cares deeply and is committed. i appreciate that. we are struggling with trying to correct mistakes made over the last 20 years as to the way we fund as a federal government. but there is no disagreement between democrats and republicans that the most important priority of the federal government is our national defense. and there is absolutely no disagreement regardless democrat or republican that we have the best military in the world and that we must keep the best military in the world. how we get there we will need help from you and input but we're going to have to realize that we can't give you everything you ask for in the future because we've tried that. taking out health care so you can't even use the health care increase.

we have doubled the amount of money going to the pentagon in ten years. and that's not counting okoe on top of that and that is a huge piece. can we keep the best military and do it smarter, a little less money? i'm confident we can because of the leadership in the military which is represented here today very, very well. thank you very much. there will be more questions for the record that we department get to. we keep our military as ready as we possibly can and find out a way we don't drown in debt about 15 or 20 years from now. thank you all very much.

c-span's 2012 congressional directory has details on each member of the house and senate including contact information, district maps, and committee assignments. you can get your own copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/shop. i thought it was important to write a book that moved peop people.

how did they build over time? obama didn't come out of anywhere. also the tea party movement which seemed to come out of nowhere. occupy wall street. how about those, important things to take seriously, to look at from a social movement. a we, the people, perspective. >> van jones on social movements today. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on book tv. also the american spectator contends that modern liberty is flawed. in the death of liberalism sunday night at 11:00. part of book tv on c-span 2. this is c-span 3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. see our schedules and see past programs at our website. and you can join in on the conversation with social media

sites. chicago will host the annual nato summit on the 20th and 21st of this month. a hearing was held on issues to be discussed at the summit including european defense spending, missile defense, and relations with russia. this is two and a half hours. the hearing will come to order. thank you all very much for being here this morning. i apologize we're starting a moment late or two. by way of process i have a conflict at about 10:30, 10:25. barbara shaheen will chair the hearing from that point forward. and i appreciate everybody's

understanding of that. yesterday we had the opportunity to have very healthy and broad discussion with secretary-general rasmussen. he laid out for us the general expectations of the summit and the road forward as we continue to really define this new role and the new parameters of nato. this is our fourth hearing on nato since 2009. and it's not an accident that we are having it now. i think all the members share the belief that the reliance remain vital to american security and its effectiveness as an institution concerns our focus and attention. but, needless to say that focus

has changed. europe has changed. the world has changed. and later this month when the allies meet in chicago to discuss its future in afghanistan and elsewhere, a lot of that redefining will be on the table. so this summit is about how do you make nato stronger? how do we learn from our shared experiences? in my judgment nato is, and i think this is a shared judgment, a fundamental element of our national security and its organization demands critical analysis in order to meet the evolving threats of our national security. one thing is pretty clear about nato. it's scared its skeptics the alliance has demonstrated an

ability to react. obviously we've had our challenges in both afghanistan and libya but we have learned from them. the signing of the strategic partnership by president obama last week signaled the gradual transition from a war fighting posture to a supportive role. and nato's commitment to libya has shown that the alliance properly leveraged is still a very highly responsive, capability and legitimate cool when it really matters. i don't want to spend too much time on the full agenda in which the members are engaged. concluding, partnerships with countries and organizations around the globe, depending against terrorism and cyber threats. the real threats that the alliance faces. each will get, i'm sure, some further attention in the course of the hearing today.

let me just make a couple of broader points. first, on afghanistan and, second, on meeting our security needs in the age of austerity. recently, literally a day before the president arrived in afghanistan, i was there for two days for discussions with ambassador crocker, head of u.s. forces. i met with president karzai, his capness nems and with the head of the u.n. mission in raves. i visited with civil society potentials. to a person everyone emphatically stated that the completion of this agreement is something of a game changer. over the years i've traveled to afghanistan and the region, i think 18,000 times since 911

events. i've had many conversations with people at all different levels there and the high points and the low points with the conflict. i don't think -- i think i can confidently say that i've never sensed quite a collective sense of direction or sigh of relief as a consequence of that agreement. but i will say definitively, and i said this to president karzai, that in the end our games are going to mean nothing if we lose sight. one is the continued challenge of government, the challenge of corruption, the delivery of goods and services. that is paramount. two is the question of the continued danger of a sanctuary war being prosecuted against the forces there.

i am a veteran of the sanctuary war and i know how insidious it can be. i personally think to have a separate zone for those in the war, trying to accomplish what it is. pakistan has to become more assertive and more cooperative and we may have to resort to other kinds of self-help depending on what they want to do. i underscored this as powerfully as i could. trying to dig out of 2009's election. we must prepare now. not later but now. it is imperative that the afghan government threw an independent election commission.

