grandmotherher and have an organization that is pushing for this legislation. in this legislation does not solely focus on small growers and artisinal food processors. many of the people who support this legislation shop that -- at co-ops and want to make sure there are vibrant regional food systems, but there has to be an assurance or more assurance that there is safety. as this bill does provide, there are exemptions and modified requirements for smaller operations. that is an important component here. i really encourage those of you who are concerned about the impact on small growers not only to read the proposed legislative

amendment that senator tester has put forward but to participate in the world making processes as the fda figures out how to implement this role -- rule. this bill is aimed at providing a safe food supply. and does not target any particular aspect of the industry accept people who produce contaminated food host:. -- host: santer as the and from thepew charitable trust. a programming note. we want to let you know on c- span3 all day, they are covering the civil war symposium at the national archives. if you want more information on that, you can log on to our website or the american history website and they will tell you everything that is going on and what is being covered. they will observe with a daylong

symposium. check the web site to see what is available on c-span3. tomorrow, we began with talking about the lame-duck converse with michael shear. we will also talk to general wesley clark about the nato summit going on this weekend. also, new gingrich, the former house speaker -- newt gingrich. we will be talking about leadership changes in the house. thank you for watching this edition of "washington journal." we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the south carolina rep, current house majority whip. congressman cliburn talks about his recent election to the new position of assistant minority leader for the new congress, maintaining his no. 3 spot in the leadership. >> it would have been very simple to step back one step. standing where it would go back to being whip. i said to them that it would not be attractive to me. i feel the things i have learned out there could be put to great

use in our leadership discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. i do believe that we are in a different political environment. we have a caucus that is a little different from the republican conference. we have 42 african-americans. we have 22 latinos that make up the hispanic caucus. we of asian-pacific islanders. we have full trade people. we have blue dogs that are not that much for trade. all this diversity i thought i had learned a lot about and could bring discussions to the table and take them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would limit me if i were chair of the caucus. >> "newsmakers" with james clyburn on sunday.

in september, senator mccaskill asked president obama to fire special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction arnold fields. he appeared before us of a chair on thursday. senator mccaskill told him he is not the right person for the job. ocean is just over one hour. -- this portion is just over one hour. >> general fields has served since july of 2008. he previously served as deputy director for the african studies at the department of defense. he is assigned to the u.s. embassy of the rock where he

performed duties as part of the iraqi construction office. he retired as a major general from the marine corps in january of 2004 after 34 years of active military service. let me state for the record high much your record speaks of view as an american and a patriot and how much our country owes you a debt of gratitude for your many years of service on behalf of the united states of america. it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear and all witnesses that appeared before us. if you do not mind, i would like to stand. do you swear that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> we welcome your testimony, general fields.

>> i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i would say that it is a pleasure, but i would be telling a lie if i were to say so. but it is a privilege as well as an opportunity. i wish to take full advantage of that opportunity. i have worked in support of sigar for the past year-and-a- half. the funding we received in june of 2009 fully funded is organization. i have built sigar from nothing but legislation to 123 well- informed and talented staff. of which, 32 today are on full

assignments for 13 months to a very dangerous place known as afghanistan. this work is challenging. i have to find people who are willing to put their lives in harm's way in afghanistan conducting this work in the midst of a very competitive market of investigators and auditors. i am proud of the staff that we have. we have conducted work in 22 of 34 provinces in afghanistan. that is in 48 separate locations. we have produced 34 audits, over 100 recommendations, 90% of which have been accepted by the institutions of this federal government that we have scrutinized. they are using our work. i could cite many cases, but i will not at this point. our work is making a difference.

i appreciate that the chairman acknowledged that i requested the assessment. we would not normally have undergone such a thing until the earliest would have been 2012. i wanted to make this organization what senator mccaskill would wish that it would be. that assessment for which by unilaterally made the request was intended to do just that. my leadership has been referred to as inept. that is the first time in all my life as a man of 64 years of age who has supported his federal government for 41 straight years, of which 34 have been as a military officer, i do not

even allow my own auditors to refer to the people in afghanistan as inept because it is too general the statement for any human being. i have met with many people in afghanistan from the president of afghanistan to the little children in the provinces. when i asked the little children on which this reconstruction effort in the $56 billion that the united states has invested in afghanistan should be based -- i want you to know that those children that were no higher than many said to me the same things the president karzai said as well as his ministers. they want energy, electricity, light, agriculture, education. what really broke my heart is when those little children told me that what they really want is a floor in their school.

that is what we're up against in afghanistan. we have created an opportunity for the children in afghanistan who i feel represent the future of afghanistan as well as the rest of the people. i would be the last to condone in any form or fashion any activity that would be less than the full measure of that $56 billion being used for the purposes for which was made available. i want the subcommittee to also note that i take this work very seriously. why? i was raised in south carolina. it was in a family not unlike that in afghanistan where the level of education from both my mother and father was less than fifth grade. nonetheless, the look best

training and received in my life came from a mother -- the best training i received my life came from my mother who had less than a fifth grade education. i wish someone had brought $56 billion to bear upon my life. but here i am a very important position trying to influence what is going on in afghanistan to the best of my ability using a very knowledgeable and competent staff by which to do so. i was raised in poverty myself. i worked for less than $1.50 a day, about what the average afghan makes today in the year 2010. on the day that president kennedy was buried, and no school day for me, my brother and i shoveled stuff out of a local farmers separate tank with a shovel for 75 cents an hour for the two of us.

i know what is to live in poverty. i know what it is to have an opportunity. my country has given me that. for that, i am pleased and very grateful. i will do my best, senator mccaskill and senator brown, to measure up to your full expectations. i appreciate the emphasis you have placed on contracting in afghanistan. i also want to say that the legislation i am carrying out has three dimensions. contracts is not the exclusive one. that is where the money is. we should focus more on that. i am also tasked to look at the programs and operations that support this tremendous reconstruction effort. i promise you that i will do so. thank you. >> thank you, general fields. general fields, and certainly

respect your life story and what you have accomplished. no one questions your commitment to the united states of america. that is not the question here. the question is whether or not the important work of the inspector general in afghanistan has been fulfilled and completed, especially within the time frames that we're working with because of the contingency operation. you submitted 12 pages of written testimony for this hearing. less than one page of those 12 addressed the serious deficiencies found in your peer review by other inspector general's trying to measure the work of your audit agency against the standards required in the federal government. you did say in your testimony that the findings would help

strengthen your organization and that you have now made changes. let me talk about the of what you are operating under. the law -- let me talk about the law that you are u operating under. it requires a comprehensive audit plan. are you aware of that, general fields? the law requires a comprehensive audit plan. when did you begin work on a comprehensive audit plan? >> we began work on a comprehensive audit plan when i published the very first report of how we planned to proceed with this very new organization in oversight of it. in the report delivered to this at the end of october

of 2008, i laid out exactly in general what we would pursue. i am pleased to say at the top of the list is in fact contracting. that was followed up with the hiring of mr. john berman as my principal auditor. occur? did that higre >> that occurred the first week of january of 2009. that is when he actually reported aboard. we commenced the process of bringing him aboard much earlier than that. >> you had been at the agency how long when he actually joined the agency? >> i had been at the agency -- >> since july 2008. >> that was when i was sworn in. i hope that the first thing you did was to look at public law at

the statutory requirements and your job. the plan lays out that it must be consistent with the h.quirements of subsection and you familiar with the -- are you familiar with the requirements in that subsection? >> in general, yes. >> can you tell us what those are? >> we would conduct thorough audits of the spending associated with our contribution to reconstruction in afghanistan. >> i am not trying to play gotcha, but there are seven requirements in section h. i am going to lay them out for the record. i would like he did tell me if they have been completed and

when. the first one we did these of the things adam minimum that you are required to look at as inspector general. the manner in which delivery orders were awarded. has that been done by sigar? have you examined contract requirements in afghanistan and task or delivery orders and how they were awarded? has your agency done that at this date? >> we have conducted several contract audits. each of those audits has addressed matters associated with have all contracts came about. >> how many contract audit to be completed? -- have you completed? >> we have completed about four. >> you have done four contract audits. all of those occurred essentially in the last 12

months. >> that is correct. number two, the manner in which the federal agency exercises control over the performance of contractors. have you done that audit work? >> we have examined in each of our audits the extent to which controls have been in place to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse of the american taxpayer's dollar. in so doing, yes ma'am, we have looked at those matters as they relate to contracts specifically in those areas where we have conducted focused contract audits of specific initiatives for which funding is being available. >> the first requirement dealt with contract requirements and task and delivery orders. the sec requirement is the matter of control over contractors. in the second requirement is a matter of control over contractors. number three, the extent to

which field commanders were able to direct the performance of contractors in the area of combat operations. has that work been done? >> the first audit that we conducted was on the contract being supervised by those responsible for the oversight of training and equipping the afghan security forces. that contract is worth $404 million to the american taxpayer. >> how many audits have you done that address the oversight of contractors by field commanders? >> 40% of our audits have either been direct audit or focused contract audit or contract- related audits. >> i thought you said you had done four audits on contracts. >> i said four because i was

referencing four focused contract audits. those were on a multimillion- dollar infrastructure initiatives specifically associated with the stand up of the afghanistan security forces. i am also saying that we have contracts that do not necessarily address the specific infrastructure initiative, but the audits address contracts in general that relate to the stand up of the security forces and other initiatives in afghanistan. >> numberfour, the degree to which contract employees or properly screened, selected, trained, equipped for the functions to be performed. is there are reports that you could point me to that i could get reassurance that we're doing adequate training and screening of contract personnel in afghanistan?

>> the very first of it that we published of the $404 million contract, we found in the audit the the supervision of up to the contract was inadequate. the entity in contract was living in maryland and not physically located on a permanent basis in afghanistan. >> how many contracts are operational in afghanistan right now? >> i do not know. >> can you give me a ballpark? >> based on our most recent audit between 2007 and 2009 of all contracts for which we could find information at that point in time, 6900 contracts. i am confident among those are a number of the type the just mentioned. >> i have lost several

questions. for each one, you referred to the same audit contract. we have almost 7000 active operational contracts. there have been four audits completed of thoseontracts. >> the 6900 is a role of of contracts in general -- roll up a contract in general for the years between 2007 and 2009. how many might be defined as operational contracts, i do not know. >> you do not have any reason to believe that has gone down. it has probably gone up. >> absolutely. >> the nature and extent of any unlawful activity by contract employees. how many audits have you done that would reassure the american people that you have looked for, found, or are confident that

there is no unlawful activity by contractor employees? >> in each of the 34 audits that we have conducted, those matters have been of concern. each of those 34 audits may not necessarily have been directly related to a contract. >> how many findings have been issued dealing with misconduct or unlawful activity by contract employees? >> i do not think we have identified misconduct per se. we have identified issues that we have been given to our investigators for follow-up. i can specifically tell you of a specific audit that we conducted which started out as a general audit of the kabul power plant,

an item worth $300 million to the american taxpayer. during the course of audit, we found anomalies that we felt were investigatory in nature. the rest of the matters were turned over to our investigators. they are still being pursued. >> the remaining two requirements in terms of audits that must be performed are the nature and extent by any contract employees better inconsistent with the objectives of field commanders. no. 7 is the extent to which any events of misconduct or unlawful activity were reported and prosecuted. have you been able to produce a report on how much unlawful activity has been investigated and prosecuted? >> i do not have an answer for

that question at this time. i will assure the senator that as we conduct our audit work and our investigations were, all those matters are taken into consideration. >> thank you, general. senator brown? >> thank you. i mirror center mccaskill's kind words about your service. i greatly appreciate that service. i noted in your testimony that you have great concern for the afghan children and the people of afghanistan. i will understand that. i also have great concern about our soldiers and the men and women fighting -- and also the taxpayers who are providing that $56 billion. it does not grow on trees. i know you have been in the position of julsince july of 20.

others noted serious management deficiencies in their review. now you have held office for over two years, what major course corrections are you taking to rectify serious deficiencies? >> [inaudible] that was the month during which unprivileged to be sworn into this position. funding for sigar did not come until much later. that is why i pointed out that we did not receive full funding for this organization until june of 2009. >> so noted. that is a good point. >> in reference to course corrections, one of the reasons asked for them to come in

about to add years in advance of when they normally would was to help me set the course correctly for this organization. i am using the results of both audit, the investigations, and that so-called capstone review of sigar to help chart the course. i have put in place as of the 30th of september of this year of the recommendations and suggestions made by the review team. >> how have you done that? the biggest thing we are concerned about is the money. i know you have done some good reports and investigations on other things. those are policy issues related to the ability of the afghan

people to live and grow. in terms of things that many taxpayers are concerned about, the dollars, they are growing weary and want to know where their money is going. what do you have in place based on the recommendations? >> i am a taxpayer as well. i have as much interest if not more in my. in the case is the individual american taxpayer. -- i have as much interest if not more in my case as the individual american taxpayer. we found a weakness where earlier attention should have been turned. we are in proving the means by which we determine where it is that we should focus our efforts. >> where is that leading you now? >> is leading us to a greater focus on contracts. that is where the money is. as the initial questioning by

madam chairman, we also have to address the front end of the reconstruction effort to what extent are the policies being put in place by those implementing this $56 billion? >> i understand that and respect that approach. now they have been put on notice, what specifically are you doing now based on the recommendations you have been given? what are you specifically doing so that i can tell the people back home in massachusetts and all of our viewers, where are you focusing? give me some specific examples so that i can say that you are learning and growing. he is gone the funding a year after being sworn in. he has had an independent

requested audit. give me some specific examples. i need to know where your focusing. are you focusing on how the taliban as allegedly getting money from us, the taxpayers? are you focusing on that? are you focusing on the bribes and payoffs? are you focusing on the fact that the afghan army is not up and running after the $6 billion we have spent? where are you focusing exactly? >> we are focusing on several broad areas. at the top of the list happens to be contacting. >> what specifically in contacting? bridges, roads, what are you doing specifically? contract in is so big. we have 7000 contracts or more. have you initiated some investigations already?

