totaltion more than $10 million per year. as we continue to see poverty rates in the african-american and latino communities grow jobs and wages lost to offshoring, continuing to prevent these communities from building wealth and work into the middle class. so tpp is bad for everyone. if the united states is going to pursue a free trade agreement of the pacific congress needs to have full public debates and hearings so the deal is fair and the american people know what's in it. that's why congress is so important to these deals. otherwise, people have no voice. they have no say on these trade policies that affect their livelihood. so we need to take fast track oft table. we need to do that right away. and we need to start talking about creating good paying jobs for american workers and american families here in america. i'm very proud and honored to bring forth my colleague who's

co-chair of the congressional progressive caucus who has led the fight with low wage workers to raise the standard of living for good paying jobs. congressman keith ellison. >> i had a constituent call me the other day and he said you know, keith, i've heard some things about this transpacific partnership and i'm concerned about it, you need to send me a copy of that bill. of course i cannot do that. because i've never seen it. if they show you the bill at all they show you one little title of it and then you can't have stats, you can't take notes you can't do anything. this is an invisible process. each one of us represents somewhere in the neighborhood of 700,000 people. so when we're standing in front of you whole communities, several cities.

i represent 15 cities, minneapolis being the biggest one. and these people who sent me to congress expect that i will make decisions that are going to help them and they're going to stop bills that are going to hurt them. and there is no quay in the world i can support fast track,ant abdicating my responsibility, my authority in congress without being clear on every single comma in the transpacific partnership. and i have not seen it. if it's so awesome let us see it. but we can't. so we are going to stop this thing. we are going to oppose it. we have a coalition to stop it. and i have yet to hear anybody who is for this bill come forward and say this is a great thing and it's going to be very different from nafta and here is exactly why. that has not happened yet. so i am incredibly suspicious and i am honored to be joining with my colleagues in and

outside of congress to fight fast track. i would like to introduce to you marcy kaptur of the awesome state of ohio and author of fair trade. >> thank you. i am thrilled to join my wonderful colleagues, most of whom are junior to me, in this institution and did not live through the nafta fight. we said on that consequential evening here in the capitol as it rained outside and john sweeney walked up the stairs while the largest global corporations commanded a central command room in the base of the capitol itself america will remember this night. and we remember. and the people re represent remember. we know this is a big struggle and we know this is a struggle to stop fast track and the

outsourcing of millions of more jobs from this country. since nafta passed this is an incredible figure, but the united states has racked up $9.5 trillion in trade deficit. we have a big chart to show that somewhere in this room. and a loss of 47,500,000 jobs. the workers in ohio have seen a loss of over 5 million manufacturing jobs and wages have dropped for the average family $7,000 a year. i have stood in places along with my colleagues like ohio and michigan avenues and a maquiladora in northern mexico when trico out of buffalo relocated windshield manufacturing. and then we visited the homes of the mexican workers who visited

for penny wage penny wage jobs and lived in squalor. what kind of a gift is that to the world? i have stood in vietnam watching children, little boys under age standing with bare feet on the rim of bowls that they were standing and spraying with lacquer and breathing in all of those fumes, hurting their own health for the future, for export to the united states. and today as i stand here as an ohioan tw plantso plants, u.s. steel and lorraine, ohio have announced over 700 layoffs and a company called hugo boss which is a german company which has an outlet in brooklyn, ohio has given pink slips to over 170 workers. if you go into a hugo boss outlet in your community you can buy suits that cost $1,200. the workers in my district have taken a 17% pay cut. and that wasn't good enough. so i'm here to say this is a day of reckoning.

i am so proud to be with my colleagues, all those who've been elected and are fighting to add justice, economic justice to the way this nation conducts its business. i am proud to oppose fast track, to support fair trade and to correct the wrongs that this free trade regimen exacts on the american people and our dear friends around the world. i would like to bring cot podium congressman tim ryan of ohio who has lived and breathed these issues. >> thank you, marcy. we are both from eye high and we have a lot of people in this big coalition but one of the coalitions we have is ohio state buckeye fans and oregon fans with peter defazio. so we're crossing all kinds of bridges here today.

to oppose fast track. the 2006 2008, 2010 2012 elections were all about economics. make no mistake. the anxiety that people peel in upstate new york and ohio and illinois and northern california, all across, and wisconsin, all acrisoss the country, these issues of trade have decimated the middle class in the united states of america. and if we want as democrats to connect with those voters we need to talk about the issues that they care about and it's fast track and it's trade. and i will say this. we are duly elected. we are the ones on the ground when the steel mill closes. we're the ones in the union hall shaking hands, holding hands hugging wives and kids that have

lost their jobs. making 50, 6 0, 70 80000 dollars a year. we're the ones on the ground. so to push a trade agreement into the house of representatives and not ask our opinion, we're the ones that see the imbalance in labor standards. the negative effects. we're the ones whether it's intellectual property in california, we're the ones who are on the front lines seeing the negative effects. so we should be considered. and you know what? we see the positive effects too. when we put tariffs on chinese tubing coming into the united states, we had a billion-dollar steel mill located in youngstown, ohio. that's what can happen. larry, rich. that's what can happen in the united states. if we stand up and we have fair trade. now, i want to make one last point. there's a reason why the public unions rupp on this banner. there's a reason why the teachers are here.

there's a reason why sister simone campbell's here. these trade agreements have a ripple effect throughout our communities. the teachers feel it because there's no tax base. to pay teachers more. the local government folks who do economic development, who do job retraining, they're not having the budgets they used to have because these trade deals have decimated local government funds. there's not enough money to throw in the kitty at church. so we're closing down churches. closing down catholic schools all across our communities across the united states. this is an american sxish it'sissue and it's come to a head in fast track. thank you. debbie sease, federal campaign director from the sierra club.

>> i'm here representing the sierra club's 2.4 million members and supporters who understand that a transpacific partnership rushed through congress under fast track authority will threaten our air, our water, our communities, the health of our families, and i believe that the people who are gathered here today all see the danger of unfair trade and the danger of rushing it through congress without oversight.

check and balance is protected in the constitution and fast track undermines that. so today we join our colleagues. we know it's an uphill battle. it's very difficult. but our members, all of our members, know how to make our voices heard. we will not be silenced. and we will continue to speak out against unfair trade and against fast track. and we are confident that because we are speaking for the american public, for the people who have so much to lose through unfair trade, that we will eventually be heard. and it is my privilege into the deuce congressman alan grayson. [ applause ] >> trade is a simple concept. you sell me yours and i'll sell you mine. that's not what's happening.

what's happening is that day after day, month after month, and year after year americans are buying goods and services manufactured by foreigners. and those foreigners are not buying goods and services manufactured by americans. we are creating millions no tens of millions of jobs in other countries with our purchasing power and we are losing tens of millions of jobs in our country because foreigners are not buying our goods and services. what are they doing? they're beeg our auying our assets. so we lose twice. first the jobs. and we are driven deeper and deeper into national debt. and ultimately national bankruptcy pf. that is the end game of this. it's not free trade. it's fake trade. we have fake trade.

that's why before nafta was enacted and went into effect this country never had a trade deficit as much as $140 billion a year and every single year since then for 20 years now, we've had a trade deficit of over $140 billion a year. we have had a trade deficit of half a million dollars now for the last 14 years. look back across history, look all across planet earth, and you will see that the 14 largest trade deficits in the history of mankind are all the american trade deficits for the last 14 years. i cannot rule out the possibility that somewhere on alpha centauri there might be a country that has a larger trade deficit. but here on planet earth no. listen, we are in a deep deep hole.

