issue. first, a reporter looks at how congress is dealing with economics issues like that debt limit and the reconfirmation of ben bernanke. and how policy decisions in washington are affecting the auto industry. our first guest is jim campbell, followed by an official from the ford motor co., and the chairman and ceo of bmw north america. "washington journal" take your calls and e-mails live every morning here on c-span. .

>> this is 50 minutes. >> good morning everybody. the a pleasure to welcome you here today. this is the first event we are having in our new conference room, and we hope to headache it a good one. i get to say a few words about the bipartisan policy center before we get into the real action. we were founded on the idea that people with significantly different views and who have strong allegiance to different parties could still come together and try to design serious and substantive solution toss address the nation's big challenges. we are not a think tank in the traditional sense. we only study things for a purpose. and when our projects come

together, people understand they are going to spend as much time advocate fog a particular solution as constructing it. i think it's fair to say that the project we are launching today will very much test the proposition of bringing people together towards a substantive and detailed solution, and will test our ability to advocate. bipartisan on this issue, like so many, is not richly shared in congress these days, and we recognize the uphill battle. we have, i think, a number of attributes at the bipartisan policy center. one of the greatest ones is sitting in the front row, senator tom daschel, joined by his colleagues, senators baker, dolanmism, in 2007 and launched the b.p.c. this is a target-rich environment, and presently with their guidance we are focused on energy and climate change, a transportation project, a

project on national security and homeland security, and there was a significant effort that the senators themselves led last year that focused on health care. over the last few years we have learned that project leadership and organizational leadership matters a great deal. while the nation is fortunate in having senatormism trying to fix that challenge in the middle east, we are forned that we have senator again heart here. we could not ask for better leadership on this project than from the two people who are sitted to my right, who you already hearing from. i also want to recognize chuck, who has joined us as project trek tor. chuck, as i think you know, has a significant amount of experience both with the administration and on the hill. and the only unfortunate thing about today is that both

senators baker and dole could not be with us today. sheila dole was chief of staff for a number of years for senator dole. she is a partner of a law firm and on the faculty of harvard, and she will be participating in this project. thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much. on behalf of the b.p.c.'s board of directors and particularly on behalf of senator's dolan baker, two of the founding fathers of the organization, i want to welcome you to the launch of the task force. over the course of my career, i have had the great privilege of working on federal budget issues with two of the founding members, dolan baker, and of course with senator pete, on a variety of issues that we

struggle with year after year, but know full well that the work of this task force is in great hands with senator pete and with alice leading their efforts. i recall only two well when i worked with dole at one point there was a great effort on the part of the senator to begin to address this issue. pete wilson was rolled on to the floor on a gurney to vote. it was a long evening. unfortunately, the result was not what we had hoped it would be. but nonetheless, it was the first of many efforts to get these problems under control. i believe, as dolan baker do, both of whom i have spoken with in the last day, that in fact, the something we can do. we can in fact deal with the deficit. it won't be easy, as all of us know, certainly as they both know. it will require very difficult

decisions. we have seen that in terms of health care in terms of how one looks at federal spending, how one looks at our commitments or allocation of federal resources. but those decisions have to be made soon in order to put our fiscal house in order. the task force we are launching today will do just that. the metropolitan, as you will see -- membership, as you will see is made up of a multiplicity of shareholders. it represent big business, small business, the faith community, service advocates, people that are deeply knowledgeable about programs and knowledge about the public policy process. their goal is to produce a very specific budget plan, not simply general themes. but really one that gives us the steps towards reducing the nation's deficit and debt in a reasonable time frame.

such a plan can only be effective, we believe, if it includes not only the lakers who are responsible, but -- lawmakers who are responsible, but citizens. those who live with that are going to be an important part of this process. let me turn it over to a member of the board of directors, someone i have enormous respect for and the great luck to work with in the last year on health policy issues, and that is senator tom daschel. [applause] >> sheila, thank you very much for those very important remarks. like you, i only wish that senators dole and baker could be here today. i have enjoyed my second

reiteration and my opportunity to work with them a great deal here at the b.p.c. i am delighted once again to join them through sheila burke in welcoming all of you this morning. it has been my good fortunate to work closely with both alice in several capacities and of course with pete as a colleague. as one of the most respected fiscal experts in the senate while he was there. i can't think of any challenges more important to address than the soaring indebtedness that our country now faces. if we continue on the present path, most of the important programs for education, for health care, for pensions, for infrastructure and other basic social needs will be pushed aside by entitlements, including enormous interest payments on the public debt.

we cannot leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren. upon that commitment there is broad and deep bipartisan support. we cannot allow the federal debt to consume more spending in this decade than almost all of what we project to spend on defense and social programs. yet that is where we are headed without fundamental change in the balance between revenue and spending. a bipartisan approach is really the only one that can work. remember that it was under president clinton, whose administration worked tirelessly to produce the last balanced budget in our nation's history. we have to restore that kind of bipartisanship today. we have all seen the frustrations of both members and the public as we have been unable to achieve fiscal balance. now we are beyond a level of frustration, and we are nearing a level of fear.

when serious people begin to think about downgrading america's debt, or even the unlikely event of a default, then we know we simply can't hesitate. we need to act now, and that is why the b.p.c. is stab -- establishing the task force. there are no two people more capable, respected or more ready to lead this task force than our two leaders here this morning. it has been an honor to work with them in the past, and i am thrilled to work with them now again in the future. let me think pete for his leadership and invite him to the podium for his remarks. [applause] >> i think alice wants to introduce some of the members of the task force. alice, would you like to do that? >> we are very proud of the

group of task force members that we have assembled for this effort. and not all of them could be here today. but we are really pleased that many of them could. the my pleasure to introduce at the moment, in alphabetical order. bob bixby, the executive director of the concord coalition, who i think of as sort of mr. debt and budget. stand, please. jim blanched -- blan charred -- blanchard, former governor of canada, and former member of the house of representatives from michigan. sheila you have already met, sheila burke. carlos gutierrez, former

secretary of commerce, and before that, former c.e.o. of the kellogg company, and now a scholar at the university of miami institute for cuban and cuban-american studies. bill hoagland, another person, i can't think of budgets without thinking of bill. bill is now vice president for public policy at cigarette that -- cigna. he is a long-time staff director at the senate budget committee. he even worked for me at the congressional budget office early in his career. frank keating, president and c.e.o. of the american council

of life sure remembers and former government of the state of oklahoma. joe, another person i've known for a very long time in the budget wars, who is senior v.p. and director of research for the committee of economic development. he has been at the office of management and budget and was a former chief economist of the house budget committee. and my friend and colleague, former mayor anthony williams, who led this city to a balanced budget, who is now the executive director of government practice at the corporate executive board and director of state and municipal practice of parent fox, also associated with the institute of politics at harvard. we have others, but those are the ones we managed to get here today. >> thank you, alice.

well, here i am. good to be with you all. i feel great today. i think i feel better as governor than perhaps brett favre feels. i haven't made any big mistakes, and i haven't had anybody come up and threaten me. he had all of those things happen to him last night. i guess the worst of all is he lost. we are not in this to lose. we are in this because america has probably the worst economic future that we have ever had. that is not just child's talk. that is for real. the united states of america, to borough a -- borrow a phrase from will rodgers, the economics of america is in a deep hole.

will rodgers says what do you do when you find yourself in a deep hole? you stop digging. well, it is not so easy to stop digging, but we have to find ways, this task force, over the next year, bipartisan, consensual, working together. we have to find a way to present to the congress, the president and the american people a budget, multi-year, many years -- it will encompass many years, and it will provide us a way out of this enormous, unsustainableable -- unsustainable debt. if i could tie a graph into a proposal, i would make this graph part of our every day life. i don't know whether i would put it on our forehead and get somebody that is good at it and put it up there or what. butt let me step up here and

show you this one. this says debt held by the public. it is not just individuals. the countries, institutions that have bought debt of the united states for united states dollars or equivalent. look at what has happened to us. this you think back -- if you think back a few years, we had a tsunami. we heard it coming. we put these things down, and we heard that gigantic wave. well, here's the wave. just look at it, friends. it doesn't matter whose numbers you use, something like this turns up no matter what you try to do to avoid it. it says that in 1999, here we are, that we are already approaching 50% of our gross domestic product, the

equivalency of that in debt. look what happens after that in 2009. it becomes unsustainable. it competes 100%. most people don't think you can survive on 100% for any period of time. for our task force members, you are all going to see what happened to america after the second world war. some -- talking to the two governors here, we had a great big debt then, but that is very dissimilar because all of that debt was owned by us. that was the era of savings bopped, and we owned them. it took us three years, and we were off that gigantic 65% or 70% arrow. we have to turn this one down. some way over a period of 10 or 15 years, we have to show the

light, show the way. we have to stop digging. something has to move in the other direction. now, there are some things that we are going to tell the public here today, and we are telling our task force members, that we don't believe we can get started without everybody putting their hands on the table and saying, "we understand this, and we have to do something about it." number two, we have to do it with the same commitment. we have to say everything is on the table. mayor, you did can't in your city that people said you couldn't do. this is one. you joined a group and people said you can't do it. if you are a can't do it fellow, you have to get off. we want people who say we can do it. that is why we asked you if you would do it. you said yes. sheila knows more about it than most of us. she asked if we are serious?

we said as serious as a citizen group can be. we are going to take this on and do something about it. we understand that the united states of america could end up -- if we don't bend this line, we could end up a second rate world power without doing anything. it would just happen. for those of you who like to think of america in terms of a great naval power where we can move ourselves where we have to go. general, you are working on issues with us in the world. well, america in the world, we are all committed to the proposition that america won't be a power in the world if we let this kind of tsunami debt continue. we have to also tell you that we think we are different than any other group. not better than. just different from. we are committed to come up

with an actual plan, not suggestions. not 10 suggestions, and you might to this one or that one. no. we are going to put together a budget plan that is going to take many years to get implemented. some change might take 15 years for the whole effect. but the whole of what we recommend will yield a bipartisan budget that will remove this economic debt from around our neck. now, i know that some people think we have to be more specific about what all this means. we will in due course. but we take this job because we face this debt crisis, and it is more than we can realistically sustain, and we

think we should do something about it. now, with the deficit at 10% of g.d.p., with unemployment at 10%, with the government taking on literally trillions of dollars of new obligations, we are risking our economic and national security, and there's no doubt about it. and now we go to one step further. i alluded a while ago to the fact that the debt during the second world war and after it was owned by us. you all can remember how fervent we were about buying savings boppeds and how people had these savings bonds parades and would end up with millions of dollars. well, i have to tell you the bad news. there is one other graph that is beginning to show, and the all red. red normally means for americans that we are in debt, and this little graph shows

foreign ownership of united states public debt, and the vast interest payments that go abroad. here is 2000, and we are already at 35% foreign. in 2009 we passed 50%. now of that, the biggest holder of our debt now happens to be china. now they are buying our debt, which keeps some kind of equilibrium, and we are not angry at anybody. we just think we have to do something about a country like china owning that much of our debt. we have to do it by way of our own policy. we don't have to go calling names or threatening. we have to change our policy over time where that is no longer the case. now those of us who are working

