main culprit -- there's not a single member who's decided. i wasn't there, but according to the reports from the radio station, that was the case. what i'm saying is you have a crisis. not easy to see how you can extricate yourself from crisis. the international community in terms of its overseeing and more cynical people said they just want their own person in power. ..

>> i'm not quite sure how realistit is but to do anything but to try to move on with the show, and flawed as it is, and try to take some corrective measures. but i agree with robert 100% in his assessment of that. i think we're really at an impasse here, and i don't see those calling for a transitional government or mixed commission, i don't see them getting very far. there's not a cohesive institutional force that really supports them in this, and as one paper wrote the other day,

it's been much more of an emotional response than realistic response. so -- >> okay. thank you. we're going to be open for your questions, comments. why don't you start us. >> thank you. -- >> we're going to take two or three questions, and then -- >> stepping away from the specifics of the electoral -- >> [inaudible] i'm sorry. >> i'm john varba, the director of haiti college fund. stepping away from the specifics of the electoral process, i'm wondering what is the effect of this chaotic process on the functioning of the government? everything from the day-to-day operations of getting permits approved, it's a longer term restructuring and plans to develop ministries of health, etc. because those of us that work with the haitian government, we need to understand how this

political process affects the ability of the government to operate as a partner. >> maybe three rows back, all the way to the right or to left. [laughter] >> [inaudible] i've just done an -- >> could you speak up? >> eileen -- i've just done an article for latino magazine. i found that the state department was being asked to be more involved and that there had been a request for $30 million for the elections, and i was wondering if you could clarify that. >> one last question before -- >> thanks. mark cohen from oxfam america. i guess two questions. one, in the 1990 election i

think it would be fair to say that there were some competing ideas, notwithstanding the underlying structure that robert has explained very well today and in his books, but this seems much more driven by personalities and just competition to get the goods. and i hesitate to characterize it that way given another country that has an election that seems to be driven by personality coming up next year, but the campaign has started already. second question -- [laughter] i understand there are also local elections for local councils and executive bodies occurring, and it seems to me that a lot of the day-to-day development issues that bob mentioned are actually handled by those bodies. and i think there hasn't been a local election since 2001. given the chaos for a smaller

number of elections, what are the prospects for the local elections being smooth and and a good, democratic process? >> bob, do you want to start off this round? they're both bobs. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> yeah. i'm going to jump, first, into mark's questions, because i think all the questions are very good, and i think this one really is a crucial one. and i think this idea of elections based on competing ideas is one that kind of gets lost in the mix of these personalities. and as i tried to emphasize, you know, what are the motivations of people to run for office? you know, it's not like they're lawyers who are running for office, and if they lose, they go back to their job.

a lot of the motivation here is to get a job. i can recall, for example, the first parliament that was elected in 1990 and the handbook that was done on them by an outfit that, unfortunately, does still not do this. and then there's some ngo out there that could do this, this would be a great service, to have some sort of a handbook on who actually gets elected. but one thing that struck me was that most of the people in the lower house did not speak french. they put their language as creole. and most of them did not have a profession that they listed except for, like, farmer or merchant or something like that which is kind of informal economy. so what drives a lot of this is the personality because the motivation is to get in office, to get a job, to get access and in some cases depending on the personality, to revel in immunity that is granted to political actors in haiti once

they get elected. the issue of local election, it always flies way under the radar. what has actually flown under the radar which i find rather disturbing is the fact that over time the current president appointed all of the mayors of haiti, because elected officials lost their term in office, their time expired so that every municipal official in haiti's 133 municipalities is a mar telly-appointed person. so given that dynamic and given what we've seen happen on august 9th, i think it's rate optimistic, very optimistic to think that any kind of a local election can go very smoothly. now, those appointed mayors are not supposed to be able to run for office but, certainly, they've got their candidates, and they'll use whatever

qualities they can to support them. >> yeah. it's very difficult to see how the election this october is going to be -- in october is going to be much better than the one that took place on august 9th, to be blunt. especially given that you have not only a second round of the legislative elections, but you also have 25 constituencies where you're going to have another rerun. then you'll have the presidential elections which are, obviously, the big enchilada. so to some extent, it may well be what happened at the lower level will be ignored, and everyone will concentrate on the presidential election. but the danger there is that it may be also quite bad. so we are going to have to see. now, the question that mark posed about the election as a

competition of ideas, different ideological provision, well, this is gone. it's been gone since 1994, for all practical purposes. you know, we are ultimately in a neo-liberal world. whatever you may want to say once you get to power, you are almost compelled to follow the model. go and ask the greeks who are much more structured than haiti. and we know what happened. [laughter] so it leads to a great amount of cynicism. whomever you elect is the same old stuff. you know? you have the same programs. export-orr credibilitied -- oriented, you know, baseball, textile. nothing is done for agriculture except when you export certain things. the country is wide open to goods from abroad. so haiti produces virtually

nothing. we are become a periphery of the dominican republic. we import so much, there's no infrastructure. it doesn't exist. and that leads to the question about the government. the government has been eviscerated for a long time. this is a simple reality. what the government does thousand is to organize, to put it bluntly, carnivals. and we have one right now which is, you know, a full week where you're going to have celebrations. whatever that means. and some people have argued that the announcement of the result was, to some extent, postponed because they didn't want trouble during the carnival. this is what many haitians are saying. so you have an eviscerated state which has been even more eviscerated as a result of the tragedy of the earthquake. reconstruction has been very poor, to put it bluntly.

and that's the optimistic version. now you have a situation where there's a crisis in terms of food security. it is becoming increasingly serious. you have the possibility of that storm becoming, you know, another major natural catastrophe. so the scenario is really quite bleak. i'm sorry to say that. i don't see a way out given the political class that we have, given the international involvement. i think the key actors are, essentially, doing what they've been doing for the past 40 years with, no surprise, the same results. so i think five years from now we'll be here, and we'll say the same thing. i hope i'm completely wrong. >> just a quick comment on the

question about the state department, greater involvement. >> yeah. the price tag for this first round of elections is being thrown out there at $38 million. i don't know if that will be something like $4 a vote or something like that. but, you know, most of that is covered, of course, by international organizations,ing and the u.s. takes the lead on that. there has been question about funding gaps for the remaining two steps, so this is probably the source of that information. but i think it's also worth stating that there's a new team this transition at -- in transition at the state department to be responsible for haitian affairs. the person who was serving as the haiti special coordinator since 2010, late 2010 has just stepped aside a, this would be tom adams. and in his place, former ambassador to haiti ken burton

has -- he began on monday as the special coordinator for haiti. the current ambassador, pamela white, who has been an extremely polarizing figure within haiti, is in her last few days. her successor has been confirmed and will be going to haiti, presumably, sometime in september. now, to what extent this will shift u.s. policy or u.s. actions, it's certainly hard to tell. it's been my, to my frustration, how the u.s. seems to have enabled martelli over the past three or four years to act the way he's acted. and, hopefully, that might change in the last few months,

hopefully, of his presidency. but, you know, so i'll at least have some guarded optimism that things could improve with a new team coming from the u.s., because there is no doubt that it's the u.s. that is the major player in haiti. and robert, of course, talks about this very explicitly this his presentation. in his presentation. >> one thing i should just add is that the crisis in haiti now, the major crisis would have significant repercussions on the elections in the united states if only because of hillary clinton. this is something that people should remember. it's something that is going to have an impact on, to put it bluntly, the democratic administration managing of those elections. they can't afford a major crisis with all the consequences that

this entails. >> mr. ambassador. >> thank you very much. paul spencer, organization of american states. since reference has been made to the statement of the oas electoral observation mission, and i was, since i was there, i thought i will just make a comment. one, the oas has not lowered its standards of observing elections. the statement did, indeed, say that important consideration was the fact that elections were held. that was against the background that up to 8:00, as you know, ted, many polling stations had not opened. but compared to 2010, we are observers of present. the process was seen to its successful conclusion on that day.