thanks to fake trade. thanks to fake trade, right now 1/7 of all the assets in this country, every business every plot of land, every car 1/7 of all the assets in this country are now owned by foreigners. and ultimately, if we keep going the way we're going, they all will be. that's why we have the most unequal distribution of income in our history, the most unequal distribution of wealth in our history. we're in a deep, deep hole. and there's a simple rule about holes. when you're in a hole, stop digging. stop digging. so i'm calling upon our leaders. i'm calling upon the american people. let's stop digging. let's not only have a trade policy. for once, let's also have a trade deficit policy. let's deal with the reality that has robbed the american class

now for decades. let's address it and let's defeat it. that's what i'm calling upon right now. let's stop digging deeper. let's raise ourselves up and climb out of this whole and rebuild the american middle class. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> tony carter. >> all right. i'm inviting tony korbo of the food and water watch to come to the microphone. >> thank you, congressman. i'm tony korbo. i'm with the consumer group food and water watch. and i work on food safety issues. and as congresswoman delauro, congresswoman slaughter, congresswoman kaptur congresswoman schakowski now, we have enough problems with our own food safety system in this country without having to import other countries' food safety issues. our concern at food and water

watch has always been with the safety of imported food. and the agency in this country that is beleaguered with increased imports is the food and drug administration. as most of you know, the congress in 2010 passed a food safety modernization act and the president signed it into law in 2011 and we're going through the implementation process of that law. that law mandated that fda, the food and drug administration increase its surveillance of imported food. that law had a section that required the fda's inspections, foreign facilities that export products to the united states every year starting in 2011 until 2016. in 2015 that law required that fda actually do about 10,000

physical inspections. but because the congress has failed to fund that law fully we've been stuck at 1,300. 13 physical -- 1,300 physical inspections of foreign facilities. yet the level of food imports in this country continued to increase. i just did a quick check of the import refusals from the 11 countries that are involved in the transpacific partnership for 2014. and based on the 2% the 2% inspection that fda does at our ports of entry, over 3,300 products were refused entry by the fda because of all sorts of issues. and many of those products were food products.

and the violations ranged from labeling violations all the way to microbiological contamination such as salmonella, listeria, e. coli, botulism. china, which is waiting in the wings for this tpp to be negotiated because they want to piggyback on, alone had 2,300 violations. and import refusals. so the thing is why are we rushing this transpacific partnership through? it should be slow-tracked. we don't have the regulatory capacity to deal with increased trade from a food standpoint. on the meat side -- meat and poultry side at usda which has a more rigorous system, it actually requires countries that want to, port their meat and poultry to the united states to go through a food safety

assessment to determine whether their system is comparable to ours we have seen i steady erosion of inspection requirements because of trade deals. up until the world trade organization we used to have an equal 2 standard for meat and poultry exports to the united states. we went to an equivalence system. so what we have seen over recent years is that there's been a reduction in the level of inspection that goes on for meat and poultry products. we need to slow track. the fast track is way beyond the necessary requirements at this point. >> donna edwards. >> and i would like to introduce my neighbor in maryland, congresswoman donna edwards. >> thank you. hello. [ applause ] i'm congresswoman donna edwards, and like my colleagues here i represent 725,000 people in the

4th congressional district of maryland in our state of maryland since nafta sadly passed we lost 70,000 jobs in our state. millions of jobs all across this country. and i was thinking back to that day when nafta passed because although unlike my colleague marcy kaptur i wasn't in congress at the time by was standing on the steps of the capitol working with my colleagues at trade watch as an advocate at congress watch shaking hands of members of congress and trying to convince them not to vote for a bad trade deal that would trade away jobs. i remember standing there that evening, and it was a long evening, and it was a wet evening with my 5-year-old at the time. hoping that i could convince people to come over and say hello because we could tell them that the next generation of american children would be deprived of jobs because of what we were about to do, what congress was about to do in passing nafta.

and so here we are, and it's 2015 and we're right back where we were. with a trade agreement that trades away american jobs. trades them away and for what? so-called -- getting rid of buy america provisions. so somebody asked me if we had the ability not to have fast track and to be able to put amendments on the floor of the house of representatives representing the 725,000 people in my district, you know what i would do? i would put an amendment in there solidifying buy american provisions because united states tax dollars shouldn't be used -- united states tax dollars should not be used to underwrite and subsidize jobs overseas. and that's exactly what's happening with this agreement. and so not only do we need to say no to fast track but we need to say no to a tpp that trades away american jobs, that says to our brothers and sisters in labor it's not enough that

you've lost millions of manufacturing jobs in this country over the last two decades, we want you to lose more, to say to our environmental brothers and sisters that we're going to trade away all of our environmental standards that we have to uphold and give a bargain to people overseas who are not upholding those same standards. to say to the good people of congress all across this world whose citizens also are really working hard and doing it for nothing, just like our citizens are working hard and doing it for nothing, that it's time to end that kind of free trade and instead let's have fair trade that respects the american people, that rex people around the world and make sure that we can begin to create jobs and grow and build things again in america. stop tpp. no to fast track. [ applause ] and now i have the great pleasure of introducing my good

friend, jan schakowski from illinois. >> thank you. i am proud proud to stand before a mighty coalition that says fast tracking a bad trade deal is not acceptable to us and it should not be to the congress. and at the same time sidetracking workers' rates, workers' safety. environmental protection laws, access to affordable prescription drugs here and around the world. off the track is the ability of congress to protect long fought-for laws and to turn them over to corporations now that want to so-called harmonize our laws, meaning often bringing them to the lowest common denominator around the country. the biggest international corporations who could then challenge any law that somehow

interferes with their profits. that's what we know is in the transpacific partnership. and so we think that not -- and not even near the track right now are the millions of constituents who are represented by these members of congress, whose voices are needing to be heard. and i hope in the next few months and the next few weeks because of our ability to organize organize, we have great organizers here within and without the congress, that the voices of the american people will be heard and we will say no to fast track and no to tpp. thank you. [ applause ] now i'd like to bring forth dan kildee a newish member but one whose voice is always there. ish. newish member. whose voice has been absolutely resolute for working families. >> thank you. thank you, jan.

you know, for me this is about my hometown. i come from flint, michigan. in 1908 general motors was founded in flint michigan. and in 1936 the workers in those factories sat down on the job and held out until they got the first uaw contract. between the auto industry and the american labor movement we built the american middle class. and what we are seeing is all that we have gained being given away by trade agreements that treat the american worker as if they're meaningless that reward corporate interests but put workers on the back -- on the back burner. what do i say -- i ask this question. what do i say to the people that i represent who were told back in the 1990s that the way we can rebuild our manufacturing base

is with these trade agreements? in my hometown we once had 79,000 people. 79,000 people working in manufacturing in the auto industry. today there's 10,000 people in that same industry. we've lost 90% of our jobs. all after these trade agreements were negotiated theoretically to strengthen the american manufacturer. so when i am asked, will this agreement have protections for labor standards in it that are adequate with enforcement that will be strong i have to say i don't know. when i'm asked, will there be environmental standards with enforcement mechanisms, i have to say, i don't know. and when i'm asked will there be currency standards that no matter what we get in the rest of the trade agreement we can see all that is gained given away when countries are allowed to manipulate their currency to

make their exports attractive and ours incapable of being sold into other markets, what do i say to the people that i represent when they ask me those questions, when we have a process that asks me as an elected member of congress to sit down be quiet wait and just trust us? well, you know what? we trusted folks before. and we saw our jobs go away. not on our watch. we're not going to let that happen again. with that let me introduce my buddy, my new friend -- he's not newish but he's a new friend. leader of the congressional progressive caucus, raul grijalva. >> thank you very much. and my colleagues and the allies today against fast track have stated the case for the american people very well today. i just wanted to say that with regard to this trade agreement and the fast track fight that's ahead of us that this is not

about -- there's no legacy at stake here. the only legacy that we know of is the legacy of the failed trade agreements of the past. nafta. no enforceability. the environmental impact under this. where corporations from partnering nations are able to override our domestic laws, are able to sue based on the fact that future profits are at stake, are able to undercut our clean air, clean water, resource protections in this nation. i don't think the american people know that, nor do they want that. i think what has been said over and over again by my colleagues and bears repeating is a simple point. we are elected with an obligation to do our job. fast track robs us of that obligation and that authority. we have been elected to assure