together here have asked real people who individually have a stake in this country, or they have a stake vicariously through their children and grandchildren. they have a stake. they have a stake in an american future. they have a stake in the american dream. i have a stake in the american dream. i can remember a father who came from italy and never went to school in america, and he had a dream. he had a wonderfully successful wholesale grocery business. he did what he had to do. he cooperate write english, so he hired an italian secretary. she was bilingual. he couldn't write, so he had a secretary to do it. but there was a grand opportunity for him to get

ahead. he could grow and prosper. there was money in the bank. all of these things are in jeopardy today because the united states of america, through its leaders, has made a mistake, made a big mistake. we have decided to give our people more than we can afford to pay for. that is another way of telling you how our problem became a reality. we have come to the conclusion that we can nato pay for this debt -- that we cannot pay for this debt through growth alone. we will disposed of that rather early in our deliberation, because the numbers don't add up. you can't just says we are going to change taxes and grow out of it. it won't work. my last observation for you is to say everything is on the table. if you are not yet a member, and we are looking for two or three vacancies we want to

fill. obviously we want every member to come to the first meeting and say collectively, "everything's on the table." i am a republican, and when i say everything, i mean everything. that means taxes are on the table along with everything else of the government. if you don't want that, you had better let us substitute for you. by the time you go through one meeting and see what a great nation could do to itself if we don't solve this problem, i think you will want to be on. if you are a true american, and i think i am, i want to be this as an american citizen. i want to solve this. i hope you think we can, and we are willing to answer questions. after my good friend, dr. alice speaks, we will be here to answer any questions. to the task force members, we casually invited you today, and we are delighted you were able

to come. now i will introduce my partner in this endeavor. alice? [applause] >> i share senator pete's obvious fervor, that we are engaged in a very important enterprise here. i think the biggest threat to the united states' economy as we look ahead is this trajectory that we are on, this unsustainable trajectory of rising debt. i also think the greatest threat to our political system is the strident partisanship which has developed in the last few years, both parties thinking they have the only answer and less and less communication between them. so we are here to try to do our best to bring people from both

sides of the spectrum together to face this issue. we don't have any illusions that the easy. if it were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. the problems to be solved are very difficult and will cause real pain. raising taxes cause -- causes real pain. taking benefits that people have counted on causes real pain. but the nothing compared to what would happen if we continue to go on this trajectory. we actually can't. the top end of that line is silly. we couldn't borrow that much money. the interest rates we would have to pay would sink our economy and mean that we were putting most of our tax dollars into debt service.

but why am i confident that we might succeed in this endeavor? it's partly because actually, if you look at what needs to be changed, rather small changes in a number of things, spending programs, tax programs, fazed in over time, can solve this problem. we are a productive, growing economy. this is not a problem that is unique to us. it was largely caused by the fact that we have an aging population and a rising cost of medical care, so that our medical commitments and our pension commitments will grow faster than the economy and faster than taxes at any feasible rate of taxation. so we have to do something about this. the japs have a worse problem.

they are aging faster than we are. the yeerns are aging -- the europeans are aging faster than we are and they are taking trastic steps. we have not had to face this problem because we could borrow money. we had such a strong economy that we seemingly didn't have a limit. i'm hope full that the deliberations this group will engage in over the next few months will, while not easy, lead us to a package of changes in the economy and will illustrate that the problem can be solved. that is the main hope for this group. there have been other groups on

which we will build. the national academy has put out a report recently that shows alternative paths for a sustainable budget. i was a member of another group sponsored by the pugh foundation recently that advocated stabilizing the debt at 60% of g.d.p. we didn't say how to do it though. changes can be put together, and we can come out the other side with a much stronger economy. now we are going to take questions.

bullpen identify yourself -- would you please identify yourself? >> i am andy sullivan with rioters news. there is a proposal kicked around the white house, and others are looking at putting together a task force. both of those efforts plan to put out a report by the end of the year. do you have a time frame when you would do it, and also, is there any guarantee that these recommendations which you come up with, which doubtless would be rather unpleasant, would be acted on? >> let me start. yes, we have a time frame. we want to report by the end of this year, but after the election. sometime in that window. it is not clear what will happen to these various commissions that are being

discussed. if an official commission moves ahead, we will be very happy to be kind of of a group that illustrates their work can be done. if it doesn't happen, we will do it anyway. that is where we are. >> i would like to say one other thing that i didn't say. i believe we are going to ask the american people to sag -- sacrifice. we don't ask them that very often. we are going to ask our leaders to ask them to sacrifice. because if we don't, we are going to loseñi that which we love dearly. we are going to lose the strength of america, the future of america. so sacrifice is going to be built into this, and it is not

going to be an easy one. if others are moving ahead with something, we want to show them what our people think as we went through it, and we feel the going to be worthwhile. who is going to handle that? go ahead. >> this is anton chapkin with e.i.r. i wanted to ask you about the approach of the organizer, peter peterson. since he was part of the team under nixon that broke up the f.d.r. system. he has advocated -- >> he is not a part of this process. >> i know. but he has advocated the accelerated debt of the elderly as a way to prop up the speculation. how does he fit into your

commission since everybody here is part of that? >> to my knowledge, i am not part of it. but that doesn't make any difference. some people were with them a month ago and have left the organization as experts and hired by ours. mr. peterson has got an agenda. he thinks the a worthwhile agenda. he is not part of our plans for the future, but we think he is a good citizen, and we don't know what specific things he is for that we are foreor against. it seems like some of the things you know, you can share them with our group as we meet, but we certainly aren't in harmony on such things as you mentioned. next question. right behind you. >> i am jill lawrence from "

politics dailyment i am wondering what you think about the senator health care bill and whether it should be passed as a way to resolve the deficit , tessen the deficit? >> i will go first. we have different views on this matter anyway. from my standpoint, i thought that both bills failed to restrain growth in government. and therefore, i think that should have been set aside and waited until we had a budget put together. that is how i feel. we are going to have to look at health care in our budget to see how we can attempt to recommend saving money, because that is the issue.

if you're going to try to use it right, you have to try to bend the curve, and i don't think those bills do d that. but that is for a later day and another time. >> we do differ on that. i had hoped, and maybe still hope, that the house and senate will come together around a health care bill. the bills being contemplated would not add to the long-run deficit. they would actually slightly ameliorate it, but that is not a really important part of the long-run future problem. >> dave mcconnell, wtop, good to see you again, senator. what is the enforcement mechanism? is it going to be mother-in-law

suasion, persuading people? is there an up or down vote by congress? what makes this thing work? >> well, first of all, i think we have about as powerful a commission as you could put to taking this issue, and ironing it and coming out with something that could be done. just getting it done is an accomplishment worthwhile. it will then be pushed through any groups, any powerful groups or legislative groups who are doing anything like this. we will push our approach on them in the typical manner that studies do. we will remind it which one was done as a study. 9/11 had no authority, but it was great ideas, and they adopted the ideas, congress

did. so we are going to put ours before them if they don't have one that we can meld ours with in advance. >> rich wolf from "today" -- "usa today." some of us can remember the others that congress did in 1993-1997. what is it about the problem that you can't count on congress to do it themselves? >> i think what is different is we have lost the bipartisan consensus that it must be done and that it can be done. we had that at the -- we had that. at the end of the 1980's, people were really worried about deficits which now don't look at that big. there was a bipartisan

consensus reflected in the bipartisan budget act of 1990, which were worked out by congress and opposite parties. it put in place the budget tools, pago and the other rules, caps on discretionary spending, that carried us through to balance the budget, worked out by the clinton administration, and most of the time by a represent congress, and carried it through to substantial surpluses. as we have lost that bipartisan consensus that it can be done and must be done, and we are trying to rekindle that. >> i think the pretty obvious that the debt is bad enough that it ought to be addressed by congress by now. i mean it shouldn't be on the back burner. it should be addressed now, and it isn't.

look, i'm not there, so i don't know why. but i do believe we have to start as a citizen group, and we have to put it together and say it can be done, and to do it bipartisan. i think maybe we will rekindle something among leaders that we have to get on with this. frankly, i don't think we can go through another full legislative session and not do something significant about the deficit. that doesn't mean that we will go down the tubes during that period, but we've got to have some indication to the world that we are doing something about this if we expect to get by on interest rates not going through the sky. we will take this gentleman right here. >> i'm not going to fight. emb chapman, bloomberg radio. as you know, tating back to the reagan years and before, the

congressional budget office and others have put out potential budget cuts and tax increases, long lists, multipage documents, as some of the organizations here represented. is it your realistic goal then to somehow come up with a combination of ingredients that will be politically pal atable? and then what happens if the political calculus changes in november? and also, are you willing for the government to not take its hands off my medicare? >> we may get at some point a crisis at which we can no longer avoid facing the issue. we are pointing out that crisis is sufficiently imminent that we have to move ahead, and we think that is likely to be persuasive. it is not that the leadership of the congress and the

administration don't know about this problem, and it is not that they don't know what some of the options are. but so far, partisanship has prevailed, and we hope we can turn that around. >> yes. i think it is obvious that leadership in both houses know the problem is a big one. they know it is a bad one. if we can just add to the trepidation, to the fear, that this is something really big, and that we had better think big, act big and try to pull ourselves together so that we are doing something we wouldn't otherwise do, if we can't do that, we are not addressing the problem the right way. >> one more question. >> jackie holmes with the "new york times." i want to know, especially from senator domenici, one of the

problems facing the white house efforts to put a commission together, is just coming to the table. the republican leaders of the house and senate have said they won't come to negotiations while taxes are on the table. senator mitch mcconnell said yesterday he would come to a spending commission, but not one with taxes on the table. >> he would come to would kind? >> spending. >> well, i have told you in a lengthy conference, which i appreciate an early story you wrote about what we talked about. thank you. the clear to this senator that the problem is so big that you can measure the amount of deficit reduction you're going to have to get.

and if you want it to be bipartisan, since the an american debt, it doesn't belong to republicans or democrats -- it belongs to americans, incurred by americans, for americans. if you want that, you've got to put entitlements on the table. and if you to, you have to put taxes on the table. i'm sorry that some republicans think otherwise. i was there a long time. i don't think you can do spending alone and then later come back and fill in what you didn't do. it has got to be a package. and to my way of thinking, you've got to have taxes on the table so you can look at it and see how it fits. >> i think that's the answer. and this spending commission, if it existed, would not have the support of the democrats. if you want both parties there, you have to have both pieces on the table. >> right. >> thank you. >> here is one more and then we

will quit. >> i am buck. i was head of the task force on the 1993 clinton tax bill, which, whether you believe it or not, i think had a lot to do with the prosperity that we enjoyed for the next few years. this business about nonpartisanship, we did not get one republican vote on that, and a large part of the democrats that voted for it lost their seats in 1994. now how are you going to deal with that? i am here because i want to help, but i will tell you, when you start talking about this non-partisanship, i will tell you i haven't seen anything that indicates to me that the ifing 0 work.