in 2010 because of endemic violence in many parts of the country, we had to pull our observers out of both areas by a certain time. we did not have to do that this time. so i think it's in that context you you must see the reference to the fact that elections were, in fact, held. and that was an important and significant aspect. we also made a number of recommendations or commented about issues we saw, the logistical challenges, even the violence that we was witness in some areas and disorganization aspects in other areas. we have been putting together a number of recommendations which, we hope, will be taken on board by the cep. in fact, at yesterday's press conference we noted that the cep, as it indicated, is going to address all of those issues

prior to the next elections. and it's a process and a delicate balance has to be found between, you know, indicating that elections were so flawed that it would undermine any future elections in this current round. thank you. >> a question, this gentleman here. >> i'm fabio joseph philippe from the university of -- [inaudible] a university in haiti. i just have a comment. thank you for your presentation, and i am in argument with your recommendations. but for the last 27 years, i have been trying to help the people, to promote democracy. first, to help the farmers to have neighboring groups; second,

to help them get access to water, to sanitation, to education, to most of the basic human needs. and, actually, we have a team in haiti to serve the problem of haiti. this team has three heads; the young people who need access to higher education, the second one is the local grassroots organizations, and the third one is the haitian diaspora. my question is, how can you help? thank you. >> third question? go ahead. [inaudible] >> thank you. ryan peck, george washington awe lumbar knew. -- alumni. my question is, have foreign

governments or ngos taken think role this helping to hold or -- in helping to hold or set opportunity haitian elections, and has there been any reaction from the haitian public to their involvement or lack of involvement? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. michael shifter, inter-american dialogue, and thank you for your great presentations. i thought the heating we had earlier this year -- this week on brazil was pessimistic. something to take note of and then a question. one is that, you know, there used to be a time not too long ago when haiti was the example of international cooperation in this hemisphere. and with the role of -- [inaudible conversations]

[laughter] >> may i have your attention, please, hay i have your attention, please -- >> there has been a fire emergency reported in the building. please leave the building. find the nearest exit. [laughter] >> we have to -- [inaudible conversations] >> okay. michael? >> okay. as i was saying -- [laughter] thank the hard core troopers for coming back. i had just had two points, one was really just an observation about talking about the role of the u.s. government in haiti, but this was, for the inter-american dialogue and other groups, this was the example of regional cooperation.

and with the interest of brazil and other countries, that seems to have really changed dramatically, and i'm wondering if you could maybe -- if you had any reaction to that. really the second one i was asking robert, when i hear the term "political class" that he's mentioned four or five times, whether this is completely frozen, static, unchanged over the years. is this political class completely identifiable? are there people joining the political class, challenging the political class? is there any more fluidity in it, or is it absolutely, completely fixed, and it's been fixed for the last generation, and it will always be fixed? this term, "political class," if you could get a little bit below that, thank you. >> broken instead of fixed. >> okay. yeah, political class, to me, is essentially the politicians in

haiti, irrespective of political parties. what you had especially after 1994 is an increasing amount of of -- [inaudible] people moving from one party to another and they move far from the losing party to the party that looks like it's going to win. i mean, you can see, for instance, the creation of parties is really very artificial. you have, for instance -- now it's a party. and you have one coming from no where, now it's a very powerful party. you have the party of -- [inaudible] now, what happened is that people moved to ted chalet, people from -- [inaudible] there is movement. now, there is a new group of people moving especially at the

lower level, and that's what's surprising. people get old to. [laughter] so you have to replace them. this is a new political class, and there are few young tykes, as it were, who are emerging in particular from the haitian elite who want to be part of the political system. i mean, the poster boy is running, and he looks like he may be winning. and i think this is a different kind of politician. you know? kind of the moderate elite. but in terms of political programs, you don't see them, because parties emerge for elections. and then you have a clean hotel, and that's what it is. buclier have a lot of new people, particularly at the regional level, but they're a party created by establishment, if you wish. a candidate.

and there's a lot of talk now about, you know, who's going to be the presidential candidate, ultimately, that month. there is also steve who's from buclier, and people say at one point one of them is going to be dropped, and maybe it will be are moniz, and there are people that have moved to -- [inaudible] a lot of people have moved away because they were not happy with the selection of marcis. so you have -- [speaking french] of the political parties. but there are new people coming because people -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> just to add a couple things to that answer. one is the nature of political

thought in haiti. i think we mentioned earlier in this session that nobody's fighting elections over ideology. people are fighting elections over personality and to get access. so to think of haiti's political structure along a continuum of a horizontal continuum, left, right and center, i think it's misleading. i've always thought of haiti's political structure more like a horseshoe shape where people jump over, jump sides left to right, and they do it very opportunistically according to where they think their advantage is. and one of the motivations for this is that politics is one of the few avenues of social and economic mobility in haiti available to the average person. i mean, it's politics, you can become a politician, or you can get involved in religion. i mean, that's another avenue. but you're talking about entrepreneurship and business. no, it's not an avenue because

people don't have access to resources to be able to really climb up an economic ladder. so there's a real strong desire to get into politics, to affiliate yourself with the leader who has the greater chance and become one of his foot soldiers so that then you'll get access. we've seen this repeatedly over the past 30 years. i'd like to just make a couple comments on joseph philippe's question about relating to the three keys of the diaspora, the youth and the grassroots groups. >> [inaudible] >> yes. yes. you know, i mentioned this my presentation -- in my presentation i'm a development guy, and i'm a development guy because i worked for 25 years with the inter-american foundation supporting grassroots development in haiti that were coming not from the diaspora as much as from grassroots organizations. and it's always been remarkable

that haiti has such an extensive network of community-based organizations that are organic and that arise within their communities but are generally left out of the equation. what does the development equation generally take into account? it takes into account organizations based in the united states, be they ngos or for-profit contractors, it takes into account huge amounts of money that go to these organizations to sponsor projects. i mean, you know, $126 million for a feed the future project and two watersheds? $83 in another feed the future project and two watersheds up in the north? you know, these -- unfortunately, this funding just does not work directly towards supporting these organizations that you mentioned. i'm a little less cognizant of the diaspora and what we're

speaking of as the diaspora, because it's been my experience that to try to provide opportunities for young haitian-americans who are maybe rising juniors or seniors at university who would want to go to haiti and try to find a way to fit in, i think one of the problems we've seen since the ouster of duvalier has been people from the diaspora coming with their own ideas and they're not organically trying to connect so much with haitians. so i would recommend that these kind of organizations, particularly the grassroots groups and the youth, merit support and that those organizations that are responsible and have resources to support them, again, should listen to them, should -- you know, i always say this, that, you know, what development agencies tend to do is go in and say what are your needs, what do you need, and we'll give it to you. we'll deliver it to you. and that just hasn't worked. but rather, to go in and talk to

people in their communities, in their organizations and say what is it you are doing and how can we help you do it better. and that way we are responding to ask supporting these networks and these institutions at the grassroots which grow and strengthen the political process as well. >> one thing about the diaspora, what is interesting is you see that the diaspora is not voting -- >> [inaudible] >> not voting. there was a lot of talk the diaspora was going to participate -- [inaudible] blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. they are not voting. so that tells you that there is a real problem. now, the logistical problem of involving the diaspora in an election would be massive. but this is a fact. the other thing is about the youth, and i think one of the real problems for haiti is that the youth are not a majority of the population. but there is no future, because they have no jobs.