>> we have 89 investigation is ongoing as we speak. >> where are the focus? >> they are focused on fraud and theft. >> what types of things are you investigating? what examples can you give us of what you receive? what made you go to that particular area instead of another? >> that is where we feel the vulnerability is for the american taxpayer's dollar. >> based on what? tipoffs? prior contracts? why did he specifically want to go for that area? >> based on all of the above. >> share your thoughts on how we can strategically deal with this complex challenge. in your testimony, you stated your concern about the role of private security contractors, specifically as relates to

fuelling corruption and financing insurgents, strengthening criminal networks. what tangible actions are required to defer this corruption? what can you tell me about that? >> i believe the fight against corruption must take place on several levels and in many dimensions. we need to give consideration to what it is we are doing in support of the reconstruction effort in the government of afghanistan. we are conducting the reconstruction effort in three broad areas, security, governance, and development. we feel each of those needs to be addressed. we have devoted $29 billion to security in afghanistan itself. the stand up of the forces, the police and army.

we devoted $16 billion to governance and development. therein lies the vulnerability of the american taxpayer's dollar. we are pursuing audits and investigations that will help mitigate the potential for the american taxpayer dollars to be wasted, defrauded, or abused. >> you are getting $46 million to complete your mission. that is a lot of money. you have identified about $8 million in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse. can you tell me and us why there has not been more of a collection on that up to this point? >> a contributing factor is the slow start that this organization had in standing up.

part of that i am inclined to treat to the lack of funding. >> you get sworn in. you get the funding. you have to get up and running. let's take the last nine months. have you had any success that you want to share? >> i feel we have had some successes. $6 million we reported in our most recent report. we have an ongoing forensic audit of $37 billion looking at over 73,000 transactions. we intend to be effected towards potential crime. we're using forensics as a means to fairly quickly identify the vulnerabilities. restructuring of its and our investigations accordingly -- we are then a structuring the audits and our investigations accordingly. >> in your latest report on page

6, it mentions that private security risk management has been suspended after it was found funneling large amounts of money to insurgents. i met general petraeus on many occasions concerning our afghan policy. i agree with him that we must buy from better people. what actions are you taking to prioritize general petraeus' directed that those funds will be given to better people and not our enemies? >> first, i applaud general petraeus and the initiatives he has taken to address the issue of corruption. the stand up of task force 21 is one of those very significant initiatives. we're working closely with task force 2010. we're working closely with the

international contract corruption tax course. the task force to harness the investigatory initiatives of the federal agencies so that we can bring our wherewithal to bear upon the folks bilking the american taxpayers out of money. >> general fields, in your testimony a few minutes ago, you referred to the first audit that you did. do you recall how long that audit was? how many pages? >> i do not recall, i think it was not very large. >> does 12 pages sound right?

>> that sounds about right. >> how many pages actually work?in the audit grou maybe four pages? the other one you referred to was the one on the kabul power plant. and not a similar audit been done by usaid one year prior to one yours? >> that is correct. >> let's talk about the funding of your agency. u.s. aid to a similar audit two years one year prior. you know what the funding for usaid has been in terms of their inspector internal work in afghanistan over the last five or six years? do you know what the total funding has been? >> funding for usaid in terms of operations in afghanistan?

i do not know. >> $10 million. do you see what they have recovered for a $10 million taxpayer investment? $149 million. you have received $46 million. is that correct? >> $46.2 million. >> you have recovered $8 million. >> at this point time, yes. >> can you understand that it is hard for me to reconcile the notion that a lack of funding has been your problem? >> the recovery is that we have thus far experienced are small but the full measure of the outcome of audits and investigations that are underway, the full measure has not thus far been determined. our forthcoming numbers will be much larger than the numbers we submitted.

>> let's talk about contracting. one of the things that is very important is about how audit agency's contract. your job is to overseas contracts -- oversee the contracts. it is your job to determine if there are contracts that are not needed, could be put to better use. out of the $46 million you have received, how much are you spending to deloitte and touche just to repair your reports for congress customer >> that -- just to prepare your report

for congress? >> that started out before we have specific people to do that type of work. the intent of that arrangement was to facilitate the gaps in our own personnel and the skill sets needed at that time. over time, we would reduce the contract as we were able to bring that. together level of talent aboard sigar -- and we are doing that. >> you are spending millions of dollars for them in their only function is to provide reports to congress. >> they also provide assistance to us in database management. that is one aspect of it. they principally assist sigar in putting together the reports that we do submit to congress. it is a very detailed and important report.

we feel the extent to which we have gone to ensure that the report is put together correctly and presentable to this congress is commensurate with the money that we have invested m to do so.t and to eac >> i will tell you that i do not want to lay out my fellow members of congress here. an investment of that kind of money in a report to congress when there is the kind of audit work that needs to be done and when you are using a lack of funding is one rationale of why more work has not been done and why it has taken so long for audits to be performed or produced commensurate with the size of your agency, let's compare here. the contract total to them is over $6 million. the total amount of funding for u.s. aid is $10 million. for that $10 million, we've got

a $49 million back. for the $6 million to them, we've got a shiny report that most people will never see. you understand what causes pause about whether that is a strong leadership decision? >> we have been told by members of this congress that they appreciate the report we provide for them. the federal community elsewhere have told us they appreciate the details and correctness of the report that we produce. >> let's talk about the contract for joseph schmidt. you have an audit and. you that is not big. it is only the second time in 50. views that have been recommended to lose your law enforcement capability that is essential. you have had this audit. after the audit is done, you

hired someone to help you monitor compliance with the recommendations. is that a fair characterization of what your contractor was supposed to represent? >> that is a fairly fair ization. we had this independent moderate commensurate with a plan of action i put in place based on the results in order to move sigar along to put in place the corrective action recommended. we are a better organization because we have this external agency to come in and provide us with this particular expertise. >> it was a no bid contract.

>> it was a sole source contract for which we made request. >> that is a no bid contract, also a source. >> that is correct. >> you said you needed the immediate establishment of an independent monitor to verify compliance in response to issues contained in the letter to the attorney general of the united states. that is the information in the document for the justification and approval of a new bid contract. -- a no-bid contract. >> wanted to quickly correct the areas pointed out by the peer evaluation. we did not want to lose or put in jeopardy the authorities for criminal investigations provided to me by way of the department

of justice. we felt this entity would provide that independent look at us. we felt that would help mitigate any concerns that this contract -- congress might have as well as to reassure anyone else who might be interested in the outcome of that. evaluation. >> are they looking to see if he complied with the audit? are they not the independent body looking to see if you correct the deficiencies? >> they are looking at the audit part. investigations have yet to get underway. i have made requests that they come back in. >> the army contract command

said this was sold source. there was only one person who was available and qualified. did you reach out to any retired ig's did you ask for suggestions? >> no, we did not. ore,id you talk to mr. mor and his team, the independent auditors that will feature role in criminal investigations, did you discuss mr. schmidt with them? >> no, i did not. someone may have done so on my behalf, but i did not personally. >> your staff said they expected mr. schmidt would be entering into a subcontract with

the former director of the fbi that also worked with mr. schmidt on the team for daimler- chrysler. they said they thought he would be intimately involved in the outreach to mr. holder. >> that was not my understanding. i cannot account for what folks may have communicated to your staff or anyone else. my intent was to bring aboard an independent entity to provide oversight of the plan of action we were putting in place to move this effort along quickly to come into compliance with the department of justice regulations. >> did you expect that mr. fried and working on this contract? >> i did.

>> what was his function as it related to what you expected him to do. to reach out to general holder? >> i expected the entity to help sigar in the inspector general to correct the issues pointed out. your staff said that he would be intimately involved in an outreach to general -- mr. holder. you understand what this looks lifke. it looks like you went out and found someone that could get to louis freeh and attorney general eric holder to make sure that you did not lose your ability to exercise law-enforcement functions. it looks like to return to hire someone to help influence the

attorney general of the united states as opposed to fixing the problem and then having the same independent audit group come back and certify that you fix the problem. >> by, as the inspector general, had confidence in mr. freeh because he is a former director of the fbi. he is a former judge. as i learned along the way, mr. schmidt was associated with his firm. i had confidence in him because of his contributions already to the government. that was for mr. freeh and mr. schmidt. that was my line of thinking. it had nothing to do with any potential influence in reference to the attorney general. i wanted to correct the issues pointed out to me by the peer

evaluation. that was my only objective. >> it is my understanding that this contract was worth $100,000 to mr. schmidt. >> know, the contract was worth $95,000. no, the contract was worth $95,000. >> how many days did he work on this for $95,000? >> he was with sigar for approximately two months. >> 60 days and he got $95,000. about $45,000 a month. >> we followed the rules engaging in this contract. we utilize the contract center of excellence in washington that many other entities use.

the $95,000 was the fair market value for the specific work we intorequesting that ithis t do. >> i have to tell you the truth. you were supposed to be finding ways to save the american taxpayers' dollars. i do not think it is a good idea to say it was fair market value to pay somebody $45,000 a month to try to fix the problem in your investigations unit to the satisfaction of the attorney general. is it not true that mr. moore is going to complete the work in a few days and it is not going to cost anything in terms of determining if you now have the proper procedures in place to do law-enforcement work as a special inspector general of

afghanistan? >> i believe the decision i made that point in time was a good decision. i did not anticipate all of the scrutiny that this particular initiative has received since that decision. if i had an opportunity to do it over again, i probably would have made a different decision. >> that is good news. that is good news, general. senator brown? >> i have a couple of questions. in f-111, your slated to get $16 .2 billion. how will that money be tracked and measured? what return on investment would expect the taxpayer to get? >> we would expect that the full measure of the $16.2 billion, which is primarily designed for

the training and equipping of the security forces, we expect the full measure in terms of a return will be achieved. to that end, with asked for additional funding for sigar so that we can increase the numbers of our staff to provide coverage and oversight necessary to ensure the american taxpayer the money is completely used for the purposes for which it is made available. >> full measure, what does that mean in layman's terms? i know there is a military in there. i get it. when you say you expect to get the full measure, what does that mean exactly? >> full measure means that the $16.2 billion was requested for specific initiatives associated with the stand-up of the afghan security forces. the full measure means that

would be exclusively used for that purpose without waste, fraud, and abuse. that is what i am referring to, senator. >> how much are you going to spend on personal compensation? do you have any idea? >> personnel compensation is high. our personal compensation is commensurate with my counterparts. our staff to work in afghanistan by way of the compensation package approved by this congress receives 70% in addition to their regular pay for danger pay and vacation pay. we have to pay that. sigar is an independent agency. i must pay as we go for

everything that we receive, personnel and otherwise. the cost is very high. we're also a temporary organization. when we bring people aboard, they know that. we bring people aboard for 13 months. it is not like the standing and statutory federal agency and the inspector general's there of. we are also competing in a market where 70 other inspector general's in the city are looking for auditors and investigators. we have to compete in that regard with their compensation in order to bring aboard the level of talent that we need. i wish it were cheaper. i certainly do. >> i want you to follow the money. i just want you to find out where the money's going. i want you to zero in on the taliban issue, why and how they are getting any of our money. i want to know if there are

bribes, payoffs, and criminal activities going on where the money should not be going. if there are people doing it, i want to know what we will do to stop it. but not for you telling me, i would have overlooked the fact that you were appointed and then there was a transitional period. i get that. now you have done the women in elections and the policy stuff, i think the message from me and senator mccaskill and the folks that did the independent audit -- i commend you for reaching out and doing that. whether it was a cya situation or you really wanted to get some guidance, they have given you the guidance. we are giving you some guidance. please protect our money. find a way to bring that number up so that we can feel confident that the millions we're giving you, we're getting

millions in return. please make it a wash. i have nothing further. >> i want to clear up a couple of things. freeh never participated in the contract. >> that is correct. what assistance mr. freeh may have given mr. schmidt, of that i am not aware. >> i have not gone into any of the issues surrounding mr. schmidt and his time at the department of defense. were you aware there had been some controversies about him being the department of defense inspector general? >> i was completely unaware. >> maybe you could have done a basic google search for his name that would have revealed their questions that were asked.

he would have had a chance to ask him before you hired him. you could of been clear there were no problems associated with hiring him. >> we wanted to associate the mr. freeh organization with our group. >> you have said the reason for hiring him was to engage louis freeh. >> the reason for hiring any of these entities was to bring on the talent we needed to sigar. the issues and sigin >> you just said you were hiring him to get to louis freeh. >> why did you not that mr. schmidt -- vet mr. schmidt before hiring him.

>> i personally had no cause to do that. this was done by way of my contacting officer and the cce. i did not have any reason to doubt the integrity and so forth of mr. schmidt. but understand the issues he may have been accused of as inspector general that i found out subsequent to questions raised about hiring this particular contractor -- as i understand it, the issues that were brought up concerning mr. schmidt were not corroborated in the final analysis. >> the reason this has come up is that in preparation for this hearing, we did basic invest -- investigatory work that

sigar should have done. it is very troubling that he would not be aware of those questions before paying someone $450,000 a year to do work for the federal government. that is what i am getting out. . .

