five ns in buyinproviding african commands. the africans are not as aware of how we are trying to help them take care of their own needs i am sure general lord would agree that we have not done enough with that -- general ward would agree. as they continue to come down through the horn of africa to try and have this in place so that the troops will be able to take care of their own problems. would you consider that a priority? >> i believe a rental -- regional approaches the way to go. >> senator ben nelson. >> thank you for your service, general ham, and your willingness to extend your

service in these new positions and a special thank you to your families for supporting in this effort. general taylor, -- general keller, they have been very vocal about the need for a new strategic command headquarters building. i have been extremely pleased with the process we have made so far in addressing this vital need. the existing facilities failing to put their personnel at some risk. i knew you had a previous duty as the vice commander of strop, -- stratcom and you'd have it views and needs of the new facility. construction is planned to break ground in late 2011. the progress is a strong indication of the department's

condition -- commitment to stratcomm's position. what is your view on a new headquarters to replace the existing facility? >> senator, i can base my view on this from the timer was the deputy commander there. we went through a series of electrical fires and electrical outages and other problems that reflect, i think, the state of health of the building that was built in the 1960's. clearly something needs to be done about that. the demands of the mission there at stratcomm have placed stresses on the facility. it was never designed to address those concerns. if i am confirmed, i will make sure that i look into that and look after an appropriate way forward to make sure the people have with a need to get the job

done. >> i appreciate that. one of the things i have always tried to look for here and as a governor as well is the government, whether in military or civilian government, to establish duplicates services, duplication of efforts, that the fact commission effectiveness or the expenditure of taxpayers' money. general shelton has highlighted the importance of sharing information among the agencies including the department of defense, these are to address cyber threats. general great -- general gates said this concern is "a huge. my concern is agencies will continue to build their own walls around their own unique

situation. what is your view of the role of stratcom and what should i play in the coordinating the national defense against a growing cyber threat 4 military and civilian agencies? >> senator, i think strategic command sits in a very unique position to have a very strong influence on the way the department of defense proceeds and also on the other relationships that you have talked about. i think that as we look at stratcom's to integrate and oversee some of the activities that go on in the sub-unified and other activities, stratcom's

rolled to engage with the other commanders to make sure that cyberspace is being addressed across the route -- across the military. of course, stratcom's ability to look up into the policy world. i think there is a role for strategic command to play there as well. there is a big role forced to teach a command to play in all of this. most of that done by the president and the unified command plan. >> whether it is google or another similar company that has significant interests and the considerable experience and what we would call -- could that also enhance our national defense? in other words, could we learn something from the private sector as well as having the private sector learn something from us? >> my experience to date that is

we are learning more from the private sector than they are learning from us. some of the latest technologies, techniques, and approaches are there. i think, again, you are defining the big challenge of cyberspace. it is the ultimate partnership activity. that is something we need to be working on. i think the secretary gates' comments yesterday about the dhs/dod partnership is a big step in a line responsibilities. >> maybe someday we will tear down all of the stove pipes. general ham, africom has limited personal to address a rather diverse continent. in afghanistan we lacked a calvary of soldiers that this is the right cultural and language training. given the diversity in africa,

are we developing the right skills, the right mix of skills in our forces to be able to engage in successful operations recognizing the diversity in africa? >> if confirmed, i will look at that. my sense is yes but not quickly enough. i'd think we start to see the cultural understanding, the language skills emerging first in our special operating forces where they develop those attributes as a general-purpose horses come available. it would be highly appropriate to seek ways to further understand african matters. when we do that is through the state partnership program. >> of this would be a priority is to step into the new position to make sure that we direct enough of our resources so we can get the kind of results that

we need to get? we cannot get it any other way. we do not have the cultural or language understanding that is required. we will not be able to make our missions as successful as we could otherwise. >> senator, i agree. if confirmed, i know i need to do that personally and look at that across command. >> my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> think you, senator nelson. senator thune. >> in general ham, thank you for our great service to your country and your willingness to take on these important positions of responsibility. general keeler -- kehler, you say they are "responsible for the plans and operations of u.s. forces" which includes deterring attacks on u.s. vital interests. as a nominee to be the combat commander responsible for strategic deterrence and responsible for missions such as

ensuring freedom of action and delivery of connecticut and non- kinetic -- kinetic and non- kinetic force is, how important is it that the airforce develops a new long-range attack technology? >> it is critically important that we continue with sustainment and modernization of all zero legs of the triad. a long-range strike replacement is appropriate and i would advocate for that. >> the air force, for some time, has been working on requirements to convince the office of the secretary for the need for a manned long-range strike platform. what do you foresee as your role for advocating that kind of system? >> if confirmed, one of the things commanders do is establish requirements.

again, if confirmed, i would be responsible for setting the requirements for such a platform. i know that the air force is studying some preliminary ways forward. i look forward to participating as a combatant commanders confirmed. >> there are 25 studies that have been done with regards to next-generation long-range strike aircraft, yet there has not been any significant process made it to date. as a follow-up to my previous question, what can you see yourself doing differently than your predecessors when it comes to successfully advocating for this capability to the office of the secretary? >> sir, i do not know if there is anything different that needs to be done right now. i know again from my air force had that this is getting a lot of attention. it is a difficult set of issues to grapple with to make sure

that they have the requirements correctly stated and outlined and a way forward that matches those requirements. i do not know if there was one thing i could do if confirmed. however, i would just state that if confirmed my belief is that modernization and sustaining the entire deterrent force elements and sustaining the stockpile that goes behind it and teh isr -- t i.s.r. are all important. in the meantime, there is also a sustainment effort under way for the b-52 and the b-2's. >> this question has to do with the start treaty. i know you have answered questions about that already.

the new start treaty includes a scene on operationally deployed nuclear warheads and the 1700 strategic nuclear delivery systems. what do you foresee as the possible implications of reducing the number of delivery vehicles under the treaty? >> it to get down to the treaty limits? again, i have not been part of the analysis nor was a part of the negotiation activities. when i would say at this point is what i understand from mike currency. -- my current seat. i understand from those levels, 1150 and 700 up to 800 deployed and non-deployed. >> the current plan to comply with the treaty would reduce the

number of nuclear capable bombers to a maximum of 60. if my math is right, we have 20 b-2's that would remain nuclear capable and that would require us to reduce the number of nuclear capable b-52's by about half to hit the expected 60 number of a bomber delivery vehicles. when will the impact be on stratcom's mission and nuclear deterrence using the triad strategy? at one level do become nervous about the bomber leg of the triad? >> first of all, we have decided to retain the triad which i think is the foundations that we have taken. the exact mixture of the triad has yet to be determined. i know there have been some

number stated, but we have entry into the force plus seven years to get to the appropriate mixture of weapons. i would like to take the opportunity, if confirmed, to come back with a more wholesome discussion about what i think about the mixture of each individual lead. >> if the u.s. develops a prompt mobile strike weapon, these systems would further reduce the inber of bombers or icbm's our inventory. what is your opinion on prompt a mobile strike? is this a must have? is it important we further reduce the legs of the triad? >> first of all, as i understand the treaty a probable strike weapon could count. it depends on its characteristics whether it is

actually made it to enter -- mated to an inter-continental missile. it depends on how we went forward. my view is we should go forward on continuing to develop long- range conventional strikes of some type. again, if confirmed, this is one i would like to come back and have a further discussion with you. >> i think it would be important in your viewing of the treaty to determine if the procter global strike would come in fact, fall under the caps and fall under the consideration with regard to the triad. my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your service. >> think you, senator thune. senator web. >> i would like to congratulate both of you for having been selected to undertake these

responsibilities. i have no doubt from the quality of service to have already given our country that both of these commands would be in excellent hands. general kehler, it was interesting to visit with you yesterday. my father spent most of his air force career in sac. it brought back a lot of memories of the really amazing work that his generational courts did in terms of pioneering that have matured into the discussion we're having today. a lot of people do not realize the jeopardy this country was in in the late 1950's when russia had gotten ahead of us. the discussions we are having and the issues we face down are a direct product of the quality of the work that generation put

into this. having grown up a good part of my life on those two bases, i wish you the best. general ham, we have had discussions here about the d.o.t. study -- d.o.d. study on don't ask, don't tell. i appreciate the cooperation that you and counsel johnson gave us in terms of designing the study. i think it is important, if i may, to quote from what senator lieberman just said. he said, "this study should inform the decision that the congress makes in voting peacoat we tend to forget that in our political haste year. -- "this study should inform the decision that the congress makes

in voting." as a former enlisted in the infantry officer, i think it is very important to the credibility of whatever comes out of that study. having spent five years in the pentagon, i cannot remember a study on this type of issue that has been done with this sort of care, not even having seen it or knowing the results. i know the preparation that went into it. it will be a very important study for us to look at and examine. as it to both of yesterday, -- as i told both of you yesterday, i regretfully put a hold on civilian and military nominations based on an issue of what i believe is a non- cooperation from the department of defense. more than three months ago, i asked for a series of comparable historical data that goes into our analysis of all of these commands and the efficiencies which secretary gates is trying

to put into the department of defense and the efficiencies i fully support. this should not have taken this amount of time. this is a basic -- providing this data so we can participate in discussions. this is not a political ploy. if you do not have the information or the tools, you cannot do the analysis to have a discussion on where the reductions may be going into your commands. i am very to -- very happy to point out that last line at close of business we did receive the first cut on this data. happily, i will release any of the holds that we were forced to put in place in order to do this. we will examine this data and we will have a follow-up questions. this is an important part on how you will bring efficiency to the department of defense. you are free at last.

i have a question. general ham, on africa command, where do you think the headquarters will go? >> the headquarters today is in stuttgart, germany. when i had a discussion with the secretary gets about recommending me to this job, one thing we talked about was the necessity to conduct an assessment of the headquarters' location. if confirmed, i will do that. i will consider a wide variety of locations to include the current location, perhaps other sites in europe. i think we ought to consider locations on the continent of africa and some locations in the united states that have to be considered as well. if confirmed, senator, i will do just that. >> may i suggest that you examine norfolk?

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator webb, for your actions with these nominations. senator lemieux? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to think about it you for your service to give -- to our country. congratulations. general hamm, if i may ask you some questions about africom and that region? before i do, with all due respect to my friend to virginia, please look at florida. we are pleased to have three combat commands in florida and we would appreciate your evaluation. >> you better at illinois and michigan, at this point. [laughter] >> we do not have any command, and i think we are entitled for one. i cannot speak for illinois. anyways. senator lemieux. >> thank you, chairman.

i had an opportunity to visit yemen and djibouti and see firsthand what our forces there are trying to do to combat aqap. i am concerned about somalia and the ties between our qaeda and the arabian peninsula. that is a destabilized area. i would like for you to tell me what your view is of the area and what will be this country's plan in the coming years to combat terrorism and the links between yemen, somalia, and other african countries with radical islamist groups and what we will do to combat their threats to this country? >> senator, i agree with you. the extremist threat emerging from east africa is probably the greatest concern that africa

command will face in the near future. if confirmed, that will become a high priority. consistent with what i believe to be the commands highest priority, to the fact, deter, and if necessary defeat threats that would emerge from the continent, u.s. homeland, or u.s. interests. one challenge, i think, for us will be that, as you correctly pointed out, that area sits astride two geographic combat command areas of responsibility. one of the things i learned as the director of operations for the joint staff is it is in the those boundary areas where we must pay great attention to ensure that extremist organizations and others find no safe haven and no opportunity to transition unimpeded between geographic about income bands. -- geographic combatant

commands. i would look forward to ensure that we counter that threat appropriately. >> i appreciate that. i believe that outside of the aipac region, the most dangerous region is yemen and their ties to somalia. these on govern territories -- ungoverned territories and the people like al a lofty -- they understand how to use social media to attract and recruit. it is a dangerous a place as it could be. there is a lot of concern about the communication and connection now between aqap and al shabab. >> if confirmed, i certainly

think that is a high priority. >> i want to talk about your responsibilities at strategic command and the concerns about cyber warfare. i know we are looking at a cyber command, but tell me how that would play into your responsibilities. >> senator, when the secretary of defense decided in consultation with the president to stand up a sub-unified command, when he essentially did was he consolidated, if you will, a number of disparate activities that were going on inside the department of defense related to cyberspace into one place with a four-star, much like the relationship between pacific command and the u.s. forces of career wear the sub-

unified command of pacific command exists within pacific command and yet they exist with some autonomy to take care of the mission they have been assigned. that is the same relationship we have here. strategic command, as i have reread the mission here briefly, still has responsibilities to advocate, and great, to be part of the command relationships with the other combat command. there is still quite a bit of work, both direct and indirect, that goes on at the strategic command level. the day in and day out activities with command-and- control of network activities, those types of things are going on in the cyber command. >> it will not be your specific day to day operations? it is like a command within a

command? >> yes, sir. >> can i talk to you about space policy? that is within your responsibility. with our plans for nasa, although we were able to make some accomplishments before regret for recess in trying to continue with the space program, tell me about your views of where we will be on the military side of our space program and whether or not you feel we are doing all we can to make sure that we command space for military purposes. we have to maintain at the high ground. at one point, aviation was the high ground. space is the ultimate high ground. we do not want to been in the place where someone else has command over space. tell me where you see us strategically as far as the command of space.