even if you get an education, you don't have a job. i mean, they used to say this creole, essentially, you need to swim to get out of this mess. go abroad. and there is that ugly reality. and this is why we have problems with the dominican republic. i have a bad situation in the dominican republic. haitians go there. ..

probably if they want to stop talking and writing and doing something, we can meet with been there. and also at the university, we are educating job creators and job wondered, not job seekers. and for the association, we have said that 75 young people outside of haiti and france, and trinidad, in cuba. all of them come back and now

they are the leadership. when we are talking about the local grassroots organizations, we want the high school graduates, college graduates from all universities to go back, integrate job opportunities and business opportunities. and i think there's an experience from the university. if you want, he can share that with you. >> yes. the haiti college fund support the education of a young man and he was one of the first students to go through it i believe. is returned to his community with his degree in veterinary medicine. but not only is he able to provide those services to local community but he's been answer them and starting several small projects, you know, everything

from goat farm to teaching people how to raise better food for the animals, and working on papaya projects. his ability to be a leader is really remarkable, and he is so in touch with the local community. so these are some of poster child for the idea that within education you could go back to your local community and create opportunities where there were none before. we are not telling about passionate we are not telling him about this project. is coming up with on his own spirit the problem is they tend to be michael projects. this is a beginning. i'm talking about the macro picture. one thing about the diaspora, supporting haiti, what is it, $2 billion now? we thought it would be in a real mess.

there's a very come and reality, they need the diaspora. know, the question is how do you integrate the two. that's very complicated. many people are made to feel when i go back to haiti, they take jobs from the people in haiti. so we have that reality. but without the diaspora that country would be in real desperate shape. >> any other comments, questions? >> i would just like to say something about that. for 17 years, the leadership -- [inaudible] i was the executive of haiti spank for the organized for, which started as grassroots organizations from around the

country. and the learned in working with the diaspora is that these remittances are enormous. and around the world we are trying to find ways for people not just use remittances that they received for consumption purposes, but somehow to get people to use the money they receiving to start enterprises. and we did a project in haiti when we worked around, in the rural areas with remittance recipients to help give them some entrepreneurial skill so they could start a business. now, when you talk to the diaspora, they want to invest in projects in haiti. they don't want to just go in and control them, but they need an intermediary to do that. they need to have someone to

play that role t to some extent until the which entrepreneur projects like the one you're talking about, and there's dozens, tons of those little michael projects. some of them can work. and so -- micro project. the capacity is there. the knowledge that what needs to be done is there. but the problem is the way u.s. policy and a general evisceration of the government that you talked about gets in the way of people actually being able to do this kind of development work that bob was talking about. and it is becoming critical. the hunger problems are really serious. and as my son says, that feed the future program issue a fee to consultants program. >> if you allow me, you know, i

-- [inaudible] george washington, thank you. we really want to find your way to educate the locals so they can write bills which will promote and which secure the local community organizations. >> i'll be happy to speak with you off the record. spirit let me say i'm sorry we get interrupted. with the timer going to have to let everyone go back to their jobs. but bob and i've been talking. we're going to sort of have another session sometime this fall and maybe things will become more clear maybe it will become more clear in ways that are hopeful, or come clear in ways that are not so hopeful. but i think the dialogue and george washington will continue to work together on that and i'm

sure we will be part of this willingly or not. spent in any event, thank all of you for coming and for coming back. appreciate it. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> in just under an hour at 3:30 p.m. level by pentagon briefing with air force secretary debra lee james and jenna welch resources air force chief of staff. they will discuss the current state of the air force and its future. that is live on c-span2. booktv in primetime continues this week.

>> next, georges defense minister speaks to the u.s. institute of peace about her countries relationship with russia with the ongoing ukraine-russia conflict. she also addresses concerns about isis at the possibility of georgia joining nato. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. great to see, just having a conversation with the general about the number of people in this room on an august afternoon, minister of to tout important this topic is. so let me welcome you all.

my name is bill taylor. and executive vice president here at the united states institute of peace. we are so pleased to be able to welcome minister for defense of georgia here to speak to us this afternoon on a range of issues. as probably most in this room know, the minister has been in washington for a couple of days and hasn't seen in meetings, of course met with our secretary of defense yesterday, had a very good conversation with secretary carter about a range of issues having to do with jordan's security, other issues have a direct impact on both georgia and the united states. her colleague secretary ash carter was very impressed with the kinds of conversations that they had and it was a very productive conversation. she's also had conversations at the white house. and oshima with the assistant secretary of state across the

street, victoria newman. another strong supporter of georgia. georgia faces challenges. we know these challenges. georgia has been a stalwart ally of the united states and have nato activities around the world. georgia has demonstrated its capabilities, its military capabilities, diplomatic capabilities, political capabilities. georgia has been a strong ally for the united states and for the nato nations. it's important for us to understand the kind of challenges that georgia faces. you can see one of the challenges that georgia faces just by looking at the map. so this is a great opportunity for us. tinatin khidasheli's background is well known to you. she has a legal background.

she has been in this position to demonstrate to the world and to the georgian people that commitment to european integration, and nato integration the eu integration. this is the kind of strong message that the minister has provided both from george also the georgia. so we again are very pleased to have the minister here. we will be looking forward to her remarks here. that i would join her for a couple of questions. we are very much looking forward to your questions and dialogue following her remarks. so prepare your questions, and please welcome the minister of defense of georgia. [applause] >> thank you very much to joseph

for hosting this event. i know it's probably not the best time to be engaged in this kind of activity, but times are difficult and even tragic i would say in my part of the world. even time for vocation or enjoying summer holidays, unfortunately. this map is actually showing lots of things. lots of troubles georges in today and has been historically. if there's one thing that this map shows is that there is georgia stands as the only kind of exception in that part of the world that still did not give up and still fights for the success of proving to everyone that success is possible without russia being in charge. that success is possible without having the region taken from

moscow. this is probably the main reason why russia fights so much, so desperately against everything georgia, every ambition that georgia has. it is absolutely impossible and acceptable for our northern neighbor to have a successful country coming out of the soviet union by its own. what is happening in today's russia i would characterize in a very simple one sentence, saying that mr. president doing this kind of recovering russia from its post-soviet breakup, post-yeltsin drama when the baltics escaped when russia was weak. and some other countries in the world to cover it and dominated and set the agenda that was, the agenda for those countries who had escaped at that time. today we prevent those mistakes are part of history.

rush is back on the scene and it's not going to allow for anyone in its immediate neighborhood and its fear of influence throughout the city without them, without their permission, without their engagement. it's dangerous for the region because if the georgia is excessive, somebody might get the wrong idea that it might work for them as well and might have the same goal and several and go through the same 50 georgia went through for years. and its dangers for russian voters and for the russian leadership itself because the russian voters might ask questions about the success of georgia. about the kind of success that they are not experiencing and is not happening in russia. this is one of the reasons why georgian success matters but this is one of the reasons why it should be important for not only for us but also for our friends, partners, allies,

countries that georgia succeeds in these exercise, to set an example, to prove to all those countries in the region that if you try hard, if you work hard, then success is possible. a couple of years ago or sixers ago when the european policy was tested at this .1 of the best examples of an unfortunate failure, the european neighborhood policy started to accept six country. europe was very enthusiastic, making plans one after another. today with a schedule and one half country left on the path. belarus never leave work. -- network. problems, big problems.