>> well well, i haven't seen anything that tells me we are going to fix this problem right here. i haven't seen anything that says we can fix this and leave taxes off the table. i haven't found that there is another growth possible. we can grow, and we should grow, and we pray to god that we get back on the growth start. but you can't get enough growth to take care of this problem. so what are you going to do? are you going to leave it half solved? i don't think so. when we come down to, we are going to see where's the rest of it, and that is why we are going to do it. i don't know how, but we will get to it and bring people on board. >> i think the only way to get to it, the american people have not been inconvenienced over the years because of budget deficits. if you can inconvenience them enough and make them mad

enough, then their elected representatives will do something about it. but as long as you don't, you're not going to get anything done. >> the danger, butler, is if this goes on the way the projected to go, we may not just have inconvenience. we may have disaster. and it would be good if the american people showed that they were sufficiently aware of this impending disaster, that they could take steps before it happened. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> while it private group was announcing plans to look at the federal debt, the senate is planning a vote tomorrow morning that would require

congress to come up with ways to deal with the nation's debt. we talked with a capitol hill reporter about that and the under lying bill. >> it would have the authority to do that by looking at both the tax code and all of the spending programs in the budget. >> why is the senate considering the amendment? >> well, the being considered as part of legislation that raises the debt limit, which is the ceiling on the amount of money the government can borrow. a group of about a dozen democratic senators said they don't want to vote with an increase in the debt limit

without getting some sort of special commissioner's process that would be dedicated to controlling the growth in debt. so as part of the agreement, the conrad-gregg amendment is being offered in the hopes that that will get the support of this group to vote to increase the debt limit by enough to last into next year. >> how important are those moderates in getting the vote? >> well, the flesh old for increasing the debt limit is 60. they are not expecting any republicans to vote for the debt limit. >> what is hang behind the scenes in or the to get the votes? >> right now there is not clear there is the support to pass the amendment. it likely doesn't have the 60 votes it needs to be adopted. the administration has been negotiating with conrad and his alleys to find a compromise. the one they have floated is that the president would create

a debt commission by commecktiff order and that that commission would report by the end of the year on its proposals. but the moderate senators are skeptical of that plan because it wouldn't have the force of law, and there would be nothing to force congress to vote on its parolesals. so they are pushing the administration to first get behind the conrad-gregg amendment. >> what are the white house and congressional leaders looking for in increasing the debt limit? >> what they have on the table is they want to increase it by there are 1.9 terrell, meaning it would be enough to get into next year. congress wouldn't have to vote to increase it again before the midterm elections. any time congress has to raise the debt limit, the a tough political vote with tough criticism of whatever party is in charge. so the democratic leadership wants to get this done with and take it off the table for the year. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> the senate is back at 10:00 a.m. team to continue work on the federal debt limit bill. live coverage on c-span 2. also this week, the porqible nomination of ben bernanke to lead the federal reserve. >> in a few moments, president obama outlines new economic proposals to help the middle-class. in about 15 minutes, coverage of the international meeting in montreal focusing on aid for haiti. after that, more about afghanistan and pakistan from national security advisor general james jones and senator carl levin, chairman of the armed services committee.

>> wednesday, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress, laying out his vision for the future of the country and his plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care and the worse in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address. our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also listen to the president's address live on your i-phone with the c-span radio and. >> president obama has announced new economic proposals. he spoke after meeting with the middle-class task force. this is 15 minutes. >> hey, folks. a year ago when president obama established the middle-class task force and asked me to chair it, and i might add, we were only in office two days when he set up this

middle-class task force. as we campaigned around the country, he made it clear that we were going to be sure as we grew this economy, the middle-class was not left behind as they were the previous 10-12 years. as we move from recession to recovery, our focus is the middle-class. today, living a quality middle-class life starts with a good-paying job. and by job, we are not talking about merely a paycheck. it's more than a paycheck. we are talking about dignity. we are talking about security. we are talking about knowing your pension is safe, your health insurance is reliable, your parents and children are going to be cared for, that your neighborhood is safe, there are decent schools and that kids are going to be able to grow up. and if they desire, and you desire, be able to attend college. the the old-fashioned notion of the american dream. it sounds corny, but that is literally what the. and the president, and you and

i, have long believed that you can't have a strong america without a growing middle-class. the that simple and basic. and right now the middle-class is nowhere near as strong as it needs to be. so next month, the middle-class task force is going to deliver it's final report -- not final -- it's year-end report to the president. and this afternoon we are spotlighting some of the items in that report that the president is going to be including in the upcoming budget. these include, first of all, an expansion of the child care tax credit. since 2000, child care costs have grown significantly faster than inflation, and twice as fast as the median income of families with children. that is why we are asking congress to nearly double the credit for middle-class families with incomes up to there are 85,000 and increase the credit for nearly every family making under $115,000. secondly, the president is

going to be appropriatesing an increase in funding for child care and the so-called child care and development fund to serve an additional 235,000 children in america. this is going to help working parents struggling to lift their families into the middle-class. thirdly, elderly care. we are the so-called baby boom generation, is becoming very knowledgeable about elder care and the need to help middle-class families who are caring for aging parents and relatives. people like jill and me are part of what is called that sandwich generation. i make a very good salary, but just going through caring for my mother the last year after, and before that, my father, who thank god lived to ripe old ages, it is not easy. we sit there with my brother, sister and i divided up the cost of the care, and we were

able to do that, no complaints, not a problem. but i thought to myself, my lord, what it be like? a couple with two kids making $85,000 a year? even $125,000 a year? how do they do it. today we are proposing more support for care givers by providing counseling, training, and temporary respite care when they need a break or they have to work, which most all of them do. this is going to allow nearly 200,000 people who are now balancing work and providing care to an elleñ relative to be served and three million hours of respite care are going to be provided. the fourth thing is we are going to be strengthening the income based loan program for students.

a lot of people graduate with significant loan responsibility and literally are left with very few options. they have to go out and get the highest paying job they can just to pay back the loan. today the average debt of a graduating senior from collegeñ is $23,000. that is literally $2,000 more than my first house cost. under any standard, the a lot of money. average debt. some are graduating with a great deal more debt than that. federal student loan payments for overburdenened borrowers are never more than 10% of their income. a change like that makes a difference for a kid just out of school. for someone who earns $30,000 and owes $20,000 in loans. this would lower the payment from $228 a month under the

standard repayment plan to $115 a month. people understand that is a big difference. and finally, we want to strengthen retirement security, which we talked about with the secretary of treasury for american workers. too many people don't have a good option to save their money for retirement. and too many of those who do save are finding at the end of the day they don't have enough saved to afford the basic retirement they deserve. that is why we proposing to give more workers better access to retirement plans at work, to match retirement savings for middle-class americans so they can save more, and to strengthen and update the 401-k regulations. this means establishing an automatic individual retirement account. today, 78 million working americans, roughly half the work force, don't have employer-based retirement plans any more.

our proposals lays the groundñi work for an employer, who do not offer retirement plans, to enroll their employees in direct for the i.r.a.'s. the a simple proposition. when you do that, if you are automatically enrolled, you can opt out. but they save a great deal more. it just puts in place the requirement of the employer to provide that access out of their paycheck to go into an i.r.a. the a simple proposition, but the a big deal. it also means simplifying and expanding the saber's credit, which helps working families save for retirement by providing a 50% match on the firstñi $1,000 of retirement savings. so if you put $1,000 into a retirement account, you're government is going to add even more, another there are 500. the an incentive, but long-term it savings the government a lot

more money than theçó $500 it puts in if we find we have a generation able to care for themselves and not to look to the government to provide basic needs. .

i've been a little bit of a pain in the neck. i know you have urgent, urgent, urgent things placed on our plate when we took office. and one of the things you've done, and i thank you for it when the president set up this task force, is you've not taken your eye off the ball. each of your agencies are doing nothing every day but getting up and putting both feet on the floor and saying, what are we going to do inside my shop that's going to ease the burden and increase the opportunity for people to get into the middle class and stay in? so, mr. president, i think the president is here, i'd like to invite him to come out because we owe the president a great deal for focusing this issue throughout the campaign and the first thing he did when he came into office. mr. president, it's an honor working with you on this. >> thank you, sir. hey, guys. everybody have a seat. have a seat. well, i wanted to stop by to

comment on all the great work the middle class task force is doing, and you've just seen why joe is the right person to do it. no one brings to the table the same combination of personal experience and substantive expertise. he's come a long way. and he's achieved incredible things along the ride but he's never forgotten where he came from, and his roots as a working class kid from scranton. he's devoted his life to making the american dream a reality for everybody because he's lived it. we all know what that american dream is, the idea that in america we can make of our lives what we will. it's the idea that if you work hard and live up to your responsibilities, you can get ahead and enjoy some of the basic guarantees in life, a good job that pays a good wage, health care that will be there when you get sick, a secure retirement even if you're not rich, an education that will give our kids a better life

than we had. they're very simple ideas, but they're ideas that are at the heart of our middle class, the middle class that made the 20th century the american century. unfortunately, the middle class has been under assault a long time. too many americans have known their own painful recessions long before any economist declared that there was a recession. we've just come through what was one of the most difficult decades the middle class had a ever faced. a decade in which median income fell and our economy lost about as many jobs as it gained. for two years, joe and i traveled this country and we heard stories that are all too familiar, stories of americans barely able to stay afloat despite working harder and harder for less, premiums that were doubling, tuition fees that were rising almost as fast, savings being used up, retirement being put off, dreams put on hold. that was all before the middle

class got pounded by the full fury of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. their stories are why joe and i ran for this office, to reverse those stories. to fight for the working class and make sure american families have a voice in the white house. and to do everything in our power to make sure they don't just survive the crisis but again, they can thrive. when we walked through these doors last year, our first and most urgent task was to rescue our economy, to give immediate relief to those who were hurt by its downturn but also to rebuild it on a new, stronger foundation for job creation. so we helped state and local governments keep cops and firefighters and teachers on the job, helped to plug their budgets. we invested in areas with the most potential for job growth, both immediate and lasting in our infrastructure, in science and technology, in education,

in clean energy. these steps that saved or created about two million jobs so far. but more than seven million have been lost as a consequence of this recession. an epidemic that demands our relentless and sustained response. now, last month the house passed a new jobs bill. the senate, as we speak, is hard at work developing its own job creation package, creating good, sustainable jobs is the single most important thing we can do to rebuild the middle class, and i won't rest until we're doing just that. but we also need to reverse the overall erosion in middle class security so that when this economy does come back, working americans are free to pursue their dreams again. there are a variety of immediate steps we can take to do just that, steps we're poised to begin taking in the budget that i'll put forward next week.