that the public's right to know is presented to them. fast track robs us of the obligation, denies the people the right to know, and we proceed with an agreement that is not enforceable and based on a legacy of failures. in the nafta debate i was watching -- i had a disease long ago, i was watching c-span or something. and a colleague from arizona that isn't here anymore got up to defend the deal. and he said on the floor nafta is vital it'll end our problem with immigration. it'll secure our borders. it'll provide growth for our country in terms of jobs and growth with security for latin america. i ask you to judge that comment

to reality. thank you very much. >> i want to introduce myself. i'm congresswoman janice hahn. >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay. i'm from los angeles. so i represent the port of los angeles, which is the largest container port in the united states. and i understand the economic value of trade. i'm very much pro trade. trade supports millions of good paying jobs for hard-working americans at our ports and throughout the supply chain in this country. some people i think mischaracterize those of us who are opposed to fast track and bad deals as being anti-trade. so i repeat. i strongly support trade. but however, i am opposed to trade deals that have harmful consequences for american workers and deals that give

unfair advantages to those who exploit workers and destroy this environment. that's why i oppose fast track. fast track takes away from congress our authority to regulate trade and to be involved in these negotiations. under fast track we would be stripped of our ability to negotiate, to amend, to make the deals better. and we would only be allowed to vote yes or no. that sounds like a recipe for a raw deal not a good deal. and speaking of deals we traded john dingell and we got debbie dingell, which so far i think is a fair trade. >> so i'm the new girl on the block from michigan. but i am no new girl to the subject of trade.

yesterday i was honored to go to detroit with the president and to have him visit a ford motor plant and see a plant what is doing well. and yet if we pass the legislation people are talking about right now it's going to set us backwards. i want to associate myself with all of the comments that have been made by my colleagues and not repeat them. but i am going to say a couple of things. which is one we're told that any fast track deal isn't going to include currency. currency is the mother of all trade barriers. i want you to know that right now in the -- the yen, which is at 120 in the last two years has given an $8,000 advantage in this country to the japanese. and that $8,000 advantage they have that they're using against the best-built product that's made in america and made in michigan is then used to undercut cost of what the vehicles are or the parts or in advertising.

that's not fair trade. and it's not fair trade when we export middle-class jobs to other countries. how many people have focused on the fact that toyota made more money in profits on currency than ford motor did in all of the profits that they did in production around the world last year? so i want fair trade. i know our domestic -- i've lived in those auto plants. i know the working men and women of gm ford, and chrysler. they're fabulous workers. we build great cars. and we'll compete with anybody in the world. but we cannot compete with the bank of japan and we cannot compete with the government of japan. if we don't have a u.s. government that's out there fighting and fighting for us in this country. that's why i oppose it. [ applause ] and now i want to introduce you to -- i'm known for being quite shy and retiring. mark, my new colleague from california, he's wonderful. you're on.

>> thank you. >> okay. well first of all i've been a member of congress for less than 48 hours. so i'm just thrilled to be here. i'm a little confused about the hot and cold nature of washington, coming from the bay area in california. but this coalition of faith, of the environmental community, of labor, on what i really think is the most important thing we can talk about in domestic policy, domestic policy and global policy in the united states, the future of the american workforce, arguably the most powerful human force in the history of this planet the middle class of america who's provided us with the benefits that we so enjoy. in an economy that's based on 70% consumer goods we are efs raitting the middle class who provides the income for those consumer goods. i'm continually perplexed as to why americans eviscerate this most important part of america why we keep taking away their ability to create a better life for their kids. when i i talk to my constituents in the bay area where we live in

the best and the worst of times a very dickens-like world where we're now up to almost 24% poverty as my colleague and neighbor barbara lee pointed out, we should be very careful when it comes to trade. first, do no further harm to the american workforce. so there's that. and then there's the whole issue of democracy and transparency that we talk a lot about. a lot of americans -- i come from the california legislature. prior to the last 48 hours. a lot of americans think that democracy is unnecessarily distasteful, that it's hard, that the u.s. house of representatives somehow doesn't work as efficiently as it should. but that's the basis of democracy. it might not always be pretty, but it works because it includes everyone. lincoln once famously said in american politics with public sentiment you can do anything. without it you can do nothing. this is a perfect example of this. don't pass this fast track. thank you.

>> i'm paul tomko. i represent new york 20 in upstate new york. and i and representative schakowsky, whom you heard from earlier, had a conflict on our schedule and we arrived a little late. and we were thrilled to see the over, over overflow crowd coming out of this room that speaks to the interests and the passion of this issue. there can be no more important issue that speaks to dignity of the worker and the quality of life of working families. and so i want to thank our colleague, rosa delauro, congresswoman delauro has held numerous forums where we've gathered together routinely to speak to the injustice of this issue. you heard earlier from my friend and colleague, representative slaughter. we both claim the i-90 corridor in upstate new york. she at the western end me at the eastern end. but we both claim the donor area to the erie canal, which drove a

westward movement and built the industrial revolution of this country. it gave birth to a necklace of communities dubbed mill towns. those mill towns became the epicenters of invention and innovation. they allowed for the worker to escape her or his creative genius. and it allowed for the tethering of the american dream. that dream still nurtures us. what this does is deny that american dream, suffocate the american dream, and it brings about ib justice around the world. sister simone alerted us to the facts she has seen through her order around the world. so we're not for diminishing the quality of life and people in this world by acts that we do here in washington. you know when i think of that great investment of the erie canal that enabled us to be this manufacturing kingpin of the international economy, we need

to continue to nurture that. we need to continue to invest in a better more hopeful tomorrow. this does not do it. i was asked several times in our last return to the district through the month of december as we were ramping up to come back to the new session of congress. a number of working families had asked me a number of middle-income community types had asked me go to washington and get something done. what they want done is a legitimate agenda. they want the dignity of a job and the opportunity to earn a paycheck and allow their children to have more hope and a better tomorrow. this suffocates all of that. so my district is not asking me to ship away jobs, trade away jobs. they're not asking me to dirty our environment. they're not asking me to allow

our -- subject our children it's ugly sins of the past. and they're not asking me for a fast track that denies our voice in a process. the public knows what's going on. congress needs to have a voice in these negotiations. the american public needs for congress to echo their concerns. there's no mistaking that. so i am proud to stand with my colleagues, to lend my voice to their voices as we move forward. i'm proud to associate myself with unionized labor, with those environmental groups and the advocacy groups that speak to economic social, and environmental justice because that's us at our best. washington is here deliberating. they have opportunities to open a process. we should not be left in the dark. america is watching. the world is watching. what do we stand for?

do we want to subject children around the world and our own children to terrible conditions? do we want to hand over an environment to the next generations that's more polluted? do we want economic consequences to be the rule of the day for the families that are counting on a good paycheck? and do we stand for the suffocation of the american dream? the greatest dream this world has ever known. i am proud to stand with my colleagues. thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] great job. thank you. to my colleagues. to the advocacy groups. thank you. i have never been more proud to stand with my colleagues and with groups who are the wind beneath our wings. thank you so, so much for being here today and putting that fine point. we will not have fast track. it will not happen. we are not going to do it. and with that let's open it up for questions. yes. and please identify yourself. >> brian dodd international

trade. thanks very much for speaking. two questions if you don't mind. ms. slaughter you referenced a piece of legislation that relates to enforcement -- >> the reciprocal trade agreement. it says if a trade agreement is negotiated by the trade czar that we have to have in addition to that enforcement. which has lacked all these years. i've said a million times in my years in congress i have seen not a single trade bill that either benefited the american manufacturer or the american worker. and in my mind that is because there has been absolutely no enforcement. this bill gives us a snapback provision that we can stop the trade agreement in its tracks until we deal with the problems of people not buying our goods and when i said -- i'm not sure i said it strongly enough but we lost in one month to south korea $2.8 billion.