significant ones. in moldova, ukraine, we all know. georgia was 10 as the one country alone trying to prove its course and trying to prove we deserved a chance. and we can cite lots of examples like that different projects that the world has started the last 20 years, nato, the european union windows country from falling apart and georgia is still there. it stays on the same path. we are not going anywhere and we will fight to the end. i don't want to make a long speech or because i will be more willing to answer your questions and address the issues you're interested in and you want to hear georgia perspective to those issues. not just a couple more arguments that i want to make for the reason why i'm here today and we

are going to different capitals of the world. searching for answers and providing arguments for the kind of work that georgia is engaged in, and the past six years. we can to washington with a capital agenda, double agenda. one is to strengthen our partnership with the united states, to have more tangible results out of this partnership, the people in georgia visiting, seeing the results of this partnership. to have georgian military even more engaged with our american counterparts. and at the same time to search for the answers, advising and was support. also summer is coming and georgia has made it very clear to all the nations and all the partners that we will be raising an issue of membership, and

enlargement, stronger than ever. we believe georgia deserves it, first of all, but at the same time we believe that nato needed even more than georgia does. for keeping the promises that this organization has been making over the years. we hear the arguments that there are for the advancement or enlargement of nato in russia's neighbors may be triggering the rush to act. we tell our friends it's a perception, legitimate one, maybe rather than one but it's not factor the facts are different, and the fax say that when nato refused to enlarge in 2008, this is exactly win the war happened. this refusal, or no courage on the psychedelic to accept the challenge, was understood as a green light by russia on activity in georgia. been in 2009 world said okay,

let's forget what happened and start a new discussion. a new partnership. we had a policy of lots of other things following it. russia was considered as a partner, but in ukraine happen. i think after that, before that if after the august want it was disillusioned the russian can be a partner in any way after ukraine even developments and more, it has become absolutely clear that there's no partnership to be expected from russia, reliable, predictable partnership from the country which is willing to go at any moment and invade independent country, change the character of states, annex parts of it collected alliance, claimed that they were part of russia in

history. what we are seeing today in georgia but after the summit there is another implication of it on the side of our partners. as soon as we got into neighbor, russia started action in georgia. so again it was not triggered by delivery but it was welcomed by nondelivery in all cases, as modern times history shows. we are witnessing this artificial border that russia in 2008 at the occupation, daily movements on the territory of georgia proper. russian troops have moved 100 meters, 500 meters, kilometers, two kilometers away from the artificial border for three months actually. for the last three months. last month was the most difficult and problematic for us. georgian government says that we

are going to keep patient, we are not going to respond, we're not going to allow for the war on the territory of georgia to happen again. and by the stopping georgia's department and george's movement towards nato european union. we are not going to be provoked, but at the same time we need to be reminded that the place where the russians checkpoints will be, created pretty soon, the 30-point that they have marked since july and august are only half a mill in nato is the kilometers away from the main highway in georgia. the question here is whether the target is to block that main highway had to cut the country in two theaters on one highway which is connects the east and west of georgia together. if russian soldiers and tanks roll up to that highway, the

country will simply be cut into. whether it's a target for target is just the idea of them moving on the highway and us working on this issue constantly of forgetting everything else that we are committed to and we're working on together today. whichever is their goal for the short term is absolutely clear that waiting for decision, depending on decision, that's the territory, that's the movement we are going to be seeing either backwards or forwards. again depending on the decisions of the warsaw. the last thing about the timing of the warsaw some of which is crucial is that it's july 2016 which makes, it's right in the middle of the electoral campaign for our major parliamentary elections in october 2016.

and warsaw summit or whatever will come out of the warsaw summits will be part of decision georgia will be making an october 2016. skepticism is growing, especially because of ukraine in georgia. people start to get disillusioned about the prospects of georgia's integration into either european union or nato. our colleagues and leaders of european nations especially very often reminds the rest of the world that there will be no expansion, either of the european union or nato for the next five, 10 years. but again these are just political statements. but it happens in moscow but the fact of it.

i want to conclude, we see the warsaw summit as, ended with two possible outcomes. one which is say no to the enlargement. and by that, creating in the best case scenario kind of article v item in europe. we made it was a finally clearly these are my boundaries, the rest of it is, i don't care. the rest of it is under russia's political dominance, interest, settled issues, deal with it before the next summit. or they will be an expansion and a very clear message that will be an enlargement and a very clear message sent by nato members to russia that partners -- partnership matters to nato.

if there's anything that the history proves to us is that nato brings power of these. there was no war as far as nato expanded. the only reason why both are safe now, for now at this moment is because they are members of nato. but if the decision is not made in warsaw, then pressure that will encourage russia battle in the ukraine and georgia but also for the next more advanced challenge, leadership, which will be one of the nato member countries. and i don't see any reason or any practical argument, action that will determine -- if they continue right now. agenda have there is a war in

ukraine. i'm sorry to say that, but it's true. ukrainians are fighting. if there's anything they approved is that they are fighting. they're going to fight to the end and they are not going to surrender. people are still buying there. in the world was not able to stop the war for a year and a half. i think that's the best answer to all the questions, or all the arguments, perceptions that we are hearing around. as to the intentions of russia and the potential as it shows today to deter the challenges that are coming from russia. so i hope very much that it is still one year before the warsaw summit and there's time for discussion, dialogue. but at the end of the day we will come up with the same conclusions as to the level of threats russia considers to the world, peace and security, as well as to the actions that need

to be made in order to address that kind of a threat that is coming. thank you very much, and looking forward to your questions very much. [applause] minister, thank you very much for those remarks. as earlier, very direct, very straightforward. you have a very clear point, and i'm glad to be able to explore that a little bit. before i do that the welcome your excellent ambassador here. very glad to have him. as well as the general. welcome. we are very glad to have you in support of the minister. so i just got a couple of questions, but again i'm very much looking for as the minister

said, to your questions and your comments about this. minister, you talked about the danger that we can see. on the map we can see any upcoming decisions about georgia, the ukraine as well as you pointed out. and she mentioned it's even dangerous for the russians. i've had several conversations, we've all had many conversations, people in this room, with people like zbig brzezinski a mix i think a related argument to the argument you are making, which is that if russia absorbs georgia, if russia absorbs ukraine, that that is dangerous for the russians. and their eventual movement towards a responsible democratic participation in the world community, in particular in europe. what is your sense, if you could

elaborate your comment about the danger for the russians of continued aggression? >> i don't think russians do they care that much about democratic participation in anything. .. in georgia with this thing about russia and i never believed in

this concept, but if course there are people that are inciting russia. which is very much worried about the future of its country while most of those people have gone from russia, but those who stayed there, there is a constant threat of physical survival for those who stay there, but other than that i believe that today russian politicians do not really have any trouble or problem explaining to their voters how they suffer because of the world as it was during the soviet time , which is making sure and make everything possible in making their lives visible.

as long as there is an enemy, we just had this conversation before coming here, as long as there is this enemy you can blame everything on them. for example, talking about sanctions and why sanctions will not serve the purpose. although, i am positive about the democratic world able to unite on something and have a consensus on joint action. i don't think the sanctions alone will serve these purpose because for most of the world probably in russia all of the troubles that are coming because of the sanctions like i don't know, economic decline or declining currency and so on and so forth, they believe they will die as heroes in this fight against the capitalist world that has caused out their trouble and suffering and other than saying it's because of my government. this propaganda is very well worked during the soviet union.