>> yes, senator, i have been.

ok. tell me what cacity you would worked with auditors prior to taking this vob. >> i worked with auditors in conjunction with my support to the iraq management and reconstruction office or ermo. this was indirect of work associated with reconstruction in support of iraq. >> in what audit agencies did you work with? >> i did not specifically work with an audit agency per se. but chief of staff of i remembero, my work covered multiple dimensions of reconstruction in iraq. >> if -- >> prior to that, i served as the inspector general for united states central command. i did that work for two years. and that work involved some

degree of oversight involving daut type work but not necessarily the professional dautors that this is characterized. >> this is something that the public is not aware of. there's a vast difference between inspector generals in the military and the federal government. correct? >> i would say that is correct. >> inspectors generals in the active military report to the commanders and are there as the eyes and ears of the commander. they have no duty to report to the public or congress or to perform an independent function in the terms of monitoring taxpayer dollars. >> those inspectors are guided by the basic intent no less of the inspector general act of 1978 by which i and other federal inspectors are regard regarded as well. >> i was shocked when i went to iraq in my first contract oversight trip and i'm sitting with inspectors general and i

didn't realize we had two varieties. in fact, i wish they weren't called the same thing. i wanted to rename the military inspector generals a different thing but they informed me they were named first. but these are not the same functions and don't do the same work. the reason i ask this question is the first thing you do if you had an daut agency is the figure out where the risk is and do a risk assessment and tier analysis as to what tier is the top tier where the highest risk is. then you go down and do your audit plan, determining how much resources you have and how you can get to the most risk. at what point in time was a risk assessment completed at cigar? >> i will go back, senator, to what i said earlier. we conducted a risk assessment which was published in our 2008

report to congress. that risk assessment was made up of several elements. it may not look like a risk assessment as the senator might -- >> it's not a yellow book risk assessment. >> it would not be a yellow book assessment per se. but it would certainly contain the elements relevant to any risk assessment when it comes to oversight of money. >> did the auditors working for you at that time tell you that was sufficient in terms of a yellow book risk assessment? >> i had no daughters at that time because -- auditors because we completed that before i was privileged to hire my first auditor. >> so you were saying you performed what you consider a professional risk assessment of a major responsibility in terms of audit function without any auditors?

>> i performed that assessment, senator, with intelligence folks. and i feel that this is not -- i don't feel that this is necessarily rocket science in order to determine what needs to be done, senator. >> well, you know, i've got to tell you the truth. once again, i do not mean to be cruel. i do not mean to. this is not fun for me, either. it's very uncomfortable to say that i don't think that you're the right person for this job, general fields. but i don't think you are the right person for this job. please -- no. that's very inappropriate. please leave the room. . >> please. please. please. >> thank you. >> the risk assessment the reason that you had the finding

from peer review was because you fell short of the professional standards that are demanded in the world of auditting. and i'm not saying the people that worked for you weren't innocent. i'm not saying you are not intelligent. i'm not saying you are not a hero, sir. i'm saying this is too important a government function to not have the very highest level of experience qualifications and expertise leading this kind of audit agency. and i have no other questions for you. we will keep this record open. if there's anything that i have said in this hearing that you believe is unfair, if there's any information that you want to bring to our attention, we will keep the record of the hearing open. and i can assure you, i will look at owl of it with the eye d -- all of it with the eye of an auditor and make sure the final record is fair and balanced. and we are happy to include anything else that you would like to include. i thank you very much for all

of your service to america. >> madam chair, if i may. thank you. i want to thank you for your service as well. and i appreciate your forthright answers. thank you. >> thank you, senators. >> and we will now take the third panel. >> on "newsmakers," south

carolina representative james clyburn, current house majority whip. congressman clyburn talks about his new position, maintaining his number three spot in the leadership. >> it would have been very simple as everybody says, everybody just step back one step. you've been chair, so go back to being chair, steny has been whip, he'll go back to being whip. and pelosi will go back to being leader. and i said that was not attractive to me. i thought that things we learned out there could be put to great use in our leadership discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. because i do believe that we are in a different political environment and we have a caucus that's a little bit different from the republican conference.

we've got 42 african americans, we've got latinos, ten asian pacific islanders. we have new dems who are protrade. we have blue dogs who are not all that much for trade. all of this diversity i thought i had learned a lot about and i really could bring discussions to that table and could take them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would limit me if i were chair of the caucus. >> "newsmakers" with south carolina representative james clyburn sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

we're going to take you live to president obama in just a few moments when he arrives to speak with reporters. he is wrapping up with leaders of the summit. while we wait, here are phone calleds from earlier today on wornlwornl washington journal. t expedited approval process voting against the bill were 11 democrats and 143 republicans. aid is set to expire november 30 for some and with congress out of session next week lawmakers will have little time to find agreement before then. this is like -- this bill is like deja vu all over and not in a good way said one representative a louisiana republican. he goes on to say we all want to help those in need but the american people also know someone has to pay when government spends money and it

shouldn't be our children and grandchildren. extension of unemployment insurance or reducing the defic deficit. chambersburgers pennsylvania on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, sir. one question, can you answer me does it say in the story how republicans can block something? in the house simple majority. senate has procedures but i would like you to explain that later how republicans are blocking it. my main comment is when is huh-uh? you pay people not to work they are not going to work. many places, 99 weeks, almost two years, you can't find a job? i'm sorry to find heartless but if yo you can't find something 99 weeks you are not looking. host: nt up, hollywood, florida, democrats. go ahead. caller: yes.

we have been a country that helped others for years and we need to really think about his familyn t holiday if he was one of those who didn't have a job d everything. but, to tell you the truth, like president obama, how he started working for everybody, well, in the years to come they are going to be glad that he was one of the ones to really came out for the working class people. thank you. host: if you wanted to extend unemployment insurance how would you go about paying for it? caller: well, just like obama said. you go down the line. you find out what works and what doesn't work. but you can't out every social program that has been set aside for the working class people. if the working class people are the backbone of the untry, besides the rich folks who have the money to trickle down their

percentage to us like, you know, like we have to really sit here and beg for it. host: but to keep from extending t the, or increasing the deficit where would you cut the budget? give me a specific program you would be willing to cut to extend unemployment insurance. caller: start with the wealthy and go after the ones who took their money and a put it into those offshore accounts, really go after them an everything. and -- and everything. and find a way to block this situation where they are taking jobs and sending them overseas. host: derrick out of richmond on the independent line. caller: good morning.

i think it is wrong that what they are doing is cutting the unemployment insurance for -- hello. host: go ahead, derrick. you are on. caller: as long as they cut the unemployment insurance for the poor people, at the same time they are going to extend the tax cut for the financially elite. there have been so many times in the past two years where every time the administration does somethi something, that the republics automatically say know n. is heartless, especially at christmas time to cut the benefits of people who are unemploy unemployed through no fault of their own. they can find the money to increase the deficit to give the financially elite their money, yet they can't find the money for the poor peoe and middle class families? i think that this has to become a class warfare thing and they

are distracting things like sarah appeal tweets and people who will are iing second amendm rights but they won help the poor and middle class families. thank you. host: scott in annandale, virginia, on the line of republicans. extend unemployment insurance or reduce the deficit? caller: do both. that is at the republicans are trying to do. we should be extending the the unemployment benefits. but i think that it is important th on a tough call like this that the house republicans and spat republicans -- senate republicans take a tough stand. i really don't even think it is a party issue. i think both parties should be taking the same stance that we need to begin rein being in the deficit -- reining in the deficit and the only way is on the tough calls. there are a lot of important priorities and unemployment benefits is a priority. but you have to decide what things to cut as you do that.

host: tell me what things should away cut it from the budget to pay for unemployment insurance? caller: i think it is good to ask each individual caller. but every american is not a budget expert on every. what weo know is that i think we need a balanced budget amendment and force the members of congress who work on all of these programs to make those tough choices. host: i'm not asking you to be a budget expert, but you have to balance the budget in your household, right? > caller: absolutely. host: tell me where you would cut the budget to pay for unemployment insurance. caller: me personally, everyone would have a different type of program. i personally would cut farm subsidies. i think there are a lot of programs that we don't need to continue to be spending on. although i am a republican but a fairly independent thinking

republican, i would be willing to even look at some of the tax cuts for the wealthy. there are a lot of things i would be willing to look at. but more importantly i would really look at a lot of government programs. i think that we have for too long just continued government programs without forcing them to be reined in. host: more from the article representative chris van hollen said ending unemployment assistance will not only be devastating for those and families but will hurt the economy as a whole by undermaking consumer confidence and demand. about 8,400 americans will see their unemployment checks cut off by the end of the first welcome of december. by the end of the third week of december 1.36 million americans will be affected if congress doesn't act. back to the phones, newport

news, virginia, ron, on the line for independen. caller: good morning. what you just read in the article is right. we can do some cuts and our defense budget is of mammoth proportions because they want to give tax breaks to the top 100%, that is $700 billion. where do we get the money to pay for that? i'm trying to figure out what the republics mean when they keep saying the american people, it is not like you individually heard from every american in the country and they are trying to sway people's way of thinking. people have paid into the unemployment system via working but that is 15, 20, 30 years. so 99 weeks of unemployment doesn't exceed how long you paid into the system. so i they cared about the middle class they would extend that. they would find ways. again, cut on the defense budget. do away with the earmarks.

make sure, show the american people that you are trying to do something for them. host: more regarding our topic this morning. extension of unemployment insurance or reducing the deficit. this from the atlanta journal constitution georgians suffer if benefits expire. they talked about congress failed to extend unemployment benefits which moves christa anderson one step closer to sleeping on her sister's couch in smyrna. my shouse fixing to go into foreclosure. i'm in arears on oall of my bils who fretted thursday her benefits expired. legislators left friday without extending benefits for an estimated 2 million americans who depend on the ches toeep the lights on and food in the tpreupbl including anderson who lives in buckhead. you can read more about that in the atlanta journal constitution. elk hart, indiana.

caller: good morning. i believe that they should extend the enefits. i was watching c-span the other day and i noticed the republican from louisiana said why don't they use money left over on the stimulus to help pay for the unemployment extension. and i d't see what the big deal is with the democrats not wanting to do that. we are going into the holidays and i don't think there is no need at this time for democrats and republicans to be butting heads. if there is money left over on the stimulus why not use it to get the bill passed and let everybody have a happy holiday. host: asheville, north carolina, republicans line, brian. caller: good morning. i would like everybody to understand that nancy pelosi brought that bill to the floor under a rule that wouldn't allow any amendment and it would

require two-thirds of a majority to pass. and she knew the republicans would not vote for that bill because it wasn't paid for. and s knew the bill would fail. this was just a political tactic on her part to makehe republicans look bad. if she wanted the bill passed all she had to do is bring it to the floor under regular procedures and t democrats had a majority and could have passed it with 218 votes jus like they have been doing with everything else the past two years. they could have taken the money out of the stimulus, out of the tarp program where we have profits rolling in. what they say, i'm sure if they lacked under the couch and share cushions in the congress and senate they could have found loose change to pay for it. host: next up is winter haven,

florida on the line for independents. mark. go ahead. caller: the previous caller summed everything up in one of my pots. i believe if they wanted to pass that bill theyould have robbed or extorted or did whatever they had to get the votes. and another -- and i have been on unemployment a couple of times and i may have to be on it again next month. but i think it is good because then finally maybe there will be pressure to bring jobs bac to this country and getting illegal aliens outf the workforce. host: how long were you on unemployment last time? caller: actually, i was on it twice. i was on it for four months once and six months the previous time before that. but ever since then i haven't worked but maybe 20 to 25 hours a week and my wages have been cut $7 an hour. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: construction industry,

masonry and it has been overrun with illegals and i can't compete. i have to pay bills. i have a modest set of bills. i don't live beyond my means. i don't want the whole pie. i just want my little piece. host: more from the "atlanta journal-constitution." the extension debate, what next. they write on november 29 congress returns from the thanksgiving recessnd november 30 president obama holds a bipartisan summit with democrats and republican leaders of congress that could produce a compromise on this and other issues. also on this date the last jobless benefits extension expires and on january 1, if no compromise is reached two million people nationwide including 84,000 plus in georgia could see their checks cut off. zena, ohio on the line for democrats. cynthia. caller: hi.

the place we could cut is the defense budget and to do away with those tax cuts for the top 1% of the country. most don't see the faces that are people that work in public service every day in financial institutio when you have numbers come in and they are talking about their finances. just yesterday i had a lady in my office that talked to me about she had a job as a professor at a college, lost it, making over $60,000 a year, got a new job making $35,000. she said i can't make it. so, most people don't understand because they don't see the faces. host: the "los angeles times" blogs failureo pass unemployment insurance extension could cost billions reports say. letting the nation's unemployment benefits expire could drain billions from the economy and cost millions of jobs.

according to two reports it week on thursday house republicans voted to deny an unemployment benefits extension unhappy with the method planned to fund it. ending federal extsions would drain the economy of $80 billion of purchasing power according to a report by the joint economic committee. every dollar spent on benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.60 the report says. we will get back to more of that but naples florida on the line for republicans, tom. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i agree with a few of thether callers. the democrats still run the show by huge margins. they could pass anything they wanted to. all they need to do is bring it up under regular order. i don't think that the republican position is all that controversial. just pay for it.