think about that. that's one month of things they sold, they got from us american dollars transferred to them. and i will tell you the fact they wouldn't sell american cars in the first place we have always had this problem with japan. it has troubled me since i've been here. that i think the major complaint we have about trade agreements is they were never enforced. and nafta was based a lot on child labor and terrible pollution on the mexico-texas border. none of that has really changed. but without the enforcement that we're going to do in this bill it will never change. >> do you know when that will be introduced? >> this week. next week at the latest. >> congresswoman delauro you spoke pretty frequently about the lack of enough votes in the house to pass the measure. i'm wondering where you're getting those figures from. right now the republican majority is 246.

the speaker can lose 28 for any bill. 22 house republicans in late 2013 told president obama they opposed to tpa. of those 22 only 17 are left in the house. so that's 17 that are on record republicans in opposition, and they can lose 28. so i'm just wondering where you're getting -- >> where i get my energy and where i get my view to say we're going to defeat fast track, there's precedent in the house of representatives for defeating fast track. that happened in 1998. 171 democrats 71 republicans came together around this issue. i believe several months ago that we had 151 democratic members that signed a letter that was signed by myself, congresswoman slaughter, and then congresswoman george

miller. there was a separate letter from republicans, as you have pointed out, that 27 members signed. they were individual members republicans and democrats who sent a letter. they're individual letters. saying they were opposed to fast track. so about 190 members, both democrats and republicans signed letters saying they are opposed to fast track. another piece you should know about is there are 230 house members who signed a letter saying that without the issue being addressed of currency manipulation that they would not vote for the legislation. this does not include what's happening in the senate. i'm speaking only in the house. 60 in the senate. we have every reason to believe that we can defeat fast track. i think one of my colleagues

said in one of the conversations that we have yet to see the people who support fast track from both parties on their feet and saying anything. and this coalition, this is not a one-shot deal that we're here today, and we've got everybody here. these are people who have been working day in day out over the last year, the last several months, to address this issue. and, my friend, i believe the thought was that fast track would be brought up long before where we are today in 2015. this group has stopped it. every reason to believe that we will defeat fast track. yes, ma'am. you had your hand up. >> rachel from sirius xm.

this is an international trade deal. multinational corporations are lobbying all different governments. i was wondering what kind of efforts you've made or reached out to other countries and legislatures and talked to them about it. >> well, i'll ask any of my colleagues to address it. larry. >> on the ngo side massive opposition around the world. we do a town hall call once a month on cwa with 10,000 people on there. last month we had the leader of the opposition in new zealand leader of the opposition in australia, and even in mexico, again, not the government but the nga world, whether it's independent labor, environmentalists, unified against this and frankly saying why does the u.s. bring deals that are all about u.s.-based multinational corporations. they're not good for us either. and there's lots more we could say about that. i was recently in honduras, saw the devastation there. but again i know there are a lot of questions. >> i believe i think it was tom donahue who was recently in

korea and who spoke about their not acting in good faith on what was dealt at that time. >> yes, sir. >> for congresswoman dingell, you said you went to detroit yesterday with the president. did you have a chance to talk to the president even briefly about your opposition? the leader of your own party is probably the biggest supporter of this tpp deal. how willing are you to sort of buck -- and the rest of you to buck the president's own agenda that he's calling critical to his presidency? >> i think where i stand is -- >> into the microphone. >> i think how i feel is pretty clear. there was a question. i've been very vocal on this from the very first question that i got and i believe it would put us backwards. and by the way come to michigan. the auto companies are concerned. we're waiting to see. fast track is about slg the ability. you can't just fast track. we need to know what the substance is in. you're asking me about tpp.

if we don't address currency i think you've seen the three domestic auto companies, the uaw, many other unions are concerned about this, and quite frankly it places companies in this country at a competitive disadvantage. and i'm here for the working men and women of this country. >> but what message do you have for the president? >> gently. i think we need to address currency issues. >> i think we all have at one time or another. >> the reality is all of us here have supported the president and a lot of the president's agenda but we also represent a congressional district that is in jeopardy of losing millions of jobs because of a bad trade deal. and i think it's our responsibility as members of congress, sure we support the president. you know who we support? the american people. and i support the 725,000 people who live in my district. >> and for so many of us i would just say and i'll speak for myself since i've been a member of the congress, i have opposed fast track and it doesn't make any difference who is in the

white house. because it is not in the best interest of the working men and women in this nation. >> i do want to be really clear that the auto industry would not be where it was without president obama. and i want to thank him for his leadership. that is very important. and that's my first point. we would not be where we are were it not for president obama. >> let me give one example. when i first came down here, eastman kodak had 62,000 people employed in monroe county new york rochester. they've gone through bankruptcy and they're down now to about 5,000 after nafta. i represent hickey freeman, which is probably one of the last suit makers in the united states of high-quality men's suits. they asked me to find out what kind of trade problems we were worried about, what would happen with vietnam. vietnam workers god bless them, are not even paid a dollar an hour and have absolutely no benefits. very much concerned that the wool tariffs will benefit them and just decimate and ruin

hickey freeman as we have seen has happened with kodak which i'm glad to see has been making a comeback. but world tariffs as you heard before, i couldn't have a member of my staff with me. they brought a gigantic book over from my staff with me. they showed me row after row of things like short jackets long jackets, inner wear, i said i need to know about what you're expecting with world terror. she said i have no idea. two industries that are lobbied here the most, are the financial industry and the pharmaceutical industry. now, think about that for a minute and tell me if it doesn't make your blood run cold. >> yes? >> with any of these things do you think it is possible to achieve ratification? >> without question. >> no i think fast track is critical for being able to move forward. i think our trading partners

will look at whether or not -- you know, and -- for our purposes it's fast track that we need to move out and to defeat fast track right now. you know, whenever anybody sees ttp or what is in it they can make a decision on whether or not they want to be there. but the process has been just so poorly administered, i want to read to you a couple of quotes. first by professor jeffrey stack. and this was last september. he said as i quote, first, let's keep in mind our own rhetoric that these proposed agreements are mostly investor-protected agreements rather than trade agreements. on the peterson institute, said -- an early supporter of nafta on which the ttp is modelled it is estimated as much as 39% of

the observed growth in u.s. wage and equality is attributable to trade trends. we are not speaking anecdote anecdoteally. we are speaking from data and research. and talking with the people that we are representing. the economic challenge of the united states today is that people are not paid enough in the jobs that they have. wages are stagnant. and this effort will only increase that wage stagnation. you had a question? >> has the democratic caucus as a whole tried to come up with -- have they discussed a strategy or position on fast track, on what they plan on doing. what do you expect the democratic leadership to say on

this issue? >> no, the democratic caucus as a whole has not had a discussion or -- but the view was that that -- this was not coming up. this is not the case now. reading of the -- of the press is that it is -- it may be coming up very soon. we will you know -- we're prepared to address that issue so that in fact the caucus has not discussed it as a caucus. and i think we'll begin to see these types of discussions happen very shortly. >> what is the assertion by the white house spokesperson that the president would walk away, rather than sign a deal -- >> you know, the white house has said what they would do. and so i wouldn't -- you know, what we're looking at is we believe fast track is a bad

deal. so that is our first effort here. and you know we haven't seen this document as my colleague mrs. slaughter pointed out. it was like being in nursery school. you can't have the staff with you that -- that is not -- doesn't have certification or a classified document. you can't take notes. you can't take any papers out of the room and everything has to go back. we are the duly elected people in 435 congressional districts. we have to represent their interests and that is what we're trying to do. i will go back to saying to you we had the opportunity to read line by line the affordable care act. i was here when the clinton's health care bill emerged and we had tutorials to know what is in

that legislation. all we are asking is let us read the bill. let us know what is in it and let us have input into this process and not after the deal is consummated but before the deal is consummated. back there? >> given that finding republican votes will be key to your fight here are you actively engaged in any effort to reach across the aisle and talk to trade sceptics, building critical mass on that part of the aisle, as well? >> as i said earlier on in 1978 there were 71 republicans who vastoted against fast track. i believe there will be

republicans for fast track. they have the same issues in their district with regard to jobs that all of us do. and that is that this is not only related to the loss of jobs among democrats, but republicans, independents, and others. so i believe that they will join forces larry? >> ten seconds on that. we can give you polling of the republican base, 80% opposes fast track. >> thank you, larry that is great. i saw one more hand. >> john higgins for congresswoman dingle, were you able to talk to the president yesterday and if you did -- >> the incoming phases during the trip -- >> thank you. thank you very much. thanks to my colleagues. thanks toed advocacy group.