joe already spoke about some of these proposals in detail, proposals that make it a bit easier for families to get by, for students to get ahead, and for workers to retire, to make balancing work and family more realistic will make it easier to care for children and aging loved ones, to make college more affordable, we'll make it easier for students to pay back their owns and to forgive their debt earlier if they choose a career in public service, and to make retirement more secure, we'll make it easier to save through the workplace. joe and i are going to keep on fighting for what matters to middle class families, an education that gives our kids a chance in life, new clean energy economy that generate the good jobs of the future, meaningful financial reforms that protect consumers, and health reform that prohibits the worst practices of the insurance industry and restores some stability and peace of mind for middle class families. and none of these steps alone will solve all the challenges facing the middle class. joe understands that and so do

i, so do all the members of my cabinet and our economic team. but hopefully some of these steps will re-establish some of the security that's slipped away in recent years. because in the end, that's how joe and i measure progress, not by how the markets are doing, but by how the american people are doing. it's about whether they see some progress in their own lives. so we're going to keep fighting to rebuild our economy so that hard work is once again rewarded, wages and incomes are once again rising, and the middle class is once again growing. above all, we're going to keep fighting to renew the american dream and keep it alive not just in our time but for all time. so again, to our team and that includes, by the way, the folks over here, thank you for the great work that you've done. i'm excited about a lot of the proposals you've come up with, and we expect that we're going to be able to get some of these critical initiatives passed soon so that folks can get some

help right away. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'd like to get together based on schedules in the next 10 days to two weeks and talk. like i said, the good news about this is it all starts with us. thank you. >> representatives of more than a dozen countries and the european union are meeting in montreal to coordinate aid efforts for haiti. haitian officials are expected to ask for $3 billion. the prime ministers of canada

and haiti spoke for about 20 minutes. this is courtesy of canada's public affairs channel. >> i have the honor to present to you the president of canada, the prime minister of canada, >> thank you very much, lawrence. ladies and gentlemen, before we start, first i'd like to sincerely thank each and every one of you, each and every one of you for taking the time, despite your very heavy schedule, you've taken time to be here today. by being here today does credit to the great nations you represent, to the great organizations you represent, and of course reflects the great priority that all citizens of the world place on the challenge before us. >> i'd also like to welcome the prime minister of haiti.

and so, mr. prime minister, i have to say to you once again that on behalf of the cabinet of canada, i have to offer my most sincere sympathy to you and to everyone in haiti. our thoughts and prayers of all canadians are with our brothers and sisters in haiti. >> the entire world has been moved by the scenes of devastation in haiti. the destruction wrought by the earthquake in this fragile country is truly heart wredging. like canada, countries throughout the hemisphere and around the world have responded swiftly and generously. thanks to decisive international action, medical humanitarian and search and rescue support is pouring into the country. private citizens are also contributing greatly.

>> and canadians are showing compassion, showing generosity. and moved by the people of haiti. and a record number of people have opened up their hearts and made many generous gifts, many generous donations in order to make their contribution to a humanitarian effort. >> to the kindness and compassion that unites humanity in the face of catastrophe. the difficulty we face, then, is not one of concern, but rather one of coordination. we must work to ensure that every resource committed, every relief worker, every vehicle, every dollar is used as effectively as possible. as the world leader takes its role very seriously, particularly with respect to the responsibilities in the

western hemisphere. this special responsibility canada shares is one reason why we convened this meeting to better harmonize international efforts in haiti. in order to do the greatest amount of good, we must work together. as we continue to focus on fast and effective humanitarian assistance, we must at the same time begin to look at the longer term challenge of reconstruction. this meeting is a crucial first step in that direction. the international community must be prepared for a sustained, significant effort in haiti relying on the leadership of the government of haiti, and in line with its priorities. it is canada's hope that this meeting will set the stage for a broad international conference on reconstruction that will mobilize the will and resources of all of haiti's partners. today's conference will allow

us to agree on the principles that should guide our approach on haiti's reconstruction. let me just highlight a few of these principles. one, sustainability is key. we need to commit to haiti for i'm not exaggerating when i say that 10 years of hard work, at least 10 years of hard work is what we'll have to do in haiti. two, we need to focus on effectiveness. the haitian people deserve it, and our on taxpayers expect it. three, we must hold ourselves and each other accountable for the commitments that we make. i'd like to see emerge from this meeting the beginnings of a plan that will guide reconstruction in haiti in a way that is effective, coordinated, and strategic for the decade to come.

the task which awaits us is considerable but our determination to give hope to our haitian friends, member of the large community of nations is even greater. more than ever, we must all be united in order to help haiti. gentlemen, that together we will succeed in meeting the challenge. thank you. thank you, prime minister. now i would call on the prime minister of haiti to give us his vision of the future of this country. prime minister? >> thank you, prime minister harper. i will take the opportunity to thank you, to thank all of show their support for haiti,

who came as friends to listen to what we want to do over the next few years. ladies and gentlemen, i would thanks of a country that is still standing. our government has been deeply affected but the government is working with the population especially to build bridges towards a better country. on january 12, 2010 it was the worst moment in our history. there were sacrifices made by an entire people with the help of the international community. we're starting to get us from the dark tunnel because of the hurricanes. it was a day that will remain indellabley in the memory of a nation that was trying to get out of misery. we must agree that our geologists had predicted the earthquake was possible but we

had problems fighting with poverty and didn't have the time to take the measures to limit the damage of such a catastrophe. the government, like everyone, there were buildings that were flattened and some people survived miraculously. the people who work with us died under a cloud of dust. quickly we realized shortly afterwards that we didn't have any houses, we had no documents, no archives. we went on foot to see the city capital was in the abyss of human suffering. quickly communications were paralyzed in spite of everything. we found the necessary energy to help a few people. and now that's a description of what the government experienced during that period. but i would like to point out that -- i would like to focus

on the fact that the main hero on january 12 was the haitian people. they showed compassion immediately and started helping those who were in difficulty. thousands of people started working immediately to try to get unknown people or those they hold dear, to get them out of harm, to bring them to the hospital. a great deal of solidarity was shown. that is the strength of our nation. it's this resilience and strength, whatever the plan we agree upon, whatever the vision that the government could propose, it's on the strength and resellence that we can build the future of haiti. president and haitian population, i would like to thank all the actors who are getting involved and who are

still involved today in haiti. we need your help urgently. we need your help today. we needed your help yesterday. people claim the emergency is over but it's not the case. this emergency period will last a long time. we'll have to talk about reconstruction. today i just received a call from the french president and we told him we need 200,000 tents. the call came from the president of haiti but we must find urgently some tents. people are living in the street. to talk about reconstruction means we must have the capacity to meet the primary needs of the population. today they're living in the street. reconstruction means that we can understand the territory where we interact.

many people have left the capital towards the provinces. yesterday i visited centers here. there are many people, from that went to the united states, to canada, to other countries. we must understand the territory we're referring to. many people went to the provinces. the government felt it was good to encourage travel. the population movements have changed, our needs have changed. and rebuilding means we have to reassess the entire country and the needs of the entire country. it also involves job creation on the entire territory. 400,000 families, that's our assessment, are in the street. they have to be housed.

in centers, they need various services, health services, and quickly they must be able to send their children back to school and quickly we'll have to find the means to find work for them. 400,000 families for which there's no hope left today. i'm coming to this conference on behalf of the government to talk about reconstruction, and i must be able to tell those families what tomorrow holds for them. it's not clear yet for us. many, many things happened in haiti. coordination is crucial to solve the problem. but for the past two or three days, things are going much better. there are many improvements in haiti. we're getting aid. it's reaching the population. and not totally satisfactoryly, but it's acceptable and we're starting to better identify all the problems that could prevent

the normalization of the situation for the lives of the people who are still in the street. there are still priorities. here they are. more hospitals in the areas affected, rehouse the homeless. a as i said, distribute essential products to at least three million people over the next three months. and repair the health centers that are still under operation and we must understand that many hospitals have been installed but today they're full, full of people who are they could leave the hospital today but they have no house. they have no housing and they're afraid that in their house they wouldn't get medication and care. there are no specific ways to respond to these needs for amputees.

there's no orthopedic equipment. that is still an emergency which is ongoing. it's difficult to talk only about reconstruction if we don't take this emergency into account. we also have to have mechanisms to prevent epidemics if we can't move people out of the street, we're running a greater risk with the arrival of the rainy season. an endless list of emergencies, and they have to be managed cob currently -- concurrently with the reconstruction plan. so on behalf of the haitian government, that's what i'm asking of you today. to accompany us, to stabilize the emergency situation. we're out of the emergency phase and now we're in the humanitarian phase in order to seriously reflect about it is clear that you cannot

rebuild the houses that were destroyed in a mechanical way. we have to certify the house, we have to understand the space, we have to displace this women require a lot of support -- will require a lot of support and technical assistance from our partners. that's the first thing i'm asking of you on behalf of the government, this technical assistance so once again we can take ownership of our national space. the second thing i'm asking of you is understand with us, but i see we've already won that battle. i heard mr. harper, the prime minister, to understand that this situation will take months and many years to get back to point zero, to where we were in january of 2010, according to our first assessments, it will take four or five years to get back to a situation which was

not acceptable according to all. so from the point of view of the government, we are convinced that without cynicism, there is an enormous opportunity for our partners. hundreds of thousands of haitians have died, made the sacrifice involuntarily, and the government and myself particular as prime minister, i'm trying to take into account happening for 20, 30 years. why so many effort, so much goodwill did not lead to the development of haiti. that has to be considered as well. everyone is talking about coordination. but where is the blockage? why is there no coordination? of course we heard many n.g.o.'s and associations talk about problems from the funding

organizations, but -- and i thought about this and come to three conclusions. first of all, the government structures as they are today cannot meet this emergency that are in the process of doing this, myself and the president and others, we're thinking about structures that will our action with the departments, and we're creating crisis committees that can better correspond to the structure that will be set up in haiti with the united nations in order for better coordination. the second conclusion we have come to is accessive centralization. in 30 seconds haiti lost about 60% of their g.d.p. because all of our resources are concentrated in and around the we have to decentralize. it's the only way to be efficient.

it's the only way to avoid the same problem in the future. and finally, human resources. i spent an evening last night with the haitian community and i told the haitians i have no alternative. we have to act immediately through the government. we've lost many, many civil servants, senior civil servants. many people are traumatized and afraid and are leaving the country. we need to organize. i have no alternative. they have to be involved in haiti. they have to be engaged. we need to have better government. we need to decentralize, compulsory decentralization and participation and engagement. i think this will allow us to think about a reconstruction that would be much stronger, that can guarantee the private investment will start happening in haiti.

haiti will not be renewed if investors have not come to haiti. they must feel that they can invest without risk. the media asked me questions. when i came to canada i flew over this boat, 6,000, 7,000 were on the beach. i was very comforted. haiti is still alive. haiti has opportunities. i know that many people felt it were on the beach. i think it's positive. those people that work are getting a salary. we have to show that haiti is still the land of opportunity. so i thank you all. thank you for being present here today. it demonstrates the will of the international countries who come to haiti.