extend them. pay for it. you could extend them for 10 years. get rid of the e.p.a. host: tom, what do you think the strategy was by the speaker in bringing up the vote the way she did as opposed to a simple majority? caller: headlines. talking points and headlines. host: in your opinion it is better in the mind of the speaker to make the republicans look bad than to extend unemployment benefits for people that are losing them? caller: absolutely. they could have tkodone the extension of the rates. they are going to raise people's taxe in less than a month, the 1st of january. they could have done something on that for two years now. for four yrs the democrats have held the house and senate. this is just parlor games. it is baloney. caller: more from the "los angeles times" business section. workers receiving unemployment insurance payments are typically cash trapped and will spend the

benefits quickly. there is a report from the joint economic committee. they spend about $6.5 billion a month on the local economy to buy essentials such as food, clothing and utilities. the report goes on to say a failure to extend the unemployment insurance progr could hamper the fragile recovery. it predict as it consumer spending will fall by $50 billion the next year if benefits are not extended. and that economic growth will be reduced by just about half a percentage point by february of 2011. smiley, texas, james on the line for indendents. caller: good morning. in 1959, i was a 14-year-old boy and went to school one day. during the day my father was involved in a horrible tractor accide

accident, and back in thos days ere was no food stamps, no section 8 hoing, no welfare, no unemployment. and the next day, there was a family of seven including myself, i had to go to wo. i got a job in a chicken house with a shovel and wheelbarrow carting manure out from underneath the chicken cages. and my family survived. we made it. we didn't eat like millionaires. but i was only 14. and i was more of a man then than a lot of so-called men today. and now i'm an old man, i'm 65 years old. i have never had welfare. i have ner had unemployment even though i was eligible for it. and i would go out now in my old age and flip hamburgers before i would take something from the

governme government. it is not the raoeight that the people stay 99 weeks on unemployment. i can get a job today, in 24 hours. host: we will leave it there. in t "wall street journal" miami discovery delays house ethics trial. the house ethics committee said friday it was delaying the november 29 public trial of representative maxine waters to review new materials discovered that may have had an effect on its investigation of the california democrat. the article goes on to say mrs. waters, who has maintained her innocence, said in a statement that the document does not provide any new significant information and criticized investigators for delaying her ethics trial, which she has welcomed as a chance to clear her name. we are going to take a short break and talk to you a little bit about news makers this week. house democratic whip james clyburn is our guest.

was elected wednesday to be assistant minority leader in the next congress. the interview, which you can see on sunday he talks about his new job of assistant minority leader and how that came about. >> it would have been very simple. as everybody says, everybody just step back one step. you have been chair so go back to being chair, steny. you have been whip,ou go back to being whip and pelosi will go back to being ader. and i said that was not attractive to me. i felt that things that i learned out there could be put to great use in our lair discussions if we were to bring another chair to the table. because i do believe we e in a different political environment and we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican conference. weave 42 african-americans, 21 or 22 latinos that make up the

hispanic caucus, asian, blue dogs that are not much support trade and all of this diversity i thought i learned about and could bring discussions to that table and could take them away from the table into o constituency in a way that would limit me if i were chair of a caus. host: you can see the complete interview with representative james clyburn of south carolina, the new assistant minority leader in the house of representatives. that can be seen on sunday "news makers" 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and online and as an app for your >> phone. back to our conversation regarding extension of unemployment insurance or the reduction of the deficit in the "wall street journal" they have

this article with the headline "states raise payroll taxes to replay loans, demands on depleted unemployment insurance led to borrowing of nearly 4 (100) 000-00$41 billion from the federal government. they are borrowing heavily to keep benefits and most states are raising payroll taxes to pay off the loans. 31 states, their unemployment insurance funds empty, have borrowed nearly $41 billion from the federal government. california alone has borrowed nearly $8.8 billion as of mid november according to the labor department. a ca a caller from michigan on the line for democrats. caller: tuscola. host: i extend a heartfelt apology to all the residents there. tell me whatou think of the

unemployment insurance or deficit reduction. caller: i appreciate the heartfelt apology. all 14 here appreciate it. we have to extend the unemployment benefits. that is just the human thing to do. are you going to starve two million people? if we had job growth then the argument with the republicans would work that you should go out and find a job. we do not have job growth. the deficit is something we owe ourselves. that is a nice figure and somethg to toss around and makes good headlines but it is something we owe ourselves. we can run a deficit all we want for a while. we have to get job growth is what we need. one way to look at this, there are a lot of things that money is spent on that i don't like. i could cut programs, too. but i also know we are all in this together and i look at it when i drive down the road, the last i heard it cost $1 million

a mile to put in a road. i want to know how many miles of road people have paid for with their taxes. we have to do it together, folks. host: randy in tuscola on the line for democrats. next is jeff out of brandywine, maryland. caller: thank you. as far as the deficit goes, i would have to sta extending, instead of somebody joining the military at 18 and getting a retirement check at 38 you will have to extend the military stay for more than 20 years. i think that just starting this would cut the deficit quite a bit. host: did you serve in the military? caller: yes, navy. u.s.s. kitty hawk. host: how long? caller: i was two bysix. went it two to see if i liked it and there were a lot of lifers, guys that just wanted to hang out to get a retirement check

and i'm hey years old and been paying taxes all my life and i don't know of a war we have actually won since i have been alive. something has to change with the military. host: more from the "wall street journal" article talking about states raising payroll taxes to repay loans for their depleted unemployment insurance. they write that the unemployment compensation system initiated during the great depression was designed so most states build reserves when jobs are plentiful and few workers are receiving benefits and draw tell down in bad times but few states were prepared for a recession as deep and lasting as the recent one with unemployment remaining at a historically high 9.6% a year aftethe economy resumed growing. back to the ones, sand kwry run shall south carolina, on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning.

our government has caused this problem. the government has caused the entire financial mess by instituting regulations that created a housing bubble and let people borrow way beyond their means. at what point is huh-uh? i don't believe the economy will return the next two or three years? will we extend unemployment benefits the next two or three years? we are creating another bubble by giving people money to put in the economy. the economy is going to fail and going to fail miserably. as much as i hate to be so pessimistic about it, what ross perot said you will hear a big sucking sound and that is the manufacturing base going overseas. the giant sucking sound has

subsided and most of the manufacturing base has gone overseas. and our government, our congress, our leaders, demoats, republicans, independents, have soldhis country out and shipped all of this stuff overseas. host: what about the item in the "los angeles times" article with the report from the joint economic committee that said that every dollar spent on benefits increases the gross domestic product by $1.60 and by cutting off unemployment insurance or allowing it to run out, they are taking upwards of -- consumer spend log fall by $50 billion the next year? caller: you are not talking about regular consumer spending. yoare talking about money that the government is using through the consumer to keep the economy alive. it is not real consumer spending. it is their money going through my hands to buy food or pay for the light bill or whatever.

host: how else would you define consumer spending? caller: i know that. but it is not look somebody going out and having a real job and creating real products or services and putting it on the street. there is a difference. i don't know how to define it any more than that. it is really the government's money passing through somebody's happened. host: philadelia, pennsylvania, deb on the line for democrats. >> caller: hello. good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i believe that unemployment benefits are being extended with no other choice. there are no jobs. have you ever noticed that the working class, middle class, whatever you want to label them, are fighting amongst themselves while the rich are just getting

richer and they call and want to complain about giving unemployment benefits, yet they claim everyone should get tax cuts. so, 400, 700, whatever the billion is, to feed the wealthy is fine for the country and let people just starve. i don't understand it. we are fighting against each other while the country is about to go overboard. you say jobs. but the republicans spped jobs bills. you know they won't fund anything that will help working class people. host: in the "baltimore sun" this morning nato plans missile defenses russia offered a chance to join the european system. from lisbon leaders of 28 nat n nations committed to a system to protect the u.s. and europe from attack and offered russia a chance to collaborate.

leaders who expect russia to react positively hope it will lead to cooperation in areas where they could benefit from moscow's help including the war in afghanistan, nuclear nonproliferation and their standoff with iran over its nuclear program. a different look on how that story is being covered comes from the front page of the financial times weekend edition. nato in defense offer to russia. u.s. and nato allies will invite russia to help create a missile defense shield in a move designed to solidify the transform of relations between moscow and the west. medvedev will be asked to participate in the missile shield project at the nato summit in lisbon whe he attends today. the project aims to protect the accountants involved representing more than one billion people from missile attacks from other states. the invitation to russia is certain to be made today after

nato leaders last night reached agreement among themselves that the alliance would press ahead with its own plans to build the missile defense system. back to the phones, franklin, georgia, on the line for republics. randy is on the "washington journal." caller: yes, i'm for extending the unemployment insurance. i have been work withing at the same job 29 years and i am thankful that i'm able to pay taxes. and i'm thinking anybody that need help should g help. there are probably a lot of people milking the system but it is going to be hard to weed them out but there are people that need the help. we had a shop teacher had high school who said you have a fence and on one side you have a bunch of people that is hungry and on the other side of the fence you have a bunch of people with a

lot of food and if those people on the side that is hungry going to start jumping over the fence. and if everybody goes out an looks, you look at how much money they are spending and how big a priso they are building a lot of people are jumping that fence. host: "new york times" looking to in connection year republicans stymie democrats' efforts on top measures, talng a little bit about the situation regarding extending unemployment insurance and vote taken earlier in the house. they write in the hse republicans united to defeat an initial attempt to extend unemployment pay for the long-termen employed. in the national republicans used procedural tactics to force the democrats to consume much of the week inching head on an otherwise popular measure to improve the food safety system canceling a post-election meeting at the white house with

mr. obama a move democrats viewed as a slight. it says what democrats see as obstreperous many republicans view as fulfilling the wishes of voters which is to limit their business during the lame duck session and leave the work to the 112th congress. back to the phones, los angeles, california, vic on the line for ends. go ahead, vic. caller: thankou for the opportunity to talk to you although i wasoing to work. first, i agree with the republicans and some of the independents in reference to the bill. you must say it like it is. let's not go down that road. the truth is the truth. she didn't do it that way. that is the start off. furthermore, as far as this part of your program i think it is worthless. the rest of it is great. have a nice day. host: los angeles, california, next on the line for democrats.

lindsey, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points. i think we need to look at unions and the unemployment nefits we are paying to people who work for unions because at the collect hundreds of millions of dollars from the employees, from the government, from taxpayers and spend it on political campaigns when they could pay their own unemployment benefits. i'mn california and we are collecting $40 million a day from oth states, from your taxes and everybody's taxes to pay our unemployment benefits and, quite honestly, i have friends out here who are unemployed who refuse to take two part-time jobs or a part time job because the unemployment benefits pay tell more. they are living in the same home. i realize everyone is not in that situation. but we really need, instead of throwing monday out there -- and i n't remember how many

billions you said we are spending on unemployment benefits. but for god's sake can't we give people business or maybe some of them could do a start-up business instead of taking a handout. i'm really afraid of the attitude that we are adopting with this constant handout from the government. i want a pony but who will pay for it. host: do you think it would be more incentive for people to get jo if the amount of the up employment insurance payments we smaller? caller: i think that obviously it has to be a case-by-case basis. i don't want any kids starving but many pool that get unemployment are gettinged if stamps and housing vouchers. they are going out christm shopping. i am self-employed and my business is down to zero almost and i don't have -- i don't qualify for any government

handouts. host: we will leave it there. florida, gordon sends us this twitter message saying that the previous caller was wrong about nancy pelosi. she reached across the aisle to allow a number of democrats to make amendments. this is a twitter message from florida. gordon. the next call is from oklahoma city, oklahoma. kathy for republicans. caller: yes, i agree with the democrat that just called. what a good day. i was going to say an extension of just three months will cost us billions of dollars and if th have not found a job in two years, why are they going to find one in the next three months? i don't make $300 a week. and we are getting tired of going to work five days a week, giving up our time to pay somebody more than we make to get to stay at home? i want to stay home. some of the ways they could cut it is in the earned income

cred credit. people get and will conclude in 2014. it is important for the american people to remember that afghanistan is not just an american battle. we are joined by a nato-led coalition made up of 48 nations with over 40,000 troops from allied and partnered countries and we honor the service and sacrifice of every single one. with the additional resource that is we have put in place, we are now achieving our objective of breaking the taliban's momentum and -- . and assisting the afghan people. and i want to thank those who provided additional mentors and trainers. with these commitments i am confident that we can meet our

objective. here we agreed that early 2011 will mark the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility and we adopted the goal of afghan forces taking the lead for security across the country by the end of 2014. this is a goal that president karzi has put forward. i have made it clear that even as americans transition and troop reductions will begin in july, we will also forge a long-term partnership with the afghan people. and, today, nato has done the same. so this leaves no doubt that as afghans stand up and take the lead, they will not be standing alone. as we look ahead to a new phase in afghanistan, we also reached agreement in a second area. a new strategic concept for nato that recognizes the capabilities and partners that the alliance needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. i want to give special thanks to secretary general rasmussen

for his outstanding leadership in forging a vision that preserves the enduring strength of the alliance while adapting it to meet the missions of the future. as i said yesterday, we have reaffirmed the central premise of nato. our article 5 commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all. and to ensure this commitment has meaning, we agreed to take action in a third area, to modernize our conventional forces and develop the full range of military capabilities that we need to defend our nations. we will invest in technologies so that allied forces can deploy and operate together more effectively. we will deploy new defenses against threats such as cyber attacks and we will reform alliance command structures to make them more flexible and more efficient. we will defend against the

growing threat from bliffles. the new approach from -- ballistic misles. the new phase will be the united states contribution to this effort and a frownedation for greater collaboration. after years of talk about how to meet this objective we now have a clear plan to protect all of our allies in europe as well as the united states. when it comes to nuclear weapons, our strategic concept reflects both today's realities as well as our future aspirations. the alliance will work to create the conditions so that we can reduce nuclear weapons and pursue the vision of a world without them. at the same time, we have made it very clear that, so long as these weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance and the united states will maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter adversaries and gaunt the defense of -- guarantee the

defense of all our allies. finally, we agree to keep forging the defense beyond nato we will continue to enhance nato's cooperation with the eu which i will talk about in my summit later this afternoon with eu leaders after a two-year break we are also resuming cooperation between nato and russia. i was very pleased that my friend and partner, president med vedev joined us today at the nato-russia council summit. together, we have worked hard to reset the relations between the united states and russia, which has led to concrete benefit for both our nations. now, we are also resetting the nato-russia relationship. we see russia as a partner, not an adversary, and we agreed to deepen our cooperation in several critical areas. on afghanistan, counter narcotics, and a range of 21st century security challenges.