thank you. >> the c-span cities tour travels to u.s. cities to learn about the history and their literary life. >> i wrote these books, they're two volumes. the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories, wheeling was transformed into an industrial city in the 19th part of the century and the early part of the 20th century. and it is kind of uncommon in west virginia in that immigrants were here in search of jobs and opportunity. so that generation, that immigrant generation is pretty much gone. i thought it was important to record their stories, get the

memories of the immigrant generation and the ethnic neighborhoods they formed. it is an important part of our history. most people tend to focus on the frontier history the war history. those periods are important. but of equal importance in my mind is this industrial period and the immigration that wheeling had. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on the frontier. that river was the western expanse of the united states. the first project funded by the federal government or road production was the national road that extended from cumberland, maryland, to wheeling virginia. and when it comes to wheeling that will give the community which at that time it was about 50 years old the real spurt

that it needs for growth. and over the next 20 to 25 years, the population of wheeling will almost triple. >> watch all of our events from wheeling saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. on the next washington journal, the former head of the department of homeland security visa waiver program mark frey and how the program may affect national security. and then republican tom davis and democrat martin frost, and the co-authors of the book, the partisan divide.

in a moment, the head of the strategic command cecil haney outlines the threat to security. then after the paris attacks last week prime minister david cameron speaks about the need for the u.k. government to pass a counterterrorism bill. and the focus on counterterrorism movement. president obama gives his state of the union address to the joint session of congress on tuesday. we'll have the president's speech plus reaction from you and members of congress, live coverage tuesday night begins at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span during and c-span radio. and joni ernst will deliver the

formal response to the president's state of the union. the deadline for the c-span video competition is tuesday so get your entries completed now. produce a documentary on the theme, the three branches and you for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. for the list of the roles go to studentcam.org. now, admiral cecil haney, the commander of the strategic demand speaks about the extremist organizations nuclear detection. this is an hour and 15 minutes. i would like to offer a very

warm welcome to one and all. we're delighted to have you with us. i very much appreciate you being here with us for this commander's series event where we will hear from admiral cecil d.haney, commander of the strategic command. he joins a roster that includes martin dempsey chairman of the chiefs of staff, and the commander of allied europe. we're delighted to have you with us. we're fortunate that the long-time pentagon correspondent for "the new york times" is with us today tom, we too are honored to have you with us. the commander series is our longstanding flagship speaker series for senior u.s. and allied military leaders. and i want to thank saab north

america for their strong and consistent support of the series. we have more great speakers lined up later in the year, including admiral jonathan greenert, chief of naval operations and general kelly, chief of southern command, among others. we hope you can join us for those events as well. but today we could not be more excited to host admiral haney who is of course the commander of the u.s. strategic command, where he is the leader, steward advocate of our nation's strategic capabilities. u.s. strat com encompasses the u.s. control commission and has responsibility for global strike, global missile defense along with global command control communications, computers, surveillance, and

reconnaissance. including u.s. cyber com and combatting weapons of mass destruction. since taking command of u.s. strat com in november 2013, the admiral's top priority is maintaining safety with the allies with the safe, secure effective nuclear force. in addition, he works on partnerships to address a broad range of global challenges, building cyber space capability and confronting uncertainty with agility and innovation. this is a particularly difficult job today as we see a surge in russia, and rising china, challenging us with nuclear capabilities, space and cyber space, as well as countries like north korea and iran, seeking greater roles in these domains proliferation of technology,

increased risks, posed by non-state actors in many of these areas as well. in short, strategic deterrence may be more challenging today than it has ever been. this is why we at the atlantic council have been tackling many of these issues head on, including our work in russia particularly our trans-atlantic security work as we chart a path for europe whole and free. likewise we have been doing extensive programming on cyber security and cyber state craft initiative. ranging from nato's cyber emission to the recent attack on sony. our initiative and middle east peace and security initiative permit thinking about trans-atlantic security in a global context. and all of this work is done by the center for international security. in that light, we're very much looking forward to hearing from admiral haney today and to the

discussion it will stimulate as we better understand the strategic challenges facing the nation. with that i would like to invite our good friend michael anderson, president, ceo of saab north america to the stage to introduce the admiral. michael, the stage is yours. >> thank you, chairman, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. once again i'm michael anderson, i'm president ceo of saab, north america. saab has been a very active supporter of the atlantic council for many years and we have joinly -- jointly been involved for years. we have many key issues in policies, and the close connection between the trans-atlantic relations. we're very pleased to see that

so many of you could attend today. it is an honor for me to introduce our special guests today. admiral cecil d.haney. over the course of his 35-year long service in uniform he has built a distinguished career. admiral haney comes at this with the depth of experience and previously served as the director. combined with the region experience and the legislative background he has a true appreciation for the strategic complexity we face as a nation, as well as the practical

challenges. admiral, we're very proud and pleased to have you here today. please join me in welcoming admiral haney to the stage. >> thank you very much. well, good morning. governor prince ton and also mike thank you for the kind introduction. it is fantastic to be here today to interact with so many intellectuals, professionals who have been deeply involved in our nation's security and policy apparatus for decades. so thanks to the international security for hosting this series, and the atlantic council at large for what you do. stood up to bring foreign policy actors together to ensure a better global future. and i salute the broad range of

security and international corporation issues that council has addressed over the years. i am honored to be here but i'm astonished to be at the podium by sitting in the audience listening to many of you who engaged so brilliantly in my top diminish to deter strategic attack. while i thank tom schanker in advantage for moderating today he should know i appreciate his critical analysis for what he termed the new deterrent in his book counter strike that he co--authored with eric smith. tom details how matt kroenig, who is also in the audience today, was instrumental in sparking the debate to understand that detaxpayererrence

to stopping terrorism. it is that typical type of debate that i appreciate. so as i give you my thought, know that i value different opinions and perspectives and i look forward to my meaningful discussion. as we look at the world today it is important to stop and recognize just how far we've come since the end of the cold war. this month markingss 22 years since former president george bush and russian president yeltsin signed part two. although the treaty was never ratified it is a significant chapter in our history of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. i can only imagine the rich expanses that occurred in our history after that period. today after providing you a brief overview of my perspective of the complex security environment we face i will

center my remarks on two things. first, my priorities and approach as the commander of the u.s. strategic command, and second strategic deterrence with the need for economic deterrence. perhaps more so at any time in our history they challenge our democratic values and our security in so many ways. the nature of strategic threats, weapons of mass destruction we continue to see the capability to include but not limited to the nuclear capability. counter space, cyber space difficulties. as well as the growing list of economic disasters and disturbing trends upsetting the strategic balance giving rise for additional concern not only

for me but for my fellow combatant commanders that are my teammates and that i work very closely with. perhaps most alarming is the trend of proliferation of the capabilities challenging our ability to hold other forces that are a risk. and ultimating impacting the strategic strategic stability. there are ungoverned or ineffectively governed areas for bad actors. we know we must continue to confront the violent extremists as demonstrated by their barbaric actions that they lack the respect for the environmental norms as we sadly see and witness the atrocities in france, or the recent elements in nigeria.