the first earthquake happened 12 days ago and all the haitian people showed solidarity. and i wanted to address the gratitude of the president of the republic, the government, the haitian people for this generalized solidarity around the world. and i hope it will not simply be a flash in the pan. haiti needs support from the international community for some time. haiti still needs to strengthen its nation, its governmental structures, haiti still needs its brothers and sisters abroad. please continue helping us. thank you. >> in a few moments, perspectives on afghanistan and

pakistan from national security advisor general james jones and senator karl levin, chairman of the armed services committee. in about an hour and a half, a look at u.s. policy in latin america. and later, a news conference announcing the formation of a bipartisan federal debt reduction task force. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning victoria mcgrane of politico will take your questions on the ghi, including raising the debt limit and debt reduction commission. and we'll be live from the washington auto show with jim campbell of general motors, susan cischke from ford and jim o'donnell with b.m.w. "washington journal" live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> in the nation's capital and across the country, listen to c-span radio in washington at 90.1 f.m. and on xm satellite

radio channel 132. it's also a free app for your iphone. c-span radio, covering washington like no other. >> now national security advisor james jones on afghanistan and pakistan. he spoke to the center for america's progress for 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is larry korb. and on behalf of our president, john podesta, and my colleagues here at the center for america progress, i'd like to welcome you to this meeting we're having on the administration strategy in afghanistan and pakistan.

this will be conducted in two parts. our keynote speaker will be general jones who is the national security advisor. he will speak, answer questions until he has to go back and take care of all the things he needs to do. and then we're going to have a panel that will be chaired by my colleague caroline wattums, that will follow up. right now i'd ask you, first of all, please turn off your cell phones and blackberry also and all of those things, if you would. and i will introduce general jones. now, we all know general jones as has been the commandant and also the nato commander but he also has had one of the most diverse experiences of anybody to ascend to the highest positions in the military, as well as in the national security advisor. he's commanded at every level from the plat on to the division. he's held staff positions in washington with the commandant,

the chief of naval operations, the secretary of defense, as well as working in congress. and he's a highly decorated combat veteran, including the silver star and the bronze star with a combat v. and getting ready, introducing him, i was doing a little research and found out that he is the fifth career military officer to serve as national security advisor. each of the other services, the air force, the army, and the navy have had one but the marines have had two. so goes to show you how influential the marines are. so general jones, we welcome you here to the center and we look forward to your comments. [applause] >> larry, thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, good

afternoon. it's a pleasure to be here. and i look forward to talking to you about afghanistan and pakistan, but before i do that, i'd like to thank the center for american progress for the invitation. thank you, larry, for your kind introduction, but also of your own service to our government and to john podesta, i don't know if john is here today, but john obviously served as a real leader in the transition team and we managed to hijack a number of people and good ideas from those people who now serve in the administration and the n.s.c. itself. so thank you for this great contribution to our nation. it's been a year since the president took office and as we all know, on the eve of the state of the union, none other than larry korb recently said

in the years since his election the president has reversed the decline in american security in his decisions in key areas have put us on the road to recovery. i take that as -- from someone who is known as a frequent critic of our policies, and i mean that in the constructionive way, in the best way. larry, thank you for that observation. we take it to heart. my own experience with the president before the election goes back to some discussions we had about the importance of restoring america's role on global security issues, how diverse those issues have become, how national security or international security is now so much more diverse than it was a few short years ago and what it encompasses, things

such as climate and energy, economic issues, the establishment of american competitiveness in the world. and of course in the traditional panoply of relations between nation states and also the family of asymmetric issues that face us all in this very, very challenging, still young 21st century. the strategy that we are implying in afghanistan and pakistan and the whole region has to be seen in the context of an overall approach to foreign policy. so with your permission, i'll take a few minutes to go over some of those aspects and some of those challenges. one of the first things we set about doing after the inauguration was to reorganize the national security council

so it could deal with this -- these multiple challenges that face us. after studying the makeup of the homeland security council and national security council, we decided to combine the two into one staff, national security staff. we've added economic -- an economic focus to our deliberations. we've added, as i said before, our focus on terrorist threats. we've added cybersecurity. we have divided -- essentially we look at the globe in regions much the same way other agencies look at it. so we're trying to have a process by which for all the major decisions the president has to take, that there is a whole government approach in the sense that we have scripted membership of who sits on the national security council.

we're able to widen or shrimp the participation depending on the issues being discussed in such a way that these issues are developed from the bottom up. they go through rigorous analysis, a lot of discussion as they work their way up to the president of the united states for his decision at full meetings of the national security council that he chairs. i think that this process not only reflects the reality of the world as we look at it and as we face it, but also it's able to accommodate the cohesion that is required on behalf of the -- within the interagency as we deal with these issues. so organizing the national security council to face the world as it is, not so much as we wish it would be, although

that's worth thinking about as well, but dealing with strategic issues of the time, teeing them up in such a way that they are handled and discussed by people who have equities so that the president canúmake his decision. then after the decision is made, to also participate in a process whereby we verify the implementation of those provisions is actually being carried out. so the beginning of the administration, of course, everyone knows we have faced tours, iraq and afghanistan. we knew that we need to do some work with regard to the relationships, the alliances and the partnerships that we were involved with around the world we knew nonproliferation would be a big issue and still remains a very big issue and we'll have to do a lot of work

on that score. we also knew there would be international threats such as climate and energy and have taken that aboard. we knew there were crisis at home and abroad and u.s. leadership in those areas were going to be challenged. that's still a work in progress and will continue but it's very, very much at the center of our focus. and then overall, and i think a challenge of restoring the reputation of the united states is a -- as a nation of of willing to commit to leadership, willing to commit to a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect, which probably is the defining feature as i would state it, the defining feature of our foreign policy.

and by engagement, what we're talking about here is renewing and strengthling alliances and partnerships as we've done on europe, nato and the strategic concept review ongoing and supporting european integration and the asian-pacific region where we've worked to strengthen alliances with japan, south korea, australia, thailand, the philippines, and deep in cooperation with partners such as indonesia and malaysia. and in the middle east, we affirming america's unwavering commitment to the peace process as we pursue the arab-israeli efforts to find the common ground to restart the talks and continue to work hard to convince both parties there is a strategic interest to do so in the shortest period of time. and then the americas in our

own hemisphere, especially in our partnerships with new mexico and colombia and brazil, central america. and i would suggest that our response to the horrific situation in haiti is further proof that we are indeed a partner that can be counted on and relied on in both good times and bad. and i think the response that has been garnered in support of haiti has been very effective and will only get better as time goes on. in africa, the president's trip to ghana signaled new tunlts and a partner for good governments and developing -- and development that improved lives. and i think africa will be a continent and is a continent already that we have to spend much more time thinking about strategically, particularly as we look at the expansion of al qaeda-like networks throughout

the -- at least the northern part of that continent. but the potential of it going elsewhere. engagement also means deepening cooperation with key centers of power, in russia, the so-called reset has elevated relations to the best point in years. in china, we now have a broad-based strategic and economic dialogue. in india, president obama -- which president obama calls one of the defining relationships of the 21st century. and obviously brazil, these are new realities, new centers of power and influence that are coming on the world scene and that we will have to engage with and do so constructively and effectively. engagement also means strengthening the united nations. we have paid our bills. we've joined the human rights council and fully embraced the millennium development goals. engagement also means

supporting international and regional institutions, such as the e.e.u., oscu, o.a.s., the african union, the organization of the islamic conference. it also means presidential outreach to the world and to different publics, different audiences, always focusing on our shared interests and common aspirations, speeches, town hall meetings in strasburg and istanbul, shanghai, a new beginningúwith the world's muslims, beginning with the cairo speech. and yes, engagement means also being willing to conduct principle diplomacy with adversaries, always making it clear that every nation has both rights and responsibilities. of course we're not engaging other nations for the sake of engagement. engagement is not an end in itself. it is a means to an end, to greater cooperation on

challenges, greater burden sharing by all and greater security for the united states and its friends and allies. so the leadership of the united states and the president's commitment to that leadership has yielded progress. we think tangible, meaningful results across the board. the global economy, we helped pull the world back from economic catastrophe. we worked with allies and parter in the g-8 and g-20 to provide stimulus to the global economy and promote growth that's balanced and sustained and focused on avoiding another such crisis. with regard to ending the war in iraq, we are fulfilling our pledge for responsibly end this war. all u.s. combat brigades will be out of iraq by the end of august of this year and all troops -- all combat troops will be out by the end of next year. even as the u.s. remains a

long-term partner in iraq's recovery, its security and future prosperity. we note there are continuing challenges in iraq with today's sad and tragic bombing attacks in the capital, but we still believe we're on the right path and that iraq will be able to take care of itself and its security needs in the near future. we've taken the fight to al qaeda worldwide, including refocusing our efforts on afghanistan and pakistan which i'll discuss more fully in a moment. and we've strengthened the global nonproliferation regime. the president has laid out his agenda in prague, working towards the world without nuclear weapons with russia, making progress on the follow on start agreement.

mike mullen and i led a team to moscow these past two days and returned on saturday and are moving towards good results in the not too distant future. as the first u.s. president to chair a meeting of the u.n. security council, áhe president has won an unanimous solution on steps to stop proliferation. hosting a nuclear security summit this april in washington to rally other nations to help secure the world's nuclear materials within four years is one of our aspirational goals. we have secured new, stronger sanctions against north korea and in the context of the six-party talks we sent the ambassador to pyongyang last month for direct talks which has not happened in a long time. and to those who claim engagement on iran has not yielded dividends, we should really look at the facts.

engagement -- our strategy in iran has resulted and is resulting in an unprecedented level of international 4+ consensus and unity on iran, making it clear that tehran must meet its responsibilities or face the consequences. we've also tried to lead on energy, security, and climate change at home. the president will help create clean energy jobs. he's staked out a leadership role in climate change in pittsburgh. the g-20 agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies at copenhagen. for the first time all major economies accepted their responsibility to take future action. the president ago noled this is not enough -- acknowledged this is not enough and we'll continue our efforts to provide

the leadership that is required in this important and challenging area. all of this is, of course, just the start. our challenge now is to sustain and build on the start that has been made this year. there are no shortages of challenges to test us, north korea, iran, arab-israeli peace, al qaeda and its affiliates in afghanistan and pakistan specifically, and around the world jeanly. so now let me turn very briefly to the afghan-pakistan strategy and exactly where we are today. in review of our efforts in afghanistan and pakistan this fall, the president asked some very difficult and tough questions, challenged assumptions and heard from every perspective and explored every option. most importantly, this was a review that never lost sight of those affected most by

presidential decisions, and that's the men and women who carry out their orders and the impact it would have on their families, both civilian and militarylike. in a speech at west point, the president made clear that our security is at stake in afghanistan and pakistan. this region remains the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al qaeda. this is where the 911 attacks were planned and this is where extremists were arrested recently in the u.s. have been trained. and this is where attacks are being plotted right now. with regard to the situation on the ground, al qaeda retains its safe havens on the border regions of afghanistan and pakistan. the government in afghanistan legitimately elected is still

hampered by corruption, a viable drug trade and underdevelopment. and there is insufficient security for the forces that face a growing insurgency. this is the situation as we started the review. with regard to the risks, there are risks to this strategy, the risk of scaling back our efforts, or worse, abandoning the area altogether. a region that slides backwards where al qaeda could operate again without impunity is unacceptable. the risk of instability in a nuclear armed pakistan at a time when al qaeda seeks nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction and would use them is not acceptable. in short, an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies is also one of the things that we put on the table as being something we had to look at.