put out the rules for the road for that election. the lists have to be prepared, the registration has to take place. there has to be openness, transparency, accountability, free and fair elections are mandatory to any chance to go forward after 2014 with any possibility of success. so those three things leap out as we go forward air. the alliance can only endure if there is a shared sacrifice. and a share commitment. we talked to secretary-general rasmussen to talk about this, the expectations going forward really raised serious questions still as we define the road ahead. so we need to work with our european friends.

it's time for us a it territory for everybody. we're going to have to set priorities, decide what's really important and what's left important. while we understand military budgets may not be viable, certain opportunities have to step out and i believe this is one of those. and we need to make that real. it was seriously underfunded and as we emerge from the financial crisis we have to commit the resources necessary. i'll say in the end i'm delighted to have the channels we have here today. we couldn't have a better group of experts.

varying views, to share our thinks about this important topic. on the first panel we have the assistant secretary of state. dr. jamestown send, the deputy assistant director for nato policy. and dr. charles kupchan. the whitney shepherd son fellow and ian brzezinski, senior fellow at the atlantic counsel and dr. hans binnendijk, vice president for research and applied learning. we're grateful to all of you for being here and look forward to your testimony. senator corker, may i say senator lugar has asked that his comments be placed in the record and they will be appropriately. senator corker? >> gentlemen, we look forward to

your testimony. thank you. >> thank you, chairman kerry, for inviting us to testify on the nato summit which the united states is proud to be hosting in chicago on may 20th and may 21st. with your permission, senator, i would like to submit my full statement and summarize my comments here. >> we appreciate and without objection the full statement will be in the record. >> i appreciate the support and the sustained recognition of the significance of this alliance, transatlantic security. this chicago summit will be the first on american soil in 13 years and the first ever outside of washington. in adang to the community to showcase our nation's great cities a symbol of nato to the united states. it is also an opportunity to underscore to the american people the continued value of this alliance and security challenges we face today. nearly 18 months ago the allies

unveiled a new strategic concept for focus in the 21st century. building on the decisions taking in lisbon, the allies have three objectives. was a capabilities and partnerships and if i might, i'd like to say a few words about these. on afghanistan the isaf coalition has prevented that country from serving as a safe haven for terrorists and ensuring that afghans are able to provide for their own security. these are both necessary to fulfill the present's goal to defeat al qaeda. last week as the chairman acknowled acknowledged, the united states demonstrated its commitment to the long-term stability to afghanistan when president obama and president karzai signed the strategic partner shship agreem and, again, i appreciated hearing chairman kerry's assessment and look forward to discussing afghanistan further.

at chicago the united states anticipates three in particular. an agreement on an interim milestone in 2013. the mission will shift for the afghan national security forces. secondly an agreement on the size, cost, and sustainment beyond 2014. and, finally, a road map for nato's post-2014 role in afghanistan. nato's ability to deploy an effective in the field is unique. its capacity to respond to security challenges will only be as successful as its forces are able, effective interoperable and moderate. in the current era, nato can still maintain a strong defense but doing so requires in0 ovation and effectiveness. the united states is modernizing its presence in europe. at the same time that our nato

allies and nato as an institution are engaged in similar steps. this is a clear opportunity, even a necessity for allies to take on greater responsibilities. the united states urges to contribute politically, financially and operationally to the length of the alliance. in addition to the total number of defense spending, we should focus on how they are allocated and for what priorities. more pooling of national resources which is exemplified by the package the united states anticipates and leaders will endorse in chicago. this package includes missile defense, the alliance ground surveillance program and ballotic air policing. the ddpr, will identify the appropriate mix of conventional and missile defense capabilities

that nato needs as well as reaffirm consensus decisions on posture issues. finally, the chicago summit will highlight success in working with a growing number around the world. they will act with greater legitimacy and benefit from capabilities of others. allies will not take decision on larger nato but they will nonetheless send a clear, positive message to countries in support of their membership goals. the united states has been clear that nato's door remains open to democracies that are willing and open. bosnia herzegovina meet requirements. two that i know are of

particular interest to this country, mass docedonia and geo. macedonia has fulfilled and krinted to regional and local security. the united states fully supports the u.s. process led by mihm its. the name dispute will fulfill the decision at nato summit in bucharest and extend the offer to macedonia. u.s. security assistance and military on the defense return, participation in isaf operations, and advances nato operability. in january, they offered to modernize and do defense capabilities. u.s. assistance programs provide additional support to ongoing democratic and economic reform efforts in georgia, a critical

