cover 95% with a 5% out of pocket contribution. in comparison, the average was 18%. and we will no longer reimburse for renter's insurance. we are not shutting down commonsary, they will get free rent and pay no taxes and they will continue to provide a very good deal to retirees. overseas and those in remote location will continue to receive direct subsidies and we will modify the tri-care health

plan by adjusting copays in ways that encourage members in ways to use the affordable ways care such as military preferred providers and generic insurance. and we will have retirees to pay more, but their benefits will remain affordable and generous as they should be. to protect the most vulnerable, medically retired service members and the survivors of members who die in active duty would not pay this and would pay a smaller share cost of health care other than the retirees. no recommended changes for retired benefits for those

serving in the military forces. we are waiting on a report in february of 2015 and we will await that commission report before pursuing reforming in this area. >> the senate is about to gavel in here and you can continue watching secretary hagel on c-span. cutting the military to pre-world war ii days, did the world become safer overnight? we have spent trillions in afghanistan and iraq, now it is time for money in this country. congress, back in section after president's day, house in tomorrow but senate in now.

angus king is going to read the washington fair well address and this is live coverage of the senate on c-span2.