>> the nature of space really has changed pretty dramatically in the last 5-10 years. you will hear these words used in the department of defense that space is now "congested, competitive, and complex." you also hear the word "contested" used sometimes. i think what has happened is that from 1957 when there was one of man-made objects in orbit to today where there are over 20,000, there are over 50 nations involved in some way in the space, the fact that those nations are doing this with their own capabilities to get there and stay there are growing. given that china and others are emerging in space, things are

different. as a result of that, in a space policy was just issued. it says, essentially, that we need to maintain the competitive it manages in the terms of our war fighting capabilities. to go about that, we need to be more collaborative and cooperative with allies, friends, partners, and with commercial. from the military side, leveraging those kinds of space capabilities has been the way that we think we need to go to the future. we have turned the corner, i believe, in many cases in acquisition dick -- acquisition difficulty. we have turned the corner in many of our acquisition difficulties. finally, in terms of our relationship with nasa, these are two separate organizations with two distinct missions, but we do collaborate and we have since the beginning of the space

age. we are looking for ways we could leverage nasa, the department of defense, and the national reconnaissance office to make sure we are all working together to be more efficient and effective. >> thank you for those comments. my time is up. i think if i was in your position, the two things keeping me up at night with the cyber and space as two priorities where we need to keep our priorities. >> if confirmed, you can rest assured that those two will be at the top of my list. >> thank you very much. thank you, senator -- mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lemieux. senator burris is next. >> this is more than likely my last appearance before your great committee. i want to commend you, mr. chairman, for your wonderful work and being able to serve on

this armed services committee. >> it has been a pleasure and an honor to have you here. >> to both of the generals, and i am pleased to meet both of you today. i have more of a statement than questions, but if i have time after my statement, i would like to add a couple of questions. after reviewing both of your resin is, i am confident that you will both serve commendably at stratcom and africom. i had visited both stratcom and africom of the past year so i have seen the capabilities under which you will serve and the challenges which face. i think there are some challenges, gentleman. general kehler, i travel to omaha in july and i was impressed with the sophistication, dedication shown by the entire staff. i hope that you look at those individuals and hold on to them.

they are good people. i see in your biography that you were the deputy commander of stratcom. confident that you are the right man for the job and should i be here to vote, rest assured you would have my vote. i will be following your success, sir. to general ham, your predecessor has laid the groundwork to take this unified command to the next level of proficiency and injure- agency cooperation. as you know, the united states africa command does so much more than train african troops. it represents the united states and our military throughout the entire continent of africa. general hamm, what we find is

that most americans speak of africa as a country. they have no idea the size of this continent, the complexity of this continent with 53 can i think, on -- 53, i think, different cultures on this and continent. this will be both your greatest challenge and your greatest success. the men and women you command through usaid, the department of agriculture, the department of state operations is the presence of men and women in uniform that the africans will remember the most. general, this is a new and highly engaged command post. i am excited to see its progress as i continue to follow your career upon leaving the senate. again, i would like to thank both of you for sitting before

this committee today and for your service to our country. you have a lot of years of service. i tip my hat to all of you gentlemen who have made it to the ranks and the status that you have made it because of the contribution to have it made and the confidence people have placed in you. you are taking on the responsibility with these two commands. i am proud to support the nomination. should i be here, i will be voting for you. general ham, i have a couple of questions about africom and the africa union. i was the first united states senator. as the deputy minister told me, i was the first senator to build them at their headquarters.

-- to visit them at their headquarters. please encourage your contacts to check out the african union. they look forward to seeing us and letting this year their concerns. i also visited the eastern -- let me get the correct title. east africa standby brigade that have all these different countries and in at that are trying to bring peace and security to those east african nations. they are also concerned about our participation. when we set of the command, they did their best with the resources and the other agencies that are there are really seeking to do with their responsibilities are. a lot of it depended on the military. i found out they were concerned

about setting up in africa command and not communicating effectively. you still have a p.r. job tehre. -- there. what is our purpose? you also have to compete with china as they move into these various countries. with their assistants, africa is the future for all of our existing countries because the resources are there. we have to look to how we can build our relationships with those african countries despite the terrorism, the conflicts that exist. we need to have a better presence on the continent. as far as the headquarters are concerned, i would not mind chicago. [laughter] i was in to guard -- stuttgart, my second language in the -- is

german. i have been to djibouti and visited in yemen and into nairobi in kenya. i turned in to my chairman a report of my experiences and i am just hoping, general ham, that we can really step up our presence so the african countries understand that we are there to assist them. they were concerned that we were trying to take them over. you have that to deal with, general, but you also must work with the different factions that exist in all of those different countries. i have a good deal of sympathy for you as you undertake that.

do you have any idea where the headquarters will go? >> i do not. i think i should approach this, if confirmed, essentially with a blank piece of paper and start with the requirements and come up with the best recommendations for the location of headquarters. >> i think every african country once the headquarters. -- wants the headquarters there. gentlemen, continue your service and continue to do good for the american people, and to take our message abroad to the countries that we are here to help move civilizations for work for the betterment of all mankind. god bless you all and your families. keep up the good work. thank you. >> thank you, senator burris. thank you for your major contribution to our nation, this senate, and this committee. it has been appreciated.

senator udall. >> let me echo your words about senator burris. i will miss him. i have really enjoyed serving with the former attorney general of illinois. i look forward to your advice and counsel as we continue our work. dotterels, thank you for being here today. -- generals, thank you for being here today. i think you are familiar with the the op-ed secretary gates and secretary clinton wrote this week. "the ratified treaty creates a more stable, predictable, and cooperative relationship between the world's two leading nuclear powers." russia and the u.s. comprise over 90% of the supply of nuclear weapons. russia has a great deal of influence in dealing with iran

and their nuclear weapons program. i believe this will start to bolster our relationship with the russians and our ability to leverage russian support to put pressure on iran. what are your thoughts? would you agree? >> senator, i would agree that an arms control agreement would be a piece of the larger relationship in many ways. i would agreement that in my personal opinion a treaty will, in fact, be helpful in the race you suggest. >> thank you for that insight. i am on the record strong supporting start as a step forward. we discussed the of the day the tactical weapons arsenal that the russians have. but by passing start, we can have those negotiations further

about tactical weapons. if we believe iran is the set -- is the center of our efforts in the middle east, we have to sign the start treaty. thank you for your comments. let me move to cyber security. i recently spent some time with secretary the soliton no -- sec. napolitano. they are leveraging their capabilities together to keep our nation's networks safe. could you talk about your involvement in the importance of this effort? >> sir, if confirmed, as i mentioned before, strategic command has an important role to play. strategic command is the confluence of a lot of different activity in the department of defense. strategic command has a strong advocacy role, certainly in

integration mohl, and my intent, if confirmed, would be to try and continue to make strategic command a better, better, and a better partner both inside the department of defense and as necessary with dhs and others. >> i know you are passionate about this. there are interesting similarities between cyberspace -- outer space and interspace. i look forward to working with you when you are confirmed. that is certainly my and 10. general h -- that is my intent. general kehler, could you tell me the status of the space posture review? to do provide any insight on when we will see it or any additional thoughts you might have? >> i am not sure if i can.

i will have to get that for the record. what i do know is that the chair review -- the space posture review contributed to two important documents. one is the new national space policy that the president signed some months ago. the other is a national security space strategy document that is being prepared as a follow-up to the policy. i am not sure if there will be a separate space posture review document released or if that is now rolled into the national security strategy. that strategy is in coordination and should be available soon. i cannot specify when. i go get that information for the record for you. >> i would appreciate that. i think we've both can agree that we are increasingly reliant on space for our economy and national security. we noticed that space is

increasingly congested and contested. we need to be at the front end of this. i look forward to your continued advice and counsel in your new position, given your past experience and expertise. > general, one of africom's mission is to enhance the african military third assistant programs. another part of your mission would be to perform in conjunction with agencies and other partners to reduce intra- state conflict in africa by enhancing the governance, stability, and economic developments by the africom's sphere of responsibility. do you see either of these as

more important than the other? i know that is a big question, but it is important. >> senator, in my view, they are complementary efforts. the role of the command is a wide variety of programs and authorities to help build the capacity that african nations need at the national level and in court in also within a regional capacity. if confirmed, i think this becomes an important requirement for the task for the command to see how we can best leverage the authorities and resources available to achieve the best. >> so of those two basic missions, you did not elevate one above the other? you see them as both equally important, turning the military and operating in the civilian military space to build a governing capacity?

>> senator, i think they do go hand in hand. if confirmed, i would have to take a look at that as i would other requirements of the command. i would have to see if a prioritization of necessary, particularly in the application of resources. if confirmed, i would take a look at that. >> my time is about to expire. let me make one final, short remark and then asking for a commitment you will be able to meet. this has been charged by the current africom commander to assess the security implications of climate change in africa and the potential role for africom in addressing those impacts. i would like to ask you to commit to get your feet on the ground with your personal view on the findings and recommendations of the task force at an appropriate time next year. could you do that? >> sir, if confirmed, i will. >> thank you, gentlemen, for

being here. >> thank you, senator udall. >> think you both for being here. i will also state for the record that i am looking forward to supporting both of you in these new positions. i think you are both very high the qualified for these new challenges you are taking on. also, thank you and your families for the commitment they have to make in this new venture and the stress that will be added to your households. thank you very much for that willingness. a general -- general ham, most of my questions have been answered, but i will put in my pitch that alaska would be happy. we can access those places through our airport technologies and we never close our airports. i note general -- i know general

kehler knows that. general kehler, my questions are a little parochial, but there are some who are worked up over the start treaty. i am not. i think it is a good treaty and a look forward to hopefully voting on this at some point. let me be a little parochial, but clarified. i anticipate your answer on this, so this is more of a set up because i want to make this clear. the start treaty, and i know there is discussion on missile defense and how this interacts, but in the mine understanding it does not restrict a missile defense system in any way. let me ask you any formal way, if confirmed, will the start treaty hinder your ability to advocate ballistic missile defense for this country?

>> i do not believe it will. >> it is almost like we have to do this for a rehearing, for every person when we talk about the start treaty. it seems to be a discussion to put this in the air to that the press carried this as they will. what i hear over and over again especially when we have secretary clinton and secretary gates here, that it was very clear that it does not hinder our abilities. thank you for, once again, putting this on the record so it is clear. hopefully we can and that part of the debate about the start treaty. let me hawn in -- hone in on the missile defense system in alaska. i am interested to know how you will, assuming you are confirmed, health advocate the capability of what is up there? can you give me your feeling for

your understanding of the need of how you lead to kate for our last line of defense when it comes to missile defense for this country? >> as you well know, the current policy of our government is that we will deploy a limited defensive system against long- range threats from regional powers that could reach out and strike the united states of america. that is the basis on which the center network and the ground- based interceptors in alaska and the handful of others were postured. my responsibility, i believe, is to help advocate for that capability certainly as long as that is our country's view. >> i do not know if you have ever been there. >> i have not.