clearly, in time provided here i will not be able to cover in these areas but i will address the few that you think you will be interested in from my perspective. i'll start with russia. as most of you know russia has had more than ten years in investments and modernization across their strategic nuclear forces. now, this is not about a continuation of the cold war. the cold war is over. and we know how that all turned out. this is about emerjging capability at a time of significant concerns in russia's execution of their near and abroad strategy. for example, president putin continues to stress the importance of russia's strategic forces, seen with his active messaging in every conceivable way, their speeches, press conferences and robust national and international media campaign. you also may have seen news of russian strategic bombers penetrating the u.s. and allies

air defense identification zones on multiple occasions this year. or perhaps you saw president putin on youtube ordering his commanders into action during major strategic force exercises both in october of 2013 and during the ukraine crisis in may of 2014. russia also has significant cyber capability, we just need to look back at estonia, georgia and ukraine. russia has also publicly stated they are developing counterspace capabilities, and as director clapper has mentioned, russia has anti-satellite weapons and conduct anti-satellite research. today, however, russia is not the only country that is in space. china is also modernizing their strategic forces. they're enhancing their cyber-based missiles. and while open news source

report reports the first fleet tests of their new mobile missile, they already are making progress. there is expected to be another road mobile missile capable of carrying multiple war heads. they're also testing the integration of their new submarines. as i'm sure you're aware, they're also developing multiple -- multi dimensional space capabilities supporting their access in the campaign. but with more than 60 nations operating satellites in space, it is a problem to see china conducting missile tests designed to destroy satellites. as we saw back in july of this year and that event in 2007 when their anti-satellite weapon created thousands of pieces of

debris, endangering the space systems of all nations they have also made headlines associated with the exploitation of computer networks. as you know, north korea continues work to advance their nuclear ambition. they have conducted multiple nuclear tests and claimed to have possessed warhead capability of delivery by ballistic missiles. at the same time they continue to move forward with both the development of a new road missile, the icbm. and the new missile submarine. they, too, are developing offensive cyber capabilities, and there have been no shortage of headlines pointing to north korea. iran has made no secret of their desire to acquire nuclear weapons and preventing them from acquiring these capabilitiesyiesyies

paramount to capabilities. like north korea there are also public examples of their cyber activities and capability. so as you can see we are fraught with an incredibly challenging geo-political environment, barely scratching inging the surface that i have been describing. and i want to give you my priorities as commander and i hope it makes sense that my top priority is to deter strategic attack and to provide our nation with a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent force. some of our most modern forces are associated with remodelling and deterring.

we have sustained our capabilities much longer than originally planned. to give you an example, our missiles have been fielded in the '70s and will be sustained through 2030. the missile submarine has been sustained through 30 or 40 years of service. our newest b-52 models came off the assembly line more than 50 years ago and there is no plans to retire them before 2040. some of our war heads infrastructures have been around since world war ii and our stock pile is the oldest it has ever been, with the average age of over 27 years. our nation faces a substantial multi decade recapitalization challenge and we must continue the investment toward that effect. toward that effort. our planned investments are significant.

but are commensurate with the magnitude of the threat. the value becomes even more important, while at the same time facilitating the norm set by the non-proliferation treaty. we cannot do this alone however. i work closely with my fellow combatant commanders and the interagency. but it is also working with our allies and partners and friends and enduring relationships the think tanks and academia as well to confront the broad range of challenges. we have been able to have meetings with a number of our allies including the republic of korea, france, australia. the former defense minister of

japan. vice chief of defense of the united kingdom. and partners for space-sharing agreements. this past october we conducted a command of control exercises designed to train our department of defense forces and access -- assess our joint operational readiness across all the areas with a specific focus on nuclear readiness. and we did this not by ourselves. we did this in conjunction with the u.s. northern command, norad, to include our canadian partners in exercises that were grouped together. balance shield positive response and determined dragon. i share this with you as i want you to have an appreciation of just how i value partnerships and collaboration and how we at u.s. strategic command aim to work seamlessly decrease the inter agency as well as our

allies and partners. as a nation we depend highly on space capabilities. more so than ever before. space is fully integrated in our joint operations as well as our commercial and civil infrastructure. space today, though, is contested, congested and competitive. and we in the international community at large require assured access. while our space assets continue to face this growing threat from adversearies, adverse effects are also generated at the speed of cyber and cannot be ignored. in our lifetime we have benefitted immensely from computer capability sies. and i think it is fair so say as americans we rely on technology. but this also opened a threat access regarding our critical infrastructure and information assurance. i think you can understand while addressing the challenges in

space and building our cyber space capability and surpassis a top priority. my priority is to confront change with agility and innovation, we can't just look at military documents and understand what an adverseary's next moves will be. we just have not always done well at predicting potential conflict. we were certainly surprised about the chemical attacks in syria, ukraine, crisis and more recently here the things in france and ottawa, canada. it's going to require us to stretch our imagination in the art of deterrence to get into what i call the cognizant faces, to better understand and work with the better solution.

i can't stress enough the vitality to bring together our national leaders and think through some of our nation's most challenging issues. last summer, we cut the ribbon at u.s. strategic commands war gaming center in omaha. to help enable and challenge our thinking with the ability to look at alternative scenarios, some plausible today and some unthinkable tomorrow. this is why the department of defense innovation initiative announced recently by the secretary of defense hagel is also very important to me. we need to grow innovative leaders. identify new operational concepts and develop and continue to develop cutting edge technology so that we can continue to evolve with ideas on how to deter our potential adversearies and of course work with our allies. so now that i covered our

priorities let me shift to the topic i wanted to talk about. the emphasis on the need for deterring nuclear forces. today as i stated there are multiple forces who are capable of acquiring nuclear forces. president obama stated his goal regarding the nuclear weapons and we continue to work towards that goal with the treaty. the president's nuclear employment strategy released in june of 2013 as well )c] documents that include review, the 2014 defense review make it clear that as long as nuclear weapons exist the united states must maintain a strong and credible safe secure and effective nuclear deterrent and

that we must be prepared for the possibility that deterrents can fail. so 2015 must be tailored to work with the threat so we can determine what prevents escalation. given the aspirations of some and the modernization of the nuclear capabilities in the world today there is clearly a need for the united states to maintain nuclear capability as part of our strategy. but it is also equally clear that while our strategy while our strategic deterrence includes the triad of delivery platforms it is more than that. and all of it must remain credible for decades to come. our strategic deterrent includes the following. a robust and agile preparation. a synthesis that provides

critical warning. assured national control and communications. the necessary infrastructure to sustain nuclear weapons without fully testing the war heads. a credible missile defense system that extends and defends against limited attacks from rogue nations. relevant cyber space and space capabilities. trained and ready people to conduct strategic operation and planning. synchronized treaties and policies, and of course, a campaign plan that orients the activities toward a common purpose. this is not just capability. but a whole of government approach that requires our attention and the necessary resources. this is why i believe the nuclear deterrent group, that secretary hagel establishes, so

important to keeping the focus and balance the effort to support our nation's strategic deterrent. in closing, let me say this. the strategic context in the emerging threat environment, our increasing complexity at the same time to speak of information and misinformation, coupled with the proliferation of capabilities continues to threaten our critical infrastructure and our democratic way of life. even in this era of significant resource constraint we must get 21st century deterrent right. we must make it clear to our adversaryies or potential adversaries, that it will require us to work together as a team, the government theprivate sector academia as stated by

former secretary george schultz, deterrence is not synonymous with the assured nuclear destruction. it can and is exercised in many different ways through non-nuclear military forces. through economics. through alliances and coalition, end quote. of course, we could not have this credible strategic deterrent today if it were not for the men and women, both in uniform and in civilian clothes who conduct and contribute to our strategic deterrent mission day in and day out. across all areas from under the sea to geo-synchronized orbit they are making concrete contributions to our nation, 365 days a year. i couldn't be more proud of them and the work they are doing and

i hope you have the same sentiment. thank you for this opportunity. and i look forward to your questions. questions. >> thank you. very interesting comments thanks to chairman huntsman for the invitation to moderate today. admiral, i will spend a few minutes unpacking his very thoughtful and thought-provoking questions. but i promise to reserve half the time for questions from audience. always an exciting and engaging thing to do. we have a hard stop at 10:45. one biographical note to mention, he is a son of washington, d.c. and a product of schools there, which means there is hope for my kids. admiral, because we're here at

the atlantic council i wanted to sort of start our trip around the world thinking about deterrence, which one of the things mentioned is russia. as colonel huntsman said deterrence is one more challenge, not that we look fondly on the horrors of the cold war, but it seems obvious that deterring a nuclear russia, just so obvious with the nuclear capabilities, does present challenges indeed. what is your thinking about that, especially since it is a whole amount of chains that russia is using from little green man and nuclear capabilities in ways that the soviet russia simply didn't. >> if you look at russia today you have to look at it as today understanding its history as well as what has been stated as their goals for the future. and as we work through