and perhaps, most significantly, we agreed to cooperate on missile defense which terms a source of past tension into a source of potential cooperation against a shared threat. so, overall, this has been an extremely productive two days. we came to lisbon with a clear task, and that waso revitalize our alliance to meet the challenges of our time. that's what we've done here. of course, it's work that cannot end here. so i am pleased to announce that the united states will host the next nato summit in 2012. a summit that will allow us to build on the commitments that we made here today as we transition to full afghan lead, build new capabilities and expand our partnerships and ensure that the most successful alliance in history will continue to advance our history and prosperity well into the future. and i said to the prime minister that considering he has thrown such a successful

summit here in lisbon, i've been taking notes. you set a very high bar of outstanding hospitality and so i appreciate everything that the people of portugal have done and we will try to reciprocate that hospitality when we host in 2012. so, with that, let me take some questions and i am going to start with margaret warner of pbs. >> thank you, mr. president. what message do you hope this summit sends to senator john kyle and other republicans in the senate who are resisting voting on and ratifying start in the lame duck session? >> well, a couple of messages that i just want to send to the american people. number one, i think that americans should be proud that

an alliance that began 60 years ago through the extraordinary seakfices in part of americans, young men and women, sustained throughout a cold war has resulted in a europe that's more unified than it's ever been before, that is an extraordinarily strong ally of the united states, and that continues to be a cornerstone of prosperity not just for the united states and europe but for the world. this is a direct result of america's efforts and american sacrifice. and i think the world appreciates it. the second message i want to send is that after a period in which relations between the united states and europe were severely strained, that strain no longer exists.

there are occasions where there may be disagreements on certain tactical issues, but in terms of a broad vision of how we achieve transatlantic security, that alliance has never been stronger, and that's something that americans should feel good about. number three, that i think the americans should know that american leadership remains absolutely critical to a cheaving some of these important security objectives, and i think our european partners would be the first to acknowledge that. what we ratified here today is the direct result of work that we have done over the last two years to get to this point. and just to take the example of afghanistan, i think that if you said even a year ago or even maybe six months ago that

we would have a unified approach on the part of our allies to move forward in afghanistan with a sustained commitment where we actually increased the resources available and closed the training gap in order to be successful, i think a lot of skeptics would have said that's not going to happen. that has happened in part because we have rebuilt those strong bonds of trust between the united states and our allies. the fourth thing, and this finally goes to your specific question, unprompted i have received overwhelming support from our allies here that start, the new start treaty is a critical component to u.s. and european security. and they have urged both privately and publicly that this gets done. and i think you have seen the

comments of a wide range of european partners on this issue, including those who live right next russia. who used to live behind the iron curtain, who have the most cause for concern. with respect to russian intentions, and who have uniformly said that they will feel safer and more secure if this treaty gets ratified in part because right now we have no verification mechanism on the ground with respect to russian arsenals, and ronald reagan said, trust but verify. we can't verify right now. in part, because of the consequence of the reset between the united states and russia, we have received enormous help from the russians

in instituting sanctions on iran that are tougher than anything we've seen before. we have transit agreements with russia that allows us to supply our troops. there are a whole range of security interests in which we are cooperating with russia and it would be a profound mistake for us to slip back into mistrust as a consequence of our failure to ratify. and the third reason is that with the cold war over it is in everybody's interest to work on reducing our nuclear arsenals, which are hugely expensive and contain the possibilities of great damage, if not in terms of direct nuclear war, than in terms of issues of nuclear proliferation. so we've got our european allies saying this is important, we've got the u.s.

military saying this is important, we've got the national security advisers and the secretaries of defense and generals from the reagan administration, the bush plrks administration, bush one and bush two, as well as from the clinton administration and my administration saying this is important to our national security. .

this is a classic area where we have to rise above partisanship. no one will score points in the 2012 election around this issue. this is something we should be doing to keep america safe. my expectation is that my republican friends in the senate will ultimately conclude that this makes us safer. karen. there is a microphone coming. >> thank you. i wonder if you could talk to us a bit about your conversation with president hamid karzai. he has made some complaints recently, part of a long line of

complaints. did you raise them with you, did you directly address them? have you received the call to step back from your military footprint? >> i want to put your contact -- your question in the context of what has taken place this week. hamid karzai is the head of the government of a sovereign nation that has gone through 30 years of war. understandably, he is eager to reassert full sovereignty, including control of security operations within his country. at the same time, the united states and all of our allies have every interest in wanting to turn over security responsibility to afghan forces

as soon as is practical. so, in that sense, our interests aligned. the 2014 date that was stated in the document coming out of this summit and that was widely agreed to did not simply come from us. it was not an arbitrary date. it was a day that president karzai identified as an appropriate target for when afghans could take full responsibility. now, between now and 2014, our constant effort is going to be to train up afghan security forces so that they can take more and more responsibility. that is what transition is all about. during that time, president karzai, in his eagerness to accelerate that transition, is going to be interested in

reducing our footprint, finding ways that afghans can take more responsibility, and those are things the we welcome. we want them to be as assertive as possible in moving toward afghan responsibility. but in that transition, there are also going to be a whole series o judgment calls and adjustments that are necessary to make that effective. so, for example, president karzai raised concerns about private security contracts and what he perceived as heavy handedness on the part of these contractors in afghanistan. i think that concern is perfectly appropriate. on the other hand, what i have told him in the past, and i repeated in our meeting today, is i cannot send u.s. aid

workers or civilians into areas where i cannot guarantee their safety. so, theoretically, it would be nice if i could just send them. they could help build a road or a school, or engage an irrigation project without a full battalion around them. but i have to address this practically, so we have to balance the desire to reduce our footprint with the need to get certain objectives done. i continue to have ongoing conversations with president karzai. we have a video conference at least once every six weeks or so. secretary clinton and secretary gates are in constant communication with him. the generals are in constant communication with him. what i have communicated to him are two things. one, we have to make sure we

understand what our objectives are, that the end point we want to reach is the same. and number two, we have to have good enough communications with each other that when issues come up the raised sensitivities about afghan sovereignty that may alienate afghan populations, that we should be sensitive to them and listen to him. at the same time, he has got to be sensitive to our concerns about the security of our personnel, about making sure that taxpayer dollars from the united states or other partners are not being wasted in corruption, the sacrifices that are being made by our military to clear out areas are reinforced by good governance practices on the part of the afghans and so that we are not just clearing an area but unable to hold it because people have

no confidence in, for example, the administration of justice in that area to afghan government structures. that is going to be a constant conversation. that is not going to go away immediately, but what we are trying to do is make sure that our goals are aligned and then work through these problems in a systematic way. i will say that for all of the noise that has existed in the the press, in the last year we have made progress. i expect that we are going to make more progress next year. it will not be without occasional controversy is an occasional differences. "wall street journal." adam. >> to follow up on the last question, mr. karzai is the president of the country. if he makes a request, why is

that not good enough and why would there not be a change of course? we are getting close to december. do you think the surge strategy thinkking, candidand do you at this point that you will be able to make a substantial troop reduction by july? >> let me take your second question first. when i go through a rigorous and painful -- when i went through a rigorous and painful review process last december, our goal was to make sure that we had blunted the taliban by ramping up our troop presence. it was not because we wanted to have a long-term presence in afghanistan. we wanted to immediately blunt the presence we were seeing from the taliban. we wanted to create a space-bar

training effect of afghan security forces. on the both of those -- we wanted to create a space for training effective afghan security forces. on both of those fronts, we have met or exceeded our targets. our assessments are that the performance of afghan security forces has improved significantly. so, thanks to the hard work of people like general petraeus and others, and obviously the incredible sacrifices of the troops on the ground, we are in a better place now than we were a year ago. as a consequence, i am a confident that we are going to be able to execute our

transition starting in july of next year. general petraeus is in the process now of mapping out where are those areas that we feel there is enough security that we can begin sending out our troops in those areas. where do we need reinforcement, so that we can continually consolidate the security gains and then pack them with the civilian improvement that will be needed. so we have made progress. the key is to make sure that we do not stand still, but that we keep accelerating the progress, that we build on it. the contributions of our coalition forces are around trainers is particularly

important. when countries like canada, which was originally going to pull out at the end of next year, say they're willing to supplement the training forces, a very difficult political decision, when countries like italy are willing to come in, that is a testament to the confidence they have in general petraeus's plan and the fact that we are more unified and clear about how we are going to achieve the ultimate end state in afghanistan. now, to go to the point about president karzai, you're absolutely correct. afghanistan is a sovereign nation. president karzai believes that it is very important for us to help him with security and government issues over not just the next couple of years but over the long term.

that partnership is obviously a two way street. my message to president karzai is, we have to be sensitive to his concerns and the concerns of the afghan people. we cannot simply tell them what is good for them. we have to listen and learn and be mindful of the fact that afghans ultimately make decisions about how they want to structure their governance, how they want to structure their justice system, how they want to approach economic development. on the other hand, if we are putting in big resources, if we are pouring in of billions of dollars, if the expectation is that troops are going to be there to help secure the countryside and ensure the president karzai it can continue to build and develop his country, then he has to also pay

attention to our concerns as well. i do not think that is unreasonable. i do not think he thinks that is unreasonable. but there is going to have to be constant conversation to make sure that we are moving in the right direction, and sometimes the conversation is very blunt. there are going to be strong disagreements. sometimes there are real tensions. for example, the issue of civilian casualties is an entirely legitimate issue on the part of president karzai. he is the president of the country filled with foreigners who, in in the heat of battle, despite everything we do to prevent it, may it occasionally caused civilian casualties. that is cause for being upset. i understand that. but he has to understand that i have a bunch of young men and women from small towns and big cities all across america who

are in a foreign country being shot at and having to traverse it to rain filled with itt's -- traverse terrain filled with ied's. if we are sitting ducks for the taliban, that is not acceptable. so we have to go back and forth on all of these issues. chuck todd. >> it sounds like you believe that the opposition to the start treaty byatt senator kyl is purely political. do you think if you do not get it ratified, that will undermine your credibility on the world stage? second, it would you like to comment on the dust up over tsa

pat downs? >> i believe that senator kyl once a safe and secure america, just like i do. he is well-motivated. what i said in terms of partisanship is that the climate in washington is one where it is hard to get party is to cooperate, especially after a big election. that is understandable. people are reorganizing. there is a lame duck session. it has been a long year. we have done a lot of stuff. people are thinking about thanksgiving and then christmas. i am sure that the republican caucus in the senate is really focused on next year. we are going to have a republican house and whether the done ande want to get unpi

what are our priorities. senator kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see it start ratified. he said that he does not think there is time to get it done during the lame duck. what i have been trying to communicate is that this is an issue of critical national security interest that has been fully vestetted. it has ben extensively debated. it has received strong bipartisan support coming out of the foreign relations committee. it has received strong backing from our u.s. military. it has received strong backing from republican predecessors in

the national security office and the secretary of defense's office, secretary of state, so in that context, i want to emphasize to everybody that this is important and that there is a time element to this. we do not have any mechanism to verify what is going on right now on the ground in russia. six months from now that is a six month gap in which we do not have good information. let me say it this way. especially if you miss trust russian intentions, you should want to get this done right away. i happen to think president mitt medvedev wants to get this done

in the right way. an agreement like this is good for both countries. there is another element to this. we have instituted iran sanctions. these are the strongest sanctions we have ever implemented, but we have to maintain the same pressure as iran makes a calculation about whether it should return to negotiations on its nuclear program. this is the wrong time for us to be sending a message that there are divisions bween these two countries, that there is uncertainty. my whole point here is that there are going to be a lot of issues to debate between democrats and republicans over the next two years. this should not be one of them. with respect to the tsa, let me

first of all make a confession. i do not go through security checks to get on planes these days. so i have not personally experienced some of the procedures that have been put in place by tsa. i will also say that in the aftermath of the christmas day bombing, our tsa personnel are, properly, under enormous pressure to make sure that we do not have someone slipping on a plane with some sort of explosive device on their person. it sends the explosive device that was on the christmas day bomber was not detected by ordinary metal detectors, the tsa has tried to adjust to make sure that passengers on planes are safe. that is a tough situation.