>> we would love to have you. i know the director of the space missile defense command has been. he always pitch january. i think that is courageous when you come to alaska in january. we would love to have the. it is a very unique situation, but also there are some deficits. the nearest town has one doctor and there is no clinic on base, to give you a sense of what they have to work with and their conditions. we would love to have you there at some point. i think he will find on the ground you will find it very committed community within range of the base that is very supportive and help in any way they can. it is important to see. if confirmed, we would love to participate in any way to make that happen. >> i have been to last a number of times but have not been there. >> that is another piece of the

equation with four -- ft. greelee. at some point, i went to have a conversation about the long-term plan. i know there is one for the rehabilitation of the facility, but just to make sure we are on track for the dollar requirements, in these tight budgetary times, people are looking to push where they can. obviously, we think it is critical long-term and it is an investment being considered over the next couple of years. we did not have to have a conversation on that right now. let me ask you a general question on the support and development of the two-stage ground-based interceptor as a hedge in the event of a proposed development and deployment of a long-range phase and an inductive approach if it is not achieve by 2020. if we cannot get to mars gabbro,

do you see the two-stage ground- based interceptor as a hedge to make sure we are covered? your thoughts? >> i do not know enough about this. i'd like to take that for the record. >> that would be great. not that i would say the military is not always on schedule, but there are times when planning and development of new technology gets delayed. if we do not have something that backs against it to protect ourselves as we develop technology, i want to make sure we have a cohesive plan in that arena. if you could take that for the record, that would be good. >> i will, sir. i am not familiar enough with the details of general o'reilly's lay down to render a comment. >> i know when i talk to general a riley, -- general a riley, i know you are just getting into this position.

in some advanced questions and policy questions, you made a comment and that space is a national imperative. we in the kodiak launch complex, i do not know if you are familiar with that. and is very flexible and efficient. it as commercial as well as military launching tcapabilitie. it has very unique capabilities. i would love, again, the same thing if you are not familiar, i would encourage you and help my office understand what you see as the potential, if at all, of a long-term relationship from your office in your operation with the kodiak launch facility. there is a lot of federal dollars to build that facility and it has great capacity. there are two missions this

year from one component of the military. if you could come any comment on that at this point? >> i think the mission is tomorrow. >> i think you are right. >> if confirmed, i would be more than happy to get involved with you and have discussions about kodiak. >> excellent. mr. chairman, i appreciate the time. congratulations for your willingness to take on additional responsibility and commitment to this country. >> senator bill nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, congratulations on your appointments to these positions. thank you both for your public service, your long service to our country. general kehler, as we have discussed many times, the nation's space program, and now

you are taking this to a different level. in strategic command, you will have to be concerned with the nuclear program. i would encourage you, as one of the first things that you do, and i have encouraged a general chilton to do the same thing, but go and visit the three national labs. that is my suggestion. have you visited the labs before? >> i have not visited all three. i have been at her pieces of them in the past. you mentioned this to me several days ago. i will do this if confirmed

because there are some deficiencies that i have in getting eyes on some of the aspects of what needs to happen. i will visit their plus the rest of the weapons complexes. i will put my eyes on them early on. >> also with regards to the triad and the nuclear posturing review. it states that, "each leg of the triad has advantages that warrant retraining all three." and that "strategic nuclear submarines [inaudible] do you think we should remain all three? >> yes, sir. i do. >> do you want to discuss the significance of the next generation of the ballistic missile submarines?

>> is an important that, as we look to the future, two things happened. first, i think it is important we sustain the legs we have today. the services have invested in sustaining those. i think it is important we sustain the command-and-control to make sure the president is always a linked to those. it is important for us to sustain the i.s.r. capabilities. then, i think it is important we put in place modernization efforts to make sure that we can get to the next versions of each of these. mike understanding of the program attics -- programatics, the first to come up for modernization will be replaced to the ohio missile submarine. if confirmed, i look forward to work with the department of the

navy to make sure that we understand and have clarified requirements and that they are actively moving forward. the other legs are under way in which the studies at various levels. it is important to have a replacement long-range strike aircraft. it is important for us to begin the process to modernize the nation's land-based strategic deterrent. clearly, survivability is a key aspect that the triad brings to bear. there is no doubt about it. on the day in, day out, of the submarine is the most survivable. it generated, the bombers are equally survivable. >> general ham, we have a drug problem in west africa. it goes right on up into europe.

do you want to comment on that? a lot of those drugs are coming out, unfortunately, they go from colombia, venezuela, street to west africa, or they go to the island of hispaniola, or haiti. they get dispersed out of there. they are coming into africa, and they use that as a point to get shipped out to other places. can you comment on that? >> it is a very real concern, certainly not exclusively a military, or even really a military challenge, but i think africa command a unique,

interagency composition. the illicit trafficking of narcotics and other illicit trafficking destabilizes nations and regions, all of which are unhelpful in trying to provide security. so, i think this is a challenge for the whole of government, and i would, if confirmed, a look at our appropriate role in that regard. >> any thoughts about what we should do about that, as commander of africa? >> i think the way in which omm could bring military strength to bear is in the way of awareness. if confirmed, i would very much like to partner with the u.s. southern commanders who participate in this kind of effort on a routine basis. i suspect, but do not know, that africa has already done so to

learn from the experience of southern command and find how we might best leverage that experience in africa. >> mr. chairman, this is a great example. general ham just mentioned the southern command. southern command is a great example where all of the agencies of government are coming together to address a particular problem. that has certainly been true with regard to drugs and south america. but it is also being true with regard to with regard to western africa and through that command, and so it is the dea, the fbi, the cia, as well as the military components that are of working together -- all working together. so often, we're giving deference

and kudos to our young men and women in uniform, which is most appropriate, and they are held in such high esteem. often, we do not realize the changing nature of protecting the interests of the united states and the free world is a combined of all of these agencies. sometimes led by the u.s. military, but other times working just in partnership. i think it is fascinating. west africa is clearly a place where we have that going on right now, as well as the u.s. and southern command. thank you. >> thank you for that comment. it is something that is important to make and it is not made often enough. i am glad that the senator made that point. i just want to ask one question

about the start treaty, and then we can adjourn the hearing. you had pointed out when you were asked about the unilateral statement that is not part of the treaty, that is not binding on us, their point of view and that we made our own unilateral statement at the same time. our statement, our unilateral statement, made the same time there's was made, april 7th, said the u.s. missile defense systems would be deployed to defend the united states against limited missile launches and regional threats. the united states further noted its intent to continue deploying missile defenses systems in order to defend itself as part of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key regions. i think you pointed out,

general, that our unilateral statement was made at the same time as their unilateral statement. it is not binding on us. it is not part of the tree. but what is not pointed out enough, it seems to me, is that the exact same thing happened at the time of start one. the re-unilateral statements made by the russians. that had to do with the abm. we pulled out of the abm treaty. this is the unilateral statement at that time on the soviet side. this treaty may be effective and viable only under conditions of compliance with the treaty between the u.s. and the u.s.s.r. with the limitation of abm systems made in 1972. that is the statement they made. we made a unilateral statement

at the same time saying, sorry, we are not down with that statement, and we can make changes in the treaty or pull out of it. it is in our supreme national interest to do so, and as a matter of fact, we did pullout of the abm treaty. as a result, they did not terminate the start treaty despite their unilateral statement. is that correct, general? are you with me so far? >> yes, sir. that is however understand it. >> what i do not understand is why, when our witnesses are asked about the unilateral statement and why, after they point out that it is not binding and that it is not going to threaten you in any way, what witnesses do not point out, hey, we have been there before.

we went through the exact same unilateral versus unilateral back in 1991. i interest curious. you are aware of -- i am just curious. you are aware of the history, i gather. why is that not something used to address this constant refrain we hear about the unilateral russian statement on this particular treaty? why is that not part of the response, the history? >> probably a deficiency on my part. >> it is not a deficiency in your part. most witnesses do not get there. is it not as important as i think it is? i am not critical of you, i am does curious. people do not seem to -- i am just curious. people do not seem to focus on the history.

we have been through this exact same unilateral, unilateral before. it did not have any impact. rightly or wrongly, we pulled out of the abm treaty. i thought it was a mistake, but that is not the point. we pulled out of the abm treaty and they did not pull out of the start 1 treaty. i am merely curious. i am not at all critical. not making reference to the history is fairly typical of our witnesses. is it not as important as i think it is? you can be blunt. >> no, sir. certainly, to describe the full context of the debate, you have captured it better than i did, for sure.

>> again, it is not -- it is just kind of a pattern, frankly. maybe people do not want to sound defensive. maybe that is it. it is not offensive to make a reference to the unilateral history, in my judgment. that is my opinion. i want to thank you for serving our country well. you have a great family support. we know how critical the this. we appreciate you making reference to your families the way you do. unless there are further questions, by me, which there are none, and there is nobody here to add any, we will adjourn. i want to thank you both, but i also want to thank senator webb for the step he has now taken in allowing our nominations to proceed.

yet a legitimate interest in getting information. he has a stake -- he had a legitimate interest in getting affirmation. he has obtained that every nation now and hopefully this will facilitate a number of other denominations and speed up your nomination and confirmation as well -- a number of other denominations, and speed up -- a number of other nominations, and speed up your nomination and confirmation as well. thank you both. we stand adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in his weekly address, president obama calls on congress to ratify the u.s.- russia nuclear start treaty. after that, mitch mcconnell gave the gop address about his party's legislative priorities, including job creation and the extension of the bush-era tax cuts that expire at the end of the year. >> today i would like to speak to you about an issue that is fundamental to america's national security, the need for the senate to approve the new start treaty this year. this treaty is rooted in a

practice that date back to ronald reagan. the idea is simple. two nations with over 90% of the nuclear weapons, the united states and russia, have of irresponsibility to work together to reduce our arsenals. we must use of verification effort that puts u.s. inspectors on the ground. as president reagan said when he signed the nuclear arms treaty with the soviet union in 1987,, "trust but verify." that is precisely what the new start treaty does. after nearly a full year of negotiation, we completed an agreement earlier this year that cut by one-third the number of long-range nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles that the united states and russia can deploy, while assuring that ameritech can retain a strong nuclear deterrent and but inspectors back on the ground in russia.

russia has been indispensable to our efforts to enforce strong sanctions on iran. to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists and to equip our troops in afghanistan. all of this will be put to rest if the senate does not pass the new start treaty. without ratification this year, the united states will have no inspectors on the ground and no ability to verify russian nuclear activities. to those who would block the history, you are breaking president reagan epazote ruling -- reagan's role. you want to trust, but not verify. without ratification, we risk undoing decades of american leadership on nuclear security and decades of bipartisanship on this issue. our security and our position in the world are at stake. indeed, since the reagan years, every president has pursued a negotiated, verify arms

reduction creeptreaty. every time these treaties have been reviewed by the senate, they have passed with over 85 of votes. this has been endorsed by republicans from the reagan administration and both budget ministrations, including colin powell, jim baker and henry kissinger. it was approved by the foreign relations committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 14-4. several questions have been asked, and we have answered every single one. will limit our missile defense? it will not. senator jon kyl asked that we modernized our nuclear in its structure -- nuclear infrastructure for the 21st century. we are doing so and plan to invest at least $85 billion in that effort over the next 10 years, a significant increase from the budget ministration. finally, some do not oppose the

treaty but they want more time. remember this. it has already been 11 months since we have inspectors in russia. every day that goes by without ratification is a day that we lose confidence in our understanding of russia's nuclear weapons. if the senate does not act this year after six months, 18 hearings and nearly 1000 questions answered, we will have to start over from scratch in january. the choice is clear. a failure to ratify new start would be a dangerous gamble with america's national security, setting back our understanding of russia's nuclear weapons as well as our leadership in the world. that is not what the american people sent to washington to do. there is enough gridlock. if there is one issue that should unite us, republicans and democrats, it should be our national security. somethings are bigger than politics. as republican dick lugar said the other day, every senator has an obligation and the

national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. senator lugar is right. if the senate passes this treaty, it will not be an achievement for democrats or republicans, it will be a win for america. thank you. >> good morning. i am senate republican leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky. as americans across the country prepare to celebrate thanksgiving this coming week, we are reminded of the many blessings we enjoy as a nation. we are grateful for the sacrifices of the brave men and women in our armed forces who will not be home with their families next week and who make these freedoms possible. we are also conscious of the many american struggling with serious charges, including the millions of americans who are struggling to find worke. at the moment, about 15 million of our fellow citizens are looking for jobs and cannot find one. the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly close to 10%

for nearly a year and a half. we are experiencing what can only be described as a jobs crisis, a sustained time as unemployment. two new laws have vastly expanded the size and scope of government, have added to the debt, and have done little to alleviate this problem. take the stimulus, for example. here is a bill that was supposed to create jobs and keep unemployment from rising above 8%. yet, since democrats passed it nearly two years ago, more than 3 million people have lost jobs and the economy barely has a pulse. the american people often rendered a clear verdict on this on election day. but democratic leaders in washington continue to act as if nothing has changed, including our priorities. the top priority of most americans is to create jobs and get the economy moving. the single best thing we could do in washington to achieve that goal is to prevent the tax hike

that is about to hit every taxpayer and hundreds of thousands of small businesses at the stroke of midnight on december 31st. that is why it i have proposed a bill in september that would take care of this tax hike and prevented from going into effect. unfortunately, democratic leaders have shown little interest in the idea, after adding trillions to the debt on big government policies most americans did not ask for and which we could not afford. democratic leaders say they need more money, which they intend to take from small business, even the small businesses create a majority of new jobs. americans do not think we should be raising taxes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. but instead of giving americans what they want, democratic leaders plan to use the last few days that lawmakers expect to spend in washington this year focusing on everything except preventing this tax hike, which

will cost us even more jobs. immigration, a repeal of don't ask don't tell, a reorganization of the fda, more environmental regulations. democrats put all of these things until after the election, along with the most basic task of putting the government by focusing on them now -- a of a funding the government. by focusing on them now, they're showing where their priorities lie. this should be an easy one. that bill that americans need us to pass is one that assures taxes will not go up, that americans and small-business owners will not get hit with more bad news at the end of the year. it is time congress got its priorities straight. it is time congress focused on jobs creation. that means it is time to set aside the political focus and government spending that the democratic leaders have but above all other priorities for