part where they have made strides. within it its internationally recognized boarders remains steadfast and accept tiff reasons will not change. finally let me address nato's relationship with russia. 2012 marks the 15th and verse aand the 10th of the council, anniversaries we commemorated last month. the nrc is founded on our commitment to address issues of disagreement. the best example of cooperation is our best efforts in afghanistan where russia's transit support has been critical to the mission's success. at the same time nato continues to seek cooperation with russia in order to enhance our individual capabilities to counter the threat. while we strive for cooperation, we have been frank that we will

continue to deploy irrespective of the status with russia. let me be clear, nato is not a threat to russia nor is russia a threat to nato. it's no secret there are issues on which the allies differ. since 2008 nato has strongly supported the territorial integrity and that is has urged. the three summit priorities i just outlined demonstrate how far we've evolved. the reasons for its continued success are clear. the alliance has over the last 63 years proven to be an adaptable, durable, and cost provider of security. when president obama welcomes his counterparts to chicago in just over a week, the united states will be prepared to work with our allies and partners to

make sure it remains vibrant and capab capable. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we appreciate it. secretary townsent? >> chairman kerry and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss the anyw nato summit which the united states will host in chicago in may. i will describe what we hope to achieve from the defense point of view and its relevance for national security. i particularly look forward to hearing the committee's views on the summit and the priorities you have for its outcome. i'd like to summarize my statement, mr. chairman, and submit the full statement into the record. >> without objection. coming together at a summit every few years not only to approve rn pieces of businesses but also to renew at the highest level the commitment allies have made in the north laeshg treaty.

this commitment has expressed in five of the treaty is a solid one that has only been invekd after the united states was attacked on september 11, 2001. this was critical during the cold war to help the warsaw pact from attacking the united states and her allies. even with the end of the gold war this article 5 commitment remains the core of the alliance. nato serves as the organizing framework to ensure that we have allies willing and able to fight alongside us in conflict and provides an integrated military structure that puts the military teeth behind alliance political decisions to take action. in addition to ensuring the inoperability to the allies, we

serve for global security partners. the nature air and operation in libya liberate this point. the operation began as a coalition involving the united states, the united kingdom and france. however, when nato answered the u.n.'s call to protect the libyan people, it was able to take on the mission. had nato not been there or had nato been too weak an institution to take on such an operation, the coalition would have had to carry on alone. keeping nato strong both politically and militarily is critical to enshoe nato is ready when needed. this has been true for the last 20 years when the turbulence of the international system has demanded that nature respond nearly continuously to crises throughout the globe.

today, for example, nato forces are in afghanistan, in the balance kins, encountering pirates. on have just concluded operations in libya. challenges to the united states and their allies can come from ballistic missile proliferation, cyber attack, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction as well as from just the instability that we can see what's happening as turmoil takes place as nations wrestle to set up their forms of government. we must be ready to meet emerging threats. we could prefer to meet these challenges together with allies and not alone. so the strategic context for the s summit is what i have just described. and for our work at nato every day, how can we keep nato and the alhighs ready to meet the challenges of today and in the

future? this is he is pgsly complex as the mick crisis campaigns allies in order to reduce their debt and decrease government spending. allies, too, have different views and priorities regarding perceptions of the threat and the traditions of their own military forces. not every ally sees the world and their role in it the way we do. one thing is the alliance to be unified and strong. allies look to the yunited stats to lead the way in keeping nato strong, capability of incredible. that is where we come to the summit in chicago. at chicago heads of state and government will agree or prove work that we committed to the last summit in lisbon. at chicago this work will focus on three areas.

an agreement on a strategic plan for afghanistan, military capabilities, and nato partnerships. the united states has three summit objectives. number one is charting a clear path for the clegs of and reaffirming afghanistan. the second objective maintaining the poor defense capabilities during this period of austerity and building a force ready for future challenges. finally, deepening the engagement of hibernations. mr. chairman, i would like to end here. i look forward to a good discussion. thank you very much, sir to townaccepted, we will have that, i'm sure. let me ask you quickly if i can before i turn the gavel over. first of all, what sort of reaction to the european --

generally to the obama administration's decision to take two of the four combat brigades, army brigades out of europe. and what's the impact? >> i appreciate the opportunity to address that because i think we have been quite successful in explaining what was thinking. i've been in berlin, lithuania and copenhagen. to think about it even with people imagining it somehow we were reducing our presence in europe. the fact is those brigade combat teams have been fighting in southwest asia for the past decade.

and the issue the defense department was rethinking was after this decade of heavy presence of spend iing hundredsf billions of dollars, what was the right posture to move forwa forward? and we have had the opportunity to explain this thinking to o our -- and moving forward even after the brigade combat teams even if they do not run, during which we believe that article five is incredible and we've absolutely had an opportunity to defend europe. we have already, and the pentagon is working this out as we speak, taken elements to rotate through europe to ensure the critical partnership fuon