one of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus are around us -- apparatus around us because as a huge inconvenience for all of us. i understand people's frustration. -- that causes a huge inconvenience for all of us. i understand people's frustration. i have told tsa that they should choose methods that they are sure are the only way of ensuring people's safety. at this point, tsa, in conversation with our counter- terrorism experts, has indicated to me that the procedures they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they considered to be effective

against the kind of threat that we saw in the christmas day bombing. every week by meet with my counter-terrorism team, and i am comfortable asking them if what we're doing is absolutely necessary. have we thought it through? are there other ways to accomplish the same objectives? bill. >> thank you. nato's commitment to afghanistan extends to 2014. what about the u.s.? it is possible, given the circumstances, that there may be a need for a boost in combat action after 2014. would you keep u.s. troops committed in a combat role if necessary? >> your last point was if

necessary. let me start there. my first and most important job as the president of the united states is to keep the american people save. i will always do what is necessary to keep the american people safe. that is true today. that will be true as long as i am president of the united states. maybe that will be the case in 2014. what nato has committed to is that we are going to undergo a transition between 2011 and 2014, and the united states is part of nato's so we are completely aligned and what we are going to be doing. our role is for afghans to have taken the lead in 2014. in the same way that we have transitioned in iraq, we will

have successfully transition so we are providing a training and support function. there may still be extensive cooperation with the afghan armed services to consolidate the security environment in that area. but our every intention is that afghans are in the league. we are partnering with them the way we partner with countries all around the world to make sure that both our country and their country is safe. the other thing that i am pretty confident we will still be doing after 2014 is maintaining counter-terrorism capabilities. until we have confidence that al-qaeda is no longer operative and no longer a threat to the american homeland and to american allies, all around the world. it is going to be important for

us to continue to have a platform to be able to execute those counter-terrorism operations. that is true in iraq as well. obviously, that will be more true when it comes to al-qaeda. we do not one, after having made these extraordinary efforts, we do not want to have to suddenly find ourselves in a situation where they waited us out and the re-consolidated. but michael -- my goal is to make sure that by 2014 afghan is in the league. it is a goal to make sure that we are not engaged in combat operations. certainly, our footprint will have been significantly reduced. beyond that, it is hard to anticipate exactly what is going to be necessary to keep the people save as of 2014.

i will make that determination when i get there. platt last question -- last question. >> good afternoon, mr. president. thank you very much for answering my question. in what way is the recovery of the american economy going to boost the european economy? secondly, this is your first trip to portugal. what is your take on lisbon? >> one of the things the we learned over the last several years as we have dealt with this worldwide economic crisis is that every economy is interlinked. we cannot separate what happens

in the united states from what happens in portugal, korea, south africa or brazil. we are all interconnected now in a global economy. obviously, as the world's largest economy, what happens in the united states will have a profound effect on europe. the same is true, by the way, in the reverse. our general assessment is that the trajectory of u.s. growth was moving at a stronger pace right before the issues of sovereign debt in greece came up in the spring of this year. when that happened, not only did that cause a significant step in our stock market, but a lot of companies contracted in terms of their investment plans because they were uncertain.

they can understand that what happens in europe can end up affecting what happens in the united states. the most important thing that i can do for europe is the same thing that i need to do for the united states, and that is promote growth and increase employment in the united states. we have now grown for five consecutive quarters. we have seen private sector job growth for 10 consecutive months, but the pace is too slow. my main task when i go back to the states, and over the coming year, is to work with republicans and democrats to move that growth process forward. to make sure that we are growing fa in thwe are putting people back to work. it is a difficult task. when you happen -- when you have

a financial crisis, the recession that follows is more severe and long-lasting than a normal business crisis would be. we are, i think, digging out of a whole of debt and the leveraging -- de-leveraging, and a severe fall in our housing market, and all of those things make growth take a while. i want to take more steps to encourage business investment, to help small businesses hire. we think that infrastructure development in the united states has the potential of boosting our growth rate to a significant level. we are going to have to do all of this, though, at the same time as we reduce a significant

debt. it would be nice if we did not have the inheritance of a big deficit and big depth and we -- big debt, and we could simply pump up the economy, but what we have to do now is speed up the recovery but focus on reducing our debt in the medium and long term. but i think every european should have a great interest in making sure that the united states is growing faster. one thing we talked about the g- all ofthe fact gthat for us to grow faster, we need to rebalance the world economy. before the crisis, you had a situation where the world of's economic engine was u.s. consumers taking out huge debt using credit cards and home equity loans to finance a lot of

imports from other countries. other countries or developing huge surpluses. there was a lot of money washing around the world financial system looking for investments with huge returns. what we will continue to push for is that countries with big surpluses will have to figure out how they can expand demand. countries with significant deficits have to save more and focus not just on consumption but also on production and on exports. the currency issue plays into this and there is going to be an ongoing debate about making countries surplused are not artificially valuing their currency. in terms of portugal, everybody has done magnificent. i in think the weather was

better today than it was yesterday. everyone assures me that list and is supposed to be beautiful this time of year. yesterday was a little sad. but i was in doric anyway -- i was indoors anyway. the people of portugal have been unbelievably kind and generous to us. i want to thank the prime minister again and the entire government for the excellent work that they have done. i hope that we are going to be able to return the favor next year. thank you very much. [applause] >> now, one of the other closing date and news conferences. you just heard from president obama. nato leaders signed an agreement to begin withdrawing troops from

afghanistan early next year. we will hear more about that agreement from afghan president karzai and the secretaries general of nato and the un. >> let me explain the choreography. first, we will begin with the signature of the president of afghanistan and then we will proceed with our press conference.

[applause] >> opening statements by the secretary general, the president and the un secretary general. >> first of all, let me begin by

welcoming president karzai and ban ki-moon to this summit meeting on afghanistan. over the last two years, there have been many international meetings on afghanistan. all of them have been important and valuable, but this one is different because here in lisbon we have launched a process by which to the afghan people will once again become masters in their own house. starting early next year, afghan forces will begin taking the lead in security operations. this will begin in certain districts and provinces, and based on conditions, will gradually expand through the country. the aim is for afghan forces to be in the lead by the end of

2014. to achieve that goal, we must train and educate afghan soldiers and afghan police. therefore our training mission is crucial. in that respect, it is encouraging that we have the announcement that several allies and partners will provide more training. it is indeed a strong commitment to our mission, and a strong commitment to the transition process. trainers are the ticket to transition. this is truly a new phase in afghanistan's modern development. 10 years ago, afghanistan was torn apart by civil war and a brutal regime, and hosting the most dangerous international terrorists in the world.

today, despite all difficulties, al-qaeda has no safe haven anywhere in afghanistan. the taliban is under pressure everywhere, and the afghan people are steadily getting free year, healthier, better educated, and better governed. that is what will make afghanistan resistant to terrorism tomorrow. also, the afghan security forces that we are training to take over. one thing must be very clear. nato is in this for the long term. we will not transition until our afghan partners are ready. we will stay after the transition in a supporting role. president karzai and i have signed an agreement on a long- term partnership between nato and afghanistan that will endure

beyond all combat missions. to put it simply. if the taliban or anyone else aims to erase us out, they can forget it. we will stay as long as it takes to finish the job. but of course, we cannot succeed alone. the military is necessary, but we need a truly comprehensive approach. that is why i am very pleased that secretary general ban ki- moon is here. under his leadership, the united nations has been a true partner for nato. indeed, afghanistan has brought the united nations and nato closer together than ever in our history. we will have much more to do together to help afghanistan by the peace, security and the

development its people deserve. mr. president, i give you the floor. >> thank you very much, secretary general rasmussen, for your kind summit on afghanistan and nato. and thank you, general ban ki- moon, for your always gracious reception. we had a very important summit this morning of nato and afghanistan in which i, on behalf of the afghan people, thank the members of nato for the contributions they have been making on behalf of afghanistan for the past nine years and for the assistance they have provided with their

taxpayers' money. i thank them for all of that and complement them on the progress of achievement we have made in afghanistan for the past many years. i thank them for providing the men and women of nato to the country of afghanistan and for the help they have provided to education, health and the well- being of the afghan people. they have made a great difference to the lives of the afghan people. i also informed them of the concerns of the afghan people with regard to civilian casualties, with regard to nato's posture. we also had a discussion on afghanistan was a plan to

transition to equality, gradually, by 2014, which was happily agreed to by our nato allies. today's meeting demonstrated a keen awareness of afghanistan and of the realities in our country. we also spoke about the peace process. i am glad to report to you now that on all of the agenda is the word -- agendas that were common between us i found voices of concord and agreement between the world leaders. thank you, mr. secretary general, for a very ably conducting that meeting and for

putting it together to benefit the afghan people for a better future for a more secure future, for its future in which afghanistan will be a contributor toward security and economy, rather than one that will be a burden on the world community. thank you for planning today the enduring partnership with us, look dover and approved by the secretary-general of the united nations -- looked over and approved by the secretary- general of the united nations. >> thank you, secretary rasmussen of nato and secretary -- and president karzai of afghanistan. thank you for your leadership in organizing this important meeting on afghanistan.

we have just had a successful meeting, culminating in the induction of this partnership agreement. this is an important step forward for progress on the ground in afghanistan. the united nations will continue to work for the people of afghanistan with other partners. we all share the same goal, stability, and good governance, respect for human rights and harmonious relationships between afghanistan and neighbors. there have been obvious difficulties in recent months, but we remain united in defining a clear path for a transition

perio. afghans can take on increasing leadership and responsibility. the united states will do its part to support the civilian aspect of this transition. we also recognize that there can be no purely military solution. afghanistan's stability and well-being depends on a dialogue amongst all of our friends in other countries. the search for a political solution has already entered a resolution stage. the united nations will support the process. as we move ahead, we must be guided by realities not by schedule. we must remember that afghanistan has been at war for several decades. the united nations has been working with the afghanistan

throughout this time. there are no shortcuts to a peace. the united nations is committed to supporting afghanistan over a long term. thank you to nato for their commitment. i pay tribute to all of the soldiers to have given their lives in this effort. the objective, afghanistan at least, remains necessary and just. -- afghanistan at peace, remains necessary and just. i look forward to our future cooperation. thank you very much. >> german press agency.

a question for all three gentlemen. given the very serious challenges you still face on security, institution building and reconstruction, how confident are you that the 2014 deadline can be achieved? >> i am a confident that we can meet the 2014 deadline primarily because we see rapid growth in the capacity and quality of the afghan security forces. we started our training missions last year. already now, we have more than 260,000 afghan soldiers and afghan police. the number is growing, and by the end of next year we have set a goal to have 300,000 afghan soldiers and afghan police. a 85% of the afghan soldiers are pardoning -- partnering with the

international troops. they do a great job. this is why i am confident that we can fulfil this goal. let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to afghan security forces who do such a good job in such an excellent manner. >> we are confident that the transition will succeed to afghan authority, a leadership and governance because i found today a commitment from the international community. this strong commitment will be matched by determination and hard work by the people of afghanistan. the two combined will give us the result of an effective, irreversible, and sustainable

transition. >> i believe that the transition is not about an end date. it is about when afghanistan can take the leadership role, can take more ownership to guarantee stability and peace. this will be a gradual process. it will require patience and strong commitment and support from the international community. we have strong leadership coming from world leaders. the international community will have to support an afghanistan

government in line with international priorities. the united nations will assist the afghan government to build capacity for the security side of the transition. we have been engaged in afghanistan for six decades, and the united nations will continue to be engaged with president karzai and his government. >> my first question is for mr. rasmussen. what is your comment regarding the pakistan a government interfering in afghanistan is an

international affairs. my second question is for president karzai. [speaking arabic] >> can you say it in english? >> first of all, let me stress that the long-term partnership agreement we have signed today is not only a clear signal to the afghan people that we will stay committed beyond the day when our combat mission ends, it is also an indication that we will not leave behind a security vacuum that could create instability in the region.

i see this in parallel with a federal aid strengthened partnership with pakistan as well. >> [speaking arabic]

>> president karzai, just recently you criticized nato tactics in conducting night rates and other actions. have you resolved this issue with your partners here in lisbon? >> we are engaging in a very

friendly and substantial discussion on issues that are of relevance to afghanistan and our joint mission. i was happy to see that there was discussion of afghan demands on the issue of concern to afghan people. i found an environment in which afghanistans difficulties and afghanistan's conditions, the reality on the ground, in other words, was substantially understood and agreed upon by our partners. i hope that as we move forward, these difficulties will go away and that our movement to the future will be one without the

difficulties that we are encountering. generally, i found the environment today one of satisfaction and of confidence for the partnerships that will bring us success in our endeavors. >> canadian press over year. president karzai, as you know, canada is a great drawing its combat troops next year. it will remain -- canada is withdrawing its combat troops next year. it will remain in a non-combat role. i wonder whayou think of that? [speaking french] >> could you reply to that question in french please? >> canada has been at the forefront of the effort from the

beginning. we're grateful to the canadian people. canada's decision to continue to assist afghanistan after they have ended their military mission is welcome. i am sure, as it was announced today by prime minister harper, that canada will continue to assist afghanistan with the training of afghan forces, and with the construction of afghanistan. we are grateful for that. >> [speaking french] >> allow me to express my appreciation for the canadian decision to provide trainers for

our training mission in afghanistan. this training mission is indeed crucial for the transition process. that canada's decision will serve as a standing example for our allies and partners. >> president karzai, the secretary-general said that all people from afghanistan should be part of the process. i would like to know, how is the current situation on the toxic taliban groups or people from the taliban? >> well, so we had a meeting in july of this year.

discuss the formation of a high council for peace alongside other recommendations. we of moved ahead on those recommendations. the i council for peace is there no with their membership and its leadership. the afghan desire for peace is strong and unanimous in afghanistan. i am happy to report due today the we also recognize -- report to you today that we also recognize the need for unity and backing by the international community. >> german television, on this side. you have mentioned, secretary

general, that in october of next year there might be 300,000 afghan security forces that contribute to the security situation. can you describe what has changed that you are so positive that nato can handover the responsibility in 2014? what are the positive results at the moment that you can mention that led to this decision now? second question, you have military offenses in the south at the moment. will all of the military offenses be completed in 2014? >> as i mentioned, i base my optimism on the fact that we have seen very encouraging development of the capacity within the afghan security

forces. actually, we are ahead of schedule in the buildup of the afghan security forces. also, as regards to quality, we see strong improvements. this is the first thing. secondly, we have sent in more international troops, and we also see the positive impact already now. we see more fighting, actually, in the self of afghanistan -- south of afghanistan. we are attacking taliban stronghold, and we are making progress. we will see more of that in the coming months and years. this is the reason why i am optimistic about the killing this timetable -- about fulfilling this timetable, to start the transition in 2014.