two years. time is running out, but it is not too late for both parties to work together and prevent this massive tax hike from going into effect. it is not too late to focus on the priorities of the american people. republicans in congress are eager to work with anyone, republican or democrat, who is working -- who is willing to do so. american spoke loudly and clearly on election day. we owe it to them to show them that we carry them -- that we heard them coming to work together to get this done. >> on "newsmakers," south carolina representative james talks about his new position as assistant minority leader in the the new congress. >> it would have been very simple, as everybody said, just

step back one step. you have been chair. pelosi will go back to being leader. that was not attractive to me. i felt that things that i had 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 and we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican conference. we have 43 african-americans, 21 latinos, 10 asian pacific islanders, new democrats, blue and dogs, all of this diversity, i thought i had learned a lot about. i really could bring discussions cto that table and take

them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would benefit me if i were chair of the caucus. >> quota newsmakers," with south newsmakers," -- q" with south carolina representative james clyburn. >> and senator joe mention of west virginia -- joe manchin left vacantcthe seat by robert byrd. mike lee will take the seat now held by republican senator mike

bennett, who did not win his party's nomination. from today's "washington journal," a discussion on the the republican party. this is a little over 40 minutes. call. he is here to talk about governors and the republican party. let's start with the completed r.g.a. meeting in san diego. tell us the overarching theme and what the governors want to do moving forward guest: it was somewhat of a victory party considering how well they did in the governor races. they picked up six and one pending in minnesota bringing them to 29 governorships. the overall theme would have been, would be to display the diversity of their governors. they have two his tang r panic -- hispanic, two indian

american, several women so they had a panel to try to convey the diversity of the governors across the country. i think the biggest thinking to come out of the r.g.a. was a report from a private meeting of governors that 80% of them raised their hands when the outgoing chair of the r.g.a. asked whether they would be confident that michael steele remain as head of the republican national committee. 80% said they uld not. host: we want to begin by looking at some of the new governors who were featured. first is the governor-elect from nevada. he spoke at a panel discussion on the future of the party regarding education reform. we will look at what he had to say and get your response.

>> one of the hallmarks of my education plan was choice in education. something that has never happened in the state of nevada. i believe that every parent, every child, should have the ability to choose the school where at the want to attend. you mentioned accountability. i think it is very important that schools be accountable to parents throughout for the great state of nevada. that a patient should know how that school is performing and if it is not performing that there will be a change with regard to administration. another thing in never that we have is teacher tenure. you can get 10 newer after one year. -- tenure after one year. i think there should be merit pay for teachers. we should reward the great teachers. they should be the os that are given the benefit of showing the increases in test scores. host: jamie weinstein, tell us about brian sandoval and where

he is getting such buzz. guest: they wrote in the papers in las vegas when he first announ announced to run that it is veried to s his name without rising star next to it because it has been applied to him for a long time. over a decade. he has either been one of the youngest person elected to a certain position in never or first latino. he started in the legislature after beginning as a lawyer, went to be young egest head of gaming commission to attorney general and asked to be nominate bid bush but harry reid sucked his name and then he ran against an incumbent republican governor and against harry reid's son to win the governorship. he is one of the hispanic governors, latino governors elected for republicans. one of the two. he was talng about education reform there.

that was another big issue that governors across the country, republican governors, have been trying to deal with. chris christie in new jersey taking on teacher unions trying to push back against some of the contracts. sandoval supports vouchers as one of his proposals or initiatives. host: we will throw out the convertion -- we will be talking about republican governors and which are mentioneds -- mentioned in 2012. with it rising star a seems to be attached brian sandoval is he one that the republicans are looking to see in the running in 2012 or will he stay in the state house in nevada? guest: i suspect he will stay in the state house but it is not implausible. hispanics are an important demographic the republicans need to reach out to and win and possibly using some hispanic governors that were elected this cycle or possibly even marco

rubio in florida. i think he is the post likely to be one of the vice presidential picks but sandoval is probably somebody they are thinking about if not 2012 down the road. host: we are talking to jamie weinstein about theepublican governs and future of the g.o.p. if you the to benvolved 202-737-0002 for democrats, 0001 for republican and 0205 for independents. you can send us an electronic message by e-mail and also twitter. let's go to another hispanic governor newly ected, governor-elect suzanne into martinez fro -- suzanne

martinez. before we go to the clip tell us what some of the buzz is about her and how she's distinguishing herself from thether new governors. guest: she is both a woman and latino governor elected. the republican governors association spent a lot of money on her race wanting her to get elected. she partly benefited from the unpopularity not only of the a administration, the cycle, but of the governor bill richardson. at one point during the campaign she offered to debate him and not her opponent because he was so unpopular and she wanted to tie him as the person she was running against. but those -- as a woman and latina that is a demographic the republicans think is something that they can reach out to other groups that don't traditionally vote for republicans. so theare excited to have her as governor of new mexico. host: we will listen to what she had to say on immigration reform. >> it is not about the mexican

population. it is merely about the mexican border which has been weak. it is weakened because people will be coming across that border because it is easier to do so but they are come interesting across the border from all over the word. we have arrested individuals in the last six months from jamaica, china, poland because they are coming to new mexico because if is an attractive state where they can get a legal i.d. that allows them to travel the country without detection and they are provided sanctuary. we find out who you are, we arrest you, punish, send you to prison and you end up being deported because you have few prove yourself to be unsafe to be in our country. 45% of the population in new mexico is hispanic. but it is amazing at how well th message is received that we have to secure our borders. we cannot have comprehensive immigration reform without first

securing the border. host: jamie, how well is she, her discussion on immigration reform playing inside and outside new mexico? guest: it is interesting that both she and brian sandoval the two latino governors were tougher on immigration. martinez has said she not only wants to change the law that allows legal immigrants to get driver's license but revoke those that have been given them. so she did not campaign as someone who is open to comprehensive immigration reform or anything like that. she campaigned as tougher on immigration as did sandoval which is interesting for the latino governors that were elected. host: our first call regarding republican governors and fort of the republican party for jamie weinstein comes from san bernardino, california, frank, on the line for democrats. caller: yes. i understand the harshness on

immigration reform. we do need some kind of strong immigration reform. for all the states. and, like martinez said, we have to find out who we have here first before we decide we ll let anybod else in. another problem that people have been -- people -- go -- another issue. earlier you were talking about unemployment and the deficit and things like that. a problem is we are paying a lot of politicians a lot of money, ok, to run our lives and they have healthcare that the taayers pay for. we pay for their driving around in fancy cars, flying in airplanes. why can't they take a three-year pay freeze where they don't receive anything? i'm quite sure if all the politicians did that we can

break down that deficit pretty fast. host: go ahead. guest: well, i was interested in the last par of the question. it is a popular thing to want to freeze congressmen's pay but you have to mess with entitlement reforms to get anywhere. host: the caller mentioned in his discussion about unemployment benefits and earlier we were talking about loans that some of the states are to take from the federal government to pay the state unemployment insurance benefits. tell us how some of the republican governors are talking about dealing with that situation? guest: that was another big theme during the r.g.a. conference was the situation ich they found themselves in. celebrating that they won state houses but when they get in they will have a lot of work to do to bring the state back to financial health. they are taking a line from chris christie the superstar in

new jersey and going in there and ready to cut and find places to cut back on spending. post of the governors said they do not want to raise taxes, refuse to raise taxes. it will be on the spending side. host: governors in some of the harder hit states especially cot walker in wisconsin, rick snider in michigan and john kasich in ohio are looking at heavy job losses, high public employee payrolls and having to slash budgets, cut taxes. this is what governor-elect john kasich republican of ohio had to say about curbing government spending during his portionf the pam discussion. >> i think -- panel discussion. >> i think the key is you have to make changes and shrink government. we know that all over the country. we know that in our states and federal level. the first thing is you can't play favorites. you have to take a look at programs and figure out whether

they work. if not get rid of them. orf they are necessary you have to fix them. i'm not a huge believer to go out and cut. cut is not very attractive. it i reform. make things work better. guest: kasich is one of those rising stars but he has been risen for quite some time. he was elected to the house of representatives in 1982, chair of the budget committee and was discussed as early as 1996 as possible vice presidential candidate. ran a short lived campaign in 2000 before dropping out endorsing george w. bush. and went on to host fox news shows, guest host and now he has been elected governor and he is someone who is a fiscal hawk and will be looking to cut spending.

>> if i had to do it, i would nominate a bobby jindal for the next president. he is very sharp. i also think the erskine bowles, alan simpson report should be passed. they do not have a dog in the fight. it is time to grow up. . host: as a resident of louisiana, what is it pacifically that you think can take him to the next level and make him president of the united states? caller he knows how to manage a budget and knows how to make cuts. he has taken heat from the unions and other things.

when it comes to raing taxes, he says a note. we have to reduce the number of states and workers, the number of costs and higher education and other things. a title see how states like new york and california -- if we could continue to run these huge deficits. host: jamie weinstein. guest: he went to ground at 16 and was a rhodes scholar. at 25, he ran the whole hospital system in louisiana. finally becoming a congressman and the governor. he is someone people are looking to as a posble presidential candidate. it does not look like it will be 2012. he says he is not interested. he will be running again. if he is running for reelection

in louisiana, it will be hard to turn around in november and start the presidential race. heas a long future ahead of him at only 39. host: car line for independen ts. caller: it seems to meet the future of the gop is up for grabs for anybody that wants to get a piece of it because it it has been hijacked by the two- party. i don't think the gop has a very big future because they seem to have a one-size-fits-all mentality about social programs and grandchildren paying for things that we need now. that is how we have always been doing things like that. if you have a group of people -- i could be converted to a republican.

and i am an independent. it is a lot of the allegations that republicans make. they do not have a lot of proof. people who are agast minorities driving a greyhound bus not too many years ago, now the president has to deal with the fact that he could beat somebody they feel they could drag down with a pickup truck. i think the gop really is up for grabs. host: we are going to leave it there. guest: in one sense, he is right. the gop nomination is up for grabs. a lot of candidates -- i did a list of the other day. people are pushing them to run for the gop nomination. host: there was a lot of discussion regarding of the tea

party influence in senatraces and house races. did you see a significant influence inhe governors' races as well and will that inflnce carry through to the guest: 201 presidential: i think we did see annfluence in governor's races. a lot of people knew brian sandoval before he ran and thought he was more modere than he campaigned as. the influence was probably to appeal to the tea party of voters. i do think it had an influence, and will that last to 2012? i think it will be around until 20, but for aer 2012, that remains to be seen. host: jamie weinstein is the deputy editor for the daily caller and is with us for another 25 minutes.

our next call comes fromermont on our line for democrats. caller: i am a guidance counselor at a public school. i wanted to talk about how glad i am that we have a democrat for up.rnor, n coming dolas was holding o to the stimulus money to give to continue to have their jobs. now there is a program that is being implemented. basically, they are going to cause schools to cut allf their funding and lay off people so the schools cannot be run properly. we need public education. the problems are poverty and escalated numbers of children with trauma and all of the

social programs are being cut at this point. it puts pressure back on teachers, and teachers need support. guest: what state did she say she was from? host: vermont. guest: the purpose of the stimulus bill was to save the jobs that would be cut, but one of the points that republicans brought up at the time that had the teachers' unions compromised with their state, other governors, and there may years, and had a salary freeze, a lot of the jobs would have been saved. host: radford, va., is our next caller. caller: we have a republican governor here in virginia. he had to do some cutting. bob macdonald was one of the

best governors we have ever had. we had these rest tops down on 81. he shot most of them down but they are opening a backup. we had a big job loss in this state. we had one plant here in radford and it is open back up. i want to know this man's question. we do need help in finding jobs. but we need to go get them. is there are so many people. this is the lowest poverty area where i live. i want to know if we can find jobs for people. host:is the caller still there?

guest: a was interested in and who was elected as the vice chair. he has some criticism from democrats of the state already. he is going to be out of the state campaigning for other people. this is not very good for the state. i was wondering if the caller liked the idea of his gov. being the vice chair. host: how much of this meeting in san diego was a laying out the basis for the foundation for getting someone elected in 2012 as opposed to laying out some sort of road map for how to get the state's back on track? guest: i think it is a mixture i think the 2012 outl was taken care of the michael steele discussion.

on the other hand, it was a showcasing of the new talent for the gop, as well as from of the -- from of the clips they have shown. many governors want to try to seek to appeal health care. host: what is the governor's it displeasure with michael steele? at this point, we have 29 out of the 50 states are governed by republicans. they have just taken over the house of representatives and they narrowed the majority in the senate. what else do they want the gues chairman to: i compare the situation to howard dean after the 2006 election. it is hard to criticize after a great success. they did that with howard dean.