we need -- we sought clarity about our mission, and we achieved that, starting in the spring of 2009 with the initial review, of the rydell study and we come out with a clear statement that applies today as to our mission, which is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies in afghanistan and pakistan, and to prevent their return to either country. we needed to achieve clarity with regard to our objectives and think we've done that. in afghanistan we are objective as to deny al qaeda a safe haven, to reverse the taliban's momentum and to deny it the ability to overthrow the government. and to strengthen the capacity of afghanistan security forces and government so they can take the lead responsibility for their future and do so in the shortest amount of time

possible. and in pakistan, it is to support the security and prosperity that is the best anecdote for the extremism that threatens was you will, and to eliminate the sanctuaries that exist in that country. we've achieved clarity about our strategy to meet those objectives and it has three main components to it. a military effort that creates the conditions for security, and a transition in afghanistan. a civilian effort that promotes development and good governance, and finally, because our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border, an effective partnership with pakistan. so let me talk briefly about each of those three. with regard to the military aspect of things and our troops in afghanistan, including the 30,000 additional troops that will be sent there, they have the clear mission to target,

train, and transfer, to target the insurgency and protect key afghan cities and towns, to increase the training of afghan security forces, currently numbering around 200,000 afghans fighting for their country. and to bring them into the fight. and lastly, to create the conditions on the ground for the transfer of responsibility to afghan forces. our nato allies have increased their commitment in a very positive manner. this includes great britain, italy, spain, romania, poland. together our all)es will be contributing nearly 7,000 more troops and trainers. the sum total of those contributions will continue to grow in the next few weeks as we get closer for the conference on january 20.

this reflects our recognition security is threatened and reflects our efforts to strengthen our alliances. having served in nato, i think nato has shown much more cohesion and much more recognition that this is the strategic moment in which all nations, all contributing nations must come together to better harmonize security efforts, governance, and rule of law in afghanistan and also economic development. so as a result, we'll accelerate handing over responsibility for afghan security by july of 2011, some u.s. troops will begin to come home. this is probably the most discussed and perhaps most misunderstood part of the strategy, so i want to be clear with regard to what this means and what it doesn't mean. july 2011 is not a withdrawal

date, it is the beginning of transition to -- of responsibility to afghan authorities and forces. as the president said, and i quote, just as we've done in iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. we'll continue to advise and assist afghanistan security forces, to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul, unquote. nor does july 2011 have in any way encouraged our adversaries to buy time or wait us out. nothing in its history suggests the taliban will easily yield. as coalition forces move in, we expect the fighting to be fierce. and if for some reason they did choose to wait us out, then while they're waiting, we'll be seizing the initiative, securing population centers, training stronger afghan forces and making it harder for the

insurgency to return. with the july 2011 date does do, and this is why the president feels it's so important is this, it sends an important signal to the afghan people that we're not interested in waging an enlend war or ok knewing their country, that we want to be their partners and not their patron and it sends a clear and urgent message to the afghan government they will have to take responsibility for their own security in the shortest delay possible. even as we pursue those who threaten us, the president has said we will support efforts by the afghan government to open the door to those taliban who abandon the violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. secondly, on the civilian side, our strategy recognizes that security and prosperity in afghanistan ultimately rests on good governance and investment in people. as the president said, the days

of blank checks are over. from now on our assistance will support those who combat corruption and improve the lives of ordinary afghans, especially in areas such as agriculture and tapping the country's natural resources which include iron ore, marble, gemstones and the like. this is not nation building but capacity building. we're helping build the capacity of afghans to provide for their own security, their own governance, and their own prosperity. in short, their own future. it's still much too early to judge how our strategy is working. our troops have just started to arrive and won't be fully in place until this summer. but early signs are encouraging. we are encouraged by the steps president karzai has taken to approve the effectiveness and credibility of his government, and we're committed to working in partnerships to reduce corruption which along with the

insurgency is perhaps the greatest threat to afghanistan. and recent polls of public afghan opinion are also encouraging. afghans in significant numbers blame the taliban far more than coalition forces for violence that exists in the country. most afghans believe the taliban is growing weaker, and by huge margins, about 9-1, clearly prefer the afghan government that they have to any alternative the taliban might offer. but our progress on the ground and the attitudes of the afghan people show we're making progress in achieving our objectives and accomplishing our mission in afghanistan as articulated by the president. the third part of our strategy is a stronger partnership with pakistan. the people of pakistan have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorism. pakistanis, civilians, military, police, civilians

have sacrificed their lives fighting terror. and they recognize that their country and their future is also being targeted. pakistan has shown a new resolve in this fight, launching major offenses against extremist sanctuaries. in partnership, we're confronting al qaeda directly and inflicting losses on al qaeda leadership, making it clear we will tolerate no safe haven. for our part, rather than relying so heavily on a single leader, we're now investing more broadly in the pakistani people. .

a partnership with pakistan that book targets extremists and addresses the underlying conditions that you'll extremism. we're attempting to make clear that we will neither maintain a permanent military force in afghanistan nor abandon the region to extremism. we're making it clear that the people in afghanistan and pakistan have a reliable long-

term partner in the united states. but as the president has also made clear at west point, and i quote, "the struggle against violent extremism will extend beyond afghanistan and pakistan." after years of u.s. counterterrorism operation and in cooperation with our partners, the core of al qaeda has been seriously damaged. nevertheless, al qaeda has proven to be adapted and highly resilienct. as we've seen in the recent thread on christmas day, we face a threat from al qaeda and its affiliates around the world. american and iraqi efforts have greatly succeeded in reducing

the capability of al qaeda. suicide bombings have been greatly reduced, notwithstanding the violence that we saw today, but recently to look tax including in the heart of baghdad underscored the need for vigilance. on the arabian peninsula, the saudi arabian effort has found some success. next door in yemenn it was al qaeda in the arabian peninsula that was responsible for the attack over detroit. the fighting instant -- and instability make it easier for the east african network. al-shabaab is controlling more territory and launching more attacks. war lordism is attracting

somalis living in the united states. another affiliate remains the most active in the region and will continue to pose a significant threat to american interests throughout the region as well as throughout the continent of europe itself. in southeast asia, close cooperation with partners in their region, especially indonesia, has resulted in the arrest and deaths of hundreds of operatives. and what's capabilities have been badly damaged, this summer's deadly attacks and jakarta understand this -- underscore the continuing threat. this is not to mention people been radicalized right here in the united states.

al qaeda has made no secret of its desire for american recruits that would defy conventional notions of a terror actist. while the threat from al qaeda extends far beyond, ourñi missin remains the same, to dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its allies. in our war against al qaeda, we're using every tool in our disposal. we will come pick -- will keep the pressure on al qaeda and its affiliates wherever they plot and train, and we will be relentless in our efforts. we will strengthen intelligence to ensure that we have the timely and accurate intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, and as the president directed after the christmas day incident, there are a series of reforms that we will be putting

in place to analyze the intelligence that we have in a timely fashion. we will pursue aggressive law enforcement to deter terrorist attacks at home and with our allies and partners. we will share intelligence capacities to deny al qaeda a safe havens in east africa and the saharan regions. we will dedicate ourselves to nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. we will strengthen the global nonproliferation regime and secure the world's vulnerable nuclear materials, all within a period of four years. we will secure the homeland at every level, local, state, and federal, including aviation security. so it has been a you're a great challenges, but also your progress on many fronts.

much more remains to be done. if you had asked me a yearñr ago how long it would -- -- how long it would take for america to regain its standing in the world, i would say seven years. and that is just what has happened in one year. we see it in public opinion polls are around the world, i see it in my own travels and meeting with counterparts around the world. united states is globally engaged once again. our country -- other countries have seen that we want to be partnered with them on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interest, and most importantly other countries want to partner with us on a range of common challenges. that serves our interests and that makes our country more secure. of course, it is just a start, and an assessment, it getting off to a good start is not enough. the challenge now is to sustain and build on the progress we

have made, and that is exactly what we intend to do it in the days, months, and years ahead. thank you very much for your time. >> general jones can take a few questions but please focus on afghanistan and pakistan. it by calling you, please identify yourself. >> "the philadelphia inquirer." george jones, you spoke of the importance of pakistan and a while back you said there were only 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. given those two facts, how is our strategy affected by the response that secretary guy -- secretary gotten pakistan when he was told that pakistan would not expand its fight against the safe havens for a minimum of six to 12 months and gave the impression that it might be longer than that, if ever? >> it is beyond question, as i

mentioned in my remarks, that the speed with which we are able to achieve our goals in afghanistan has a relationship to the willingness of pakistan to take on the fact that safe havens exist in the border regions. we're going to be working with and have been working with the pakistani authorities to make sure that we do everything that we can do not only convince them of the urgency of the moment, not just for afghanistan but for pakistan and the region itself, and we are entering on a new relationship, a new strategic partnership, with the pakistani s in order to signal that we're not just interested in a short-term relationship where we solve the problem and late, but a long-term relationship that will affect the future of

pakistan and in areas far beyond security. we have to establish good security in the region. and then turn to economic development and other ways in which we can help pakistan and afghanistan become the nation's we hope that they will become, as stable partners, economically secure, and working toward a brighter future for all of their citizens. but this is a work in progress, and we are working diligently to achieve that goal. we have a number of high-level engagements with the pakistani authorities going back several months now, and these will continue in the months ahead. it is without question one of

xdthe most important things that we're taking on in order to be successful in the region. it is critical that we be successful there. and part of that is making sure that they understand how did you when we are and how we view this in a long-term commitmenát >> time for one more. james? >> there are reports about the speed with which troops are getting into afghanistan for the surge. as we learned in our right, there is a cycle. but there is also concerned that the troops will not be there in the numbers that we will need to reach that virtual cycle. can you talk about that for a moment? >> getting troops deployed to a country like afghanistan is much more difficult than going to iraq. the logistics of the fact of it

being a landlocked nation make it much more difficult. ñúóçóit may -- it takes more ti. we have good estimates from admiral mullen and secretary gates won when the majority will close. they're working overtime to make that happen and it is important that it happened within the timelines that the president was briefed on in our strategic review. i think that we will achieve that. >> the general has to go. i thank you very much for your comments and please join me in thanking the general for his comments. >> thank you very much. >> carl levin recently led a congressional delegation to afghanistan and pakistan where he met with government and military leaders. he spoke with reporters monday or about 45 minutes. -- who are about 45 minutes. -- for about 45 minutes.