having said that, i agree with the general and that this process must be conditioned- based and not calendar-driven. we have to be sure that we do not leave afghanistan prematurely. we have to make sure that the security forces can take responsibility before we leave. but based upon the fact that i have described, i think this is a realistic timetable. accordance with that, i do not see troops in combat roles beyond 2014, provided of course that the security situation allows us to move into a more supportive role. >> the strategy seems to be to

fight and to try to begin talks at the same time. you are the afghan commander in chief. you have made it clear you do not want to see so much fighting. if you do not like this strategy, what are you going to do about it? >> you are pulling my legs. we outlined today during the plan to transitioned into 2014, whereby afghanistan will be responsible for itself in the capacity necessary for that, whereby our nato allies will be committing themselves to training and equipping and providing the necessary tools for that arrangement to happen and take place on time.

why we are moving in that direction, we are keenly aware of the need for dialogue, of the need for talking, for whatever reason they have taken guns for. this was referred to in particular and understood it generally and by the meeting itself. as i stand before you today, we are moving in the direction of transitioning to afghan leadership and ownership. we are moving in the direction of conducting peace talks with afghan leadership and endorsed by the international community. >> i thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow on "washington journal, the look at the upcoming lame duck session of congress after the thanksgiving break.

also, a retired general, former nato supreme allied commander in europe talks about president obama's a trip to portugal for the 2010 nato summit. after that, new to gingrich on the incoming republican-led congress. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> who joined authors in this weekend -- joined authors this weekend as book tv heads to the annual book fair international trade and joined in with your calls, e-mail, and tweets. >> the senate armed services committee took up nominations for air force general claude kehler and army general carter ham. you will hear both general's answer questions on issues ranging from the don't ask,

don't tell policy and the start missile treaty. this is a little over two hours. >> good morning, everybody. we give both of you a warm welcome and we also have a warm welcome for two new colleagues who i believe are with us this morning. senator koontz is with us this morning. roland burris is still with us.

each of you have long and distinguished careers in the united states military and it is a pleasure to have both of you with us today. as we all know, without the strong and continuing support of your families, your military careers would not be possible, so we think each member of your families for the sacrifices they have made and will continue to make when you assume the commands for which you have been nominated. general claude kehler, you are well suited for the united states strategic command. you have spent your entire career in space and with nuclear assignments, including 2.5 years as the deputy commander of the strategic command. strategic command is a challenging command with a global reach and a large number of challenging missionaries

including the following -- ensuring the united states has access to freedom of action in space and in cyberspace, maintaing a reliable nuclear deterrent, and being prepared to respond if deterrence fail. providing support to the u.s. joint force commanders. synchronizing global missile defense plants and operations. coordinating efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction. planning come into britain, and according reconnaissance -- planning, organizing, and guiding the implementation of the new start treaty when it is ratified. on the subject of the new start treaty, there have been multiple hearings and briefings on the new treaty. hundreds of questions for the record have been answered.

>> it has now been a year since the united states has gone without a treaty and thus no ability to implement the new inspection and verification regimes of the new start treaty. we will be asking the general for his views on that new treaty. much of the technical superiority of u.s. forces is reliant on the space systems. while the systems provide advantages, they also present the potential for significant vulnerability. strategic command helps to ensure that the global access to these important systems is maintained and sustained. one of the newest and most challenging areas and responsibility for strategic command is in the area of the cyber operations and is directed engaging in offensive cyber operations and corporate

strategic command must also plan and be prepared if called upon to assist other government agencies with the defense of their networks. there are many issues which remain unresolved in this area which you will be involved, the general, and we look forward to your views on these issues including the questions of authority, responsibility, and the rules of engagement. in general carter ham -- general carter ham, you have had a distinguished career. you will be the third commander of u.s. africa command. but as well as play a supporting role in advancing u.s. policy objectives on the continent of africa. general ham, the challenges

facing u.s. africa command are challenging. a conflict between state and non state actors, fragile governments that lacks the capacity to project their presence beyond the bounds of their capitals, illicit arms struggling routes, nations where peacekeeping or peace enforcing forces are the best and sometimes the only hope for security and stability, so we look forward to hearing your views on these and other matters. at present, one of the most pressing concerns is the evolving threat posed by certain al-qaeda elements in somalia, including the state of desire of these elements to attack the united states. there is a number of other areas in somalia, including the

referendum in the sudan, the threat posed by an al-qaeda in the area, ongoing atrocities being conducted by the lord's resistance army, and potential areas for expanded military relations for a number of key countries in africa. one area where you will be working together is in combating the regional spread of nascent -- of weapons of mass destruction. with the support of this committee, the cooperative threat reduction program now has the authority to make a more global approach in combating weapons of mass destruction, including identifying issues and actions in africa. strategic command responsibility for coordinating both regional and global approach is to combat in weapons of mass destruction and the program's new authorities should resolve in a

more comprehensive, coordinated approach to dealing with these challenges it. senator mccain? >> thank you and let me thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us this morning and their service to our nation. i would also like to join the chairman and welcoming our two new members. we look forward to working with you. i say to the witnesses -- the strategic command is responsible for ensuring freedom of access to space and cyberspace and the coordinating missile defense plans and operations at it. missile threat from rope nation's is increasing, but equally worrisome is china's growing air and conventional missile capabilities.

according to the u.s.-china economic security review commission, 2010 report to congress, it concludes china has the ability to strike five out of six u.s. airport bases in east asia. the report highlights china's cyber warfare capabilities. the service provider redirected traffic for at least 18 minutes, briefly hijacking what the commission report refers to as "a large volume of internet traffic, including data from the u.s. military." and large-scale cyber attack against google in china was also reported. it was an incident that google described as a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on its corporate infrastructure, originating from china, that resulted in the theft of international --

intellectual property. i predict he will be spending a great deal of time on this whole issue of the cyber warfare. we do not know a whole lot about it. we have not understood what some of our adversaries are doing, and it opens up obviously a whole new type of warfare that we are going to have to be much better prepared for that we are today. he will serve a critical role in countering these threats and advocating for our own missile capabilities. one of these responsibilities which the senate has considered, it's references and legally binding limitations on ballistic missile defense, and the modernization of both the nuclear weapons complex and the triad of nuclear vehicle delivery. i look forward to hearing your views on these issues.

general carter ham, i believe your nomination comes at a critical time. with respect to possible growing threats to our homeland. in the past, i have been critical of u.s. military involvement. i am unclear of what the administration's short and long term plan is to achieve stability on the horn, but the threat from the region has changed significantly in the past few years it. after, was born in the shadow -- given the commands integrated

into agency command structure, it remains unique among equals and is why it must be prepared in resources to protect americans, american interests, and american security throughout its area of responsibility. as we all might remember in 1998, al-qaeda launched attacks on u.s. embassies killing 12 americans it. al-qaeda and related groups subsequent attacks in east africa, including an american suicide bomber in somalia in october 2008 in the summer in the new gondola, an insurgent group with ties to al-qaeda conducted its first successful attack outside somali territory, killing 76 people, including one american. while it is focused on its neighbors, the then director of national intelligence testified.

"we judge that al-qaeda members will be focused on regional objectives in the near term. east africa leaders may elect to redirect to the homeland some of the westerners, including north americans now training and finding some malia." on august 5, more than a dozen somali americans were arrested. attorney general eric holder announced 14 people are being charged with providing financial support. i trust u.s. africa command will provide security, cooperation, and building partners in this capacity. however, it is imperative that it evolved and required the capabilities to identify, deter,

and counter all relative threats to our nation's security. i look forward to our witnesses testimony. >> thank you very much. >> there is a series of standard questions we ask all of our nominees that i will now ask, and you will each give us your responses together. " you get here to the laws and regulations governing interest? will you agree to give your personal views even if they differ from the administration? have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions that would appear to -- >> i have not. >> will you ensure that your staff comply with deadlines for requested communications including questions for the record?

>> i will. >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisals from their testimony? >> they will. >> do you agree to testify before this committee? >> i do. >> to you agreed to provide copies of electronic communication in a timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or consult with the committee regarding the basis of any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> i do. >> we are now going to turn to your opening remarks. please feel free to introduce anyone with you today. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i would like to introduce my wife who is here. this is the first time she has attended a hearing in the

senate. this is an exciting time for our family. our two sons could not be with us here today. the phenomenal things that military spouses do for our armed forces, my wife certainly represents that and i am proud of the things she does. she has set aside her accounting profession to be part of a team to take care of our troops and their families. i am especially proud because she and others have been doing a lot of work in support of our wounded warriors. >> we thank her for that, for all the things that she does it pretty we could use some of your accounting talent at the pentagon. [laughter] you are very welcome indeed. >> senator mccain, distinguished

members, chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today. it is my honor to appear as the nominee to the u.s. strategic command it. i think the president and secretary of defense for nominating me for this important duty and i also think the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for expressing his confidence in my ability to serve as a combatant commanders in. if confirmed, i look forward to working with you to address the strategic challenges that face our nation. they are complex, unremitting, and compelling, and u.s. strategic command plays a key role in each. a previous nuclear threats continue as new ones are emerging. new and complex transitional linkages provide opportunities for terrorism and other security concerns. space is no longer the sole purview of the two superpowers, and it is certainly not the sanctuary. cyber threats present security

problems we are only beginning to understand and organizing for this challenge is still in its beginning stages. international security relationships need to be forged with rapidly growing new regional powers. all these developments will require more intensive and extensive cooperation across many elements of our government and the governments of our friends and allies. our ability to shape events to our interest will depend as always on the skill and dedication of the great men and women who serve our nation. leading strategic command is an awesome responsibility. i pledge to you that the strategic challenges facing our nation will command all of the energy and commitment that i can muster. i am very fortunate that i have been the beneficiary of assignments, mentoring, and operational experiences and command opportunities that all line with strategic command mission set, and i believe have prepared me for this challenge. and if confirmed, i will be

fortunate in deeply humbled in following the pathways laid by some of our truly great national leaders. i want to mention the most recent one. his leadership has been deeply important in the past critical years for shaping our national posture, and we are grateful to he and his wife. we certainly wish them the best as they proceed into a retired life. and, of course, as always if confirmed, i look forward to working with and caring for the world's best soldiers, civilians, and their families. mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members, it is a privilege to be with you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. >> my family is not here but i hope they are watching by webcast. my wife is a lifelong educator.

our daughter jennifer was born in italy and she and her husband, a silver star and purple heart recipient for actions in afghanistan now. the day or parents to our first grandchild. our son jonathan graduated from the university of georgia, and he and his wife live and work in northern virginia. they are expecting a baby girl this spring. i am proud of all of them and i drop my strength from them. mr. chairman, senator mccain, when i enlisted in the army as a private in 1973, never in my wildest imagination could i before you toaring be considered as a combatant commanders. the day secretary gates told me

he intended to recommend me to the president a was struck by two contradictory feelings. first, i was exhilarate for the possibility of observing the command which i believe is of great importance and great opportunity. secondly, i felt a tremendous sense of humility, and honor from being asked to continue to serve alongside the men and women of our armed forces as they and their families on selfishly serve our nation. i also recognize that if confirmed, i have big shoes to fill. i have been an admirer for a long time and i am proud to be their friends. we own the general and his wife our deepest thanks of appreciation. africa is important to u.s. interests. piracy, illicit trafficking,

humanitarian crises, armed conflicts, and more general challenges such as the affect of hiv aids. u.s. africa command is the military compound and has a role in addressing each of these issues. africa's future is up to africans. if confirmed, i look forward to building upon the efforts to continue to expanding the unique composition of the headquarters and to enhance the partnerships with african nations. i a knowledge that if confirmed, i have a lot to learn about africa and u.s. africa command. i pledge to you the same pledge i gave to secretary gates. i will do my best eaten every day to uphold the trust and confidence you place in the to accomplish the important missions of the command and to the very best of my ability to provide for the well-being of the soldiers, sailors, airmen,

marines, civilians and families in trusted to my care. if confirmed, i look forward to working closely with this committee to ensure it is correctly focused on accomplishing its role in support of u.s. policy objectives in africa. thank you, mr. chairman. >> think to some much. -- thank you so much. let's try a first round of the seven minutes. we have a good turn out here today. general, the committee has a provision in our 2011 defense authorization bill, requiring the secretary of defense to report to congress by march 1, 2011, on cyber warfare policy. the committee it conducted an extensive examination of the proposal to establish u.s. cyber command as a sub-unified command under u.s. strategic command.

our examination revealed there is worry some gaps in the policy and guidelines needed to govern u.s. military operations in cyberspace. senior officials testified to this fact and in sure the committee that the secretary of defense understands the situation while and intends to have answers to many if not all of the major policy questions by the end of this calendar year. these are just a few of the unresolved issues. first, rules of engagement and authority for various command at salons, including cyber command itself. second, how to eliminate escalation. third, what constitutes the rule of force in cyberspace. fourth, what deters these attacks.