they are masterminds who know how to do it and of course, all of them are back to business now and we see it every day on russia today and many other channels and means of communication run by the kremlin. it's a different world and as soon as the rest of the democratic community will get to understand, the sooner the problems will be solved and solutions will be found. i always say when you're so exactly we had a divert-- dinner conversation and everyone was enthusiastic about the sanctions same the economy will decline and in a year a people will go out and those things will happen waking up the russian leadership they will react and i think that while there is one small thing missing from this discussion is that this is the country where

people-- in the second world war and they survived and they one eventually. this is a country we are dealing with. all of those notions of definite that we have here in the united states or in france or italy how completely irrelevant and i think that is because the mistake we are making. >> minister, you also said that nato means peace, that is the russians look at nato nations and other than in wild fantasies, which i hope, would not think of challenging a nato nation and thus your point on this trip, your point today

about the importance of nato met him-- membership for georgia and indeed, for ukraine. we were talking earlier about 2008, and you mentioned the 2008 discussion nato summit where the support for nato in georgia was very high. i think you said 80%. the support for nato membership in ukraine was about 20% at that time. that's now changed since the support for nato in ukraine is now well over 50%. it has gone up dramatically because of the clear threat, because no nato means no peace and nato does mean peace. can you elaborate again a little further on the benefits both for nato and georgia and indeed for security in europe for an

expansion of nato in warsaw? >> well, i think for georgia the benefits and we don't need to talk much about it because georgia has made its decision of us are now it's important to talk about the benefits of nato to help nato to make its own decision. why it is beneficial for nato, will, there might be arguments, but some will probably agree that first of all nato has made it clear for many years about its commitment to partners because nato has been talking for all of these years about open-door policy because nato was talking about 28 making decisions rather than anyone else outside the club having to veto power. and because of so many other reasons of that kind, so if the decision is not delivered in warsaw-- and we are not even

talking about membership, unfortunately, but we are talking about membership realistically speaking on these expectations would be to have it forward with nato rather than immediate membership with warsaw. in essence, meaning there is no intermediary anymore and georgia is on the membership track. we doubt anything in between the two to be accomplished like georgia will become a member of nato, so this intermediary after the warsaw summit because if it is not delivered, the issue on the table straightforward by george or any other country for that matter and it is a no, then it is the whole possibility of nato under serious danger. it puts all the statements they ever made under serious danger.

i had a meeting with the secretary-general and told him openly when he was talking about 28 making decision and the need for consensus among the 28, which is correct, absolutely yes p read we need all 28 countries to agree, but i was asking, do you really believe these decisions in warsaw, does anyone in this world who will believe that slovakia or austria or great britain or the united states for that matter was against and there was no big elephant in the room that someone-- suddenly no one wants to be noticed and yes that would be a very clear message to russia that they do have a veto power over the decisions of the organizations where they are not even present or which they are fighting so hard for the existence of this organization. this is-- i always say without hesitation that today looking at the developments in my parts of the world, nato needs georgia

more to prove itself, to prove its strength, to prove the courage that was there when nato was created is still there and georgia needs nato because when we talk about it, it will not give anything to georgia. no one is obliged to defend georgia tomorrow if we have an ambush actions and all the instruments that come with it, we already have for a long time, for many years. all we are talking about now is something we already have, to make a political statement to read okay, georgia has passed onstep and now it is on the membership track and if we are told now, i think that is a clear message that all those promises made are just on paper and someone out there either in

brussels or any other capital of nato member states really believe that there is a potential in partnership and in successful work with russia. today's russia, under the leadership we have their. >> one more question and then i will ask our colleagues here for their spirited we both mentioned ukraine. georgia has given good advice to the ukrainians carried georgia has relevant experience, 2008. >> y'all some georgians in the ukrainian next and in the subcabinet. yes, there is also a governor who also is maybe pushing reform along in a part of ukraine that

very much needs it. you have had this experience with the russians since 2008. the ukrainians now have a similar problem to read the russians have annexed crimea and they have prompted and indeed participated in an invasion. so, the georgians have given advice to the government. what advice strategically, what kinds of actions should the ukrainians take based on the experience you have had since 2008? >> well, there are two sets of it issues therein to set the policies that need to be pursued. one, ukraine is in a hot phase of the war, which is obviously a different setup that what we have today. we say that georgia government is working on the point, but at least we don't have an open war going on, which is unfortunate for ukraine, still. but, on the other side

obviously, it is important to affect reforms in the parts of the country that ukraine controls because that is kind of poor development on integration part. again, it is kind of difficult to say now. but,-- let's at the end of the day we don't do those reforms for nato over the european union can read we do it because we need them because that's the only way to survive and to build your own country, to be a proud citizen of a proud country which can claim all of those things that we claim, membership to nato, membership to the democratic and the family of nations that are united under

the european union, so number one thing that needs to be done regardless of difficult, regardless if you are in a work is not to creep on a domestic sovereignty as well. fighting the war is important, but it is much more difficult or there is inside to be that one inside the country if you have a corrupt system and if you have kind of close to the criminal regime, from your previous government. i think that is crucial and most important lesson that we have learned, unfortunately we were not successful in all of this. that is why the france had to learn from their mistake. >> thank you, minister. we have now the opportunity to-- for you to make comments, ask questions and we would be very interested if you would state

your name, your affiliation and i think we will have a couple of microphones come to you as you prepare to do this, so right here. yes, sir. >> my question is yesterday you met, so how much assistance from the united states do you expect to get this year and next year or ask thank you how much meaning how much money or-- >> money. >> shall i answer? >> yes, this is fine. at the beginning and then we will see how much we are on time >> yes, we had a good meeting. we spoke about all of the different actions that georgia and the united states are cooperating for the last 20 years. on those kinds of meetings you

don't discuss the details of cooperation. this is why it's tough and there is going to be long dialogue and negotiations between the two, but what we have agreed is actually agreed a long time ago that the partnership is key in our foreign-policy and we will continue on that even more than we had before giving it in the nato or in a bilateral level. >> yes, sir. >> yes, former resident of georgia and consultant now. i wanted to ask first of all-- personal show your hope you will have a positive statement from nato out of warsaw. but, i want to make sure i

understand the point you're making. using 2008, that the earlier to go beyond the promise of membership was the reason for the russian attack. secondly, you have-- you say there is a political statement that is missing, but you are receiving benefits, nato training center, defense system, so in an the third as you mentioned the impact it could have on the 2016 elections. my question is do you anticipate that if you receive a no from warsaw that there are any sort of substantive action that can be taken that would avert a negative action and if not, what do you anticipate the ramifications of the election as you yourself raised. >> well, 2008, i think that yes, we were given promise of membership, but not given what

asking for. it was set at that time that membership action plan was unfortunately the same statement that we still need membership action plan, which meant kind of a postponement of the process even more and that was probably the reason why-- before december, which was given as a kind of time for further dialogue and for the consideration between georgia and nato was seen by russia as an opportunity 30 exactly those six months were seen as an opportunity to exit south georgia and the exit south georgia for now seven years as we see. 2016, i hate to be predicting. that is not something that any government was to be part of an affair much hope i am just fantasizing and it's not going to happen, but unfortunately the history of all of these deliveries, somehow proved that

every time there is no result from either your opinion union or nato then rush of it-- russia backs during today it's ukraine. we don't know what will be happening in ukraine or in any other neighbor for that matter during this one, but i am absolutely confident that if warsaw is not delivering than russia will get even more aggressive than it is today. in both directions or in much more direction and we had today than just ukraine and georgia. 2016 election, my expectation, i think, it will be time when political parties will run and russian will enter the parliament, which is not the case now, which was not the case in the previous parliament. we will have officially demised