>> help break in and i just returned and i thought i would give you some reactions. can i move these down a little bit? did i mess up somebody here? here, see if we can put that down -- is that yours? ok. thank you. there have been some positive signs that i have noticed in afghanistan, particularly since my most recent visit, which was in september.

our troops are comfortable with our counterinsurgency strategy. that seemed to be a universal reaction, to try to protect the afghan people. i think we probably reached a conclusion based on conversation but also based on some of the polling which was the -- which was released when we were there, that the afghan people are more optimistic about their future. the poll indicated our visits -- and our visits confirm that 70% of the afghan people feel that they are headed in the right direction. 60% believe that their children will leave the book -- live the better life than they do, and the taliban remains extremely unpopular. i continue to believe that our mission is to train and equip the afghan army. it is absolutely essential that

they understand that the mission -- our present there, particularly the current numbers, are not open ended, and our primary goal is to help the afghan security forces get to the point where they are able to take the predominant role in defending and protecting the afghan people. there has been some progress in that area, too, and that is the main thing i want to talk to you about this afternoon. first of all, in terms of partnering, a major point of training and equipping the afghan army is to partner with them, particularly in the field, soldier to shoulder, -- shoulder to shoulder. we saw an increase in the partnering that had been going on, from what we saw previously in september. there is a chart that was given

to us by general rodriguez comparing partnering in june 2009 to november of 2009. i am going to come back to this chart, but you will see now that all of the units and the south are partnered with the coalition partners, 36 out of 36 battalions partner. and in the eastern region, 41 out of 41 of the afghan battalions are partnered with coalition forces. the description of how the current partnering compares to the partnering of june 2009 is in the upper left-hand corner. there you will see that the combined planning and operations command interaction moving

toward fully embedded partnership has been improved just in those six months or so. the way in which this partnership effort is going to move forward is shown on the second page here, where it says, afghan national security forces partnership impact and force increase. you'll see the numbers at the bottom, the ana partners going up to 51 in the south, and in the east, 55 at 55, and up in that box and the upper left-hand market, the embedded partner shops in most units and operating as one combined team, that would be the impact of that force increase. that is the 30,000 troops that the president has ordered three that represents a significant progress.

key in my judgment is how many of these troops are truly embedded with each other. how many are truly integrated? so that the planning and the operations that take place very closely together in a degraded, and again, we are going to keep track of that. i will show you the charts that will help us keep track of that in a moment. but there has been some real progress in terms of that it degraded partnering which is so critically important. the size of the army -- it has gone up significantly, the numbers are well known to you, i have a chart with those numbers in terms of the current size of the afghan army compared to the goals for next september, and through july 2011. we were given a very interesting statistic when we read their by the general, -- when we were there, by the general, with an interesting statement i want to share with you.

the number afghan retreats and -- the number of afghan records went up to 11,000 in january. that was a dramatic surge in troop recruits. why did that happen? obviously one of the reasons is that there was a pay increase which was promised. but general caldwell told ñiexplicitly and repeatedly that in his judgment the main reason for that surge was at the afghan leaders heard what president obama said at west point about the number our troops beginning to be reduced in july 2011. this very much focused their minds and they got the message, from the setting of that date to the beginning of our troop reductions, that president obama is serious when he says that the

commitment of the present number of forces is not open-ended. now we pressed general caldwell on this, because it is coming from a military man, frankly, and we were not expecting to hear something back positive about the setting of that july 2011 date. but he repeated it. in his judgment, but calls for the surge in the number of afghan troops was caused more by the setting of that date by president obama that it was by the pay increase. another advance is in the equipment of the afghan army. in our defense authorization bill, we authorized equipment to go from iraq to afghanistan, even though if is non-access

equipment. that is beginning to work, according to our generals there. quit that included humvees -- the equipment that included humvees is already rising -- are rising. -- arriving. that is a sign of progress as well. there is the second chart that you have which gets to the area -- one of the areas of disappointment. this is a chart by our trainers. this is general caldwell's chart, which shows a significant shortfall and the number of trainers. these are the people that do the initial training, about

eight weeks long, and you can see that we only have 37% of the trainers that we need to have to train in this initial training the afghan recruits. so the required number is 4235, and the assignments -- how many are actually there, 1574. that is a shortfall of over 2600. we have only 30% of those trainers. this is totally unacceptable. this is part where al ordinate their allies -- our nato allies, falling 90% short of their commitments, can do better and i am hopeful that they can do better in terms of trainer. these people are not putting their lives on the line. these of the people that did the initial training away from the field of battle. there is no excuse why nato

cannot do better than 10% of its committed trainers. there is a third chart which we just have prepared, which is this chart. without taking some of the -- we took off the numbers of some of those charts and added other numbers. this is in terms of the growth and capability of the afghan army. we tried to put it in one place where we can see whether or not the afghan army and the police are making the progress which is so it is central for them to take responsibility for their -- which is so essential for them to take responsibility for their own country. how many in the army, how many combat troops, but a capability of those battalions, those

numbers represent battalions there -- various levels of capability. how many are partnered? we took those numbers off the chart that you have. how many are imbedded? we do not have those numbers yet. we have a promise from general rodriguez to give us those numbers, because so much better that they be embedded after they have been living together shoulder to shoulder then if they simply plan together and operate their third fully integrated operations is what the goal is. we do not have the numbers yet but we're going to tell the men. and then in terms of the additional trainers for the army and police, you see the requirement there taken from the chart that i gave you, and how much of that requirement has been filled, how much is not

filled, and we will fill in the numbers for the goals for october in 2010, and july 2011 when we get there. but we need a way to track the progress in achieving what i think and most of our military believe, if not the number one mission, which from my view it is, but a key message for our troops, the training and equipping of the afghan security forces. i'd very frankly want to put a great focus on this. i always have because i have always felt this is what we should be doing is our number one mission. i want to track it not only myself but i hope to see if we can get some public attention for tracking these numbers. there has been a great deal of focus on how many additional american troops -- that was the big issue, the decision by president obama.

but since and everyone's judgment whether they supported the 30,000 additional combat troops that the president ordered or whether they thought the focus should be on additional forces just for training or supporting or equipping, which is what my belief was and is, regardless of what one's belief is in that regard, it is a common belief that a key mission is the training and equipping of afghan security forces. and that is what this chart is intended to do, to come up with an easy way to track what will hopefully be the continued progress in this area. so the bottom line is that i think we are on the right track. we have a long way to go in afghanistan. but there are some signs of progress. there is a number of things to watch, one being these numbers and also what happens in london this week in terms of troop

commitments, in terms of commitments to funds for the reintegration programs, and another thing to watch is whether or not president carter signed an we can come up with a integration program for those taliban, which will chip away at the power of the taliban and helps support the efforts of the afghan security forces. another thing to watch for in the spring will be the helmand river valley, one of the richest families in afghanistan which is going to be a major effort to knock out the taliban in that area this spring. the afghan military are going to be leading that mission with us as their partners. they will be in the league. we were assured of that on our trip. i was suggest that you keep your eyes open on that effort as well.

so let me stop there and try to answer some questions. >> when president bush announced a surge in iraq, you wanted benchmarks. how're you going to measure progress in afghanistan? >> the benchmarks, we understand, have been completed. we do not have them in a non- classified way yet. we have a copy of the draft benchmarks some time ago. when the on classified benchmarks will be available for all of us, and in terms of mcchrystal testifying? >> when will we see someone else testify on whether not it is working? >> first, all of the troops will not be there until the summer, the time indicated for most of

the troops to arrive. so i would think that in terms of that part of the commitment, and there are other parts as well, including equipment and training, but in terms of the troops -- by the way, the first 1000 troops of those 30,000 troops are going into training missions, additional training missions. we also learned that on the trip. but i think what you're referring to is the impact of most of those 30,000 troops. i guess it is safe to say that until most of them have arrived, we're not going to be able to get an assessment from general mcchrystal as to the impact of those troops. in terms of training, because the initial training does not depend on those troops, the initial training is whether those additional 1000 u.s.

troops plus net of the filling its commitment, which is now has -- which has been 10% to a film. we can test that earlier than this summer. but whether we need mcchrystal to do that, i do not know. we can surely track that a lot better than we have. >> you said that you wanted to have hearings on don't ask, don't tell. is that still on this week? >> what i said earlier that it will either be january or early february. that remains our intent. i do not know if a -- if i have any new additional news on that. i was hoping to be able to announce a date. but it is our intent to hear that in early february. >> what about the level of intelligence regarding an al qaeda thread? >> it is not so much the level of intelligence but what we do with the information when we get it.

we've had the information which is not been put to good use and the dots have not been connected. all of the dots, obviously, were not connected in a number of these recent events. and they need to be connected. that has got to be our greatest focus. we're always interested -- but i cannot say that the problem has been the lack of information but the bell your to organize that information, to put it together with the various agencies that have the affirmation. i cannot say that i am never satisfied with the level of and it -- of intelligence. when people are out to kill you, you want more and more intelligence. but that is not the source of the problem. >> is everybody on the same page sharing the affirmation? >> i don't think it has anything to do with the folks at the top, but the immigration, the

practical integration in the field. that is what they have committed to work on as the real, totally unacceptable barriers that existed. you had a case where information, for instance, which i have to rely on reported sources which it is still classified, where e-mails were received which were not from a radical cleric in yemen, which were not shared with the people who could act on those here. we simply cannot accept that. that is where the real need is. >> over the summer how can you convince your colleagues to vote for the extra money? you need to show that the surge is going to have assessed -- a chance of success before they will spend that money. >> first, there are indicators

other than the impact of 30,000 additional american forces. i have tried to lay out some indicators in that chart relative to the strange thing and equipment of the afghan army and our role in the process. it is not just on the impact of 30,000 combat troops. secondly, there is going to be reported impact as this goes a long. the level of violence i doubt is going to go down. will have to decide whether or not we're going to confront our troops in the field, even though we will continue to be -- there will continue to be these terrorist attacks in afghanistan, just as there are in iraq. the issue for my colleagues will be whether or not they want to support our troops in the field. i believe that they will. i know that i will. we had that same situation in

iraq where many of us opposed the effort of going into our right. but once that decision one -- was made, we voted to support our troops. that is the way that this issue will be debated, i believe. the american public want us to support our troops and we will continue to do so as long as they are there. [inaudible] it is too hard to know or tell whether or not that delay will help or hurt. i think if anything it is likely to help in terms of supporting the funding for our troops. i don't think it will have a major effect one way or the other. the major issue is whether we support troops in the field or not. i think there would be an overwhelmingly positive vote for that. >> the administration is expected to ask for $14 billion

for afghan security forces next week. you consider that to be an accurate investment, and were you hope the money is spent? >> i cannot say that i have done math on a significant or substantial investment. a significant investment is worthwhile because there is nothing more important that we can do in afghanistan been to build the afghan army. and the police. but i can give you the exact math, i cannot do it in my head to tell you how many afghan troops to hope for by september, how many we think will be in place, what then you pay is, the multiplication, the work on the equipment size, there is a reintegration peace which is part of that $14 billion, although i do not know for sure. but the cost of immigration, and that could include some pay for