what is the status of the secretaries cyber policy review, and it is the department on track to fulfil the year and commitment to complete the review that was given to the committee during the confirmation process for general alexander? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me say i recognize that in the whole area of cyberspace, i have much to learn it. if i am confirmed, this is one of the areas which will command a great deal of my time and energy early on. my perspective today as a service component to strategic command we have been working to align our activities under the new construction of strategic command, u.s. cyber command, and the service components that fit that. there is much for me to learn if i am confirmed, and i would be delighted to dig into this

further. you have defined the issues a very well in my mind it. this is about responsibility, oversight, a doctrine, all of the pieces that need to be put in place to drive forward where we need to be postured in cyberspace. that work is underway. i think you and your committee is aware, deciding and memorandum all lining roles and responsibilities and other steps that will be taken to partner together. those are all positive steps but there is much more to do. there is -- the work on the reports that you are referring to is continuing. i was told that the expectation is that they will be delivering that on-time. >> thank you. last year, the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs with support from the combatant

commanders unanimously recommended the so-called phase adaptive approach to missile defense in europe. the president approved the recommendation. this year, the administration produced the review reports that set forth u.s. strategy, policy, and plans for missile defense. do you support the administration's missile defense policies? >> yes, sir, i do support those policies, and i do support the phase adaptive approach. >> many have testified that the new start treaty does not limit or constrain our missile defense plants or programs. do you agree? >> that is my understanding as

well. >> yes, i do. >> do you agree -- uh, let me ask you a couple of questions about the new start treaty specifically. does the new start treaty limit our non-nuclear long-range weapons? >> mr. chairman, the new start treaty to my understanding does not limit, but it does however under certain circumstances cause them to be counted under the new limits of the start treaty critics does it constrain the deployment of missile defense capabilities? >> my opinion is that it does not. there is one relationship in the treaty, to put a final point on it about not being able to deploy a missile defense interceptors in existing ballistic missile silos except for the five that we have

already done so. however, it is not in our current plans as i understand them to do that. >> is the administration committed to replacing and modernizing our industrial infrastructure? >> my understanding is that. they are i have not seen the 12 budget and cannot comment on the 12 budgets. >> thank you. co-chairman of the department working force group passed by the secretary of defense to conduct a review of the issues associated with implementing a repeal of the law that is commonly referred to a don't ask, don't tell. your report is due no later than the first of december, i believe it.

when we met yesterday, you in for me you are not authorized to discuss the content of the draft report before that time. this committee will hold a hearing on the report shortly after the secretary provides it to congress, and we are urging that be done prior to december 1 if possible. you will be available at that time to discuss the contents of the report. the question is on the timing issue. and i will not ask your views about substance. do you anticipate the working group's report will be ready to be presented to the secretary of defense before december 1? >> mr. chairman, i think it will take us out until the first of december. the key factor remaining for us in the review group is to receive the review and comment by the service chiefs and service secretaries, which is ongoing.

we anticipate their comments soon. mr. johnson and i will review those comments and make final adjustments to the report which is currently in draft form, and then deliver it to secretary gates on december 1. >> when you make every effort to deliver a prior to december 1 if possible? >> yes, in consultation with the secretary's office in. >> thank you. >> since the issue has been brought up, a survey went out to 400,000 military personnel. what percent responded? >> we received a little over 115,000 responses. >> a 25%? >> about 28%, sir. >> excuse me, 28%. isn't it true that the service

said the dod is considering changes to the don't ask, don't tell policy that would allow a gay service members to serve in the military without risk of separation because of their sexual orientation? is that true? >> yes, it is. >> "the services -- they will maintain their high service of conduct." is that also true? >> yes, it is. >> what do you understand the relationship between al-qaeda senior leadership and al shaba? >> i know from open source reporting, but they have claimed there is a relationship -- >> what is your view of the relationship? >> they are stating they have a relationship. it's certainly conveys to me that that is the type of

operation they want to engage in. i am not privy to the detailed information and intelligence that would verify or refute that allegation, but they are certainly a dangerous and destructive organization. >> i am sorry you could not answer the question. men what is the threat from the group given recent are rest of the u.s. citizens apparently planning to travel to somalia to join them? >> my understanding is that while primarily focused on internal matters in somalia, the recent activities outside of the country conveyed to me a very disturbing interest in more widespread terrorist activities. if confirmed, it would be a very

high priority for me to better understand how we might counter that threat. >> it is evidence that americans are joining al shabab, right? >> it is my understanding that that is true. >> notwithstanding russia's threat to withdraw from the treaty, are you committed to advocating for the funding, development, and deployment of all elements of the adaptive approach for missile defense in europe as well as implementing the strategy as portrayed in the missile defense review? >> yes, sir, i am. >> do you believe the russian statement that the treaty is effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the united states of america?

you know that statement was a part of the signing statement, right? have the russians made any public statement refuting that signing statement? >> i do not know if they have or not. to my knowledge, they have not. >> given your involvement, you might know if they did pretty >> i will tell you that at this point in my currency, and may not have seen everything. i have not seen anything. >> does it concern you that they would make a signing statement at the time that the agreement was signed? it basically said that if there was any change in the quantitative or qualitative buildup in capabilities of the

united states of america that the treaty would not be a viable in their words? >> all i can answer is it that our position has been that those two are not related. >> but the russians have made no statement that it is unrelated. it is just our position, right? >> said yes. >> north korea's weaponry is showing characteristics similar to iran's most advanced missile. are you concerned that apparently of the two countries, iran and north korea, are collaborating to produce improvements in both arsenals? >> i am most definitely concerned. >> we have seen the published reports.

apparently, they are working in coordination together to improve both arsenals. it is that your view as well? >> the proliferation of weapons technology especially in those areas is especially disturbing. the number one threat we are facing these days in my view is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the regional actors that pose a threat. >> do you agree with the assessment that with sufficient foreign assistance, "iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the united states by 2015?" >> i was not aware it was 2015. i do agree with the assessment on that. >> it seems to me that it is

deeply concerned that both countries have areas of expertise on both nuclear capability as well as missile technology. transfers between the two countries is deeply concerned. >> i agree with that. >> are you concerned about mr. bachman denied jobs new relationship with venezuela -- -- are you concerned about mr. ahmadinejad's new relationship with venezuela? >> this is one of those areas where if confirmed i will have to push into to get a better feel for those specific points. working with the regional combatant commanders to address these kinds of threats that might go outside the regional

boundaries. >> thank you, general. i just want to repeat again. this whole cyber war issue is one that we have been working with senator lieberman and homeland security committee and other intelligence committees. it covers a number of jurisdictions here in the congress. i would argue that is the greatest threat which we have the least knowledge and expertise than just about any threat we would face. do you view that as an overstatement? >> i do think it is a significant area of concern. this is one of those areas that demands the same sense of urgency that has been put on this issue in the last year or so, and my pledge is to dig right into this and be as

helpful as i can. >> thank you. >> as a senator mccain points out, it is our relationship of our committees with parts of that issue is extremely important and our working together with senator lieberman and his ranking member, senator collins, and the intelligence committee is if not as important but just the way interagency working together is very significant and very important as senator mccain point out. >> let me pick up from your comments about how real the threat of cyber attack is and how much i think members of congress and the general public are aware of it. yesterday, we held a hearing on the so-called stuck worm that

was discovered. the experts said to us yesterday they do not know where this originated. we don't know what its target was. but we know is out there and it has the capacity -- it is now affected 60,000 different computer systems in the world including some in the u.s. and it has the capacity essentially on command to disrupt the digital systems, the computer systems that control for instance electric power plants. when you think about the havoc that could be on least in a country like ours, it is profoundly unsettling. i appreciate the very significant step forward in the memorandum of understanding between the department of defense and the department of homeland security.

dod has responsibility for the defense websites and our offensive capacity and defensive capacity. the department of common security for civilian infrastructure and non-defense web sites, but dot and the nsa have extraordinary capabilities that they can now inform what dhs does. i was very proud yesterday that all of the witnesses agreed that it was a group at the department of homeland security that actually had a comprehensive capability to unravel the puzzle if you will. we need your help and i appreciate your commitment and i look forward to working with you on both committees. thank you both for your service to our country.

you are both extraordinarily prepared for this next assignment. and when to ask a quick question about the working group on a don't ask, don't tell. i appreciate that you have told us this morning that the report will definitely be out by december 1 and a possible earlier working with the secretary if you complete the work. i wanted to ask you just for informational purposes, not about the content, but about the table of contents. that is just one part of what you are going to do. in summary, i wanted to know what else you may cover in the report. >> in those terms of reference, we were given two tasks. the first was to assess the

impacts upon the effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention should repeal occurred. the second part of our charge was understanding those impacts , develop a plan for implementation so that if the law is repealed and the policy changes, the department is prepared for that. the directive to assess the impacts contained a specific issue -- statement from secretary gates to conduct an engagement of the force to include families. we did this in a number of ways. the survey was one. we also had a survey for family members. in addition to those who statistically sound an

analytically rigorous assessments, we conducted engagements all across the force in groups both large and small to get a sense of what were the topics of interest of the force and to their families. we conducted small demographically-focus groups. a group of nine to 12 the junior enlisted marines from the combat arms and other similarly organized groups. we established an online in box, an opportunity for members of the military and their families to provide anonymously their comments to us with regard to their thoughts about don't ask, don't tell. the most difficult challenge we had probably was how did we get the sense from those who are gay men and lesbians who are serving in the force today without

triggering the requirements of the law that would require them to separate, so we established a confidential communication mechanism through a third-party entity to try to get a better assessment. all in all, we believe this to be as far as i can tell the most comprehensive assessment of the personnel policy matter that the department of defense has conducted. >> thanks for that, and i agree it is very comprehensive and it should consider congress and the defense department. a want to ask one question about u.s. africa command. you are highlighting to two priorities in africa and it reminds us of the war against

islam terrorism is a world war. this enemy is appearing all over the world. i reviewed these two terrorist groups in africa and the country in which they are located as tests to whether we can essentially stop them or contain them before they spread and become something life afghanistan. i noted in your response to advance questions that you said this africa command faces significant resource and challenges in almost every field. i hope upon your confirmation that you will conduct a top to bottom assessment of your commands requirements for funding and other resources and convey them directly both of the chain of command and when you appeared before the committee to

this committee. can we count on you to do that? >> yes. >> thank you. that is all of the questions i have this morning. >> let me get the unpleasantries out of the way. as i read this -- there are many things about the start treaty that i do not like. a major concern was brought up by senator mccain. when i read something like this, a unilateral statement -- they talk about extraordinary events would cause them to release themselves. referred to in the article 14 of the treaty also includes a buildup in the missile defense system such that it would give rise to a threat of nuclear weapons. that was further simplified i think by the russians when they said the treaty can operate and

be viable only if the united states of america refrain from developing its capabilities quantitatively and qualitatively. what is ambiguous about that? >> sir, i am not exactly sure what you just asked me. >> i read that and it says they will bail out. >> it does not sound like the russians position is ambiguous, but as i understand it, our position is not that one. our position is that these are not related. the regional threat drives our missile defense planning. the balance between russia is driven by -- >> we are going to have to be enhancing our missile defenses. i know a lot of us are concerned about the underground base

capabilities out of poland. it was joist -- it was just pointed out by senator mccain that iran would have this capability by 2015. that is not even classified. it is a position that everyone agrees with. do you think in the absence of that capability that we are not in more danger by the removal of that system in poland? >> as i understand it, i don't think we are in danger provided that we go ahead with the adaptive approach. >> hmm. i enjoyed hour-long visit we had. i can only tell you that the soldiers in the field, the ones that you talk to, they feel their input was not heard during

this inquiry. it was the impression at least what i hear from them in the field that they are saying all right we are going to adopt this position. how do we best implement this thing? we are going to be talking about this at some length in the future. i am interested in what you will be doing in some of the problems in africa. a. general handled this thing during the transition, and then general ward has come a long and has done an incredible job with inadequate resources at least from my impression. we have had a lot of little problems in africa that people do not know about it. they are familiar with what is happening in zimbabwe and in somalia, the problems between ethiopia. one of the biggest things i have been concerned with and personally involved in trying to do something about is the lord's

resistance army. it has spread -- it has spread through rwanda and eastern congo. it was not until a few weeks ago that we passed and signed by the president a policy of this country to take out joseph cody and the lra. joseph coneys started about 30 years ago, and some people call it child soldiers. the first thing they have to do is go back to their villages and murdered their parents and. this is really something that people do not want to talk about it. what is your level of concern and interest in implementing the direction of the laws that we passed a few months ago concerning this?

>> i agree with you. i need to learn more about alert -- about the lord's resistance army. what they do know, the director of operations, it is a horrific situation. i look to learn more about that. if confirmed, africa command can contribute to the solution to that problem. i am aware that africa command has been engaged in developing the capability of the yukon the forces, and i think that is a step in the right direction -- the capability of the ugandan forces. >> in all three now agree that it is a joint problem because of the fact that this movement is moving around countries and

central africa, too. so, anyway, that is going to be something that i would like to be as a clearing point for any activity that you have and be updated on a regular basis. i think you are going to do a great job in that command. there are a lot of other -- people know about somalia and about some of the things in the sudan because of publicity, but there are a lot of things happening that they are not aware of it. i am quite upset about the attack that took place. i would like to try to do something on the floor with a resolution on this horrible thing that took place there. these people have been out in the wilderness for some 30 years now. are you interested in trying to

come up with a solution that james baker has not been able to do, i have not been able to do, but to work with us to correct the problem that is out there in the western sahara? >> it is my understanding that the issues in western sahara and morocco are not primarily military, but if confirmed, i certainly want to explore what the role of u.s. africa command might be in support of the u.s. approach to that matter. >> i would think that it becomes military when the armed forces are invading their, but i understand what you are saying. my time is up. i just want to make sure that you are on record with some of the things you want to get done. we made a decision, a good decision, on this committee several years ago, right after several years ago, right after