he might have impeded some of the success. in the same cases, they are saying about michael steele. a letter was written suggesting he spent too much money to raise money. they were not using the money affectively and other charges to the fact that he has been seeking the book deals. instead of focusin on the vital things to organize and get out the vote campaigns. that ishere the banks comes from, whether it is legitimate or not. haley barbour himself was the head of the rnc back in the 1990's. they are trying to push one of the executive directors of the rnc as a possible candidate, a

young guy, 28 years old, but they think he is pretty competent. host: new york, mark is arlen for independence -- market is on our client for independents. caller: as far as balancing the budget, i would at least cut the education department in half. since it was inspected in the early 1960's,e spent $110 billion on it. as far as test scores go, there has been a flat line for the last 40 years. the department of education is usels. i would cut the epa by 25%. the republican party is going to be around for a long time. the tea party has had a great

influence on it. more and more people are getng into the tea party every day. with all of the new governor's who are republicans and the redistricting coming up, it is going to be tough for any democrat to hold office. thank you. guest: one of the big victories for republicans are benefits of winning all of these governorships, and it will have a big role in the redistricting after the census. it is going to be favorable to republican candidates, and that will have a big affect in the united states congress. host fort worth, texas. caller: the future of the gop and the republican party "agenda" of creating an environment for a distress will

not succeed if the general public or the people with money -- let's say people [unintelligible] hire their own. stop giving the gop of the control and power that is an illusion. they only have control because they are allowed to keep it. no one is dependent on the gop for jobs. no one is dependent on them for anything because they can be easily bypassed by millionaires and players and everybody that has millions of dollars. take the power away from the gop agenda because everything

they are doing is creating several distressed. guest: i think that is an interesting job proposal, where a nba players create jobs. if the government does not have to put out money to do that, i am sure they would be happy creating jobs. host: you mention gov. barbara mississippi is the outgoing chairman of the rga. describe for me if you can the possible shift in focus under the perry administration from the barbour administration. guest: he once said if the government continues to hamper them and over regulate them, texas still has the option to succeed. he will probably provide a lot

of color for ". i am not sure the change in direction that will happen strategically. they are keeping on heavy barber to create a new role for him for the rga. i am not sure if they are looking to make a drastic change. host: pensacola, fla.. caller:ood morning. i had a simple question. it has been bugging me for a few days. when you have the congressmen, senators, and president of the united states take an oath to defend the constitution of the united states, like you had rockefeller the other day saying he basically wanted to get rid of the first amendment, what happens when they break the oath of upholding and protecting and defending the constitution? guest: i think they can be

impeached, but io not think rockefeller -- i strongly disagree with what he said. that was his free speech presenting. i don't think it will take any action to take him off. host: jamie weinstein was a columnist with the north star national and has worked as a fellow at the world called newspaper and was an assistant to executive editor. one of the speakers at the panel that we covered at the governors -- at the republican governors association meeting was a governor elect from south carolina. she talked about creating jobs. let's see what she had to say. >> i think we have to create a small business environment. the way to do th is to understand that when you give businesses cash flow, profit margins, what is the first thing

they do? they hire people. it comes down to a tort reform. it is understanding that when you give them profits, they will hire people. so the smaller you can make government, the more you can create jobs and improve economic development. host: your thoughts about what the governor elect guest: had say? to guest: she was someone who wanted to break up the network to cut spending, so i think she will be a fiscal hawk like all of the other governors elected. she has the potential to be another rising star in this party. host: she alsoot some help from sarah palin who has been out helping various republican

candidates in various positions. how long will folks who got their help from gov. sarah palin be able to hold onto that and a ride that wave before they can stand up on their own 2 feet and the government and do for the people what they were elected to do? guest: she got a lot of help from the endorsement from sarah palin. she was down in the polls and the republican primary. when sarah palin endorsed her, she'd shot up like a lightning rod and won the race. sarah palin said the endorsement was very significant in that race. i don't think the endorsement is going to last much longer after now. she will have to govern. they are going to want to see her govern the way she said she would govern.

host: bill is on our line for independents. caller: the government doesot have any money. the only money they have is the money they take from us. we are fighting two wars that we are not paying for. we need to drastically reduce the size of our military and bring all of those people home. alan greenspan and ben bernanke had been keeping rates tificially low, and it is just propping up the system that actually needs to fail to rebalance the system. that would allow capital creation and jobs to be created because of entrepreneurs would go out and create the jobs that need to be created. the government cannot create a job. all they can do is take money from the people, and it is the

people who create the jobs. not the government. host: chris from alabama sends us this twitter message. guest: i think he has part of the message. the other part of the message is the idea of people creating jobs, not the government. i think this is a messag that a lot of the newly elected governors would subscribe to. host: will they be able to create the jobs on their own or will they need the help of the federal government for subsidies or tax breaks or incentives of some sort to try to bring jobs to their individual states? >> i think they would like the government to back away a little bit. that is what they say rhetorically. some have criticized the stimulus package that president

obama past. i think some rejected all of it or much of it. so i think in the way they would like the federal government to back off on some of these issues. caller:hi. i would like to say that the american people can bring back america by stop buying products made anywhere else but the united states. if the american people -- i want american made products. our big corporations that e over in other countries hiring people for the fraction of a cost, they have to know that they have to come back to america. a second thing i would like to say is about the illegal immigrants. ho: we are talking about

republican governors and the future of the republican party. itaught me about your governor and what he has done with the budget. caller: he sold our toll roads. i was out on my toll road coming home from work the other day and i did not know where i was. i was baffled. it was pouring down rain so bad nobody could see in front of you. i got up to eight gate. he took away those jobs. those jobs -- now you put in your change and you have no one to talk to. mitch daniels did not do anything for us. host: an article last week -- one of the governor's features was in fact gov. mitch daniels

of indiana. guest: he says he got $4 billion back. he would probably disagree with the purpose of tollbooths of having psychologists to talk to when you get up to the gates. he is supposedly favored by bush and the people around him. he was the omb budget director, so he will be somebody interesting to watch. it is not clear if he really wants it or not. i guess we'll find out soon. host: ron is on "washington journal." caller: deducing michael steele was going to step down? -- did you say michael steele was going to step down? i think he should step down because he is physically

irresponsible -- fiscally irresponsible. i do not think he is conservative it. i just want to know -- did you say he is going to still be there or not? guest: he has not said if he was going to step down. at the conference, 80% of the governors elect that were at a private meeting -- i think there were about 26 of them down there said they would hope he would step down. they do not want him to remain as chairman. host: jerry is on our line. caller: thank you for c-span. i am an independent. i recently watched -- i don't understand the republicans at all. i think they never seem to support any type of program that

helps the people. they seem to be -- their philosophy seems to be just against everything. they are still angry at obama for getting through health care. they will not help him at all. they are not doi their job. host: tell us a little bit about rick snyder, the governor of your state. what are your thoughts about his election? caller: i just don't know. nobody knows him. we will have to give him a chance to see what he can do because his oppition who was a democrat -- nobody ever heard from him. the campaign here in mhigan did not make any sense.

host: apparently enough knew about rick snyder to elect him governor. caller: he had about a year advance over everybody else. he went through a primary and came out and everybody was wondering who is this guy? where did he come from? guest: i think rk sner has a job ahead of him. michigan is one of the hardest- hit states during this downturn. he is going to have a job on his hands. host: what was it that he talked about that he would do differently as the governor of michigan from the outgoing governor? guest: i did not follow that campaigned as closely as the others, but i think he rode the anti-obama waves that was going on. host: how significant was that

in getting a lot of these new republican governors elected and getting the number of republican governors up to 29 out of 50? guest: it is not necessarily pele are voting for republicans. they did not like what was going on and you were voting out to the incumbent, so i think it played a role in the races. host: do you think that has made enough of an impression over these wly elected republican governors, that the people who are going to the polls are not necessarily voting in support of what they do but voting them out of office if they are dissatisfied? guest: that has been clear in some states where people have been elected. mark rubio gave a speech that said this is not a referendum for the republican party. this is giving us another

opportunity, so is a better grasp of their opportunity or they may find themselves out of a job in a couple of years. host:an antonio, texas, on our line for democrats. caller: i have two questions, or two things to say. are they trying to create jobs for illegals or americans? the people who pay taxes and have their children go to the military and protect this country? everywhere i go, thedo not want to hire people from here anymore. what about the companies that left us when we are most needed them? all of a sudden, they turned on us? what about us? we need to know --

guest: i don't think any governor ran on creating jobs for illegal immigrants across the country. but they certainly hoped to create jobs and some of those could go to the legal immigrants depending on the state. host: this op ed -- who do say is going to be the first one out of the block? guest: ihink haley barbour has been talking to people about it. so many others that have talked about it among the governors, those two seem to make a run at it. i think there are four out there that her being discussed or hinted at, but we will see.

i think it will make a run or at least part a committee to look into it. host: >> tomorrow on "washington journal," and look at the upcoming lame duck conference with michael shear of "the new york times." also general wesley clark talks about president obama's trip to portugal for the 2010 nato summit. after that, new to gingrich on the upcoming republican-led congress. now i look at some of the new house members in congress. republican dennis ross when the 12th district race.

he defeated lori and merge with 40% of the vote. it was held by a five-term incumbent who was retiring. in how wife, colleen -- in hawaii, colleen hanabusa won the first district. native leaders signed an agreement to begin withdrawing troops early next year. they also endorsed a plan to hand afghan forces the command giving them full control by 2014. we will hear for -- hear more from president karzai. >> first we will begin with the signature by the president of afghanistan and the native secretary general for the long- term partnership for the islamic

republic of basket -- islamic republic of afghanistan and nato.

[applause] >> let me begin by welcoming president karzai and secretary general ban ki-moon to this summit meeting on afghanistan. over the past few 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 the process by which the afghan people will once again become masters in their own house.

starting early next year, afghan forces will begin taking the lead for security operations. this will begin in certain districts and provinces, and based on conditions, will gradually expand throughout the country. the aim is for afghan forces to be in the lead country-wide 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 heard announcements that several allies and partners will provide more trainers. it is indeed a strong commitment to our mission and it is a strong commitment to the

transition process, because trainers are the ticket to transition. this is truly a new phase in afghanistan's modern development. ten years ago, afghanistan was torn apart by civil war, under a brutal regime, and hosting the most dangerous international terrorists in the world. today, despite all the difficulties, al qaeda has no safe haven anywhere in afghanistan. the taliban is under pressure everywhere. and the afghan people are steadily getting freer, healthier, better educated, and better governed. that is what will make afghanistan resistant to terrorism tomorrow along with the afghan security forces we

are training to take over security from us. but 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 transition in a supporting role. and as you just saw, president karzai and i have signed an agreement on a long-term partnership between nato and afghanistan that will endure beyond our combat mission. to put it simply, if the taliban or anyone else aims to wait us out, they can forget it. we will stay as long as it takes to finish our job. but of course, we cannot succeed alone. the military is necessary, but we need a true comprehensive

approach. that is a clear lesson of our experience in afghanistan. that is why i am very pleased that secretary general ban is here. under his leadership, the un has been a true partner for nato. indeed, afghanistan has brought the un and nato closer together than ever in our histories. and we will have much more to do together, to help afghanistan find the peace, security and development its people deserve. mr. president, may i give you the floor? >> thank you for your posting, secretary general, and to you president ban ki-moon.