deterrence with them, first and foremost we have to have deep cranial understanding of where they are. their leadership thinking and where they're trying to go with their objectives. and as you said in today's world, we need to look at it in an integrated fashion. and it really requires time, patience and capability in dealing with that. so it is very important that russia remains on our radar scope in a big way. but as we work this that we work it in an integrative fashion across our whole of government capabilities. but with deep regard to our allies and partners that are also associated with this. >> what does that look like exactly? i mean, is it a capability for capability match? you mentioned whole of government, of course. but it seems i think if most people were polled today they would say the initiative remains

with mr. putin. so how can we deter a very aggressive chess player who seems to be winning so far? >> well i think winning is always looked at better post facto in history. and there are a lot of parts and pieces in motion here across our various activities as a country at large. and i would not want anyone in this room to think that the united states of america is not taking that very very seriously. in a good way to see a nation state like ukraine having its sovereignty challenged as you describe here is obviously one piece of it. the similar area of crimea and the business of doing this at the same time while doing the flexing, what i call it, of their nuclear capabilities.

just the long-range strategic aircraft flight that i mentioned earlier in the remarks to some of the exercising of strategic capability at critical points. one, there is no doubt i think in anyone's mind here that russia is very interested in president putin and ensuring that they're recognized as a nuclear-capable state. and we need to be thoughtful and clever as we approach their endeavors here, particularly the exercising of their advertise and broad strategy. and it is more than just ukraine, from my visual point. and as you watch the flexing and the discussion, quite frankly of nuclear, the number of times president putin that has brought it up, one thing i want to exact size this is not about getting into some cold war race with russia. it is about dealing with it

professionally and thoughtfully using all of our mechanisms as a deterrent. >> right, we certainly don't know what is in putin's mind right now, but lots of thoughtful analysts have expressed concern that the baltics could be next. they like the ukraines have a sizeable population. that could be part of the plan given the article 5 demands of putin-delayed challenge, in effect trying to prove that putin is a paper tiger. as commander of strategic command what is your role in assuring our allies and improving -- proving american resolve? >> well, my role, obviously, is to take all of those missions that i have in my job and make sure we're ready to execute those, first and foremost. but also with those priorities as i described here yeah the strategic command doesn't do this alone.

we work very closely with our fellow combatant commands and also the inner agency to ensure we are thoroughly looking at alternative futures and those type of things. and obviously, ensuring that we are providing our national security apparatus all the capability associated with it. while at the same time working in close partnership with nato. you just had phil breedlove here not that long ago in terms of work that he is doing out there from his standpoint. so in the work that he is doing, we had used strategic command, also providing support in that regard and many dialogues between us including the work we do in various forms together. to include exercise. >> you certainly own the strategic deterrence from the military standpoint. all the pieces although mentioned, including also missile defense, cyber space as

well as intelligence, do you feel they are knitted together? can you get your arms around them in one place or do you terrible to see stove piping in risks and plans for strategic deterrence? >> well, i look at quite frankly and as i look at that list, if you will what i consider critical strategic deterrent tool bag if you will. all of those are important and integrated. you have to look at it as an integrated approach in this 21st century we are a part of. and as a result, it is very advantageous, because that also glues together other players in incredible way that is allows us to work even more scenes in that regard. so the business of being able to

work missile defense is important. part of that calculation as i mentioned, one of those ingredients, as i mentioned to make sure we get the right balance in an effective way and the improvement in to capability. >> i don't think anybody should use this in the same sentence but i'm going to anyway without asking for your review of them -- >> just remember, you said i was a d.c. public school graduate now. be careful with that. >> right. but i did want to talk about north korea and your thinking of new applications and deterrence to that adversary. but i noticed not in this latest go-around but a year ago in north korea one of the signs of deterrence was the strategic command sent to south korea a multi-billion dollar bomber that was design to doed to fly over north

korea at night low and slow so the images could be seen throughout the north. so clearly the demonstration effect of that strategic platform was used in a different way. i thought it was very clever and interesting. talk a little bit about how you're looking at the north korean threat today with both new ideas and perhaps even more platforms of new applications and new ways. >> well, you described one of our mechanisms in terms of being able to provide our geographical command and the deterrence missions we go out on. one, it keeps our operators fresh in terms of understanding the environments that they could be operating in. two, it provides us a mechanism to work with our allies and partners while also honing our

skill set. but i won't sit here and give you everything in our list, quite frankly. we want that time and capability to be thought of with our time and choosing. and quite frankly, there is strength in ambiguousness. where there is too much chest thumping or discussions about what we do before we do it in terms of things. you should know as you look at the art of deterrence the business of being able to have survivable capability matters. the business to hatch elements in a big way, and be able to predict as well as follow the movements of north korea to detaxpayerde deter that business is important.

already they have had three nuclear tests. they are very vocal with where they're trying to hit in terms of their nuclear capabilities. it is very important not just in the republic of korea, japan, et cetera, very important we continue to work with those countries. with the combatant commander that is in charge of that region. as we work on strategic command through various mechanisms including that. the business of making sure we have a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent very important when the chief of defense through the republic of korea came through the strategic event last year, he was very interested in understanding our capabilities. we had some frank discussions in that regard why the capability we have. >> when you talk about capabilities, i would like to get a comment on your confidence level today that you have what

you need and to get really specific what you desire for the future. i know that secretary hagel stopped at one of your commands and very clearly endorsed the future bomber, very expensive proposition but something i imagine that you need. what other sort of platforms capabilities b-61 -- a bunker buster, what things are on your list if you can deal the sequester, which is matter of legislative and executive branch? >> well, what is on my list is that we have the capability to have an effect with the incredible strategic deterrence now and into the future. subsequently, it is about sustaining the plan we have but not to short-change the fact we do need to modernize our capabilities. and as you look at the list i have here, all the way from fencing capability to the platform which gives a lot of

discussion there. and the one you mentioned the bomber is one i think every american can be proud of. when you think about how long ago the last b-52 hotel rolled off the assembly line and that we continue to use it in a strategic capability day in and day out. we ought to be proud of the fact we made those investments. no doubt we'll be able to do the same for the future bomber. when you look at the expense of bombers and look at over the number of years, the b-52 hotel i just gave the example of. it is very important to put that into the counting the costs. so it is very important that we build our capability. that it is endurable and flexible and can survive in harm's way not just to do it

today but for many decades to come. so to your list of things i think i have already given that list in the earlier discussion in terms of things. but we can ill afford to take and neuter our strategic capabilities without ensuring that we have something else to replace them with. >> right, but i guess the art of strategy is doing more with less and while in a perfect world strategy drives the budgets -- >> well, when you say less, let's face it. it's a good thing. we don't have the number of war heads we had back in the '70s, et cetera. we have shrunk that down. we're on an invective to get that started at the first of the year. that is a good thing. when you look at the submarine fleet, the numbers we have had over the years versus still going down here, the number of 12, for the future to be able to have that survivable for the strategic capability.