pro- russian police in georgia. to be part of the official open politics. we will have members of parliament who will be educating from that podium. but, that will be. i don't expect either winning or coming with substantial numbers, but to me, that is a tragedy, but after 22 years we might end up with something like that. but, of course, it is not a tragedy either way, georgia has not seen before or anything worse. but, then again, what will be their numbers on the elections will depend on the warsaw alcon and when i say warsaw alcon i don't mean because of one or another solution, people either

fall in love with russia and go and vote for the russian political party or anything like that, but i'm not sure my voters will show up in numbers as a used to in 2012, or any other election before that because disappointment is already big enough and after the warsaw incident there is nothing, of course, that will be even bigger and you know better than i do that you don't need to increase pro- russian voters if the other side of the voters are not coming to the polls. it gives the benefit to them. this is what i expect. i don't expect sentiment changing. i don't expect mood changing, people becoming pro- russian, no, it won't happen. but, people becoming skeptical, yes. people becoming tired of

undelivered promises, yes. >> in addition to the people in this room, in addition to the people watching us online, there are others in another room, just on the other side here who came and were not able to fit into this room, but they are able to ask questions. a person over there has to questions for you and these in your position as minister of defense, georgia faces threats from the north of russia, from the-- from russia to read what is that newly acquired french air systems become operational do you intend to use it against russian aircraft violating georgian airspace? that is the first question and the general is here. he met can i ask you? >> the second question, do you have contingency plans to

prevent further creeping annexation of georgian territory by separatist who now threaten east-west highway that you mention in your remarks backs. >> air defense system and we said it many times and i repeat it now, we are not buying anything to fight anyone or to start a war. this is purely for the defense, for defense purposes for georgia and only georgia as today making its army better equipped is to deterrence and to make sure that an enemy thinks twice before making connection, so we are ready for georgia becoming ready for any challenge that might be out there either in 2016 or before that. are we going to shut down the plane? well, i don't know how an independent state-- there is a threat practical threats constituted to the population or

his territory to read it depends on the threat. we are seeing today lots of illegal air movements i russian military planes or rather instruments on the territory of nato member countries, but they are not tracking them down because it's not an immediate threat of those instruments constituting those countries, but again there is a direct threat and i believe the obvious answer is independent self-respecting states and the threat that it constitutes. as for the creeping annexation and the highway should probably the same. as i said we are witnessing concept movement on the territory of georgia and we are witnessing russian soldiers

running around with the mess they have created by putting together different data from different publisher in the soviet union-- 1922, wi-fi, 38, 86 and you have different borderlines for-- [inaudible] >> they put together the best options of any village on the territory of georgia, so they basically joined forces of those and now, we have those wonderful borderline, which basically cuts the whole country in any direction and half. now, the russian intention like in 2008, before big day they

went to stop us. they were to have something in georgia that will make it impossible for anyone to talk to us. not to talk about making decisions. our intention is as well very crystal-clear. we said we won't provoke. we said you cannot stop us. we are going to pursue this goal and we are going to get there. now, what is the red line is the question. if they cut the main highway is this a redline are not? this is a tricky question, but i believe and i'm very open and direct here, this is not the question only for us. it's a question for everyone, for our partners, it's a question in washington and a question in brussels. this government if there is anything we have said is that we will not make any move of that kind alone.

we will go through the consultation process and we will have friends on our side every time we decide to do something. so, that is why it is not that i don't have answers to those questions, but i'm not ready to answer those questions openly before again i don't know what are the answers in other parts of the world. it should matter, not the same way it matters for georgia, not my country, not your country, but it should matter for our partners as well. i think that's where we are today and yet, we will see much more developments of that kind. it's not just organization or annexation, you have lots of russian influence or you have russian influence looming in other ways as well, in georgia.

people you never knew politically or publicly active, but they are showing up on tv giving interviews and becoming this bigshot expert. we have seen certain influences in georgia media. it is difficult still to say with 100% certainty, okay, here it is russian paid or whatever, but you slowly see that it is happening. moods are changing their. you have a different kind of reporting. to early to say anything finally, but you have political parties as i have said that are officially openly publicly. go to moscow and no one knows what they talk about, but every

time she goes to moscow and comes back something horrible happens in georgia like the last movement of the border, happened next day when she got back from moscow. so, lots of things, so it's not just physically moving border here or there, but you have all other means and tools used in implemented by russia, but fortunately they do not have ground in georgia. if there is any country in the world where they do not have ground that will be georgia. but, it does not mean that people will be staying as enthusiastic or optimistic as they were over the years as to the potential of pursuing the goal that they have that. >> yes, right here. >> center for international

policy, both economic and military aid from the united states expected to increase for 2016, what does it mean to georgia that it will receive the most aid out of central asia and how do you first see this increased aid? >> normally, there is always a framework for this aid, so it's not thinking how to spend and what to do with it. there are traditional fields of cooperation between two countries that have been there always. defense secretary, which is one of those, ministry of defense or the rule of law with people here who have been working on that for many years in georgia. education, which is one of those areas where we need big support and assistance especially from this country. being it is supporting our universities and educational

system. there in georgia as well as having more students sent here for the education, targeting professionals that we need the most. there are-- georgia is not-- there are so many different areas we need expertise support both financial and expert aid to get on the right path and to have bright inform informed implemented, but we have learned a lot over the years with cooperation and i think we rise to the level when it will be really a cooperation. it won't be anymore student-teacher kind of an attitude, but there will be core partner sitting in on the table with the plans and the most effective yield for the aid. in that yes, sir. >> minister, since taking over

you have taken a number of very decisive steps. clearly it has been mentioned about the defense system, but you have also taken an active interest in the military themselves. concerning their food, concerning how they live. now, i would say that you took a rather courageous step recently by reinstating those who were released from prison related to the cables case. i would like to hear from you your decision-making coming to that very courageous and bold decision and how this is affected morale within your own ministry. >> he keeps reading georgia news [laughter] >> well, there is nothing courageous about that decision. i'm a lawyer and that would be rule of law rather than-- asking

that we are leaving is not to take you like to the pentagon for a briefing with air force secretary debra lee james and general marc welsh who serves as air force chief of staff and they will discuss the current state of the air force and its future. >> to get you caught up on what we have been doing over those last times. secretary james and general welsh will be here today to take your questions. secretary james will start with a shout opening question-- opening statement and then they will both take your questions afterwards. we have about 45 minutes today, so please when you answer-- ask your question, please state your name and your affiliation first and please limit your follow-ups to make sure we get through everyone today. with that, secretary james. >> thank you for joining us. i would like to begin with a few words about airman first class spencer stone.

last friday, as you know, eagle arrived in the form of a heavily armed gunmen on a high-speed passenger train in your. a gunmen who brandished an ak-47, hundreds of bullets, a pistol and a box cutter. what the gunman didn't expect, however, was a competition with our very own captain america. believe it or not, that is what airman stones friends nicknamed him during air force technical training. so, in a split second met aaron stone and sick-- secretary and british businessman mr. chris norman leapt into action and subdued the gunmen and stabilize. had it not been for this rourke quartet i'm quite sure that today we would be sitting here discussing a bloodbath instead of what in fact we will discuss. so, american airmen by themselves have a set of core

values which are integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do. airman stone and his friends personified service before self, no question about it. their fearlessness, courage and selflessness should aspire all of us and thanks to them no one died on the high-speed european train on friday. , as you know this morning french president honored airman stone and his traveling companion with a french legion of honor. today, we are pleased to inform you that airman stones unit will be nominating him for the airman's metal. which is the highest medal for noncombat bravery that we in the air force can bestow. i too along with others had a chance to speak with airman stone earlier today to thank him , to congratulate him on a job well done and to see how he was doing to read equally important in my mind i also had a chance to speak to his mom to check up on him and see how she thought he was doing and she in fact confirmed he is doing quite well physically, but he needs