ladies and gentlemen, we had a very important summit this morning of a nato and afghanistan in which i, on behalf of the afghan people, thank the members of nato for the contributions they have been making to afghanistan for the past nine years, for the sacrifices they have endured, and for the assistance they have provided to afghanistan with the taxpayers' money. i think them for all of that and inform them -- i thank them for all of them and inform them of the progress as we have made in afghanistan over the last years and also the continuing difficulties of the afghan people. i think them for the sacrifice of the men and women of nato and in afghanistan andhe help that have provided to education and

the well-being of the afghan people that have truly made a great difference to the lives of the afghan people. also, i informed them of the concerns of the afghan people with regards to civilian casualties. we also discussed at length on afghanistan's plan to transition to afghan policy gradually before 2014 which was a bully confirmed by our nato allies -- ably confirmed by our allies. today's meeting demonstrated a keen awareness of afghanistan. we also spoke about the peace

process and the need for all world leaders to back the process. i am glad to tell you now that on the agenda is between us, i found voices of agreement by the world leaders. i, once again, what express the gratitude of the afghan people to you draw rasmussen for conducting this very important meeting in a manner that will benefit the afghan people for a better future, for a more secure future, for a future in which afghanistan will be contributing towards security and economy rather than one that will be a burden on the world community. thank you for signing today the enduring partnership with us

looked over and approved by the secretary general of the united nations. thank you very much, gentlemen. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you secretary general rasmussen. thank you president karzai of afghanistan. it is a great honor and pleasure for me to be standing next to president karzai and secretary general rasmussen. thank you for holding this varian board meeting on afghanistan. this has culminated in the adoption of the nader- afghanistan partnership agreement. -- nato-afghanistan partnership agreement. this will lead to progress on the ground in afghanistan. that me stress that we will

continue to work closely with the people and government of afghanistan. we all share the same goals -- stability, good government, respect for human rights, and harmonious relationships between afghanistan and her neighbors. there have been obvious difficulties in recent months, but we remain united. we have to define the clear path for a transition. afghan institutions have demonstrated that they can take on increasing leadership responsibilities. the united nations will do its part to support the civilian aspect of this transition. we also recognize that there can be of no purely military solution. being depends well-

on a continuing dialogue aimed at resolving the country. the afghan-led path for a solution has only entered its initial stage. as we move forward, we must be guided by realities. let us remember that afghanistan has been at war for several decades. the united nations has been working with afghanistan throughout this time helping at every difficult moment of their country's history. there are no shortcuts to peace. the united nations is committed to supporting the afghans for the longer term. i think nato for their commitment and i pay tribute to all of the civilians, afghans,

and international to have given their life. the costs have been high, but the objective of trans-atlantic peace remains necessary and just. i look forward to continuing a close collaboration with afghanistan. thank you very much. >> we cannot hear you? >> german press agency. a question for all three gentlemen. given the serious issues you face on reconstruction, security building, how confident are you that the 2014 deadline can be achieved? thank you. >> i am confident that we can meet the 2014 deadline primarily because we've seen a growth in

the capacity and quality of the afghan security forces. we started our training mission last year. already, we have more than 260,000 afghan soldiers and police. the numbers are growing. by the end of next year, we have said the goal to have 300,000 afghan soldiers and police. 85% of the afghan soldiers are partnering with the international troops in major military operations. more than half of the participating troupes e afghans. they do a great job. this is why i am confident we can meet this goal. let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the afghan security forces who do their job in such an excellent manner. >> we are confident that the

transition will succeed. to the afghan leadership and ownership, because i come today to share a commitment to the international community. this strong commitment will be matched by the determination and hard work by the people of afghanistan. the two combined will give us the results of an effective, irreversible, and sustainable transition. >> i seconded the positions taken by attorney general rasmussen and president karzai. the transition is not about the debate. this is about the state of terrorists.

we want to promote their own stability and peace. this will be a gradual process. it may require patients and a strong commitment and support from the international community. we have a strong commitment coming from world leaders. the international community will have to support the afghan government in line with their national priorities. this is what we have in the -- have decided in london and kabul. we want to build capacity for the civilian side of the transition. as you know, the united nations has been helping for six decades and the u.n. will continue to be engaged in the long term and

working together with president karzai and his government. thank you. >> from one tv, afghanistan. my first question is to attorney genel rasmussen. is it nato committed to help after 2014 to any threats in afghanistan? what is your comment regarding pakistan interfering with internal affairs? my second question is to mr. president.

>> first of all, let me stress that the long-term partnership agreement that we have signed today is not only a clear signal to the afghan people that we will stay committed beyond the date when our combat mission and is. it is also a clear signal that we will not leave behind a security vacuum that could create instability in the region. i see this in parallel with a steadily strengthened partnership with pakistan as well.

[answering question in farsi]

>> president karzai, just recently you criticized native tactics in conducting nitrates -- nato attacked its -- and a boat tactics. have you resolve this with your partners in lisbon? >> we are engaging in a very friendly and substantial discussion on all issues that are of relevance to afghanistan and the success of our joint mission. there were listening to the afghan demands about the concerns of our afghan people. this was done during the summit as well. it was appreciated and understood by the leaders attending the summit.

i found an environment in which afghanistan's difficulties and realities on the ground were substantially understood and agreed upon by our partners. i hope that as we move forward these difficulties will go away and 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 confidence towards a partnership that will bring a success in our endeavors. >> canadian press. president karzai, and they will

remain in the non-combat training world. i am wondering what you think of that and what canada should be doing with their forces after that? >> could you reply in french, please? >> canada has been at the forefront of the assistance to afghanistan from the beginning. the afghan people are extremely grateful to the canadian contribution to the well-being of the afghan people. decision to continue to assist afghanistan after they have ended the military mission is welcome. as it was announced today by prime minister harper that canada will continue to assist with the training of the afghan forces and with the

reconstruction and continuing assistance. we are very grateful for that. [rasmussen answering in french] >> manitou express my appreciation for the canadian decision to provide trainers for the training mission in afghanistan. this training mission will be crucial for the transition process, and i hope that the canadian decision will serve as an outstanding example for the other allies and partners.

>> president karzai, i would like to know as the secretary- general said, all people of afghanistan should be involved in the process. how is the current situation with thte taliban and former talibani? >> we had a meeting in july of this year which proposed a high council for peace alongside other recommendations and we have moved ahead on those recommendations for the high council for peace. is there now with the membership and leadership. the afghan desire for peace is strong and unanimous.

i am happy to report to you today that this was recognized during the summit this morning. there is an afghan entity for the peace process for us to move along with regards to the peace process with backing from the international community. >> german television. on this side. you have mentioned, secretary general, that in october next year there may beat reader thousand security forces -- there may be 300,000 afghan security forces. can you describe what has changed that you are now so positive that nato can hand over the responsibility in the 2014? what positive results can you mention that led to this

decision you have just announced? my second question is you have the military forces in the south the. with the military offensive be completed by 2014? >> as i mentioned, i base my optimism on the fact that we have seen very encouraging developments of the capacity within the afghan security forces. we are actually ahead of schedule in the buildup of the afghan security forces. also in regards to quality, we see strong improvements. secondly, we have sent in more international troops and we see the positive impact already.

we see more fighting in the south of afghanistan and the kandahar. we are attacking the taliban strongholds and we are making process -- progress. we will see process in the coming months and years. this is the reason by i am optimistic about revealing this timetable to start the transition at the beginning of next year, completed a the end of 2014, outlined by president karzai. having said that, i fully agree with the u.n. as secretary moon, that thisan ki- is condition based and not calendar driven. we have to make sure the afghan security forces can take responsibility before relieve. based upon the facts i have described, i think this is a

realistic timetable. accordg to that, i do not foresee troops in a combat role beyond 2014 provided, of course, that the security situation allows us to move into a more supportive role. >> bbc. president karzai, the nato military strategy seems to fight and begin talking at the same time. you are the afghan commander in chief and you have made it clea he did not want to see as much fighting. there is not a lot of serious talking going on now. if you do not like the strategy, what would you do about it? >> eu are pulling my legs. -- you are pulling my legs.

we outlined today during the summit a plan for a trip -- a transition by 2014 whereby afghanistan would be leading itself with regards to the forces and the ability, capacity necessary for that. whereby our nato allies will be committing themselves to training and equipping and writing the necessary tools for that arrangement to happen and takelace on time. why we're moving in that direction, we are keenly aware for the need for dialogue with those who are fighting their own country or what ever reason they have taken up the guns for. this was referred to in

particular by the news attending this summit and understood generally by the meeting itself. as i stand before you today, we are moving in the direction of a transition to afghan leadership. we're moving in the direction of conducting peace talks under afghan leadership backed, understood, and endorsed by the international community. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> later, president obama give his closing remarks of the nato summit he talks of a relations with russia and the 2014 goal to hand over control to the afghan security forces. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. we have just concluded an extremely productive nato

summit. i want to thank our hosts, the government and people of portugal, for their hospitality in this beautiful city of lisbon. i think my leaders for the sense of common purpose they brought to our work here. for more than 60 years, nato has proven itself as the most successful alliance in history. defending the independence and freedom of its members, it has nurtured young democracies, welcome them into a world that is whole and free. it has acted to end ethnic cleansing beyond our borders, and today we stand united in afghanistan to the terrorists who threaten us all to have no safe haven answer the afghan people can work a better future. at no time during these past six decades was our success guaranteed. there have been many times when skeptics have predicted the end

of this alliance. each time, nato has risen to the occasion. they have met the challenges of the time. now as we face a new century with very different challenges from the last, we have come together here in the lisbon to take action in four areas that are critical to the alliance. first, we aligned our approach on the way forward in afghanistan, particularly in a transition to a fall afghan leader that will begin in the early 2011 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 with over 40,000 troops from allies in the other countries and we honor the service and sacrifice of every single one. with the additional resources that will be put in place, we are now achieving our objective

of breaking the taliban's momentum and doing the hard worker training afghan security forces and assisting the afghan people. i want to think our allies who committed additional trainers and mentors to support the final mission of training afghan forces. with these commitments, i am confident we can meet our objective. in this been, we agree that early 2011 will mark the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility. we want them to have security across the country by 2014. this is a gold card -- ago president karzai has put forward. even as americans transition and true productions began, will also forge a long-term partnership with the afghan people. today, nato has done the same. this leaves no doubt that as afghans stand up to take the

lead, they will not be alone. we look ahead to a new phase in afghanistan. we also reached agreements on the new strategic concept vornado that recognizes the capabilities and partners that the alliance needs to meet the challeng of the 21st century. i want to give special thanks to secretary general rust reason for his outstanding leadership in forging a vision to adapted to meet emissions of the future. as i said yesterday, we have reaffirmed the central promise of nato. the article 5 commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all and to ensure this as meaning, we have agreed to take action in a third. to modernize our conventional forces and develop its full range of military capabilities that we need to defend our nations. we will invest in technologies said that allied forces can

deploy and operate more effectively against new threats such as cyber attacks. we will form alliance command structures to make them more flexible and more efficient. most importantly, we agreed to develop missile defense capabilities which is necessary to defend against the growing threat of ballistic missiles. the face of that approach will be the united states contribution to this effort and a foundation 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 reflect today's realities as well as our future aspirations. we 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 guarantee the defense of our allies. finally, we agreed to keep forging a partnership beyond nato to help make our alliance of global security. we will continue to enhance a nato's cooperation with the eu, which i will talk about later this afternoon in the summit with eu leaders after a two-year break. we also resume cooperation between nato and russia. i was very pleased with my friend and partner president medvedev who joined us today at the nato-rusher council summit. today, we worked hard to reassess the relations between the united states and russia

which has led to concrete benefits for both of our nations. now, we are also resetting the nato-russia relationship. we see them as a partner, not adversaries. we agreed to keep our cooperation in several critical areas -- afghanistan, counter- narcotics, the range of 21st century security challenges. we agreed to cooperate on missile defense which has been a source of past tension and is now a source of potential cooperation. overall, this has been an extremely productive two days. we came to lisbon with a clear task which was to revitalize to meet the challenges of al qaeda. our work does not end here. i am pleased to announce the u.s. will host the next nato summit in 2012. this summit will allow us to build on the commitments we made here today as we transition to

the full afghan lead to expand partnerships and make sure the most successful alliance in history will continue to advance our security and prosperity well into the future. considering the prime minister has drawn such a successful summit here in lisbon, i have been taking notes. he has set a high bar for outstanding hospitality. i appreciate everything the people of portugal have done. we will try to reciprocate the hospitality when we host in 2012. with that, let me take some questions and i will start with margaret warner of pbs. >> what message do you hope this sends to senator kyl and those

in the senate who are resisting voting in the lame-duck session? >> a couple of messages i want to send to the american people. one, i think that americans should be proud that an alliance that began 60 years ago through the extraordinary sacrifices in part of the young american men and women sustained drought a cold w, has resulted in a europe that is more unified than it has 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 u.s. and europe, but for the world. this is a direct result of

american efforts and sacrifices. i think the world appreciate it. the second message i want to send is that after a period in which relations between the u.s. and europe were severely strained, that strain no longer exists. there are occasions where there may be disagreements on certain tactical issues, but on a broadvision of how we achieve transatlantic security come that alliance has never been stronger. that is something americans should feel good about. three, i think the americans should know that american leadership remains absolutely critical to achieving some of these important security objectives. i think our european partners would be the first to the knowledge that.

what we have ratified here today is the direct result of work we have done over the last two years to get to this point. just to take the example of afghanistan, i think that if you said even one year ago or even six months ago that we would have a unified approach on behalf of our allies to move forward in afghanistan with a sustained commitment where we actually increase the resources available and close the training gap in order to be successful, i think a lot of skeptics would have said that would not happen. and has happened in part because we have rebuilt the strong bonds of trust between the united states and our allies. the fourth thing which goes to your specific question, and prompted i have received

overwhelming support from our allies here that the new start treaty is a critical component to the u.s. and european security. they have urged, both privately and publicly, that this gets done. i think you have seen the comments of a wide range of european partners on this issue including those who lived right next to russia. they used to live behind the iron curtain, those who have the most cause for concern with respect to a russian intentions, those 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 the russian arsenal. ronald reagan said, "trust not verify the go we cannot verify right now. we have received enormous help from the russians in instituting sanctions on iran that are tougher than any we have ever seen before. we have transit agreements with russia to allow us to supply troops. there are a whole ran 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. with the cold war over, it is in everyone's interest to work on reducing our nuclear arsenals. there are huge expense of -- they are hugely expensive and

they contain the possibility of great damage, if not in terms of the direct nuclear war than in terms of the nuclear perforation. we have our european allies saying this is important. we have the u.s. military saying this is important. we have the national security advisory and the secretaries of defense, generals from the break in administration, the bush administration, which one and two -- bush 1 and 2, as well as generals from the clinton administration and mind saying this is important. with the chairman of the foreign relations committee saying this is in our interest to get this done now. this is an issue that has traditionally received strong

bipartisan support. we have gone through 18 hearings. we have answered 1000 questions. we have met the concerns about modernizing our nuclear stockpile. we have concrete budget numbers. it is time for us to get this done. my hope is that we will do so. there is no other reason not to do it. there is just the fact that washington has become a very partisan place. 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 because it helps to keep america safe. my expectation is that my republican friends in the senate will ultimately conclude that it makes sense for us to do this.