so i would like to put that in perspective in terms of things because i am a believer as a taxpayer that we have to guard our resources thoughtfully and carefully and have the requisite debates. >> other things that might keep you up at night. you mentioned non-state actors and terrorists, even paris and elsewhere. and also your role in combatting the weapons of mass destruction. if you described the way of thinking about the strategic deterrence of tactical actions that of course have the strategic impact that threaten our nation. >> well, the whole business here of the various threats to our nation always require a full approach, if you will to the

problem. it is very important that this critical type as we look at countering terrorists, terrorists capability, that we keep our new thinking new approaches and continue to validate all approaches that are also working to keep -- this business going in the right direction for us. as has been stated by many this is a lone journey for us associated with addressing and balancing the organization. and that requires the full thrust of cranial thinking all the way to tactical capability as we go forward to the 21st century. >> but are you concerned at all sort of that the 9/11 type of event, very well planned. obvious strategic impact to our nation is being replaced if not by self-radicalized but by sort of less sophisticated tactical

attacks like ak-47 attacks, how does this whole of government try to deter that and prevent that? >> well, i think when there is a recognition as we go forward you will have problems. and i think the business that hasw has not been something that our nations have not been working towards and thinking about, et cetera. but preparing ourselves and engaging as we have been from afar while at the same time working with our various countries itself, and people that are in it to ensure the bar of understanding of this particular threat, being able to do that is important from 9/11 to what we have had in france. i'm not going to go into a comparison here, one to the other, but we've seen what the effects are in terms of economy

and 9/11 and the approaches we have to do. and what we have to do with. get our teams together, critical thinking and approaches thoughtful pragmatic and prepare ourselves for a long journey. >> it is a marathon not a sprint. before i invite audience questions i have one last for you, admiral my colleague and friend has done some terrific work examining some -- i'm sure you would agree, the gaps in their performance of your personnel. as the commander of what are truly the president's own weapons, what would you say to this audience with the american people to give them assurances that the safety and security and professionalism of your force will be sustained in years ahead. >> well, i would say as we've gone through my tenure here as commander of strategyic command it has been a good journey in

the forums and discussion we have had in association with the support for the capability for our country to include its people. and as we've gone through this journey, the first piece required is we expect throughout our entire military our military folks to operate with integrity. and with great character. and when we find these kind of problems no matter where it is, we take it out of our system while at the same time get through some root cause analysis to figure out what all we are doing as associated with that particular problem. i would say our checks and balances associated with our capability, and when you look at the team that comes to work every day, passion, et cetera in any organization you have to continue to work on that in any organization, the percentage of folks that may not come with the same kind of background, et cetera. and in this case i'm very happy

that we found the problem. eradicated the problem from our system and went to work with this nuclear enterprise review business to work on those problems that we needed to do in support of this mission. so through 2014 as announced by secretary hagel and deputy secretary, the work that has culminated in a variety of different reactions. some requiring resources, some requiring better leadership. and all of those things are in motion right now. but as we continue to go through this journey, we need to remember all of those folks that are out there doing the mission day in and day out, even as we work other missions throughout -- that we talk even more about, that this is a critical capability for our country. and that we have great america -- i have spent 2014 traveling

throughout, meeting with all of these warriors that are doing our strategic deterrent mission. whether that mission is under the water or in the icbm launch control center or whether that missionaccess, and what have you or some of our early-warning radar teammates. and i can say unequivocally those folks are fired up and charged about the mission. i think the rest of us need to support them in how we talk about it and associate it with plans we have now in support of resources, the things we need to resource in that regard. i'm proud of working with those great americans. >> i look forward to hearing questions. if you would wait for a microphone. please identify yourself. there's a limited time and lots of people. please keep your questions concise. sir? >> thank you. >> i'm a recovered sovietologist from many years ago.

in full disclosure, i remain on the advisory board. my question relates to russia's new military doctrine that was announced in late december. i wonder what your reaction was to it, and anything that may have been different that struck you? and second, in the context of russia, it seems to me the one area that they have a very, very large numeric advantage over us is with nuclear weapons. it's dominant we only have a handful of weapons in europe as you well know. what is your reaction to that and how do you deal if not with the deterrence, but coping with that imbalance at the theater, and short-range level? >> first of all thank you for your remarkable service, and your work you've done over time. i sometimes worry in today's environment we don't have enough folks that really have deep roots into working the russian part of our business and that we continue to work to inspire

young folks, to continue to become knowledgeable as you are. but the first piece here associated with president putin putting out his doctrine i would rather see him be vocal and understand what he's thinking out in front versus guessing. or trying to integrate the jigsaw puzzle parts of the business. so to me, while we were watching very closely, predicting and what have you, and he came out with his doctrines from my standpoint, it wasn't a bit of surprise associated, because he had demonstrated a lot of these things associated with his actions. what has been part of the piece that i had been a bit focused on is to make sure we take note of all the parts and pieces, not

just this particular speech, but also the combination of things that we have observed over time. and not ignore, or low-ball that, but to continue to confront those and to continue to work our cranial power associated with dealing with it in a holistic way, sorted with things. it will be interesting as we go forward and see additional reactions, as we look at how russia does with their economy these days as well as their ambitions to maintaining strategic capabilities in multiple dimensions, not just nuclear. and as we have also looked at their endeavors, making sure that we're prepared and working in conjunction, as i said before, with our allies and partners and looking at this globally. >> in the back on the aisle?

the gentleman here. >> thank you very much. i'm with an agency in hong kong. china recently conducted a test of a new long-range missile which can reach any city in the united states. do you have any comments on that? and secondly how is the u.s. trying a nuclear dialogue going on right now? and do you have any exchange program for this year between the u.s. strategic command and the p.o.a.? >> thank you for your questions. there are a series here. obviously, we look at strategic

capabilities of every country that's out there, developing or modernizing their associated capability. and you mentioned the df-41. as i mentioned in my speech there are a plethora of different strategic capabilities that china is also growing. as far as us having a dialogue from the strategic command to the equivalent organizations in china, there is no u.s. strategic command that i can directly go to. most of my work in that regard is working through pacific command. pacific command is the combatant command for that part of the region. sam locklear leads that group, and has a variety of different areas there, as well as other forms that we associate with. but today i do not have a forum that i work with a corresponding

team from china on. whether that comes out in the future, time will tell. we're doing a lot of things right now with china. i know not that long ago, there was an exercise that was conducted out there with chinese participation. and those kind of things are good in that regard. from the strategic picture, though, as you pointed out, the piece that concerns us and that we work hard at being that china is not transparent in terms of its intentions and development programs and what have you, that that is an area that we have to work towards, and continue to be mindful of as we go into the future. when we look at countries like our relationship with russia being able to have this transparency through new start treaty, very important to both our nations. and that's why it's important, i think, that we continue that kind of business. even through ukraine and

crimea, we have continued to inspect each other per plan associated with that treaty for example. but when we look at china we haven't been invited to come and explore what they have associated with things in their nation. thank you. >> the question here, front row? >> thanks. analyst defense news. the steward of the arsenal and personnel that goes with it to make sure the force has proficiency, at what point does sort of the investment, the entire nuclear infrastructure whether it's at the labs, at what point does that gap in capability begin to affect the operational capabilities of the force? and it's been two decades we developed a new nuclear weapon, for example. it has national challenges,

obviously. at what point do we need some form of national investment. like the ohio program, being so expensive, that the navy can't take it out of its own bucket. do we need to have sort of a different fundamental strategic approach to how we recapitalize this massive which some newspapers have profiled, on the capabilities from the problems associated with it? >> very good. good question. as i would expect from your experience. good having you here. the whole business of infrastructure is a very key component, as i mentioned earlier, that i consider part of our strategic deterrent. i visited all of the laboratories here over the last year, that do that work for us. national labs like livermore, los alamos, for example, and work very close with the nsa organization under the department of energy. we have nuclear weapons council

dodd associated with that piece. we're in regular negotiations in that regard. the piece that we worked as a team to really evaluate very critically is not just, let's go help build something new. quite frankly i think we've been very thoughtful as a nation in our approach of the life extension programs and those kind of things modernizing electronics and those pieces that we must to show we have safety and security associated with nuclear weapons. with this having visited and seen the professionals, you're right, they have to work hard to keep the inflow of professionals to come in, to work that super-duper nuclear physics chemistry, met a lunchy, all of those things that go through and does a lot, not just in the life

extension programs, but in the surveillance programs associated with our nuclear warheads. so i don't want to say that there's not work that those organizations have to do to keep their work force in place, and the fact that we are working because there are some infrastructure things in terms of facilities that require improving in order to sustain this for decades to come. and those are things that we as a nation have to continue to work on our programs associated with that, so that we don't dilute that part. because that's a key part of our deterrence apparatus. your second question -- i talked so long, i think i forgot what the second one was. oh, it was about budgeting mechanism.