some rest after all of this over the last several days, so i think we can all agree airman stone is certainly do that well deserved rest. as i think back over the last year, the air force story has been one of high operations, tempo and indeed many many operations have participated in around the world. we truly are and will remain an air force in demand. we purchase abated in humanitarian relief in the-- we responded to an evil outbreak in west africa, maintained our ongoing commitment in afghanistan as well as our specific partners and stood watch on the korean peninsula and we have reassured our allies in europe in the face of a resurgent russia and indeed russia's military activity in the ukraine continues to be of great concern to us and to our european allies and i think secretary of defense carter put it quite well last week when he said that our approach to russia

needs to be strong and it needs to be balanced. rotational forces in training exercises help us maintain our strong and balanced approach and we will be continuing these in the future. for the air force and f-22 deployment is certainly on the strong side of the coin. today we are announcing we will very soon the point of 22's to europe to support them back commander requirements and as part of the european reassurance initiative. airman who are part of this inaugural f-22 training deployment will train with our joint partners and our nato allies across europe as part of our continued effort to assure our allies and demonstrate our commitment to security against ability of europe. for operational security reasons , we cannot share with you the exact days for the location of this the planet. turning to the fight against isil, which, of course. has been another big story for our air force over the past year, we

are now about when you're into operation inherent resolve and we have said from the start that this would be a multiyear fights that would require political, economic and military actions. during the period our airmen have executed nearly 70% of the strikes against isil. we have flown more than 48000 operations in iraq and syria. we have made good progress on our strategy, ultimately looking for defeat of isil. thanks to air power we denied isil's advances and have completely disrupted their captors, techniques and procedures and in my opinion had it not been for airpower isil might well have overrun and even larger squads of iraqi territory and made even greater gains in syria that was the case. instead, over time we have pushed them back. the coalition has halted or eliminated isil's presence in roughly 25 to 30% populated areas in iraq compared to a year

ago and denied isil's ability to operate freely in those areas. we have killed thousands of enemy fighters, destroyed isil command and control buildings, leveled the gist of the sillies and attack sources of revenue to clearly module or ill refineries and also delivered important humanitarian relief to besieged population stirred the precision we have used in this campaign is unprecedented in the history of warfare. it means that we have minimized the loss of innocent life. we have accomplished all of this with an enemy that wraps itself around the civilian population who thinks nothing of killing anyone who is not them and we have done this in a relentless fashion .4/seven, 306 he thought through the airpower can and has done a lot of things, but it cannot hold territory and it cannot govern territory carried this is where the iraqi military , the purse murder, the free syrians and iraqi

government comes in. we are building parter capacity critical to the way forward. i went to conclude by saying that we are the greatest air force on the planet because for some for most other airman. america expects an air force that can fly, fight and win against any adversary and this will only occur by properly investing in our airmen and in our capabilities. so, we once again call upon the congress to make these investments by permanently lifting the sequester and passing and defense authorization bill and defensive preparation bill and gives us some reasonable degree of predict ability, flexibility and stability that we need in order to efficiently answer the nation's call. again, thank you opper joining us today and we open it up to your questions and let's start with you tony. do you have a question? good. >> you said we are watching korea and that's a hot subject.

what generally are some of the ask that you have had in the region and have you been given any instructions from the national command authority to put your most sensitive be to or be one on alert? >> we are in the process right now deploying three b twos. that is coming up in the near future. we have had the continuous bomber presence and guam for some time now that will continue to read we continue to have airman stationed on the korean poll-- peninsula who are ready for whatever might happen and they are ready read it and there has been nothing additional beyond that. >> speaking of bombers i need to ask the secretary, the air force for two consecutive years put into the congress iranian information on the bomber plant. 38 billion laster, 50 billion this year and it was said that it was a mistake that it's really 41 billion. how did that happen and why should the public have a vinny--

any competent senior figures when you unfired-- you finally unveil the program? >> there has been no change in the costing factors over the last two years. as you said it was a mistake, a regrettable mistake and it occurred in part because of human error and impart because of process error, meaning a couple of our people got the figures wrong and the process of coordination was not fully carried out in this case. coordination means other people are providing a check and balance and looking at the numbers, so that is typically how something like this would get caught. so, we are counseled the people and tighten up the process. it has been corrected with the congress and the key thing is there has been no change in those figures and we regret the error. yes, please. >> madam secretary, on the award you're planning to give the

airman, i wonder if there was ever any consideration for giving him an award for valor and if not, if that had been discussed before whether if it comes out that the attacker did have any kind of association with a group like prices or al qaeda whether that would be reconsidered? >> there was consideration for it, but more noncombat award this is the highest when we can give, so an airman that puts his life at risk to help or seven other and we are looking at the potential if this is characterized by law enforcement investigation in france as a terrorist related event, we will look at the incident to see if we can award the purple heart as well. >> general, follow-up on a separate topic you are about to become the most experienced joint chief on the joint chiefs of staff and i wonder what kind of advice you are planning to offer to your new colleagues this fall? >> i think they should be terrified by what you just said. [laughter] >> no, i think be themselves, tell the truth all the time as you believe it and just understand that everything

changes. do what is best for your people. no change, they all know how to do that, by the way. yes, ma'am. >> first on the f-22, as part of the european reassurance initiative, straight up is this not a message that the air force is delivering to vladimir putin and the russians to kind of-- isles would ask you a you and the question if i may. >> i would tell you the f-22 deployment to europe is a continuation to deploying it everywhere we can to trade with our partners and we will do a training the planet with a number of different air forces and get it into facilities that we would potentially use in a conflict in europe. things like the bases where we do aviation attachments and places where we do air policing missions and they will train with some of our european partners and they are there primarily for an exercise to try with our partners in this is a natural evolution in bringing

our best care to air capability into train with partners who have been long entrusted ones. >> could you talk a bit about how you and the other services, because you would be aware this, are having to increasingly potentially rely on contractors to help you and contact uab and in particular isr missions with contract personnel not supposed to engaged in intelligence gathering activities, so how does this work? how are you making that happen since that is not a role for contractors? do you anticipate them getting into providing you targeting information? >> we have used contractors in the intelligence business and i as our business for a long time. that is not a new concept, it does not require new approvals. what we are talking a doing is expanding the use of contracts

to actually operate government owned systems for the near-term until we can get our training pipeline monsieur enough to sustain the load of a time. that is what we are talking about in the current plus for contractors assisting us in isr business and we don't anticipate at all they would be involved in connecticut activity or direct targeting of forces on the ground. they would do in intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance missions. >> want to ask you about what is apparently the most beloved aircraft in the air force inventory, the a 10. i heard that there may be a demonstration or exercise in the future that puts that a 10 directly against the 835 demonstrating the ability to perform close air support. is that true? will there be some sort of had to head demonstration to show with the ff 35 can do compared to the 810? >> i think that would be a silly exercise and i don't know

anything about that. that f35 mission is for high threat close air support in a contested environment and a 10 will not be able to survive that. that will be the role of f35p read it will not be able to do that until it is full mission capable, so that i did at the ff 35 will walk in the door next year when it becomes ioc and take over for the 810 is just silly. we have never said that. so, that is not a plan and i would certainly like to have the capability that replaces the a 10. we should be trying to get better as an air force and i'm worried about future cast not passed cast. >> has there been any change or are you, that you will eventually be able to retire that elboa-- a10 or does it look like it will be funded for sometime to come against your