there is a microphone coming, karen. >> thank you, mr. president. i am wondering if you could talk to us about your conversation with president karzai. he has made complaints recently. did he raise them? did you address them directly? has he stepped back from his call to reduce the military footprint there? >> i would put your question in the context of what has taken place this weekend in lisbon. president karzai is the head of a government of a sovereign nation that has gone through 30 years of war and, understandably, he is eager to reassert falls sovereignty

including control of security operations within his country -- to assert full sovereignty. we have all interest in wanting to turn over security responsibility to the afghan forces as soon as is practical. in that sense, our interests aligned. the 2014 date that was stated in the document coming out of the summit that was widely agreed to, it did not simply come from us. it was not an arbitrary date. this is a day president karzai identified as an opprobrium -- appropriate target for when afghans could take over full responsibility. between now and 2014, our

constant effort will be to train the afghan security forces said that they can take on more and more responsibility. that is what the transition is all about. during that time, president karzai, in his eagerness to accelerate that transition, will be interested in reducing their footprint, finding ways that the afghans can take more responsibility, and these are things that we want. we want him to be as assertive as possible in moving towards afghan responsibility. in that transition, there will also been a whole series of judgment calls and adjustments that are necessary to make that effective. for example, president karzai raised concerns about private security contractors and what he

perceived as "heavy handedness" on 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 it today, is i cannot stand u.s. aid workers or civilians into areas where i cannot guarantee their safety. theoretically, it could be nice if i could just send them in and they could help build a road, construct a school, engaged in an irrigation project without a full battalion around them, but i have to think practically. we will have to balance the issues of being sensitive to our footprint with the need to get certain objectives done. i have instituted ongoing conversations with president karzai. we speak by videoconference at

least once every six weeks or so. secretary clinton and secretary gates are with constant communications with them. general petraeus is with constant communication with them. what i call them is two things. first, we have to make sure demand stand our objectives are in line and the and point we want to reaches the same. -- and teh end point is the same. we need good enough communication with each other that when issues, that raise sensitivities about afghan sovereignty that may alienate the afghan population that we should be sensitive to them and we will be listening to him. at the same time, he has 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 as a consequence of corruption, that sacrifices that are being made by our military to clear out areas are reinforced by good governance practices on leave -- on the side of the afghans so we are not just clearing in the area but are unable to hold the area because the administration of justice in that area through the afghan government structures. that will be a 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 is working, and do you think 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 noof 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 things we want to get done and 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 natiol security interest that has been fully vetted. 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 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 between 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. tha tough situation. e 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 faster in the we 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 ile. 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-20 was the fact that for all of 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 sure that surplus countries 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]

>> listened to a landmark supreme court cases saturdays on c-span. >> women are still not able to receive abortions from licensed doctors because doctors still fear they will be prosecuted under the statute. >> it is still considered one of the court's most controversial decisions. listen to the argument at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio and online. >> south carolina representative james 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, everybody does step back one step. pelosi will go back to being the leader. that was not attractive to me. i thought that things that i 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 is a little bit different from the republican conference. we have 42 african-americans. we have tended asian-pacific islanders.

we have blue dogs, all of this diversity. i thought i had learned a lot about it and i really could bring discussions to that table and take them away from the table into our constituency in a way that would limit the if i were chair of the caucus. >> newsmakers at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the national governors' association hosted a seminar this weekend for the 29 incoming governors to advise them and their transition teams on a variety of issues. here's a news conference led by governor bill ritter who is hosting the event. from colorado springs, this is 30 minutes. >> we know that there are people

on the phone, media folks, so i will probably repeat the questions. i walk and i are delighted to host the national governors' association for the new governor's seminar. to my right is christine gregoire, and on my left is the nebraska governor who will be the incoming chair. they will both make remarks. this is a historic time. in memory in there have never been more new governors and there are this year. this tradition of bringing governor-elect together with governors who have served, so who are retiring and some who are going on, and doing all we can to talk about the

experiences we have had and hopefully mentor those governors in this transition. we know in this country, we are at a place where it is still a very difficult turn. the governors in this country will face enormous challenges. it is important for us to do all that we can as an association to prepare those governors for the kinds of challenges they will face from budget and policy perspective, and then a lot of things that involve the daily life of being governor. we do it without regard for party or partisan issues. it is our hope that this national governors' association can actually represents a bridge in partisan politics to help us bridge those places that sometimes can become a little more expensive during campaigns.

then we come back together and say how do we as the nation's governors come together and work on the issues that make such a difference to the people of this country. we hope to continue to do that. one of the ways of making that a stronger likelihood is being with these governors and saying this is our experience and this is what we hope to take away from this. it has been so for a great meeting in that respect. our outgoing chair was governor joe manchin. christine gregoire has taken over and has done a fabulous job in her 72 hours as chair of the national governors' association. >> thank you, bill. first and foremost, thank you to you and your wife for hosting the event.

thank you for your wonderful service to the great state of colorado. you have always been of great service to the country, and we thank you for your leadership of the last four years. we have been joined by some other of our governors, some new elected and some current ones. if i could ask you each to introduce yourselves. [unintelligible] >> welcome back. >> i will introduce governor heinemann in just a moment. we are in a historic time in our

country. our governors are facing an unprecedented economic crisis in their respective states. i can tell you, as bill ritter just mentioned, when we come here, we don't come here as republicans or democrats. we put the elephants and the donkeys aside. we come here as governors, prepared to govern our respective states and help govern this nation. and so i will continue the effort that was begun by my predecessor, called compete to complete. our children who today are dropping out of high school or a lost resource to all of us. those today who might think it is impossible for them to get a baccalaureate degree, we want to open up the doors and say not only can you, we need you to. we need more major senate science, technology, engineering, and math. we need our companies to have

the best and brightest and we need them to hire from within our country. we have the students to have the education that is necessary. one of the issues we will be talking about over the course of this year is how do we restore the rightful place of our students in the competition globally to number one again? that is what will unite us and keep us going forward. at the same time, we well know we have budgets to balance, health care issues, public safety issues. i can tell you as a governor now for six years, the role of a governor has changed dramatically in america. six years ago, you might have had a natural disaster. today governors have to stand ready 24/7 in case of terrorist attack, in case of a natural disaster that goes outside the geographic boundary of their respective state. these governors are called upon to do that which their

predecessors really did not have to pay that much attention to, and during a historic time in history. i cannot be more happy to have these 29 new governor-elect join the national governors' association. as bill mentioned, is the largest class in history. the closest was 1920, when there were 27 new governor-elect. they come at a great time. they will give us new energy, some great new perspectives. they will join some colleagues really do have the priority of what is right for america at t forefront. it is a great opportunity for us to get to know our new colleagues so that we can unite around issues that are important to the people of our respective states and our nation. i am blessed to have a wonderful partner in the vice chair of the national governors' association. they've heinemann weekday heinemann -- i would like to introduce to you governor david

heineman. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for hosting all of us. this has been magnificent so far. we could not be more pleased, but most importantly with the hospitality, and all of us know bill mangini and they are just a tremendous couple. -- built and genie. i am looking forward to my partnership with governor gregg .oire we all understand what the job is as governor, and within our respective states, we work with republicans, democrats, and independencts.

gov nixon of missouri is a democrat, but just two weeks ago, missouri came to nebraska to play football and i invited governor nixon -- [laughter] what i want to share with you is that i invited governor nixon to come to our state, and our citizens were very impressed that to governors would be walking around the governor's residence in lincoln nebraska, and chatting with the citizens. several missourians it would there, because every time we host the tail gate, we have friends from other states. that is how we develop these personal relationships that are so important. we are trying to share that now with the governors elect. what they need to be thinking about in their transition, everything from budgeting to scheduling, to how you are going to work with your staff. how you can utilize the in g8

-- how low you can utilize the nga. what i want to emphasize is that governors are leaders. we balance our budgets every year. we resolve our challenges. we take them head on. we make up decisions. if you talk to any governor in the country right now, we are focused on jobs, the economy, and education. i could not agree more with what the governor just said about education. it is one of the most important issues confronting our states and our country and i think it is very, very critical. i believe that the states can be a model for the federal government. i would hope they could learn from us that working together does pay off. it is important. that is what the american people want. they want us to work together. yes, we have competitive races

for the governorship and the presidency of the united states and the congress. at the end of the day, we are all americans, and we should be working together. thank you. [applause] >> we will take questions. >> you have alluded to this somewhat, but if you look at popularity ratings for governors, regardless of party, they are close to all-time lows. i just want to ask what that is like. >> tim and i have a four-year relationship where i couldn't face these questions. -- whaty've said they've said is that governors have to make very difficult decisions. there is a lot about the economy that continues to lag in many

respects. because of that, there are what we call unenviable choices and that can tend to alienate interest groups and people on the way. that is just part of serving out in a time of difficulty. one of the things we are doing at this conference, one of the seminars today is about budgeting. part of that will be the sense that if you are in a state where you must balance the budget, you are going to have to make some difficult choices. how do you ensure that there are shared sacrifices and shared solutions? part of it is going to be that when you alienate people, they are going to say the governor is not someone i am in favor of now. it also waxes and wanes. there will come a time that the economy will pick up and it will be better. the governor of wyoming used to

say his popularity went up and down with the amount of rainfall in wyoming. when things are good, people in public like benefit from that, but when they are difficult, we can experience a downfall in popularity. everybody in this business just understands that. we have just gone through an election, and out it is time to govern. you have to govern without regard for the polling or favorability. you just have to do what is necessary to move your state alone. >> perhaps we could hear from some of the other new governors here about the shift in policy or shift in politics in this. there has been a major political shift here as well. >> one of the objectives of the

nga is to take politics out of so many of our discussions. when i came in there were 28-22. i think it reflects a lot of things about the political landscape nationally, that that is the case. i don't think it is any less incumbent upon all those serving as governor in these times to be an association about bipartisanship as much as we can. >> this year, i don't believe it is about politics. i think it is people ahead of politics. those of us that are campaigning on getting the people of our states ahead of politics is why

you are seeing the ship. it is not just governors. is legislators, senators, congressmen, and even the white house has had a rough few months. it is all about getting the american people ahead of politics. >> i think the more important number is the number chris mentioned, 29. it is 29 new governors, not democrats or republicans. they have elected us to get things done. if we do that, people will be happy. if it really boils down to jobs, the economy, and the budget. we need to create jobs and balance the budget. >> i would like to hear a couple of different governors respond to this. from the governor's perspective,

what are the things you learned and wish you would have known ahead of time that looking back, you think i wish someone would have told me this, looking back. for the governors elect, what are you finding most difficult about transitioning from campaigning to leading to governing. campaign is one mode and governing is another. >> what i said yesterday at the meeting is how important it is in this transition time to pay attention to the transition into the selection of the cabinet, but also to everything that is going to be coming through your legislature. there are things that could surprise you early on. a lot of governors think about the first 100 days and want to have a big agenda. what you do not want is a surprise in that first 100 days that can derail you. that is one of the things i learned the hard way.

>> one thing we talked about yesterday, in the last six years, i have had more emergency declarations that at any time in history from natural disasters, from wild fires and drought to floods and minor earthquakes. the one think i do not think i was ready for was all of that and what it would entail and the partnership that it has called for at the local level as well as the federal level. the one thing i shared with my new colleagues was, there are a lot of things that are to happen that you cannot be prepared for. this is one that you cannot predict, but you can be prepared for, by making sure you have appointed the right national guard had, making sure you have emergency management ready to go, making sure you have the structure in place. it is situational awareness

that is key at that point. that is the lesson i have learned the hard way, if you will, and have passed on to my new colleagues. >> the thing i would share, chris and i it did not have an opportunity to have to the governor-elect orientation the good she was going through recount. the way i became the governor in nebraska was my predecessor was us to be the secretary of agriculture. on january 20 if he got confirmed, and on january 21 i took over. fortunately, he had included me in everything. what i try to share with the governors, know your budget in detail. know your two-year budget in detail but also be looking at a four-year big picture. that is one of the most critical things you have to decide as governor, where you were born to put your funding priorities. i think that is absolutely critical. the other thing i share this

morning is be yourself. don't try to be anybody else. that is what people of the individual states elected a particular governor, for who they were. i don't think we can forget that. >> none are% -- 95% of the success of any governor is dependent on the people you surround yourself with. i think you have to be very careful review may be pressure to appoint one person or another, because there may be some kind of symbolic value or otherwise. that might be a good story for a day, but you'll be living with the quality of the people you select for ever. we all want to have cabinets and staffs that reflect the states will live in, but you really have to focus on quality of the people. the second thing is, you cannot get distracted by debates that are meaningless. i think we really saw this in this last election.

i just got back last sunday from china. it struck me as i was there seeing the level of economic activity in china and in taiwan how poorly served we were during these last few months of this last campaign by the debate about economic policy that has very little to do th what we as a country need to do. i am a democrat. for too many democrats, the focus has been on excess executive compensation. for too many republicans, the only answer some people had to offer had to do with getting government out of away entirely. when you look at some of the economic activity that other states are achieving these days, it is really because they have figured out a way to partner between government and the private sector. one of the great things about this organization, although we are democrats and republicans when we come here, that is pretty much irrelevant. i am the chair of the democratic governors

association, but when i am here, it does not matter if people are democrats or republicans. i am is looking for good ideas that i can share and pick up from others as well. it is really being true to yourself, surround yourself with great people, and focus on the things that you know in your heart and your head really matters, as opposed to these debates that other people might want to put forward. >> when i first went to africa a couple of decades ago, they had a saying in zimbabwe, the same thing but different. the focus is may be different, but having an opportunity like this where recant learn from our predecessors in a very structured way, and even something as simple as scheduling, or how to put together a cabinet. to a certain extent, however

republicans and democrats working together to try to make sure all 29 new governors have a smooth and effective transition is a tremendous advantage. in the private sector, there are laws against working too closely together. in the public sector, there is no law against working together and trying to get this kind of support. we have been lucky in colorado to have governor richard. his team have gone out of their way to make sure we have all the information we need. that ability is one of an -- one of the things that sets this country apart. every year we are creating better and better transitions by which can hit the ground running. >> so many new people coming in, is that going to help your

ability to deal with the economic crisis? >> i don't want to oversimplify, but my experience since the downturn is that you just have to chart a path for and do as much as you can to bring stakeholders to gather and get them to develop a sense about the choices on the table and how to spread the pain that can be occasioned by budget cuts are reconciliation of budgets. i do not see it the way you do with respect to impending are helping. this is a difficult time, and we are just at ground level. we don't have the luxury of doing anything but figuring out how our services and revenues meet. half >> i want to reiterate what the governor said. all we are focused on is how to

get through this year or this biennial budget -- if that was our only focus, we would be doing a terrible disservice to our states. decisions we are making today will impact whether we have good economic growth tomorrow, whether we have the educated, skilled work force that we are going to need for tomorrow. that is what we as governors are talking about here. yes, how we manage the crisis? but that is today's problem. really we need to focus on tomorrow and the global competition we find ourselves then, and how we pull out of this with this date, this nation ready to go? >> can i just add one thing? the premise that governors have a low approval rating. i do not see that in my state and i do not think it is true of these other governors. in a lot of states, our citizens appreciate what we are doing.

they like the fact that we are willing to make the tough decisions. the which the federal government would do that. i think in a lot of states, governors are very well respected and they do have approval ratings that most elected officials would like to have. >> i will be very candid and very straightforward. i was a mayor, elected governor. we made the tough decisions in the last five years. we have turned the corner and gotten our fiscal house in order. we have built up our cash balance, rainy day fund. our city was recognized as one of the best in the northeast. the people of our state said fine, now go do it for the state. they want us to get our house in order. i think the governor hit right on the head. it is not about this year or next year. it is about the future of the

united states and the future of our states. >> i think my good friend the governor of missouri should come in here and say a few things. >> i think these new governors represent 29 you opportunities across our country to put it decision makers in place that can make a difference for people. my only comment is this is basically a job that is to jobs at the same time. your the ceo of an organization, but also governor. you have to embrace and love

your state and its history, enjoy its great diversity, and i think that is part of the real fun of this job, whether it is governor richard getting an opportunity to fly fish and some of the most outstanding places or governor gregoire having an opportunity to have a wide range of rain gear. [laughter] it is especially important to have a view of where our states are going. that part of this is something we can in part on our new friends as they come from all over the country to join us in this very small group, given a huge responsibility to lead th. >> this is for any governors

that would like to answer. because of the internment you are serving in and how difficult decisions are and how popular -- helen popular some of them are, is there recognition generally that a lot of folks may be one s?rm governor' >> my view is that if you are thinking about that, you were thinking about all the wrong things. we face some very significant challenges, but those of the challenges that belong to the people of our states. one governor leaned over to me about the low approval ratings of governors. he said frankly, they are lower in congress. they are higher for governors, because the people of our state recognize we have very serious challenges, and we are dealing with them. we are very focused on a handful of things. it is about putting people back to work, improving schools, and

making government more efficient. that is it. we don't have the luxury to focus on a lot of other things. i think there is a consensus among the democrats and republicans alike who are here in colorado springs with the same spirit of partnership and cooperation begich that existed in washington, we would be a whole lot further ahead as a country. >> i was just going to say, i have been trying to call those who could not be here today and ended up on a telephone call with governor-elect brown of california who is today facing a $25 billion shortfall and has already cut billions. i asked him, much like the question you just asked, what is your attitude going into the next four years? his direct response was, i will make the tough decisions of what is good for california today and tomorrow, in respect of of the

polls and irrespective of four years from now. at the end of the day, i think that is the attitude of all the governors here. ofdon't have the luxury borrowing or making new money. we have to make the tough decisions. we came to do the best job we could do, in respect of the polls and elections. -- irrespective of poles and elections. [applause] thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[crowd murmurs]

>> one governor said every two weeks, we set up and everyone who needs videotaping can come and you can spend time specifically talking to the camera. we have not made that leap to go to the structural --

>> now look at some of the newly elected governors. republican nathan deal defeated democratic governor roy barnes with 53% of the vote and will occupy the seat now held by sonny perdue, who is term limited. neil abercrombie one in hawaii's race with 58% of the votes defeating james duke. the seat is now held by a republican linda lindell who is term limited. from this morning's "washington journal," this portion is about 30 minutes. continues. host: welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me

in. host: an article was written and the hill -- in the hill. what does president guest: analyzing that across a left/right continue what is a mistake. i think the problem is that this country has serious unemployment problems. there are economic problems. we need to find solutions that work. the public does not care if the solutions are right or left. the care if the solutions to impact their lives in a good way. is it a matter of being far left or far right? if he is effective, everyone will be happy. if he is not, no one will be.

they have their own way of explaining it. host: in the article, they talked about some of the things you had to say. they pointed to recent polling. there is little evidence that much of what president obama used as areas of compromise would appeal to independents. she says they are fixated on jobs. "obama had given signals that he wants to move toward a free- trade deal with south korea even though many question the wisdom of free trade policies." guest: if you polled the country right now, they would say that nafta was not good for the country. it was irresponsible for outsourcing jobs. the democrats did best this year when they were campaigning on keeping free trade deals from happening. there were 111 acts cut by democrats say they would cut legislation that prevented the

outsourcing of jobs. the trade agreement with korea modeled on map that is not a popular program right now. host: they are saying it is not liberals that obama is having a clash with. anyone who thinks the problems are with the base is not paying attention. guest: i think that is a contentious statement. host: where did the president go astray as far as the progressives are concerned? how does he moved back into a position where he is going to have their support moving into 2012? guest: you can talk about progressives and what you can do to please them. that is the wrong compensation to have. progressives would be happy if employment rose, if productivity and job creation got better.

you can only do that pursuing the things that you believe it will work. if you pursue the things that you do not believe will work because the other guy thinks they will work in you do not have any confidence and will succeed, i am not sure what you have accomplished. host: in order to get what the president wants done, he has to make compromises. that is not going to be something that disturbs our ups that people on the left? guest: i do not want to speak for everyone on the left. we are facing a situation with the tax cut. they are taking a hard line in the house that they will only extend them for those making under 250,000 dollars per year. i think that is a recipe for making sure republicans get them all. i would support extending the threshold to $1 million and

putting in unemployment insurance extension instead. i think that is a practical thing to do. there is a possibility of getting that through. you can put the republicans in a position where you can say, do you want to hold out for people making over $1 billion per year? or do you want to have more unemployed people? that is a good fight to have. to do that, the president needs to step up and say what he believes and explain to america what the political situation is and tell them this is the right way to go. host: we're talking about president obama and his relationship with progresses. jam -- jane hamsher is the founder of the blog, firedoglake.com.

you can send us an electronic message via twitter or e-mail. the bigger concern is whether or not the president is going to move to the middle as a result of the elections. is that a concern for you or is it about getting done what is on his agenda? guest: again, the move to the metal -- he is -- middle -- it is hard to justify spelling -- spending $1 trillion on an overseas war when people are unemployed here. we are talking about cutting social security. it is becoming a more and more untenable position.

i am not sure that is the left or it is a centrist position to do that. host: let's go to indiana on our line for republicans. caller: i want to make the point that any president can become popular. but there are two things that most conservatives understand. the rich do not pay income taxes. the dividends that are attracted by pay no income taxes -- they pay 80% on certain investments. they need to understand that if you increase taxes on businesses, taxes effect businesses. -- affect businesses.

that will cut people's employment hours and wages. or they will send jobs overseas where there is no income taxe. or they will go out of business. when they understand that and agree with the republicans on jobs, there will be compromise. guest: you are talking about trickle down economics, which has not really worked. when the tax code is adjusted to put more money in the pockets of the wealthy, they do not spend it. the people most likely to spend it are on the bottom of the economic ladder. a new study that was released in the case that. if they cut unemployment benefits, they will cut a lot of money from the economy. i think it is about $1.60 for

every dollar allocated. host: our next call comes from south carolina on the independent line. caller: how are you? host: how are things in the prosperity? caller: i have not had any problems finding a job. host: what is your question for jane hamsher? caller: how does redistricting out that my boat at an individual? -- my vote as an individual. i would also like to say that the comment she made about taxes -- they do not to reinvest their money. they keep their money. the tax cuts do not do anything but raise insurance prices, raised health care. you do not get the money where

you what it. you spend it where you have to. that was my comment. but i would like to find out about the redistricting if she can answer that question. guest: i am not sure how it will affect you personally. i know there will be redistricting done. republicans took a lot of -- the republicans will gain 15 seats in the next election. depending on where you live and how they plan to drive your district, it may affect you and it may not. host: the house democratic whip, james clyburn, is going to be a guest on newsmaker spoke all -- "newsmakers." let's take a look at what he has

to say and get your response. >> when i saw that attitude, a lot of our people barely lost. 250 by thousand boats in total. 1200 votes here. there were less than 60,000 votes that we lost the house by. i guarantee you that if we can speed up this recovery from 25 miles an hour to pick by miles an hour, and people in the private sector as we have been going, we will have the wind at our back. a lot of these people will be back.

what we are going to see a lot of these narrowly-beat beat democrats come back again. host: jane hamsher of firedoglake.com, do you agree? guest: absolutely. a lot of people got their seats back on the republican side who had lost their seats in the 2006-20008 -- 2006-2008 wave. if the economy is good, it will be good for the people in charge. the main goal should not be pursuing right or left policy. it should be pursuing a successful policy. that is what the president campaigned on.

host: our next call comes from coretta on the democratic line. -- comes from florida on the democratic line. caller: i do not know propinquity jane is speaking for. they keep saying president obama is moving to the middle, republicans and the tea partiers moved the line. i have not seen any president mortgage respected -- more disrespect it then president obama. they will not even called him president obama. just obama. in the mold until the middle finger, -- moving to the middle thing, i did not know you are

speaking for. you are talking about president obama more than you are trying to help him. he is trying to help all of the people. or the life of me, i cannot see how you are supposed to be helping him. all of the lies that fox news is telling. guest: the health-care bill was extraordinarily unpopular and caused democrats no small and a degree -- of grief in this election. the only evidence they saw of it in their own lives was getting a bill from their insurance company saying there health care was point to increase. you would have had a powerful argument that no matter what the policy was, it brought health- care into people's lives. that did not happen.

that was a mistake. the democrats paid for it this time. there were a lot of back room deals and a lack of transparency. that caused a lack of trust on the part of the public. president obama campaigned against that and he knew the danger of it. i think there were problems and i hope that going forward they will learn from those lessons and be more transparent and focused on trying to bring jobs to the country and show people that government can operate efficiently and make a difference in their lives. host: steve on our line for independence. caller: the problem with president obama is that he said he would do all of these things when he was campaigning.

now