the lower level taliban folks to help protect their own villages and towns. it is a significant amount, and the direction that we ought to head. >> to clarify on the trainer questions, the 1000, is that on top of what is on this chart? and there's no way to compel in nato to provide trainers, which you support the idea of the u.s. sending more? >> two lines over here, these are u.s. numbers. they don't quite at -- at up to 1000. i do not know the answer to your question. i assume that the answer to your question is that that is most of the 1000 that was promised at the first troops to get theire, of that 30,000 total. i assume that but i do not know

that. in your second question? >> if you cannot persuade nato come of what should the u.s. do? >> i have always believed that training the afghan army is our number one mission. so that is where i always want to put our forces. as it has been pointed out, when the word training is used, that really encompasses both that initial eight-week training and also encompasses on-the-job training, field training. of the two, the field training is probably more important but we have enough troops there now to train many more afghan troops that are currently in the field, particularly in the south and east. we are not short of american combat forces to do the on the job partnering, which is a word

better than training for that aspect. we have enough american troops there, combat church, to do that embedded, integrated, on the job partnering which is so critically important. so i would put our forces where there is the greatest shortfall. if we cannot persuade nato to do what they promised to do, they have only carried out 10% of their committed numbers for trainers, then i think we would have no alternative except to fill in that gap, but i have to tell you, i would hate for that message to go to nato that if you do not do it, we will. because i think the future of nato is dependent on two things -- number one, whether or not members of nato carry out their commitments once they have made them. that is critically important to the future of nato. and secondly, whether or not

they work together in areas such as afghanistan. whether they have committed to do that or not, it is essential that they do that and make those commitments. in terms of the future of native, but the first point being, once they make them, they ought to keep them. i hate for the message to be, if nato does not do it, we will, because training the afghan army should be our number one mission, but since you asked the question that way, i will answer it honestly. >> in terms of the $14 billion that ned was asking about, you see that as a onetime investment immediately -- or how much money do you see in your mind the united states spending in the coming years? >> it is not going to dry up,

that issue. it is going to require a long- term commitment to support the afghan military. you multiplied by with the requirement is, $4,000 a soldier, and i do not remember how much for policeman, and it is much smaller than our being there. it is worth doing spoke in terms of our security being dependent on afghans taking responsibility and moving against the taliban to make sure that they do not take over afghanistan. it is a worthy investment but i can i give you the numbers off the top of my head, and what number will be in the budget, $14 billion is what you heard and it may be right. i do not think it is a onetime investment, what ever is. it will be an ongoing commitment of american resources. but i want to reduce the number of american lives and the number

of american dollars, which we will do when we reduce the presence of american forces. the one it increase the likelihood of success with -- i want to increase the likelihood of success, which will enhance the transition from our major responsibility to afghan security forces taking responsibility for their own security. >> the supplement or request, and could talk about a series of weapon in program cuts -- and weapons and program cuts. >> on the push back, i expect that there will be some local pushed back in america. i don't expect it to be close to a significant minority.

i think the termination of american people -- the determination of the american people is reflected in the congress to support our troops. i do not expect an america large push back. i think that it will be well intended but it will not be dominant. in terms of weapon systems, i can predict -- i cannot predict how much was back there will be. last year the pentagon got about 90% of what forms and changes it specifically requested. he did very well last year in terms of accomplishing both a reform agenda but also in terms of achieving some of the changes for specific items being procured. when you say, do i expect

significant push back again this year, the only problem i have is with the word again. the main things that they were after, they succeeded in last year. >> what do you hope to hear the nato meetings next week? will it be anything more than lip service? >> i do. i am hopeful and i believe that, given some of the work done by secretary gates and others, including secretary clinton, with nato and with our allies that they are going to see a significant commitment in the area of trainers and the area of funds. i hope it is much more than lip service for nato's -- for nato's future and the world. i hope that they do not make commitments of this kind. i do not have great hopes that

we're going to get the 10,000 that some people called for in addition to what is already there. [inaudible] >> i will not say hope springs eternal but there have been good efforts with nato allies and our leaders, but cabinet officers and others, reporting back that they are optimistic that there is going to be some movement on funding as well as on the trainers. >> supporting the military operations in haiti. and the pakistanis had no plans for a new offensive. >> i do not have any idea of the military budget relative to haiti, what those extra cost

would be. and of pakistan's announcement -- relative to north waziristan, i was not surprised. i just got back and we were told they were going to squeeze north waziristan but they did not say anything specific what happened inside north waziristan. what they mean is that they are squeezing south waziristan and some of those folks are going into north waziristan. that is what i call squeezing -- that is what they call squeezing. i call that squeezing south waziristan. but after talking to the pakistanis, i do not have any great hopes -- they will deal with iran security, people that they are threatening their own sovereignty. but they're going to have to see that for themselves.

>> is it an issue of resources? some say that they had stretched resources. >> i cannot believe that. it is a matter of will and political decision that we will lead these folks along as long as they bother the people in afghanistan, and the people in afghanistan did not bother us. and they sometimes provide haven for the very people who do attack the pakistani government prepares cooperation and support between them. it is not just that their forces inside of north waziristan which crossed the border and attacked us and our coalition partners and the afghans, but that is a threat to the pakistani sovereignty which one day they will wake up to. but they have got to do it.

we cannot buy it or force it. we can try to be persuasive but we cannot force them to do something that they do not want to do for themselves. yes. >> you have any concerns about chairman bernanke's nomination? >> my concern is -- first of all, i think he has done a lot of positive and important things toward stopping the direction that this economy was heading. i think we have been able to avoid the worst calamity in significant measure because of his leadership. on the other hand, i do not think he was very forceful in taking steps against some of these financial transactions that got us into this problem to begin with. they were not directly under his

supervision. they, being the oversight of derivatives. that is not directly in his jurisdiction at the federal reserve, but there is some oversight responsibility that he could have exercised. he was aware that there could be a problem in that area. i do now give him high grades on what he did -- what he could have done in terms of avoiding the problem, going after these derivatives that been distorted and i believe perverted, but i do give him high grades once we got into the hole but we worry and, in terms of making sure that we could get out of that and not dig deeper hole. i think he also has some confidence in the financial community, and the beating him could be the stabilizing in that regard. -- dick taking him could be

destabilizing -- defeating him could be destabilizing in that regard. i weigh that against the defeat and the fact that he deserves a lot of credit, i believe, for getting us out of this whole but we were in. >> would you include that repeal was part of your chairman's mark? >> it is easy for me to say that the question is, how do i believe we can effectively change that policy? that for me is the goal. let me simply say i still oppose don't ask, don't tell. it is not going to get us all the way there. we have to try to get both the

military leaders and also the junior officers, the enlisted personnel in the military to speak up on this issue, because i think there is a generational shift taking place. and we've also got to show a sensitivity to the importance of our military moving in a direction which hopefully they will move but without being just told that this is -- particularly by congress. now with the commander-in-chief tells them -- tells them that that is his solution, presumably they will sell it and say, "yes, sir." but when we call these military officers in front of congress, they are required by our rules to give us their personal,

professional judgment on the issue. if we did this in a way which is not sensitive to the hope that we have to change policy and how to do that effectively, if we are not doing this in a way which is thoughtful, we could have exactly the opposite affect of what i hope will be the case, which is to change the policy. bottom line -- we're trying to structure this in a way which we are not here -- we do not here just from the top military but from the people, the junior officers, the enlisted personnel, and i would suggest to secretary gates that he do some public -- or pamphlet -- opinion samplings, not public necessarily, to see whether there had been in the ships in the military general malaise -- on a generational level. >> you have not made up your

mind how to vote on bernanke? >> i have not made up my mind. >> some say that mr. whitaker will stay on an accelerating their loan payment? >> that is good news on both accounts. i drove a bold yesterday -- volt yester day and i have recommended. i feel awfully good about it when my wife and i went out and drove that car yester day and recognize what a tremendous breakthrough this is for the auto industry, not just gm, and what the potential is. at any rate, i had been impressed both by the new leadership at general motors but also by their product line. a new product line which continues a very strong, positive quality direction, and

that they can repay that loan earlier rather than later that will be great news for the american taxpayer. >> there was some hope by some people that it would be included in the administration budget request this year. moving toward production, you think that will remain in congress? >> i think we at such a large investment in it that we're past the 50-yard line and it would make sense to stop the production of the engine which, because it is a competitive engine, it would lead to significant savings because that would mean in this competition as well as a back up engine. i favor it. the majority of the senate does not favor it. so you're asking me to predict where the senate would be?

it is hard enough. i think it is important that we get some numbers from the military on what has been what we call a soft costs, how much money has gone in there, -- sunk cost, how much money has gone in there. and what is the projected cost of completion. the closer you get -- put it this way, but for the you get past the 50-yard line toward the goal of finished development of that issue, it seems to me that it is a more persuasive argument to continue the development of that issue. but we need numbers, good numbers, numbers that can be agreed to. we do not have them yet. we tried last year to get the numbers. [inaudible] we at two is different sets of numbers 3 on light my wonderful chart here, we're trying to put

in one place, one set of numbers on the same page. not necessarily agree on what they mean, but at least what they are. that is important and i will try to get a single set of numbers on that second engine. ok, thanks, everybody. [inaudible]

>> in a few moments, all look at u.s. policy in latin america. and about 40 minutes, a news conference announcing the formation of a bipartisan debt reduction task force. after that, president obama outlines is due economic proposals to help the middle class. and later, coverage of the international meeting in montreal focusing on aid for haiti. we have several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the senate homeland security committee hears from the flight to under 53 bombing attempt. that is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and 9:00 a.m. eastern on c- span2, live coverage of steny

hoyer at the national press club. and the congressional budget office releases its 2010 budget and economic outlook had a 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> wednesday president obama delivered his first date of the union address to congress, laying out his vision for the future of the country and his plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address, when seen night, coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3 you can also listen live on your iphone with the c-span radio app. >> more discussion on farm policy. on "washington journal," we focused on latin america for about 40 minutes. from the johns hopkins school for advanced political policy.

what is our policy currently in latin america and how different is it from the bush administration? >> we really don't have a policy to latin america. that is not a fault of the obama administration. the euna states needs universal bilateral policies in certain regions. there are many long past policies for the night states -- the united states need to direct -- differentiate among different countries in the hemisphere. we have different priorities now. we are slow in washington on the hill and in the white house to come to that understanding. host: what is the political landscape in latin america? how has the landscape changed politically down there? guest: there is a much more

guest: there is a much more diverse ide guest: we have countries like venezuela which are not friendly to the united states or to the market economy. then we have a pragmatic president in brazil who is becoming a moral leader, with whom we need to engage much more deeply than we are now. and then we have the perennial problem in cuba, and a terrible problem in haiti. host: on the issue of haiti, there's an extensive article, "a question of commitment." what is the u.s. effort there -- what will the u.s. effort their say about our overall commitment to latin america? guest: i think we are best served by multilateral action in latin america. the un