desires? >> we had to be able to move on in terms of our capability and to modernize our air force and if we had billions and billions and billions of additional dollars over and above the president's budget level and i will remind you are we are struggling to get the president's budget level approved, but if we had billions more we would love to maintain the a10 and we would love to have thousands of additional airman in our air force. we would love to have lots of dude-- additional things, but in a budget constrained environment this is one of the top choices we had to make for the sake of moving forward. >> to follow on the question of the cost projection. does that air require any changes to your process for reporting those numbers or gathering that information and also, this was a report that was delivered to congress externally, but how are those number is used within the air

force and were they used for planning purposes or internal decisions about planning for the program? >> we have notified the conference-- commerce of the error and also notified them that we are counseling the people involved and that we have tightened up on the process of coordination to make sure something like this doesn't occur again. in addition, we haven't caution, double check the other figures that were contained in that report on other programs just to verify that everything else was correct and we do believe all they have a to be correct. >> how does the air force view those figures internally? are they used to make planning-- what are the implications about having to keep that accurate? >> the mistake was a regrettable error, but it has been corrected so it will not affect us internally. we do make these projections, of course, because we have our

five-year program and we are trying to do strategic plan beyond that point as well and having a notion of what things will cost in the future 10 years, 20 years and so forth is part of what we do in our strategic planning process. >> we were surprised by the number when we saw it as well. because we have been using the straight-- same number. our internal documents are drawn from two things, the five-year palm submitted each year and long range projections that a revised. the five-year number last year and this year was reported accurately and that is what we are using on the air staff and the updated projected and cost estimate is where the confusion came in. we did not properly coordinate as mentioned and get it added to the five-year number. >> i have-- you when you might think you would be awarding that and i also would ask you about with implications would be and whether said that program has

technically begun whether this constitutes a new start when you start the new phase of the program or whether you would be exempted from this sort of role or you have to get a waiver? >> the long-range strike bomber contract will be awarded soon and we will-- we'll do it when we are ready of the key thing is to make sure we are doing it correctly and so that is why-- that is what we are doing is making sure we get this done correctly. that is point number one. we heard october. >> i can just say it will be soon and we will do it when we are ready. i am sorry, would you repeat the other part of your question? >> what did the impact would be if you don't get a budget. >> if we don't get a budget it's

going to affect lots and lots of programs. under acr, of course, there are no new start and as you point out this is been funded to a certain degree already. i'm not sure at this one would be considered a new start and as a matter fact, i believe it wouldn't, but there would be other new starts that would be impacted. we estimate rough order of magnitude that there might be as many as 50 programs, many of them smaller programs, but nonetheless 50 programs that would fall under that category of new start, which could not be done under a full year cr. of the other point i would say is a full year cr would provide for our air force, really our military even less money than the sequestration level budgets would provide, so all around that would be a bad deal and we need to get the full appropriation and the full up authorization passed at roughly the president's budget level. that is what we need. >> can you give us an update on opening up combat jobs to women,

particularly jumpers and i know back in april you had 100 women in a hundred men volunteer looking to see if you have the right standards for a lot of these jobs. can you give us an update on that and also do you both believe that these combat jobs will open to women by next year? >> we currently have seven career specialties that are still closed it to women and we are the most open at the moment of all the services having the majority of our jobs, but there are still seven that are not open and they relate to the special operations world, for the most far, so every jew reference what we have been doing is working establishing general neutral and operationally and occupationally relevant standards. once we have them in place it certainly would be my anticipation that we would be in a position to open up these jobs to women in the future. of course, i have not received

the recommendations from the field nor has the chief, so we are awaiting those and we have turned zero the secretary of defense our air force recordation by round the first of october and then we would anticipate a public announcement towards the the beer beginning the first of next year. >> any updates about this experience? how's it going? is it likely these jobs will open up or is it still questionable? >> the reports i have received is that it is going well. the team, which has been a team that has included people from the special operations world is establishing these standards that women appear to be doing well, some women as well as some men because these are hard to standards as you can imagine in the key thing is we don't want to lower standards. so, i am optimistic about the outcome. >> general welsh, if you would.

you are working on a bomber roadmap and wonder if you could clarify something. is that new bomber going to be added to the force or does it replace something and if it replaces something which of the current bombers does it replace connect the new bomber wouldn't-- replace the b-52. >> when would that happen? >> we would feel the new bomber in the mid- 20s and it would probably continue for 25 years or so is our rough guess. but, we would-- the b-52 and the b-1 will timeout eventually to read the b-52 try to make 100 years. [laughter] >> we really should question that. >> is the roadmap done? >> it is not finished, no. >> you mentioned the b-52 is getting up there in age.

given all of the maintenance issues of keeping his aircraft going, is the air force approaching a point where commanders will have enough functioning aircraft to meet their needs? >> we are at the point today where we have trouble having enough to keep our aircrews train. this is not a new problem. we have for fleets of airplanes that are over 50 years old, so the idea we would work on a formula one or nascar race with a car built in 1952 is ridiculous, but we are going to war with airplanes built 1962. we got to modernize the air force. is imperative. >> if there is acr or an entire year does that mean the air force will have to reduce in strength? >> certainly our air force we have requested airstrike increases, as you will recall and under a full year cr i believe we would not be able to increase our airstrike, so we would be stuck in many many ways, which is why once again we are in upon congress to list

sequestration and get as these bills as quickly as possible. i don't believe so. i want you to know we would be stressing the importance of not taking this out of our people, but either mentioned we would be significantly down in terms of our dollars and where we need to be, so everything would have to be looked at. i for one would argue against reductions, but we would knock it increases. >> we do have quantity increases scheduled in 16. and a few other things and those would go way under a year-long trek four, the quantity increases would not be allowable and there is a big impact with the continued resolution. >> i was wondering if you could give us an update on the status of your budgeting for fy 17 and when you have to submit the palm and if you have a sense of how

this great level of uncertainty on the hill impacts your process for 2017? >> of course, we are in the process of pulling together right now. we are in the process of having discussions with os d about a variety of our programs as is the army and the navy and this culminates porcini beer. with the budget submission for next year i'm a probably going over in february, what i just described is the normal process, so we are in the midst of all that now. >> i went to ask general welsh a question about whether or not the air force should be the executive agent for uavs. now at the army picking up a lot more of the strategic mission and contractors coming in, is at the time to the debate again and what do you personally think? >> nice socks, by the way. you are rocking some good socks. [laughter] >> i don't think the debate would be helpful or particularly

useful now. the debate was contentious when we had it in whatever was, 2008, 2010, somewhere in that timeframe and it was contentious, devices and not helpful in my view. whether it was important at the time or not it was not a helpful debate and i don't think the debate would be much different now than then and for that reason alone i don't take its necessary peer we have worked closely together as uniformed servicemen to put architecture place, to put training for analysts, train for specialists in place to operate in a joint weight on the battlefield and we have been doing remarkably well for the last 12 years or so and i think we made some tremendous progress, so i don't see the divisions that would be helped immensely by going through this debate right now. there is enough going on is my personal opinion. >> 20 about your reactions to the latest report that the boeing had yet another problem with the new tanker and whether

or not any of the cost projections for the has changed. >> so, personally of course it's disappointing news that this additional delay has occurred. however, boeing continues to believe that they will make their key contractual requirement, which is to deliver to us 18 aircraft by august of 2017, so that is the most important parameter and they still believe they will make that. now, we are in the process of going over the schedule again to see whether we can see our way clear on that as well. certainly, the margin in the schedule is all gone. so, the other thing that we will take a look at is, would there be any operational impacts, should they not make that august of 2017 contractual deadline to read without have any operational impacts and so with every contractual considerations that we could look at.

we are looking into all that. it's disappointing: