cultivated in other trouble spots like pakistan, yemen, north africa. the president in his strategy he released last night is going to bring home 33,000 troops by next summer. i know you have talked about the reason we will leave that number there is to support another wave of violence so that unclaimed victories -- our claimed victories will not be lost. i remain unconvinced as a member of the armed services committee in the house intelligence committee.

year? my constituents are looking for that answer and i need to have him as well. >> from a military standpoint, it is the focus on keeping the fire power, if you will, the manpower through the fighting season. and then obviously putting the commander in a position. i get that there is a very small number in afghanistan, but that is not the case in pakistan. i never looked at this as a single country approach. it is the region, and the other core objective, if you will, is to make sure that afghanistan is stable enough so that were returned to where it was when

they grew up there. there are growing numbers of those. that is where we are in afghanistan. they're very tightly wound with the network that will try to destabilize afghanistan and a takeover that the government. i am hard-pressed to think that if they are still running the country or get back to that position, they won't be the host, if you will, for organizations in the past. the focus, i think, is to have as much, got through this fighting season and the importance of getting through the next fighting season as

well and moving troop movement back. it is time to bring the troops out. >> let me try this from another perspective. the plan over the next year, why are we not putting our forces in half by next summer? what is the modular utility for having the extra 17,000 troops there between the 30,000 that the president wants to bring home by next summer and achieving 50%, 70,000 troops by the summer. >> if we did what you just described, wheat and do all of the gains. the strategy has no chance of succeeding if we were to do that.

>> i know that my time has expired. we obviously have tough questions in a tough road ahead. i appreciate the work that you are doing. >> admiral, i have a couple of questions. my concern, after being there a couple of weeks ago and talking to the soldiers, and you hit on this when congressman cooper was talking about pakistan. a realize that we were not talking about pakistan, am i mistaken? >> it goes to the regional approach.

>> my concern, and if you would speak to this, as you sit there, somebody we rely on to help us make the decisions, your statement was that al qaeda is on their heels and the taliban is in check. >> the taliban is in check in the south, they are not in the east. >> we have them on our heels. >> that we can accept the risk associated with that brought down while still being able to succeed in the overall strategy based on the game's of the

surge over the course of the last 18 months or so. >> they have all announced troop withdrawals. is that correct? >> they are modest and not uniform at all. they are more modest in general than what we have proposed. that is what we are sticking with and i have not heard anybody walking away from what we agreed at lisbon. >> is the total nato force going to be u.s. and coalition forces? is that classified information? we don't know where it will be a year from now.

we certainly released the numbers of where we are today. we don't know where we will be at the end of next summer. but there will not be dramatic increases hoare people departing the coalition. there is a lot of commitment. >> is important what the total force is? >> thank you, mr. chairman. my question, whichever one of you can answer is they think the public is a bit confused about what 2014 represents.

given the announcement of the numbers that we are withdrawing, by the end we would have withdrawn our troops. the time that afghanistan takes over the whole military effort. so given that, what are the numbers that are anticipated? you may statement, if peace is achieved and the numbers that are currently planned may be reduced. i assume there is some understanding. >> we will be able to shift of the mission focused more towards adviser, assist, training, supporting them.

this is a lot of what we are fleshing out about an enduring strategic partnership. i don't think until we know what the status is, it will be smaller, have emissions that will become increasingly more focused on supporting and enabling afghan. >> the number of what the troop strength was, 2008, after president obama came into office, it looks like a doubling of those numbers if i remember correctly. we went up to 60,000 and we are

now up to 100,000. we will draw down 33,000 by the end of next year. and the question becomes from that, at 70,000 that we have left, not as large or whatever it is, what does it look like in terms of the relationship of those numbers? >> the thing that they have said at the beginning of the strategy is that they will commit to periodically reviewing. i would anticipate that the regular process that we have demonstrated will continue through this administration and i would hope on through to 2014 and beyond. >> somebody wants to know in plain english, are we going to have troops in afghanistan?

or are we not going to have troops in afghanistan? we're going to have troops, we just don't know how many there will be. >> we will have troops with how much reduced numbers. they will be leading their own security at that time. >> troops, with guns, that will be in some way in of harm's way. that is what people are really concerned about. the respect of of what their agenda maybe, we will have men and women in uniform that will be potentially in jeopardy after 2014. >> the president has not decided on the character or numbers beyond 2014. i think it would be unwise for someone to do that at this point in time and giving you my

best judgment that there will still be emission for the united states that will be supporting the afghans as they take the lead for security in their own country. >> the bottom line question is very simple. there may be a potential for harm's way unless they will be somewhat protected. they still will have a potential of being injured and potentially kill. >> i think that we anticipated a residual force, but i don't want to put words in the present at's mouth. -- is the president's mouth.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. we're certainly grateful for both of you and your dedicated service and great leadership. i will try to be quick. about the impact of what we're doing in pakistan, we have troops [unintelligible] as well as visits to pakistan and the importance of them partnering with us. and we don't send the wrong message to focus on the

insurgents that are a threat to them. and they continue to partner with us. he raises his issues pretty well. probably my main concern is that i have always said in iraq and afghanistan, it was an important part of what the president said in december of 2009 when he laid out his plans for the surge that i commend him for doing. an important caveat was facts on the ground. will begin drawing more this year. we already know what the facts on the ground are going to be next year. rather than waiting to see what the fax actually our next year. that is a concern i have. and the importance of afghan

security forces, the key aspect of what they are doing. you've talked about the importance of them being trained as part of the calculation in this drawdown. i assume you have calculated, which will probably lose 30% of that. >> expectations about both are based on what we have experienced today and the progress in bringing the attention of.

more and more units, all of the units in the south and southwest. they're able to get a very good sense. >> it raises a follow-up question, we're treating them up through basics. the desertion or attrition rate, to counter that, we have to continue to partner. because there are forces there to partner with, how they do that partnering with that many less u.s. forces. gosh i don't anticipate a significant shortfall in that

regard. what we're getting as we grow the force is more time to pull units up for retraining, more time for leaders for further development. the admiral mentioned the specialty schools that are developing via allen enablers and specialists and so forth. i think the what has put the effort at risk in any way. >> the best training we give them is when they are out there in the field with the best qualified and best trained most capable force in the world. we do not equate in newly

trained security force individual because there is obviously a huge difference. as i run out of time, my hope is that we get to next year with the 23,000 the number. if the facts are not what we hope they will be, we don't go forward and then. a final comment, we are indebted to you and your family for your heroic service. thank you for what you have done for all of us. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president can't win on this one. one side will say they you are

withdrawing too many troops at a time when we need to have them stay the course. in of the other side, folks say, look. we are tired of war, bring the troops home. let's close the door over there and bring the troops home. first of all, i appreciate you being here today. i want everyone to remember that the president was clear in his 2008 campaign. he said he would draw down u.s.

forces from iraq. and he pledged to refocus on the neglected war in afghanistan. he has made good on both those commitments. in spring 2009, we had 130,000 troops on the ground in iraq. we now have 61,000 on the ground with more leaving everyday by the end of this year, we will have less than 130 department of defense boots on the ground in iraq, unless there is some change in the security agreement. with the addition of 30,000 troops and renewed focus on afghanistan, we have been successful by all accounts. we degraded insurgent groups. we deny them territory while

neutralizing and disrupting transnational terrorists who continue to threaten us it and our allies. -- us and our allies. the president made perfectly clear when he pledged additional forces to afghanistan, the 33,000 troops surge, that he would begin to return those troops home in july of this year. last night, true to form, the president made good on that commitment. 10,000 troops by the end of this year. over the next year, approximately 30,000 troops are to return from afghanistan. what would it look like if we left right now?

if we just decided to close the book on this painful era in our history? let's close the book on it and get everybody out of their like we're doing in iraq and just leave -- what with the area look like? what would the future looked liked for americans? will we be snubbed like a bug in their rugged and think we will not have to worry about what is being fermented in these underground areas? what about pakistan, a nuclear country, right next door to india, a nuclear country? india has been the victim in the mumbai attacks by a terrorist

plot hatched in pakistan. what will we do if we leave that area destabilized by withdrawing their troops from afghanistan? i submit that it would not look pretty in the long term. we would end up having to recommit troops, probably a larger number and at a greater expense at a time when we would at least able to afford it. i do -- i regret that we have been put into that type of situation. but that is where we are. so what do we do from here? i think the president has made the right decision.

i want to bring a real soldier home, if i could, right now, today, but it would not be the responsible thing to do. i want to encourage the people to support the president. thank you. thank you so much for joining us today. ed rolan, thank you so much for your service and to europe -- admiral mullen, thank you so much for your service and to your family for your incredible sacrifices. we have heard a lot about numbers and time-. we have heard a lot about the generalities -- and time lines. we have heard a lot of the generalities.

there is another element this should be as concerning as the operations in afghanistan, which is what is currently happening in pakistan. my concern is that, if we do not have a nickel suffered in pakistan, we will love be successful -- if you do not have an equal effort in pakistan, we will not be successful. in light of the current conditions in pakistan, with the relationship between pakistan and the united states and with the current projection of force drawdown in afghanistan, do you believe that we will still be in good shape with our operations in afghanistan and our efforts to beat the taliban and ultimately displace al qaeda

with the current situation in afghanistan and the proposed drawdown? >> i think the pakistan calculus will depend on what happens in afghanistan, not completely, but significantly. at the same time, they're going through an incredibly difficult time right now. it is not just in your relationship with the united states, but also internally, particularly the military because of what they have been through. the entire chain of command thinks it is important that we sustain this relationship, even through its most difficult times. i am heartened by the fact that we are going through a very difficult time. the relationship is still there. i am chastened by the past and we said no, when the relationship had been broken.

in the long run, it is the region, both countries. this is a very risky part of the overall strategy, which is why we have been in case so long. it is not just afghanistan and pakistan. there is india. should we walkaway know, i worry a lot that we will be back and it will be much more challenging than it is now and much more dangerous. >> i would agree wholeheartedly. we really have to look at this region in a very integrated manner. we have to reinvest in the relationship with pakistan to

secure the cooperation we need from them on counterterrorism, but also in helping to reach the goal of stability in afghanistan. >> are either you confident that we can get to the point where the relationship between pakistan and the united states in relation to what we're dealing with in afghanistan will this to the point where their efforts will be on the level of where we believe they need to be? having just trouble there, there are many concerns about their current level of effort, especially on any of the networks we're dealing with. the concern is that we do our part on one side in afghanistan and they have a safe harbor on the other side and pakistan. do you see as being able to get to a point to have an active

pakistan government and army combating the taliban in their country in a way that helps us overall strategically in the region? >> as we succeed in afghanistan, i think pakistan will face some real strategic choices, in terms of whether one to end up when this comes to a successful conclusion. i think the real question for them is what role will they play politically in helping to get to a political endgame in afghanistan and with reconciliation and so forth? that is really whether key decisions will live. that will ultimately have a huge impact, not only in their relationship with afghanistan, but also on the relationship with us long term. >> thank you for sticking around

and helping us out to understand the president's announcement last night. admiral mullen, in your statement, you said that we will continue to build a strategic partnership with afghanistan, one not based on a military footprint, but one based on friendship. something that was lacking in the president's speech last night was further defining what that relationship will look like. i wrote a letter to secretary for knowing a few weeks back about what this transition -- secretary for -- secretary fornoy a few weeks back about what this transition will look like. it is not just a matter of doing a drawdown, but what it will look with in the future. i am interested in hearing from

you, secretary, and then you, admiral, about what that relationship look like, what that strategic partnership with afghanistan looks like that we are not leaving like we did in the 1980's and, to the american people, that we're not saying longer militarily the need to be? >> said think the partnership will have many -- i think the partnership will have many dimensions. there will be economic investment opportunities and some early days of that are already being seen, like the mining sector, the i.t. sector, the telecommunications, agriculture, and so forth. i think there will be a security cooperation component that will be important in continuing to press our share of counter-

terrorism and to continue to support the development of the afghan security forces over time. i think there'll be people-to- people loans, education elements, and so forth. the key message here is that, even as we achieve our military goals and the military drawdown is made possible and the afghans take more responsibility for their security, we're not going away in their relationships cents. we have vital interests in this region. the objective of disrupting and dismantle -- smelling al qaeda is not going anywhere. we will -- and dismantling alkyd is not going anywhere. we will stick with this. the means by which we do that will change over time.

>> the focus is multi-sector. there are ongoing negotiations right now about what this will look like. i'm not involved in those. from my perspective, it is talking about the right things. the president of the united states and the president of afghanistan are both committed to this. that will be the framework for how this looks and it is based on the assumption, obviously, that we get to a place where we have a successful transition. obviously, our foot pit -- our footprint would be dramatically reduced. we would have a long-term relationship that sustains a level as the bay so that it can grow -- a level of stability so that it can grow, so its economy

can grow, and have an impact not only in afghanistan, but also next door in pakistan. >> i think the responsible and delivered a drawn gun can be more delivered and more responsible. it can happen faster and mozart kissed -- and more focused. if we get out of afghanistan, what we have left? we need to be thinking about that. what does that look like in the future. i just want to be sure that you're all talking about what this looks like in the future, what model -- what relationship we have with a current country and with the afghan-u.s. relationship will look like. >> with the afghans and how that

matures, i am sure that we will be coming back here to talk with you about that in more detail. >> thank you. >> we have two more members of questions. i understand our witnesses have agreed to stay. i would ask the members to keep it brief if possible. thank you for agreeing to continue this for another 10 minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you all for your service and thank you for being here. i know you have been here awhile. looking at afghanistan and the history of afghanistan, at its difficulty in providing a central control and a central strong government, what changes have you seen over the past few years, if any, in terms of the people of afghanistan willing to

accept a strong central government and be a part of a one nation state. i believe the answer to that is directly related to our chances of success long term. >> i do think that afghans increasingly do have a sense of common nation. i think that's the level of government that matters to them most and where we see them investing really, participating really, holding people accountable, it that is at the local, district, and then by extension, provincial level. they focus on is my district

governor listening to my basic needs? are the instruments of government not preying upon it, not being credit for it, not being corrupt, etc.? the first place we have to help them get it right is that that local district or provincial level. working on the national government, we are making progress in terms of capacity. but that project will take quite some time. in the meantime, the real stability is coming up at the local level. >> i was in afghanistan about three weeks ago. i was able to visit not only some of the larger areas, but i was able to go observe firsthand some of the village stabilization operations with the special forces. i was struck by the success that they have had at the local level, particularly the progress that has been made in the last

18 months or a couple of years. i was able to see that firsthand. i was able to -- i was flown around from ac-130 from my district. i was assured that they did not place that little rock c-13 just for me -- see you-130 just for me. -- that c-130 just for me. >> we have an update on iraq and the drawdown nash day. again, it was actually amazing to hear the story about how there would be 157 military by

the end of this year. having sat through a number of those hearings, admiral mullen has been stellar in helping to guide our country through that challenge. again, for so long, i should tip my hat off to in that what we heard yesterday was a really amazing accomplishment under your leadership. i was struck by the fact that, when we had meetings on a other agreement, there was angst in this committee about getting too far into a higher marginal risk. this will probably be one of your final appearances before this committee. a learned to know if you wanted to share perspective about that appearance. of course, it would be totally different parts of the world in conflict, but there should be

some confidence that we can draw about your success in the drawdown and what we're contemplating here today. >> what is hard to forget is how bad it was in 2006-2007. we were in freefall until the surge in iraq. there was even some uncertainty of the time whether that would work. a lot of that was external pressure from the standpoint of outside forces. a lot of it was internal. it is a different country in so many ways and we understand that. i actually believe that there will be -- we focus in

afghanistan in a limited way in the ministries, not across the whole government, the central government of afghanistan. in the long run, this is a decentralized country. how do you make it flow and work? that model is a very powerful model from my perspective of where we are. how many will be left? we do not know. oronoco bay is 157. how many will be left in afghanistan? -- right now, is 157. how many will be left in afghanistan? we want a strong partnership with iraq for the future for lots of reasons. i think they are little more evident now than they were in 2006-2007 given the turmoil going on in that region. in that regard, it is very

instructive. there are huge differences and we have to take into consideration both the similarities and the differences and acknowledge that come in 2006-2007, we were in our fourth and fifth year war. now it is five years later. we are in our 10th. and that has to be integrated into our overall decision as well. >> the deadlines are always subject to change, but they also help focus the focus. i hope the would-be -- i hope that would be one of the general ways to help us get through this. >> i think that is true. one of the things that happened with the president's speech in 2009 when he said he would start bringing troops out this july, which he has since made a

decision on doing that and met that commitment, is it really did energize the afghans. it sent a strong message that this is not open-ended. we will have to get up and take care of yourself. that is what people believed anyway. i talked about the risk associated with this in one way. but there is another side of this. there is a potential site where they know how serious we are. they may lot of progress. they will have to continue to improve. from the president down to the local villagers. they have made a lot of improvements. >> if you have any closing comments, we would be glad to hear them now. thank you for staying beyond your stop time. >> thank you for hosting us today. i think this dialogue is incredibly important to continue this throughout the mission. i also want to think this

committee and the members for supporting the members and our forces and they're incredibly courageous work in supporting this mission, which believe is in the vital interest of the united states to succeed. >> bid has been incredible for years and years. words do not capture what you have done and the impact of it. for someone in my position, i cannot tell you how much we appreciate all that you do. we will lead the continued support in the future. >> we appreciate the war fighters and their families. the special you right now. thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> our series of interviews with republican presidential candidates continues tonight with ron paul. he expresses his previous presidential bid, his strategy for winning the gop nomination, as well as his years as a doctor, service and the military, and his views on congress. that is tonight at 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. a the morning -- a des m poll shows michele bock when in a close race with mitt romney. in a close laughlimichele maban

race with mitt romney. >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site for politics in the 2012 presidential race with the latest c-span events from the campaign trail, but you information on the candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates, and links to c-span media partners. visit us at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> general david petraeus, was nominated to be the director of the cia told senators that he wanted the job. now i look at that senate intelligence committee were the general said he would run the agency independent of his ties to the military. if confirmed, he will replace

leon panetta who has recently been confirmed as the defense secretary earlier this week. he currently commands the u.s. forces in afghanistan and he answered many questions on the president's plan to withdraw u.s. troops from afghanistan. this hearing is about two 0.5 hours. hours.bout two 0.2.5

>> the hearing will come to order. i was just told that the vice- chairman will be five minutes to 10 minutes late. it will be a long afternoon and i think we should begin. the committee meets today to consider the president's nomination of general david petraeus to be the director of the cia. general, will come and congratulations on your nomination. general, i would like to recognize your wife, holly petraeus, who, in addition to being the key behind your success, of course, is also serving the nation herself, recently becoming the assistant director of the consumer financial protection bureau

where she is in charge of protecting and assisting service members. we're delighted to have you here this afternoon. this nomination comes in the midst of a summer a significant change in the national security challenges and posture of the united states. military and intelligence gains in afghanistan and pakistan and, for the first time in years, have shifted for the first-- hae shifted away from the taliban. but these gains are still reversible. president obama's announcement last night of a withdrawal this year a 10,000 of the surge troops will have an impact on operations after this summer's fighting season. i am sure members will want to hear your views, general, on that as well as on the overall situation. the death of osama bin laden and a seat -- in a cia intelligence operation carried out by u.s.

special forces marks a strategic shift against al qaeda and transnational terrorist groups. but the more near-term threat of retaliatory strikes has gone up. there is a revolution across the middle east and northern africa, affecting key allies in countries of concern alike. at home, the nation's economic and financial struggles are requiring a new level of fiscal discipline which means that the major increases of intelligence resources since 2001 and the cia budget is virtually doubled in that time will end and the intelligence community will have to do more with less. in washington, the president's national security team is changing with secretary gates retiring at the end of next week, director panetta moving across to the pentagon, and ambassador ryan crocker will likely be confirmed soon to his

post in afghanistan. the cia has been involved in or has been affected by all these changes. if confirmed, general petraeus will have the opportunity to shape the agency's response to the new reality is we now face. our purpose today is to understand how he intends to carry out that charge. general petraeus is a longtime consumer of intelligence as the top general in both afghanistan and iraq. he has been the combatant commander for intelligence operations, playing a key role. he is especially where the coordination between military special ops and intelligence covert actions. so he comes to this nomination with a deep familiarity of the intelligence community and of the cia in particular. the committee is always mindful that the cia is by far the

biggest of the civilian intelligence agencies. while the majority of our intelligence dollars are spent in the department of defense, the cia is tasked to provide independent strategic assessments to the president. it is, by design, outside of the military chain of command and supposed to balance the need to provide intelligence to war fighters with the need to operate and make assessments will boy. to be sure, cia directors have in the past come from a military background. i believe there are seven of them. and general petraeus and i have discussed this privately. he has assured me that he understands and appreciates the need for independence. we look forward to continuing that conversation today. i also asked the general petraeus to explain his vision of the cia and will do so today

so that the committee has some insight into his thinking. let me just give you a couple of brief highlights. he is without question one of the finest officers and military minds of his generation. he has presided over the shifting of momentum to our favor in afghanistan and he has engineered with other important contributing factors a victory in iraq when defeat seemed often inevitable. his outstanding loyalty and service to the country and has agreed to step down as the leader of said, to replace general mcchrystal last year. -- a leader of centcomm to replace general mcchrystal last year.

i know this well and i know senator lieberman will view this in greater detail. he has a ph.d. and a master's from princeton, which believe will serve him well. following the abu ghraib scandal and interrogation policy, general petraeus wrote an open letter to all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen under his command in iraq. "our values and the law of governing warfare teachers to respect human dignity, maintain narrett integrity, and do what is right. adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy." i fully agree. is enormously important to have a director of the cia who is guided by these values and has a sense of right and wrong and not only what may or may not be

possible. let me just say one more thing. the senate confirmed director panetta to be secretary of defense by a vote of 100-0 on tuesday. even if and when confirmed, general petraeus will not resign his commission and come to the cia until he is able to transition the mission in afghanistan to general allan. for much of the summer, the cia will under a door -- under an acting directorship. i want to state for the record that the cia and the government is very lucky to have such a fine and capable officer at the helm at this difficult time. i know that he will be a valuable deputy when you take office, general petraeus. but me now turn to the distinguished a vice chairman for his opening remarks.

>> i want to welcome you and your wife who has not only been supportive of you and the military through your career, but has also worked to protect military families from predatory lending practices. we're hearing to escort you again as your nation calls for another challenging assignment. your nomination comes at a political moment in our history as we face threats across the globe. as a war fire, you bring a unique perspective to the table and you have seen firsthand the technical value of tactical intelligence. whenever the topics, from terrorism and nuclear capabilities to the future of afghanistan and iraq, policymakers must have

unvarnished analyst judgment. your job will be to make sure that the cia delivers these. there is growing demand for intelligence on nation states, for the fight terrorism, proliferation, and cyber attacks. and for keeping a finger on the pulse of the world in as many places as possible. this last point to prove critical last year as events in the middle east unfold. while all of these challenges and once we have not anticipated get your attention, the threat from terrorism will be your main focus at the cia. the successful strike on osama bin later removed al qaeda's leader, but not the threat from terrorism. yemen presents the biggest threat to the homeland and i urge you to make your primary focus the dismantling of that group before they're able to strike us successfully. i would also urge you to look closely at the intelligence on the in -- on the detainees held

at guantanamo. numerous to the detainees have joined terrorist groups. you have expressed that it is important to close guantanamo" in irresponsible manner." i'm interested to know if you think it is still so and how you think it can be done responsibly. in addition to my concerns, it seems that the focus on closing detention facilities has left us with few realistic options for detaining terrorists captured outside of afghanistan. you and i have had this conversation about that. as we drawdown in afghanistan, we will have nowhere to detain terrorists. in many press stories, you read that the u.s. is not trying very hard to capture terrorists. instead, we're killing them. but we know that capturing terrorists is one of the best ways to get actionable, real-

time intelligence to prevent future threats. we need better policies and i would be interested in your views on this and the proper role for the cia to play in this in the future. you will i hope you will continue this relationship in much of the same way. i know that you will. director panetta has also been a fierce advocate for the men and women of the cia. this was evident early on monday criticized the decision by the department justice to reopen the investigation of cia employees involved in the interrogation of high-level detainee's. that investigation remains on going. i go strongly that years of

investigating these counter- terrorism professionals hurts the mission and it is, frankly, unfair and unnecessary one career professionals in the department of justice from the previous administration found no reason to prosecute anyone. i know you'll stand by your employees just like you stand by military men and women under your charge today. i have the privilege of engaging in and out of theater. you are the epitome, in my opinion, of what a leader should be all about. you have done a great job of leading our men and women in uniform, and i am asked quite often, as are all of us, about what we think should happen in afghanistan. my first response is, "whatever general petraeus says is the direction we should go." that is the respect i have to you and i look forward to continuing our close relationship as you resume your duties of the cia.

>> thank you very much. it is now my privilege to ask the chairman of the homeland committee, the distinguished senator from the state of connecticut, joe lieberman, and we are delighted to have you here. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, chairman feinstein. members of the committee, colleagues, friends, i am truly armored to have been asked to appear before you this afternoon to introduce president obama's nominee to be the next director of the central intelligence agency. general david petraeus. madame chair, as you indicated earlier, in a literal sense, and general petraeus needs no introduction. i want to take just a few moments to describe what i believe david petraeus has meant to our country and why i'm

confident he will be a superb director of the cia. general david petraeus is the most distinguished general officer of the united states armed forces of his generation. degeneration contains a number of very impressive general officers. he is a true american hero who has twice been called upon by our commander in chief to assume leadership of a faltering war effort and twice he not only answered the call but lead our forces out of the jaws of defeat and on to the path of the victory. to my knowledge, no one else in american history shares that record with david petraeus. at a moment when cynicism too often infuses our national politics and partisanship too

often affects national security, general petraeus has won the confidence, gratitude, and respect of the american people, democrats, republicans, and yes even independence. especially independents. well commanding are extraordinary troops in wars that have divided our country, general petraeus has inspired and united our american family. at a moment when it too many of our fellow citizens feared that america's best days are behind life and theaeus's leadership have been a reminder that america is still a land of heroes. individually and as a nation, we're still capable of greatness. our debt of national gratitude to the petraeus family extends beyond beginning with his

remarkable life, holly. as you have indicated, madam chairman, pollitt petraeus shares her husband's strength of character -- holly tree it -- holly petraeus shares her husband's strength of mission. she is leading a noble mission of ron, saving military families from predatory lending practices. general petraeus has spent twice as many months deployed in iraq and afghanistan over the last eight years than he has spent back home in the united states. throughout all of that time, holley has remained steadfastly supportive of her husband's service and protective of their gifted children. today, i know that we all want to save, "thank you, holly

petraeus." his background makes him a superb candidate for any of the positions in the government, but there are special set of reasons why i believe he will make a truly superb director of the cia, particularly during this time of war. first, general petraeus is someone whose very name inspires the trust and confidence of america's friends and the fear and anxiety of america's enemies. as our commander in chief in iraq, centcom, and now in afghanistan, he has stood at the epicenter of some of our toughest, most incentive counter-terrorism operations. general petraeus knows our enemies. at the same time, he has also built very close personal relationships with our partners and allies in the middle east

the your -- euro-atlantic community and around the world. because, as you said, he is not just a soldier but a scholar, as well. having earned his ph.d. at princeton, he is very well suited to oversee and demand the highest standards in the critically important analysis by so many who work at the cia. general petraeus certainly would have been well justified at this point in his career to seek a quiet personal retirement, but fortunately for the rest of us, service to a cause larger than himself is general david petraeus's creed and his

personal destiny. the brave and skillful men and women of the cia will be in very good hands when he is given the opportunity to be the arbiter. all americans -- to be their leader. all americans will be safer when general petraeus is at the helm. that is why i feel so personally honored to present to this committee general david petraeus. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we very much appreciate you being here. we welcome you to stay, if you would like. i know you have other things as well. that is your choice, but thank you very much. general petraeus, we are delighted to hear from you if you would like to proceed. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon and i would like to thank senator lieberman for his very kind introduction.

i might add that he has been one of the so-called three amigos. his abiding support for the troops and their families have been extraordinary. senator lieberman is a true patriot and statesmen who has served our country magna presently and i know he will be sorely missed by his colleagues and constituents when he hangs up his hat in january 2013 after 40 years of service on capitol hill. thank you, senator. thank you for your kind words about my wife. as you have noted, she is no stranger to public service. she is an army daughter, wife, mother, and an advocate for military families. as was noted earlier this year, she left the office she established six years ago at the federal business bureau to become assistant director of the

new consumer financial protection bureau response will for the office of service member affairs. holley was recently described as being bright, nice, small, and a pit bull, someone you want in your corner. i have been blessed to have her in my corner or 23 moves, and i appreciate the opportunity to recognize publicly. while it is needless to say a tremendous honor to have been nominated by the president to serve as the next director of the cia, i have worked very closely with members of the agency over the last decade, in particular, and i have the highest regard for them and for the agency as an institution. if confirmed, it will be a true privilege to serve with them and continue to contribute to the important endeavors for which some americans and our coalition partners have given some much in recent years. up front this of finance, i thought it might be useful to address a few of the concerns

that various pundits have offered about an individual with my back from becoming the cia director. some observers have, for example, observed whether i would be able to grade my own work and ensure that my involvement in afghanistan, iraq, or other endeavors will not cover the agency's analysis of those efforts. let me reassure you on this issue. but clearly, i have the views on the efforts in which have been engaged and i have shared them in the past with agency analysts and it will in the future. however, when i am in the situation room, i will strive to present the agency's position. i will also remain keenly aware that i am a leader of an intelligence agency and not a policymaker. my goal has always been to convey the most forthright picture possible. i have come to be sure, offered more assessments than the

intelligence community on two occasions, on iraq and in afghanistan. in each case, but my team and i felt the situation had changed significantly following the intelligence community's assessment cutoff date, typically 6-8 weeks prior to the date of the assessment being reviewed by policy makers. in view of that, we sought to provide our assessment and more up-to-date analysis. in two other cases, those of the assessments on iraq in april 2008 and march 2009, i provided less positive assessments than those put forward by the intelligence community which, again, stopped the clock for analysis purposes a good bit prior to the date we provided our assessment. my view in those two cases was that the assessment should have been more cautious and more qualified, and that is what i offered. in short, i have sought to provide the most accurate view

possible. my goal has been to speak truth to power, and i will strive to do that as director of the cia, if confirmed. there have also been concerns voiced over the militarization of the intelligence community in general and the cia in particular. one reason i will retire before assuming the directorship, if confirmed, is to allies such confirms. i have no plans to bring my military braintrust with me to the industry. there is no shortage of impressive individuals at the agency, and i look forward to populating my office with them. if confirmed, i will, in short, get out of my vehicle along on the day our report to langley. some observers have suggested that someone who has had six commands in a row as a commander might find the flatness of the agency's organization unsettling. i would remind such individuals that i was, as noted, privileged

to have an academic time and i have long enjoyed a vigorous debate and discussion. moreover, i have repeatedly used red teams and outside advisers, directed telescope, and a back channel contact with individuals well down in the organizations i have been privileged to command. action i used in theater. in short, i will not only be comfortable with the lack of a rigid hierarchy, but i will promote appropriate flat as of the agency's organization. i recognize that there does have to be some hierarchy and that at a certain point decisions have to be made, analyses finalized, and judgments have to be rendered. i would also like to offer a few observations about how i see the agency, observations that benefit from discussions with

the agency's current leadership team, former members of the agency including virtually all former directors and a number of senior leaders, and of course with director panetta. if i could, i would like to salute director panetta's for the right leadership of the agency over the last two and a half years. indeed, leon panetta did an absolutely magnificent job at the helm of the agency and it was a present -- pleasure to work with them as a surge in centcom and afghanistan. in assessing the organization, it is important to recognize that the agency is its people. indeed, it is blessed with thousands of individuals who truly are national assets, quite professionals, unsung heroes who go about their work silently without public recognition. they are the ultimate selfless servants of our nation, individuals with extraordinary expertise, initiative,

integrity, and courage in the face of adversity and physical danger. needless to say, is confirmed i will work tirelessly to help attract the very best people to the agency, to ensure that those hired provide the diversity needed for the areas in which we need to perform missions, to ensure that we strive to develop them and invest in them to the maximum extent possible, and work to retain them for as long as possible. the agency is, of course, all but one of 16 elements in the intelligence community. while it may be the most prominent come it is nonetheless part of a team and collectively needs to be a team player. it is critical not only that the leader of agency elements work together with other organizations, but it is also critical that the director work closely and effectively with the dni. i have known jim for a number of years and worked with him when

he was the undersecretary of defense for intelligence as well. we have worked well together in the past, and we have discussed the imperative of continuing to do likewise, if i'm confirmed of the next director of the cia. i believe i understand his role as the leader of the intelligence community, and i understand the relationship they should have with the and i -- the dni. i look forward to working with the other agency leaders in the intelligence community. i have, in fact, soldiered with many of them while deployed in the balkans, during four years in iraq, as the commander of centcom, and during the last year in my present position in afghanistan. i am also keenly aware of the need to maintain close ties with congress. the agency has done an admirable job under director panetta in this regard, and i know that

keeping the committee fully and currently informed is imperative. if confirmed, i will keep the agency on the trajectory it has been following in this regard under director panetta. i look forward to furthering the relationship and the partnership that was built with congress under his watch. with respect to additional organizational issues, many i have consulted since the nomination of emphasize the need to continue to improve the development of agency information systems that enable the sharing of information and also to continue the development of tools and applications to help with analysis. i will focus on such areas of confirmed and seek congressional assistance is required. related to that, understand that the effort to reduce internal agency stovepipes need to continue. there reportedly has been considerable improvements in recent years, however, additional attempts are reported the warranted to work for the

tensions between the need to protect information and the need to share it. on a related note, i will stroy support efforts to integrate analysts of all disciplines from intelligence and operators. in fact, the various sectors of the agency, such as the ones devoted to counter terrorism, counter corp., crime, narcotics, and others are good examples of such a depression. if confirmed, i will reinforce such approaches. but other issues in the organizational read a deserving attention are the need to maintain sensitivity to the counterintelligence threat, improved server security, upgrade leadership training for supervisors, continue the expansion of language skills, and strengthen the lessons learned process among others. i will examine each of these areas closely, if confirmed, and support for further initiatives.

the committee knows well the regional and functional issues under which the agency needs to focus. obviously the agency is heavily involved in the global fight against violent extremists. there has been, needless to say, important progress against al qaeda in recent months and i will make sure that we maintain the relentless pressure that has enabled such progress. indeed, i have worked closely with various agency elements in this campaign, and if confirmed i will support continuation of the superb cooperation between agency assets and other intelligence community elements with the joint special operations command and other military commands, and with elements of the interagency. needless to say, support for the ongoing efforts in afghanistan and pakistan, as well as for missions in other locations such as yemen, iraq, and parts of africa, will remain critical. the agency is, of course, specifically charged with the

conduct of covert operations. these operations are of enormous importance to our country. if confirmed, i will devote considerable attention to ensure such activities are properly conducted, resources, and coordinated. the it is also important that the agency, while staying focused on supporting our ongoing wars cannot be totally captured by these efforts. what could shooting to such efforts to the utmost, the agency, nonetheless, has to maintain a broad global perspective, one that is constantly searching for new threats and opportunities. the next developments in the arab spring, the evolution and capabilities of the various states and non-state doctors, the development of china, and other emerging partners, and the possible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. one particular note on the cyber threats that have emerged. i share the concerns that many hold about cyber security.

if confirmed, i will insure that the agency continues to work closely with intelligence community partners to identify and counter risks, threats, and adversaries from issues with an hour networks to threats from outside attackers. related to this, and in view of the agency's responsibility for conducting and coordinating human intelligence collection, i will also, if confirmed, examine process and collection on the so-called "hard targets" and inventory status of initiatives against them, aligning our efforts as required. finally, i also recognize that it will be critical to insure that adequate resources for corporate investments in agency infrastructure, science and technology, and other assets while also striving to be good stewards of our nation's tax dollars and doing our share to help the country deal with challenging fiscal realities. if confirmed, i will focus

intently on those imperatives as well noting that i will also not hesitate to seek additional resources that may be needed as emerging missions and tasks require. the central intelligence agency is at the forefront of the efforts to identify and counter the threats to our nation's security and interest. it plays a central role in many of our country's most important endeavors. if confirmed as the agency's next director, i will do all that is humanly possible to ensure that the agency is relentless in the pursuit of intelligence aided by our country's leaders, our military, diplomats come and our own covert operators. it would come in short, be an enormous privilege to be the agency's director and to serve with, represent, lead, and be an advocate for agency members, individuals with world-class knowledge of other countries and cultures with cutting edge

technical expertise, with extraordinary courage, initiative, and commitment and with no quest for a claim more public recognition. the -- the professionals of the agency are our country's best and brightest, men and women to voluntarily undertake some of the most difficult tasks of our nation, men and women for whom integrity and analysis are the watchwords. i have served closely with many of them since 9/11, and i cannot say enough about them and the sacrifices they and their families make for our country. serving as their director would be a tremendous honor and, again, a tremendous privilege. thank you very much. >> thank you, general petraeus. now come the pro-forma five questions. if you would just answer yes or no, please. do you agree to appear before the committee here or in other venues when invited? >> yes. >> do you agree to send officials to the cia and

designated staff when invited? >> yes. >> do you agree to provide documents or materials requested by the committee in order to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibility? >> yes. >> will you ensure the cia and its officials provide such materials to the committee when requested? >> yes. >> do you agree to informant fully briefed, to the fullest extent possible, all members of the committee of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the chairman and vice-chairman? >> yes. >> thank you very much, general. i know this is not the subject, but because of president obama's announcement last night, i would like to put that behind us and then go onto other things. when we talked, you said you have presented to the president certain options. we did not discuss what they were. i would just like to ask this

question. how do you view the president's decision with respect to bringing home certain troops in maintaining others for the rest of the time prior to 2014? >> madam chairman, perhaps i could just walk to the process because it was quite a substantial one and included three meetings. after the first meeting, i was given a hallmark assignment which i answered by the second meeting in the third meeting was the one in which the president ultimately reached his decision. the responsibility of a combat commander in that situation is to provide options to the president to implement his stated policy. that is what i did. the sea receded with each of those options was an assessment of risk -- associated with each of those options was an assessment of risk from my perspective of risk having to deal with the ability to achieve objectives of a military campaign plan analogy that at

every level of the chain of command above me that there are additional considerations. each person above me, all the way up to and including the president, has a broader purdue and broader considerations brought to bear with the position of evaluating all those different considerations including, certainly, those of the commander on the ground and many others as well in reaching his decision. i provided such options. i provided assessments of risk. i provided recommendations. we discussed all of this, again, at considerable length. the president then made the decision. the commander-in-chief has decided and it is then the responsibility, needless to say, of those in uniform to salute smartly and do everything humanly possible to execute. stated today,'s

the ultimate decision was a more aggressive the formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended. again, that is understandable in the sense that there are broader considerations beyond just those of a military commander. the fact is that there has never been a military commander in history that has had all the forces he would like to have come all the time, money, authority, and all the bandwidths. there is always a process of assessing risk. it is typically, in a case like this, as the chairman put it today "risk at the margin." there are small differences here and there. albeit they're significant from a military commander's point of view. that is how i would lay out the process that took place, the good discussion. this was, indeed, vigorous and

all voices were heard in the situation room. ultimately, the decision has been made and with the decision made, obviously i support that and will do all that i can during my remaining time as the commander to implement, set up general allan to do likewise so we can achieve the objectives of the campaign, and also if confirmed as the director of the central intelligence agency, do the same from that position as well. >> thank you. i have one minute left. i have been concerned by many of president karzai's statements. we all know what this country has done in the last 10 years. it seems to me to be the development of an adversarial relationship. how do you view his recent statements? >> first of all, let me say that there have been times when we

have not seen issues the same way. we have worked very hard to resolve such situations. secondly, there have been times where we think perhaps communication to domestic audiences led to some of the kinds of statements that we have heard, which i think have caused a legitimate concern among some who have heard them. that is understandable. i have sat down with president karzai on the numerous occasions. people ask me what the relationship is like and i say it is a productive, forthright relationship, one in which we do not always see issues from this in perspective initially, but typically when we have added these surrounds -- around we can come to mutually acceptable

conclusions. secretary gates says there are times we have not listened closely enough to president karzai, and i think this is an important element of the relationship. at times, we need to think about walking a mile or common in his shoes and to understand his perspective and the need to maintain this political foundational that is so challenging there, but without which he cannot operate. i have a degree of understanding in this case for president karzai, with whom i have partner over the last year, and during which time we had made significant gains on the security front in the greater couple -- kabul area, khandahar, and others in the face of a resilience insurgency. we haven't faced some important issues that have been problematic in the past, private

security contractor issues which are now on course. we have reduced civilian casualties every year. we did it in 2010 and the losses down due to afghan operations are down by over 10%, but that is not good enough. we understand, and we have to continue the efforts to do that. we have worked through mechanisms were afghan forces -- where they lead in 25% of teh he night raids. they're not the be all and end all, because this requires a comprehensive approach which involves a lot of elements in this civil-military plan. we have to into dialog and partnership. there are times, understandably, where there are stresses on that relationship. addressing those is not optional. that is indeed the way that we

approach that relationship. the leader is trying to reach the same kind of goals that we have a for his land there in the hindu kush. >> thank you, madam chairman. in listening to the president last night, i was somewhat disappointed with the scale of the drawdown, particularly in the short term. the reason i was disappointed was because i have visited you and a number of occasions where you have been very attentive to making sure that we understand what your goals were in afghanistan, particularly with the now halfway complete surge from the time line standpoint. you often talked about meeting to -- needing to meet gains, and

ultimately making gains in the eastern part of afghanistan. as a look back and your testimony in june 2010, just after the president had made his west point speech, you talk about him getting two messages in that speech, one of commitment, one of urgency. i want to quote you. "noting that what happens in july 2011 is the beginning of a process for transition and it is condition-based and the beginning of a process of irresponsible drawdown of u.s. forces peacoat you also said in that testimony that as we embark on the transition, and keep in mind the actions that we take will be irreversible, and we will get one shot at transition

and we need to get it right. the reason that i am concerned about what the president said last night is that i know you have made gains in the south. i know you made some gains in the east, and i know you have additional plans for moving more aggressively in the east. i am concerned because of we are now talking about pulling down one-third of the troops by the end of this year that are part of the surge and the balance by the end of next summer before the fighting season will even hand, what is the risk of losing the gains you spoke about in your testimony back in june of last year? >> vice-chairman, let me mention that the transition will begin next month.

as you know, it will be conducted in seven different locations, three provinces, one and then is kabul, four municipal district. it will include a substantial number of afghan citizens. it is nearly 25% of the population. the fact is that in each of these locations, the transition essentially has already taken place. this has been ongoing over a period of time. the capital coming municipal district, it will transition. this is made possible because over the course of time, and indeed, it forces have fanned out and afghan forces have stood up to the point that there are virtually no forces policing the streets, nor are they in kabul, i might add. we believe very strongly that this is the right course to take

and it is what we recommended. there'll be another transition any default, another in the spring, and another in the fall next year. we have an eye on the schedule. the fact is that we will have our surge forces, again, 10,000 down by the end of this year, and we have the flexibility in determining which forces and when they come home. there are already some that are coming home without a replacement that were already made. others have been identified, and then we will shape this again based on conditions, assessments of the mission, and we are constantly refining and updating our campaign plan. we will do another round of that, needless to say with the decision being made. basically, we are taking out 33,000 u.s. forces over the course of 15 months. somewhere in this summer will

happen, perhaps as late as mid september. during that time, i might add, there will be some 70,000 additional afghan forces added based upon our projections. there'll be 50,000 additional national army and police. there will also been, probably some 20,000 or so afghan public protection forces which are the contractors coming under the control of the ministry of the interior, which is a very important action. non-there'll be some other standard elements that are supported by various agencies and international elements, such as counter terrorist pursue teams and the intelligence service and so forth. it will be critical that we accelerate this as much as we can come as something we have always been about doing, so that we can indeed do the hand off as our forces cannot of locations, as we send out.

-- as we thin out and hand off. again, throughout this process, we will be constantly examining in assessing conditions. we will provide a forthright advice and people have always asked me that if something happened that was unexpected or if it increases the level of risk beyond what we have provided, what i provide forthright advice? in my remaining time, that will be the case. knowing my deputy at central command, i can assure you he will do the same as well. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. vice chairman. we will go in the regular order, 5 minute rounds. senator rockefeller. >> jenna turk -- general petraeus, when we spoke, we spoke about the nature of the cia, the evolution of the cia.

it is interesting to me -- he made the statement, "i will get out of the car all by myself." you not have a uniform on and you will be, in a sense, a new person to them. i say that because i care tremendously about the morale at the cia, the personnel, and i think it is in pretty good shape right now because i think leon panetta really work at it. he brought two people with him, but no more. other cia directors, since i have been in this committee, have been less effective, some have demoralized the cia, some have developed a very close band of advisers to whom they turn, but they have not been good at reaching down to an unexpected analyst to get a phone call, reaching at said of the usual chain of command. it is my impression, first of all, that you want to be a champion for the cia.

that is very important to you. it is also my impression that you want to focus on your duties there and used the phrase that you understand will be commanding a very large agency and you'll be involved in public policy but not necessarily the nation's leading discussion of policy on "meet the press." the cia will look at you first and they will be very, very impressed, as everyone is, but when you have done, but by the very excellence of your performance, they will be nervous. they will be receiving as their leader someone who comes in alone who is a kind of a superstar in the military and intellectual force, but when they do not know. my questions to you are the

following. it is hard to walk into a building. you are still general petraeus. to simply develop a sense of confidence. i believed so strongly in the cia, and i think they need the most immediate kind of trust in their leader. i would go so far as to say that the entire operation, of the very large agency, will turn to a better days work based upon how they see you. my questions are the following. you will take no one in with you, but you have a strategy as to how you will help without coming in in a sense, forcing yourself on them, but you will draw them to you. we discussed that in my office and you had some very

interesting thoughts and ideas, and i wish she would talk about them. -- wish you would talk about them. >> thank you, senator. i agree in your assessment of the agency. as i told you behind closed doors, i wanted this job. this is not something that was one other two in the making. secretary gates and i discussed this all the way back last year. i am taking off the uniform that i have worn proudly for 37 years to do this job, i think, in the right way. the role of the agency and its people, having worked very closely with them for the past 10 years in particular, i feel enormously privilege just to have been nominated to lead them, but you should know on day one after being sworn in that i will indeed get out of the vehicle alone. i will go to the auditorium, we

will do an all hands, and i will tell them that i am here to recruit them, and they are there to recruit me. the director of the national clandestine service is my case officer, and i will seek to reassure them using all of the same techniques applied to a different organization that i tried to use in the military. reaching out, reaching down, and we talked about the descent channel. -- dissent channel. i stress they should know that. beyond that, i'll give them my personal email which should be readily available. there will be no hesitation in providing and solicited input to their boss.

mothers and fathers occasionally take advantage of that as well, and i am delighted to answer them. i did discuss today with the deputy director and the associate deputy director, and i appreciate your recognition of mike morrell as an officer in his hands it will be taken care of. they're both longtime veterans of the agency and we spoke about the types of strategies that can be pursued to embrace the agency and to show how much believe in them, the missions that they perform in their enormous contributions to our country's security and interests. there is a whole variety of these. it starts out by going to the cafeteria a few days per week, inviting route to your office, the equivalent of company-

commander lunches, going to the workspaces and visiting them there rather than summoning them to the seventh floor, but summoning someone to the seventh floor is an important incentive as well. there are lots and lots of these tactics, techniques, and procedures, if you will, and i have been given a number of good ideas like that, and i will seek to implement them. i appreciate very much your feeling for the agency, because it is one that i share very deeply. >> finally, general petraeus, the idea of red lining and having people come at you systematically and challenge decisions you are about to arrive at or have arrived at vs picking up the phone and calling up an analyst somewhere in the building or somewhere else in the world and asking what they think about this and that'. team, formally, is an

important part of an organization and something i sought to do with the idea of having direct eyes and ears for you, reaching down to the organization and indeed welcoming them saying that is not a military chain of command, but an organization that prides itself on its flatness and the vigor of its discussions and debates. there should not be a case where someone walks out of my office and go down a hall and says, "i wish i had said this or that people that should not be the case, and i need to create conditions for people to speak the truth interagency, but for there to be truth spoken to power on the seventh floor of the headquarters as well. >> i thank you. >> thank you, senator rockefeller.

senator snowe. >> i join everyone to express my profound gratitude for your more than three decades of extraordinary service to this country. you are more than simply filling a position at the helm of the cia. you are a man of our times. during a multifaceted challenges in confronting the agency as well as this country, and the fact that you bring in a real- world operational experience from being an operational commander in both iraq amount afghanistan, and at centcom -- iraq, afghanistan, and centcom. i wanted to take you in your-- thank you and your tremendous wife, holly. we know you a debt of gratitude.

this is well deserved. i'm like to go back to the question of afghanistan, because people in this country, all the sacrifices that military families and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, those who have been injured during the course of this decade-long war are concerned about where the future is with respect to the ultimate end game strategy, particularly in light of the president's proposed redeployment and asserted drawdown. you said in your testimony in march before the senate armed services committee that we must insure that afghanistan the not once again become a sanctuary for all qaeda. you said today that we have made important advances in recent months against al qaeda. you also said back in march that our efforts are fragile and reversible. presuming that is on the basis

that you need a certain level of troops. the president indicated in his speech last night, in reference to pakistan's, that they both have to expand their capabilities to root out the cancer and the violent extremists. in respect of troop levels, and irrespective of the capabilities outside of the afghan national army, is it possible to end this insurgency without pakistan's corp., their willingness to take a durable, and ambiguous step towards eliminating terrorist safe havens? i note your predecessor, secretary panetta, said that it is one of the most frustrating and complicated relationships with pakistan. the real key to all of this is that if pakistan does not cooperate in eliminating around

the border, will we ever get to a point where the situation will not be fragile or reversible? >> senator, thank you for your kind words. i think it is very important to note what pakistan has done for the course of more than two years now. if you remember say 30 months or so ago, virtually all of the then northwest are province was in control of the taliban. it was very clear to all in pakistan, to the political leaders, the citizens, the religious leaders, the military leaders, that this posed the most existential threat to the very existence of the pakistan and state as it existed at that time.

to their credit, they have conducted a very impressive counterinsurgency operations in the very extreme terrain's. they want to clear swat valleys and they are in tough fights and we are working hard to quarter net on the other side of the border where they sometimes are tehe anvil. it is important we give them credit for what they have done and the enormous number of casualties, civilians, police, soldiers, who have lost their lives to these extremists.

there is more work that needs to be done, not only against those extremist elements against the extremists in pakistan, but also against those in neighboring countries and posing a threat to the world. senior leadership in allocated is now to be in various locations -- in al qaeda is known to be in various areas. we have been able to coordinate to share intelligence and so forth, but in some instances that has not been the case. there's no question that the order of difficulty, the magnitude of the difficulty, or the efforts in afghanistan is greater as a result of the inability to deal with some of

those very significant threats to reside in places. we have got to work on this relationship. there are hugely important mutual objectives that we need to work on together to achieve. clearly, this has been a time when the relationship has been fraught for a whole variety of different reasons, and we have to redouble our efforts there to move forward constructively. can we achieve our objectives in afghanistan? it is much more difficult if there is not assistance there, and in those cases what we have done is to establish laird defenses -- layered defense is in the areas where these groups are. down to the southeast of kabul,

there's quite a substantial afghan defense of element established there. in the mountains, there is another line of defense, another just to the southern end of the two provinces just south of the greater kabul area. then within kabul, afghan security forces are in the lead coordinating all elements including some absolutely superb special operations forces which we do seek to support and unable with certain intelligence tools and assets, but which conduct the operations on the wrong pursuant to arrest warrants issued by afghan authorities. -- conduct the operations on their own pursuant to arrest warrants. i would not say they are not doable. >> thank you very much, senator snowe.

>> that we join my colleagues in expressing gratitude for your service. -- let me join my colleagues in thanking you for your service. but i think is important in your position is that senators get the real story, someone that will be a straight shooter. i am convinced that he will do that, and i appreciate that. i brought with me a new issue of the foreign affairs magazine. they talk about the era of a revolt. the have a section with a big caption, "when no one saw it coming." but i would like to do is begin by asking you what you believe is reasonable for policymakers to expect to the intelligence committee -- community to be able to anticipate in terms of major geopolitical events. i would like to take the air of spring, really, as something as

a case study in general. over the last few months, the reporting we have gone from the intelligence community has been quite good, but in december and january when the revolutions were getting started, the intelligence agencies appeared to be about as surprised as everyone else. in fact, the directors told the committee a few months ago that the intelligence community first realized that the mubarak regime was going to have trouble hanging on in egypt when the leader of tunisia stepped down in mid-january. now, obviously not ever surprise or instability can be predicted, but i would like to hear your thoughts about whether it is reasonable for policymakers to expect the cia and other intelligence agencies to see events like the revolution

coming. what should policymakers expect you to know and when it should we expect you to know it? >> senator, i think it is reasonable to expect the intelligence community, and the cia in particular, to do everything eminently available to determine threats like the arab spring. reporting on that has gotten better over time. i do not know whether it is reasonable to expect the intelligence community to be able to anticipate that the self immolation of a street vendor would bring down a long standing leader of the country, a dictator, in tunisia. i have some degree of understanding of there, frankly. over time, because i have followed the intelligence, some of these are from my former central command days in which

are retained interest, but reporting has improved. this really comes to the point i made in my opening statement which is that the agency has to come on the one hand, absolutely maintain their focus on prosecuting the global war on terror and going after the violent extremists who oppose such an important threat to our country and to our allies and to our troops in a number of locations. but we also cannot turn that into a game of a magnet ball, to use the kid soccer analogy. everybody cannot focus on the ball, flocked to it, and thereby lose sight of the rest of the field. i can tell you having discussed this with agency leaders that they are keenly aware of the tension, again, between this focus that has to be maintained on this very important fight, a focus that resulted in the death

of bin laden, but also insure that the global coverage emissions continues so that, indeed, new developments to not come as surprised policy makers. >> what concerns me, >> what concerns me, general, there is no question that ordinary arab citizens generally have a lot of grievances against their government, but we understand you do not have to be a cia analyst to bigger that out -- figure that out. we're spending billions of dollars on intelligence. what can we get that investment so that we really get an improved early-warning system with respect to how serious these matters are? i look forward to supporting you both in committee and on the

floor of the senate. >> thank you very much, senator wyden. senator byrd? -- senator burr? >> thank you for your service. a number of us have seen you in action in iraq and afghanistan. i think we have seen firsthand that you do not say things you do not mean. given that you have made the statement numerous times that, on the day you were sworn in -- you are sworn in, you'll get out of the car on your own -- i hope you will change our mind and take somebody with you. >> there will be agency that provided security -- agency- provided security. >> general, all of the intelligence provided is derived from source reports and other raw intelligence material.

we do not always need to see it. in order to ensure that our tax dollars are put to good use anin the intelligence committee, would you agree that part of the committee's duties is to conduct quality oversight of that analysis? >> absolutely. as i stated, i think this is not just about keeping the committee informed. i think it is about a partnership. i know that is the trajectory on which lynn panetta -- leon panetta has the agency and that is what we want to continue to do. >> a hope that you will agree that on a case-by-case basis -- i hope you agree that on the case-by-cases, there are times when the committee needs the raw information to make a judgment on the accuracy of the product we are provided. on 9/11, the relationship between our intelligence committee -- community and the

house and senate intelligence committees changed. it became much more transparent, a much more open line of communication, and we had a common goal. i believe that this committee should and has been notified as fully as possible on a very quick basis on anything that was significant, especially as it related to changes and threats. do you agree that this committee should have this information in a very timely fashion, and that he will provide it? >> i do. >> thank you. last thing -- we continue to be played with the process of leaks -- plagued with a process of leaks. some of that may need to change in clearances. staff and contractors at the cia must pass a polygraph in order

to have conned -- access to, potential -- classified information. there is some very sensitive member mission. given the access, what is your personal opinion on whether oversight committee staff should be required to meet the same minimum polygraph standards of all contractors and staff at the cia? >> senator, with respect, that is not something i have discussed with the leadership of the agency. before making a judgment on that before the committee, what i would like to do, really, is to discuss it and come back to you for the record, if i could. >> i appreciate that. i think i speak for the entirety of the committee. we would like to try to begin to make sure that we do not read about the things that we discussed in the intelligence committee -- community. any suggestion that you might have that help us to plug those

holes will be greatly appreciated. >> thank you very much, senator burr. senator mikulski? >> thank you, madam chair. general petraeus, it is a pleasure to welcome you and mrs. petraeus. my colleagues have said and you are someone who has a substantial number of enlisted military in your state -- special kudos to mrs. petraeus for the way she is protecting them from financial, predatory behavior. i so enjoyed our conversation in my office, listening to the testimony here. as you know, i wanted to know not about general petraeus, who are tremendously respect and admire, but who was going to be mr. petraeus, who was going to be dr. petraeus, and to in the

heck was going to be director address -- and who in the heck was going to be director petraeus. you have answered a lot of those questions about being the ceo of the cia. i hope we have time to elaborate on that. we often talk about you as a reformer at cia, because you have certainly been a reformer at the military. so much of the work of the cia, over the last 10 years, has been contacted out -- contracted out. there has been a tremendous work of contractors, many of which have done work of dubious quality, some, pretty dirty. i wonder if you have had the chance to take a look at the contractor issue. do you see the need for reform there, both in terms of

expenditures of money, functions performed, and also this so- called dirty work that we do not want to know too much about? >> i have. in fact, it is a topic i have discussed with the leadership of the agency. it came up when i was briefed on the agency budget. if i might, just very briefly, i know that budget is classified. i will not fit into the numbers. i will tell you that, coming from the military, i kept asking, surely there has to be something more you are not telling me about. if our country gets the great cia for that amount and budget, it is the best bargain we have as a nation. having said that, there is no question but that quite a substantial component goes for contractors. as you know, senator, there is an effort already on going to reduce the number of contractors. i can tell you that effort will

continue. indeed, that thrust is present for a variety of reasons. some of them, if you will, substantive reasons. it should be done. also because of the fiscal constraints that all elements of government are going to have to deal with in the years that lie ahead. >> can i have your word thatl, cia, thateo foof the you will thoroughly scrub this issue of the use of contractors? i am talking about the appropriate need and are you -- and value for the dollar, and this whole way -- if it was tough interrogation or other questionable tactics that we did your contractors? >> you have my word. >> the job of the cia is not

just to recruit and employ spies, but would vice -- to advise us on potential threats. that takes me to cyber security. you mentioned this on page five. i would like to hear your comments from the perspective of the cia. my own view is that this is our new, and during -- enduring war. coming out of the white house, the policy has been thin. there has been a lack of urgency, cohesiveness, and muscle. will you work on a more muscular focus, urging policy, how you see the cia -- without reviewing your tactics and plans? i know it is a complicated question in a public forum. >> classes for the question. at central command, i was one of the more -- thank you for the

question. that sentiment, i was one of the more vocal proponents of -- at central command, i was one of the more vocal proponents of defense against cyber threats. one of my good friends is part of this community, which carries out a substantial portion of the activity in this arena. clearly, the agency has to focus intently on the defenses against cyber threats, intrusions, and so forth. this is where you do have this tension between need to share and need to protect. that is something htat, i -- that, indeed, i look forward to working out with the agency. the agency has a unique role to play as the human intelligence collection agency, if you will,

first and foremost, that is a charter of the cia, in terms of helping other agencies to get into networks. i indeed look forward to working that role very hard and, in a number of different ways, partnering with general alexander, and others in the agency and without to assist as is appropriate in that regard. >> thank you, general, mr., dr., director petraeus. we look forward to working with you. i have great anxiety about protecting .gov and .com. i look forward to working with you. democrats is very much, senator mikulski -- >> thank you very much, senator mikulski.

senator chambliss. >> you mentioned your west. cali, general alexander -- west. colleague -- west point colleague. i think your leadership is a great example for those who serve us. i think the questions of my colleagues have been good and do not need to be repeated. there are a couple of things i would like to pursue.

i want to talk a little bit about drones for a minute. as i told you in my office a couple of days ago, i am very supportive of the decisions the president made regarding about a bad -- about a body -- have a abbottabad. one of the decisions was to " i think we can talk about what i want to talk about -- we were able to leave with information in addition to the principal goal, which was just as for osama bin laden. what i want ask in a general context is, what kind of

evaluation could go -- should go into that decision of how much information might be there? will you use a drawing or not? do you make the decision to try to -- use a drone or not? how do you make the decision to try to capture information as well as capture or kill the individual? >> our preference and many of our targeted operations, again speaking now for the military, but it has applications more broadly, is to capture individuals so that you can, indeed, interrogate them, so that you can develop knowledge about the organization they are part of, so that you can build, a few well, the link diagrams, the architectural chart -- if you will, the link diagrams, the architectural chart so you can

understand the hierarchy, and generally continue to pull the string in as you develop an ever-more granular and nuanced understanding of these organizations we're seeking to combat. there are occasions where we cannot, for a variety of different reasons, carry out the kind of operation. in such cases, obviously, kinetic activity is a course of action, whether by drones or other platforms, for that matter, other kinetic elements. that does provide an option to less -- to us, where you cannot carryout a copper -- capture operation. for the experience of the military with unmanned aerial vehicles, the precision is quite impressive. there is a very low incidence of civilian casualty in the

course of such operations. the warheads actually tend, in many cases, are small, not large, munitions. the precision is quite impressive and it is constantly growing with the proliferation of various platforms that enable it to have occurred observation and understanding of the targets before they are attacked. >> i appreciate that. i do think a sense of what might be available, who else might be there, all of those things are things that, as the director, you need to be intimately involved in and look forward to that leadership and other leadership. like others on this committee, i respect your service. i respect your capacity as an individual. i look forward to being supportive both during this process and, if, as i suspect will happen, as director, i will be supportive of your actions

and be supportive of that partnership that dimension is such a critical part of our security right now. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator -- thank you , senator blunt. senator nelson, you have returned. >> thank you. you and i discussed before that, having come out of the military command structure, where, so often, it is of necessity -- the top-down command structure -- that when you get into the intelligence community, the collaboration structure is so much more essential to the effective achieving of the mission. you shared it some very interesting thoughts on that with me. would you repeat them for the

folks here? >> thank you, senator. this ability to foster collaboration in an organization like this -- of course, it is not strictly unique to the agency. there are huge elements within the military. among those various intelligence elements in which we seek to shape that same kind of collaboration and sharing. critical to the agency in particular is the sharing of all disciplines of intelligence, the fusion of the products of all discipline, the interaction of operators and analysts, and then the collaboration of all members of the intelligence community as well. i think that is critical. as we discussed, there certainly have been breakthroughs in every discipline of an intelligence

since 9/11, whether it is signals come at imagery, the proliferation of the various offerings -- signals, injury, the proliferation of various intelligence, even measurement intelligence that are now on some of our platforms. in every discipline, there have been breakthroughs. the fact is that the biggest breakthrough is occasionally overlooked -- and that is the fusion of the products of all of these disciplines and bringing that altogether. that fusion is carried out by people. yes, you can have a great applications, computer databases that you control lot of data into. at the end of the day, the digitization of this, the use of is bye employment of thait, people who are encouraged to work together and who are in these centers.

with leaders who indeed bring them together and ensure that they know that timor is not optional -- team work is not optional. the tone and culture for this has to start at the top, as is the case with any organization. every team has a coach. if i am privileged to be the coach of team cia, indeed, i will try to foster that kind of approach. i will try to, indeed, encourage that by my own actions and initiatives, including reaching down, reaching out, making contact with individuals well down in the organization, allowing contact channels, welcoming red team contributions and so forth. >> describe what you think to be the state of the fight right now as to al qaeda.

what do we need to do to make sure that al qaeda no longer opposes -- no longer poses a meaningful threat? >> we have to maintain that effort -- that relentless pressure that has resulted in the al qaeda being a significantly diminished organization, but noting that it has considerable to ability still. obviously, the loss of the only leader that al qaeda had ever known, and iconic figure -- an iconic figure, is a tremendous blow to the organization and the franchise as well. indeed, i think even some of the images that came out of that subsequently diminished the perception of osama bin laden and the way in which he was living and so forth, which was contrary to what i assume many

of his followers would have expected of him. also, of course, over the course of recent years, the number- three position in the al qaeda was the most hazardous jobs in the world. having said that, there is still senior leadership. there is a new leader of al qaeda, reported the. indeed, there will be efforts to generate resurrect, continue the efforts to carry out attacks on our homeland and on the homelands of some of our allies. these franchises -- allocated in the peninsula was concern-al qaeda in the peninsula was a concern of mine -- as you know, some of these franchises -- allocated in the peninsula every now and then you actually

get a break. there is a significant leader being killed at a checkpoint. al qaeda in some parts of africa bear very careful watching. iraq is enormously diminished, but still capable of carrying out sensational attacks, and warrants additional attention. the fact is that we cannot ever wet into a name -- game of hack-a-mole. we have to hit them all simultaneously. there has been the establishment of this network, in many cases led by the joint operations special command, but with very good partnering with elements of the central intelligence agency and other elements of the intelligence community, and, in fact, with conventional military forces, the special

units, and other interagency elements such as the treasury department and state department, department homeland security, who also played a very important roles and the fight against extremism -- who also play a very important role in the fight against extremism. >> thank you. >> general petraeus was very good with his time with me. i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> senator udall? >> senator -- the senator is a tough act to follow. >> i have never heard that before, but i will take note. [laughter] >> thank you for taking time to come and sit down and visit with

me. thank you. thoughtful way in which to approach everything you have done for our country. -- thank you for the thoughtful way in which you approach everything you have done for our country. they have to be educators, diplomats, a small d democrats, even human rights advocates. i know that you have said the cia is not in the business of buting policy, perc ce, there is a set of volumes and beliefs and principles that you all are here to defend. i want to talk about torture and a very important debate we have in our country. one thing you have said that has been most quoted is, "some would argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient

methods to obtain information from the enemy. they would be wrong. beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they are also frequently neither useful nor necessary." you went on to say, "whenever we have perhaps taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bit the dust in the backside. there are some who have argued that by not taking is begin measures we are deprived of a valuable information -- and beaten us in the backside." there are some who have argued that, by not taking these expedient measures, we are deprived of valuable information. >> first of all, i might add that it was not just the counterinsurgency field manual that we oversaw the drafting of when i was a three-star commander headquartered at fort leavenworth. it was also the army phenomenal

-- army field manual, sometimes called the human intelligence collector of operations. i might add that, thanks to senator mccain, who knows something about this also, it has the force of law. your body gave it a force of law. no one has more experience overseeing the application of that field manual and those techniques than i do, having amended in iraq and afghanistan -- having commanded in iraq and afghanistan. we had some 27,000 detainees at the highest point in the half -- in iraq. in afghanistan, we have far fewer, about 2000 or so. my experiences that those interrogation techniques which are judged to be campaign -- humane. we have opened up all of our

facilities during my time at each of those commands. they have been judged as the gold standard by those international organizations. those techniques, again, and to work. we do gain very important information. that is why, in many cases, we prefer to capture extremists rather than to kill them. and it is the very rare case, in fact, were those techniques do not elicit the information that we're actually -- wherein those techniques do not even sit -- elicit the information that we're actually looking for. as a general statement, i would also submit to this body and

relate to policymakers that there may be consideration of a special case. i have talked about this on the record before. i do think there is a need to address the possibility of the so-called -- you have the individual in your hands who you know has the place -- has placed a nuclear device under the empire state building which goes off in 30 minutes and he has the codes to turn it off. i think that is a special case. there should be discussion by policymakers and congress. there should be a process. if there is going to be something more than, again, the normal techniques employed in such a case -- i would certainly submit that would be very helpful if that kind of debate could be held and if some resolution could be made as to what should be done in a case like that, so that it is worked

out ahead of time, rather than under an extraordinary sense of pressure in such a situation. >> thank you for your thoughtful answer. i look forward to practicing in a more secure setting having that discussion. in the meantime, i will note the ways in which you and the military have performed humane interrogations' have provided an enormous amount of information was keeping faith with what makes america special. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator udall. senator rubio? >> i want to echo all the comments made by everyone thanking you for your service to our country. i hope you will come visit florida for time -- from time to time. we have mutual friends that miss you in the tampa area. i want to revisit the president's decision on afghanistan, because i think it

is relevant to the role you will play in terms of managing our relationship with pakistan. i would ask -- you said that you provided the president options and that each one had risks. my question is did you also provide recommendations to the president? >> i did. i said that earlier. as i mentioned earlier, as sherman mullin noted today as well -- chairman mullen noted today as well, the option chosen by the president was more aggressive than what we had offered. i also noted that there are broader considerations that guided that in my view, but i do not think it is my place to try to explain in detail what all of those broad considerations are. i do not think it is

appropriate for me to go into the positions of other people in that room either. i think that you have, certainly, the right to ask -- i think it is termed the "personal view." and i have provided that here this afternoon. >> i understand the president has a number of factors to take into account when making these decisions. i think your recommendation would be based on military factors. you would not happen to be able to share that recommendation on what you recommended from the military perspective? >> chairman mullen has done that already. he talked about having two full fighting seasons. in other words, the three men and 30 -- the 330,000 then coming down after the second fighting season. there was a good discussion of this.

there was healthy debate. >> i just wanted to add to that by asking, the september, 2012, is there any specific w significant to why that it was chosen? >> i am not going to try to provide the rationale and that individuals used in making the decision -- rationale of that individual's used in making the decision. it was about the duration of a fighting season. that is what i did that. >> what i am trying to get that -- is september, 2012, a date of any military or fighting significance? but it is a reasonable time and through the fighting season -- >> it is a reasonable time through the fighting season. >> one thing we have heard repeatedly, and obviously it is

not the only reason, but one thing that complicates our relationship with pakistan, in particular managing our relationship with isi, is this thought that, from the pakistani side, so they say, they have doubts about america's willingness to stay there. they feel like in the past we have not stuck to our commitments in the region and we have left them holding the bag. i do not think that explains all the problems, but it is one of the things we keep hearing come up in conversations and media accounts. i want to get your perspective on how not just the president's decision yesterday, but in general, any decisions we make about transitions in afghanistan -- how that should be handled, how those numbers, dates, decisions -- how that impacts that decision. the question also applies to afghanistan, who have expressed some of the same we need to hedge our bets attitude.

specifically, about pakistan and managing that relationship. >> first of all, i think it is very important to recall that the most significant development of the past year, in a strategic sense, with respect to the campaign in afghanistan is the commitment that was made that lisbon, this past november -- at lisbon this past november. for the alliance to remain committed to afghanistan through the end of 2014, by the end of which time afghan forces will be in the league in security terms throughout the country. that was an enormously important moment for the effort in afghanistan. now, explicit in that is the idea that, during that time, there is going to be a steady drawdown of coalition forces,

isaf forces, as there is a steady increase of afghan forces. as i noted earlier, during the 15-month period that we will drawdown some 30,000 troops, at the end of which we will still have 68,000 u.s. troops on the ground, and probably at least another 30,000 to 40,000 other non-u.s. isaf forces, i think there will be an increase of some 70,000 afghan forces. this is not just the army and police. it is also the afghan public protection force being stood up. it is additional afghan police elements that will be establish and are very important because they are local defense forces. no one defends his village better than the villager. all of that will take place. indeed, i think the commitment to 2014 remains very sound. there will be those who will argue that this decision

solidifies support for that all the way through, provide the rationale, and so on. pakistan sees this. i think they saw 2014. at that time, i think they realized the united states and international community was indeed committed for another -- years.re, 3 1/2 now there is discussion of the strategic partnership declaration and of a nato- afghanistan partnership agreement that would go beyond 2014. countries like australia, the prime minister has been very clear and explicit in her commitment to continuing beyond 2014 already, as have other countries. i do not think we face a " charlie wilson's war" kind of

situation. we have accomplished this mission and now we are out of here. i think there is every intention that there be an enduring commitment, albeit one that is much more costly -- much less costly overtime and more sustainable given the fiscal constraints that all of the contributing nations face, and one that increasingly is characterized by afghans been in ise lead, and afghans -- an characterized by afghans being in the lead. they are being killed at a rate that is three times the rate of isaf forces. for anyone to say, when will the afghans start fighting and dying for their country, i can tell you they are doing that right now. indeed, we should give them enormous credit for being out

there in the increasingly shouldering the burden is in their country. and i will get back to florida. >> thank you very much, senator rubio. general, we have two x official members -- ex officio members. i wan tyou to -- want you to note their humility. they have sat at the end of this role now for approximately two hours. >> hated every minute of ite. -- it. >> i have been staying hydrated for it. when i saw senator mccain, i started drinking water. [laughter] >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, general, for your fabulous service. you have been a great commander of our troops. you are a cheap think in terms

of strategy and how to deal with the challenges we face, including on these kinds of insurgencies. we're all very much in your debt. this country is in your debt, that of your family as well. we're going data during on general -- going to have a hearing on general allan next week. we hope to have him confirmed next week. i want to pick up the question of afghanistan. you gave a number of reasons for why you -- you are comfortable implementing the decision that the president made, whether it was not -- whether or not it precisely follow your recommendation. you do feel comfortable implementing it and supporting it. is that an accurate reading? >> i would be a bit more qualified, mr. chairman.

first, i would like to thank you for your support for our troops over the years. we have been through a lot of hearings over those years, and i have appreciated those opportunities. more important, i have appreciated all you have done for men and women in uniform and for their families. so, what i have said, and this is the same as what admiral mullen said this morning, is that this is a more aggressive time line. what that means in commander shorthand is that we assess that there is greater risk to the accomplishment of the various objectives of the campaign plan. it does not mean they cannot be achieved. it just means, from our perspective, which is, admittedly, one that does not have some of the broader concerns that those of us in the chain of command, and, indeed,

the president, have to address, it is not what we would have found preferable. i will be back to afghanistan first thing tomorrow morning. i will sit down with the staff and work their way through this. we have done preliminary planning. this was an option that was evaluated. now that we have the final answer, we will go to work on how best to implement the policy, how to ensure that afghan forces are positioned to accept the transition as we stand out in certain areas and they are thickened in certain areas. >> the you agree with admiral mullen, as he put it to the committee -- and do you agree with admiral mullen, as he put it to the committee, that we would run other risks by keeping

more forces in afghanistan longer? and we would have made it easier for the karzai administration to increase their dependency on us? those are his words today as well. we would have denied the afghan security forces, who have grown in a ability, opportunity to -- who have grown in capability, to further exercise that? we would have signaled to the enemy and to our regional partners at the taliban still possess strength enough to warrant a full measure of our presence. they do not. would you agree with admiral mullen on that? >> i am not sure about every bit of that characterization. you can certainly say that staying longer would reinforce the taliban narrative. i think we are pulling forces down gradually. we are reducing those.

again, i would come back, if i could, chairman, to my point, which has to do strictly with the military commander on the ground gone strictly evaluating the military campaign plan -- on the ground, strictly evaluating the military campaign plan. others have to evaluate other factors. i cannot do that. only the president of the united states can assess all of the different considerations. i should note that i stated this in the situation room to acknowledge that, in the process, there are broader concerns than those of the military commander. as a result, i obviously support the ultimate decision of the commander in chief. we take an oath to obey the orders of the president of the united states. >> you could do that consistent with the oath? >> i am not a quitter, chairman.

i have people e-mail me and say that. this is something that i have thought a bit about. i do not think that it is the place for the commander to consider that kind of step unless you're in a very dire situation. this is an important decision. it is, again, a more aggressive approach than the chairman, then i would have -- then i would have put forward, but this is not something i think where one hangs up the uniform in protest or something like that. >> just the final part of this -- >> if i could continue. i feel quite strongly about this. our troopers do not get to quit. i do not think that commanders should contemplate that as any kind of idol kind of action.

that would be an extraordinary action, in my view. this is not about me or any individual commander. this is not about a reputation. this is about our country. the best step for country, with the commander-in-chief having made the decision, is to execute that decision to the very best of our ability, to do everything i can during the remainder of my time as commander of isaf to enable general allen to take the effort forward, and, if confirmed, to be the director of the central intelligence agency and to do everything i can from that position with that great organization to support the effort as well. >> i think it is well put and reflective of your character. you are a man of extraordinary honor. we are all in your debt. if i could just add one quick, additional reason for why the conditions of the ground have improved -- you mentioned that there would be 70,000

additional afghan security forces in the next 15 months. you have indicated that they are capable. people who do not believe that the afghan army is capable of fighting will run right into your very strong and are a comment about how many of them have died fighting -- and powerful comment about how many of them have died fighting. in the last 15, 18 months, there have been over 100,000 additional afghan forces trained. that has changed the situation on the ground in a significant way. the taliban also has those additional troops to face. >> i thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for being here. senator mccain. >> thank you, madam chairman. general, let me add my voice to the course of congratulations

and appreciation of you and your family -- chorus of congratulations and appreciation of you and your family. certainyouthey do have a sense of relief not having to deal with colonel graeme's presentce. >> a very heavy burden we have had in theater in iraq, now in afghanistan. [laughter] >> we are indeed proud of his continued presence and contributions. i guess my question, sir, and i think you have been very candid with the committee particularly in your previous responses to chairman levin's comments. i guess one of my questions is this -- is it more difficult or less difficult now for general

allan to be able to achieve the success of his mission in afghanistan? is the president's decision. to make it more or less difficult for him -- boeing -- is the president's decision going to make it more or less difficult for him to achieve his objectives in afghanistan? >> senator, let me also in turn thank you for all you have done for our country over the years, including a particularly long to work that you served in uniform and the way that you then use that experience, i think, to help guide us as we seek to solve lessons from early on in period.-9/11 the manual to which you gave force of law does contain techniques that work.

i remember that debate very well. i was, as i said, the commander when that manual was produced. i thought that the way that you guided that debate was truly admirable. it was in the face of some degree of criticism, as you well know, from some quarters, including some of those on your side of the aisle, which made it all the more admirable. sir, with respect to the question that you posed, again, i would like to use this in terms of risk -- view this in terms of risk. you have to keep in mind that there are risks not just at the military-campaign level, not just in achieving the objectives of that campaign. there are risks that involve other considerations. in my view, again, i do not want to get too much into the

reasoning employed by others, but in my view, it is an assessment of those risks, risks having to do with other considerations, that led to the decision that are important as well. i actually cannot give a direct answer in that regard. as a commander on the ground, you are aware of these other considerations. you are aware of the context in which your options, your recommendations are evaluated. it is, again, only those at the very top, only the commander in chief who ultimately can assess those risks. >> i appreciate that. that is the structure of our system of government. i fully acknowledge that. on a pure military standpoint, conditions on the ground as they are, the troops coming out before the end of the fighting season next summer in order to

comply with the sep pullout -- september pullout, will that make it more difficult for the general to carry out the pure military aspects of his mission? >> again, this is a more aggressive time when men that -- timeline than that which we put forward. it means that there are, again, further challenges by not getting all the way through the fighting season. but, again, when you then elevate and consider other factors and other considerations, i think, at the end of the day, again, this is why the chairman and i gave the assessment that we gave earlier. >> it does not surprise me, but

it is interesting to note that, according to an article today in ""the new york times -- in the new york times, president nicolas sarkozy of france said that he would begin drawing down some of his soldiers. -- some of the chairman troops. we will see a domino effect of this announcement. no elected leader of our alliance is going to tell his people they are staying when the americans are going. is that of concern to you, sir? >> i think that is expected. i have talked to the french leadership and the chairman leadership, other countries. it is only one country that has already announced. others were waiting for the announcement. there is no question that those announcements are coming. the question is, of course, what

is the size of their reductions? in the case of the u.k. reductions -- some of those were reduced from the forces that were no longer needed. we will conduct yet another review of the campaign plan. it is sunday we do on a fairly regular basis. we'll examine -- something we do and a fairly regular basis. will examine whether or not we have to look at -- we will examine whether or not we have to read look -- relook at battlefield strategy and determine the establishment, the increase of afghan forces that can take over in the transition of our forces. >> we will be able to discuss that in the future. i predict to you now that our allies will celebrate their reductions -- willa accelerate

-- will accelerate their reductions, which is only logical. we look forward to working with you on this ticking time bomb scenario. i am not sure what the answer is. i think the person who would have to be responsible is the president of the united states, who would then be about to go to the american people and say, i did it because of the imminent threat to the security of the country. i am not exactly sure how we do it, but i do agree with you. i also agree with you and thank you for your battlefield experience. there is no time in the afghan war in iraq conflict -- afghan war or iraq, but had there been a need to violate the things

which we stand for. >> as you know, we have been partners in this. there have been petitions from -- quotations from this letter. i said it was time to live our values. these are values that we have fought for, that americans have died for over the course of decades and centuries. as was noted, there are two good reasons to live our values. one is that it is the right thing to do. it is the expedient thing to do, because it bites you in the back side over time if you do not. i thank you for championing that within this body. this could be the nuclear football kind of procedure, where it is all thought through, but authorization has to come from the top because something

extraordinary is going to be done. it cannot be something where we are forcing low-level individuals to have to make a choice under enormous stress -- duress. i think there has to be a very streamlined process. i appreciate your willingness to take that on. that is an issue that has to be dealt with, i think, by folks on the hill and also, certainly, policymakers. >> thank you, senator mccain. i have a couple of and ends -- odds and ends i want to clear up before the second round. we will try to have this nomination confirmed by the fourth of july. we will have to be very speedy with the questions and the mark up. i hope you will be able to do that. we will do it -- >> we will do it. >> good. listening to senator mccain on

the army field manual -- i have never known torture. it is easy for someone who has to come out where senator mccain has come out. i think every member appreciates that. i want the record to be complete on what has happened. army field manual does not have the first -- force of law. it has the executive order. there was an intelligence authorization bill in 2008 which was vetoed by the president. it does not have the force of law, but it has the force of executive order. as i listened to you and the questions here, the thought occurred to me was that you're bringing direct street smarts from the theatre of war to the intelligence community. i think we believe that if we win against terrorists, it will

be because we have good intelligence. you are a different nominee then leon panetta was. leon brought street smarts with respect to the administration, with respect to the house, with respect to how government works. this is really a unique situation, i think, where your experiences can hopefully improve the gathering of intelligence. do you agree with this, and, if so, how do you think this can be realized? >> i would certainly hope that can be the case. as was noted earlier, i do not think there have been any more avid consumers of intelligence in battlefield command than i have been. we have worked very very closely together -- very, very

closely together to integrate elements of military forces and intelligence elements for common objectives. clearly, i have got an enormous amount to learn about the agency as an institution and organization, it processes and so forth. again, i would like to think the experiences that i have had will prove of if confirmed, and i can assure you also, i also have the sense to listen to people like mike and the others, who lead the various elements of the agency. in fact, i have spent a fair amount of time with them already. >> thank you. the staff director gave me a note so i can clarify this army field manual further. the army field manual is by

executive order for the intelligence community. the detainee treatment act makes it law for the military service, so there is that slight differentials there. i think it is good for all of us to know that as we go forward. >> absolutely, and, again, to us, it is what we follow, as you know. you know, if i could, i also perhaps what to get on the record the fact that i mentioned earlier that i not only would feel privileged to lead the organization, to be its champion, but also to be its advocate, and in that regard, i think it is time to take the rearview mirrors off of the bus with respect to certain actions out there. i do not want to comment on specific justice cases, but i think that a certain moment in time, especially a moment when we do not any longer truly, i

think, appreciate the context of the post-9/11 period in some of the things that are taking place under direction, and i, for one, as the potential leader of the agency would like to see us focus forward and, indeed, put some of these actions behind us once and for all and put our work force at rest with respect to that. >> thank you. i think you will make a good leader. the better the performance of both sectors of commerce as well as the agency, and so this will

be, i think, for all of us a very special and very unique experience, and we are lucky to have one of our very best leading it. i have no doubt that you will be. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> senator chambliss? >> thank you. i want to go back to detention, because i am extremely it concerned about where we are and what is going to happen to all of the detainee's when we turn it over to the afghans. i am really, really concerned about that. i think i know where you stand on that, too, and secondly, with respect to the interrogation of the detainees, irrespective of what techniques we use, we have got to have detainee's to interrogate, and we have got to

make sure we have got facilities in which to hold those detainees, and if we're still thinking in terms of closing guantánamo, it has been very clear that the american people did not want those detainees at guantanamo transferred to u.s. soil, and now, that is the lot of the land and will be, and if we are going to try to house these prisoners somewhere other than guantánamo, i do not know where it is going to be, and i do not expect you to be able to give me an answer right now in the interrogation of future detainees, but i think it is something you will give some thought to immediately, because the cia is not part of the interrogation team. i think that is a mistake. i hope that that policy will be changed under your leadership,

and in terms of the detainees, i would particularly like your comments there. >> this is the last issue i was really eager to get out on the table, having had the opportunity to talk about this other one earlier. i am on the record, as you know, vice chairman, saying that gtmo should be closed responsibly. this was back at least 2.5 years ago. i think it would shortly after taking over central command, and it was based on the fact that in the central command region, the existence of gtmo, indeed, had considerable things attached to it. there's a certain amount of radioactivity. to be fair, some of that was because -- nonetheless, these

were the kinds of issues that were realities for those of us working at the central command area at that time. by the way, i did that before president obama made that statement, so this is not something that i was trying to do to beat politically correct. now, the challenge has been that we have not been able to discuss in that responsible manner. there certainly has not been any state governors who have raised their hand to say, "yes, sure. send all of those detainees over here." i think we are in a real conundrum right now. i can tell you that afghanistan cannot and should not be a location to which those taken outside of afghanistan and of being located. so we're in a very difficult position, and this is together with the issue of the ticking time bomb scenario.

our nation does f2 have a place to hold individuals. there is a very true concern about recidivism. you have seen there is a jailbreak in yemen in the last 36 hours or so. i do not have the details whether there were any gtmo detainees as part of that, but i think some of them were al qaeda and arabian peninsula people, so, again, this is a very, very serious issue, i think, for our country, pet and i think congress needs to address a on an expeditious basis. >> i, too, agreed that this is on our priority list. yemen is a pretty good example of why the recidivism rate is at

25% in maybe even higher than that, i do not know, because there is almost no supervision of the detainees in yemen. thank you, general, and we hope to see your confirmation process move quickly. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> i think you are aware that we sent you the question that we will ask you. i feel very strongly that agencies have to be able to conduct secret operations, but i feel strongly that our laws and how they are interpreted, the official way that our laws are interpreted, that has to be open.

this involves the official interpretation of the cia authorities, and the state department's top lawyer gave a speech in march, where we laid out the official views regarding counter-terrorism and the use of force, but there seems to be some question about whether the speech applies to the entire government or whether there is an exception, really an unspoken exception for the intelligence agencies, so the question that i sent and that i ask now, in all of the theements, doesn't apply to cia? >> my apologies, senator. i know that it was sent over, but this is one that i would like to take for the record, and obviously i will give you the answer needless to say before this is complete, so i will get

that to you for the record. >> that is very helpful. of course, what is key here is that it be an unclassified answer because this is, as i say, the question of how the law is being interpreted. i want to make sure, and i had discussions about this before that nothing is done to threaten sources and methods and to have this in an unclassified fashion, that would be very helpful by the end of the confirmation process. thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator wyden. senator? >> it was reported this morning that the outlined withdraw by the president about troops coming out of southern

afghanistan, where they are fighting insurgents, is this accurate? >> first of all, i do not have a clue about who those military sources are. if they know something, i do not know. i am just the commander. i literally just give guidance to the deputy chief of staff for operations, who is also dual headed as the j3 as to how to move forward on this, and they are a little bit ahead of the planning process, if i could, mr. chairman. >> if this were true, would you know it? >> i would certainly hope so. again, as i said, i cannot comment on quote military sources. i actually saw that, and i was a

little bit surprised. this is similar to sources who are trying to comment about what my comments and recommendations were going to be, because that was curious because there is only one person they knew what that was going to be, and that was a four-star action officer named pretorius -- petraeus. .>> if you find that, will you let me know? >> yes. again, there is not a concept of moving brigades from the south to the east. there is a concept of moving the main effort, the focus. in other words, other resources that enable those forces on the ground, and that is how you raise a campaign. perhaps there could be some

small elements move, but, again, we have not yet done the latest iteration of the refinement of the campaign it. it would beat premature for summer to try to link that to "the new york times." >> another article, a reporter quoting himself made a general assertion that the effort for security responsibility being transferred to the afghan security forces remains elusive because afghan troops are, quote, "proving unprepared for the job " any comment on that? >> i would be happy to. we are going to be looking. they're already performing the balkan -- the bulk. all night raids in kabul are led in predominantly and manned by

afghan forces. not only do we not do unilateral operations, we do not even do partnered operations. these are sometimes enabled by intelligence elements that support them, but we do not do them. i might also at that there is a small subset, but every targeted special operation, every single one is now partnered with afghan forces. these are for our most highly qualified units, and then there are other elements. there are some 12,000 afghan special operations forces of all different categories, and i am not including some in that.

>> are they -- >> there is an unevenness to the police that is characteristic of these kinds of endeavors. as you recall, we faced the same in the balkans and haiti in a variety of other operations, as well, but there is a substantial number of good forces there, and, indeed, they have continued to grow and to develop and to prove themselves. this is not that they are born to step up to the plate -- not going to step up to the plate at the first. >> finally, president karzai, his speech about our being occupiers, i have got to tell you that though i agree with you, there are times and we have not listened it, well to president karzai. in this occasion, i was

absolutely dismayed, because that comment of his talking about us as occupiers places us in the middle of a comment enemy, the taliban, and i think your ability to speak truth to power, is it your commitment that you also speak truth to the president of afghanistan, karzai, that that comment, that speech of his, as i can barry said, was really totally unacceptable and plays into the hands of our enemy? >> i can assure you, in private and in many caissons on one on one, to have very candid, forthright conversations with president karzai. >> were you dismayed by that comment? >> it did cause concern.

even though you understand it is to a domestic audience, and you can understand some of the pressures that are of enormous concern to our afghan partners, at the end of the day, it is not just about the afghan domestic public opinion. there is some domestic opinion in the 49 to shooting nations, not the least of which is here in the united states. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair pending >> thank you, senator. i would like to associate myself with your comment. i just want to say to you, general, president karzai's comments had a big impact on me. i come from a state that has a lot of veterans. it is very hard to sustain what has increasingly become an unpopular war if we're ever going to stabilize the part of the world, kicking it is very hard to do that in the face of

comments like this, and i just had them all poland and had a look at them, and if you look at all of them, they are unbelievable, that we are using chemical weapons, but we're occupiers, that we have a nuclear bomb. it is provocative. it is very insulting, and they are very misleading, so, you know, we have to appropriate the money for the war. i happen to be on the defense subcommittee, it is the person that we are trying to vote stabilize is saying these things about us, you have the automatic reaction, what the heck are we here then? >> well, look. i entirely sympathetic to that, needless to say, and i will

certainly ensure that that sentiment issue inch -- is shared with our afghan partners. >> i appreciate that very much. we will get this done as soon as we can, but the questions will go out to you within, what, 48 hours? a good staff. tomorrow by 3:00. >> terrific. >> the sooner you get them back to us, we will schedule a mark up and it will go to the floor. somehow, i do not think it will be controversial. >> thank you. >> madam chairman, i think it is all of our hope that you get some time for yourself and your family between these two awesome responsibilities. you are entitled to that, and we hope you get some help. >> in the meantime, take your wife out to dinner. we are adjourned. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> and our series of interviews with republican presidential candidates continues tonight, with texas representative ron paul. he discusses his previous presidential bids, his strategy for winning the gop nomination, and his years as a doctor and in congress.

"road to the white house" on c- span. a "des moines register" poll of voters showed representative michele bachmann in a close race with mitt romney. representative michele bachmann, 22%. herman cain has 10%, and in a tie are newt gingrich and ron paul, both with 7%. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span and c-span radio. >> c-span has launched a new, easy-to-navigate web site for the 2012 presidential race. there is biographical information on the candidates, twitter feeds, and facebook updates from candidates and political reporters and links to

others in caucus states. visit us to c-span.org /campaign2012. >> on friday, the house debated two ministers on military action against libya. -- the house debated two measures. one would have cut funding. both measures failed. this is debate from the second measure. this is about 45 minutes. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, on march 19 of this year the president sent us into kinetic military activity or war in libya. within 48 hours the president notified the congress in accordance with the war powers act of his decision to do so. for 60 days the president under the war powers act had the opportunity and chose not to come to this body and make the case as to why being in libya was important. on the 60th day he wrote a

letter to this body saying that he would welcome authorization but he's not asking for it. time and time again on the armed services committee we were presented with speakers from the administration who would give certain updates on various matters to which i would ask you, are you here to -- i would ask, are you here tosk authsization and the witnesses would say no. -- authorizationnd the witnesses would say no. after 90 days and the president has not seized activity or hostilities in little bit -- ceased activity or hostilities in libya, the time has come and gone and we've sent our indication over to the administration time and time again that we disapprove. but because the war powers resolution by some either in the republican or in the democrat or in the house or the senate is questionable whether or not they consider it constitutional or not, the president has operated in what we now know is called the zone of twilight as to whether or not he even needs our

approval. so what are we left with? mr. speaker, we're left with today our option under our ability under the power of the purse to restrict funds from ongoing operations in libya. without it and without the supreme court weighing in on whether or not the war powers is unconstitutional, in my opinion the president is breaking the law but he is being restricted by nobody and being able to continue unfettered. some have said that the war powers resolution isn't worth the paper that it's written on. to that i say, based on what supreme court decision? based on what precedent? there is none because the courts haven't weighed in on it. i know some of my colleagues here have a pending caseefore the court and i wish them well. but what if they don't accept the case what if they say these members, as they have said before, don't have standing?

then we're right back to square one. mr. speaker, today we have the opportunity to send a message to the executive branch and this transcends party, but it exerts our power under the separation of powers to say we, the house of representatives, are relevant, we the house of representatives are exercising our ability that the founding fathers gave us in the ability to declare war, because they wanted us to have this deliberation, this debate that we're having here today, arguments that have been made on both sides that have been very good. because the last thing that we want as americans is for some president, whether it's this president or some future president, to be able to pick fights around the world without any debate from another branch of government. it's the st difficult thing we haveo do as governnt offials and that's send our kids into harm's way. so it has to be a long debate

and the president had 60 days and chose not to engage in that debate. so here we are today saying, if you chouse not to come here and get altogether -- choose not to come here and get authorization, we are going to stop it until you do. the president always has the ability in the future to come and try to get authorization for what he's doing in libya or anywhere else. so, mr. speaker, i rise in support of my bill to withdraw funding from future engagement in libya and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you. the bottom line with this resolution, and i think the gentleman made a lot of very fair points, i certainly think that the white house could have handled it better in terms of communicating with congress, but what this resolution would do that he has presented would be to end our mission in libya. so all of the debates and

arguments that you heard from the previous discussion apply to this just as well. it has some limited options in terms of what the president could continue to do in support of nato, but it very specifically disallows any effort at air support, any effort at suppressing opposition fire. it does allow for aerial refueling, it allows for rescue missions, but what the military has made clear is they will not do that without all ofhe other assets that are necessary to suppress ene fire, enemy fire. we are not going to send off our aerial refueling apparatus if we know we can't protect them from being shot down. so the effect of this resolution is to again end the mission in libya and people have different opinions about where they should come down on. that i don't believe we should end the mission in libya -- on. that i don't believe we should end the mission in libya. i do believe that congress' ice shoulde heard on this

issue. that's why i supported the previous resolution that would have authorized that. i don't think we should stop what we're doing in libya and getting back to the previous debate, there have been some comments that have been made that i want to be sure and correct. i think we have a much better idea of who the forces in libya fighting against muammar gaddafi are than has been said and we know this because they control roughly half the country right now. what our mission was able to do is stop muammar gaddafi from ing able to crush the folks who are rising up against him and retake the territory that they have. so in benghazi and in most of i think it's eastern libya, it is controlled by these opposition forces. and by all accounts they a running a very sensible government. it is not an islamic state, it does not have al qaeda influence, it has a bunch of people who are simply trying to exercise free expression tt they have been denied for nearly 40 years by muammar gaddafi. we have a very good ea who these people are.

they are precisely the type of people that the united states of america should be supporting. and as i mentioned before, in our great struggle against al qaeda, one of the centerpieces of it is ideological. the ideology that bin laden and many others advance is very antiwestern and their biggest government is that the west has consistently supported governments that have repressed the muslim people. th we have not been good for them. and there are at least one or two instances when that argument actually has some facts to back it up. and now we are presented with a chance to support a legitimate group of people who want basically what we have, democracy. they want the ability to vote for their representatives, they want a voice in their government and we are going to pull the rug out from under them. and keep in mind, this is a very limited mission. it is nato-led, but we are offering critical support to make it possible. and if we vote for the rooney resolution, we will pull all of

that away and right at the moment, in fact there was a newspaper story this morning about how gaddafi is talking about leaving tripoli because the pressure is getting too great on him, we have had continual members of the libyan government abandoning gaddafi, he is ready to fall and those voices of libyan people who want the very freedoms that we all say we want for them are ready to rise and we are going to reverse that by pulling out this minimal level ofupport that we are offering. that is the effect of the rooney resolution and therefore i oppose it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend from texas, mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding time and commend him for this legislation. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill and in defense of the constitution. the founding fathers clearly intended for congress to have the power to commit this nation

into armedonflict. article 1, section 8 of the constitution states that congress shall have the power to declare war. our first commander in chief, george washington, knew that when he said the constitution vets the power of declaring war in congress, trefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. that is exactly what this bill is about. and president obama, when he was a senator, knew this when he said that the president does not have the power under the constitution to authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. he went on further to say that no law can give congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as a co-equal branch the constitution made it. i couldn't agree more with him. but unfortunately as president mr. obama appears to no longer agree with his prior

interpretation of the constitution. and in reviewing the war powers act, we can argue that it is unconstitutional. but that is for the supreme court to decide. in applying the war powers act to the facts here in this case it is clear that the president failed to comply with the requirements to get congressional approval. and when we examine the merits of the case for involvement in libya, this administration has wholly failed to define a clear national interest, mission or goal. why are we there? are we there to kill gaddafi? or to provide humanitarian aid? and since when does humanitarian aid come fm a missile launch from a predator drone? and who are these rebels that we are supporting? the administration has failed to provide congress with a clear answer to this question. . we do know some are tied to terrorist organizations. the bill introduced by my good friend from florida, mr. rooney,

reasserts congress' role as a co-equal branch of government and sends a clear message to the president that he must get congressional approval before he commits this nation to war. as he stated when he was in the united states senate. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texa ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank mr. smith and let me thank him for his leadership and for characterizing where we are today as a conflicted and, if you will, highly uncertain posture. i'm looking at the vote count

and it looks as if 225 republicans voted against a time certain to get out of bya. if you read the resolution, h.r. 2278, and i'm looking over and over again, there really is no print as to a time certain. there is a nebulous statement about limiting funds for such things as search and rescue, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial funding, and operational planning. that can go on ad infinitum. we can take the american people's money forever and ever and continue in this effort. i don't like where we are today. actually it is true, it is congress' right to declare war and the war powers resolution which my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now debating on this constitutionality, and of course they used it in the past, does

indicate that it was done in order to track the constitution and allow congressional consultation. there was a letter sent by the president. there has been a report sent, but there's no doubt that this was not handled right. but in the iraq war, an unnecessary war, no arab league states asked us to join with them. there was no defined threat to the united states in the iraq war as we said. we left the afghanistan war to dilly-dally in iraq and lose 4,000 soldiers. so where is the lack of hypocrisy here? right nothe arab league has asked us to join them. right now our nato allies are engaged in trying to get rid of an oppressive abuser and person who has killed his own people. where is the dignity on this place? it's nothing but politics. and i respect my colleagues who want to make choices about which direction they want to go. but i will tell you i'd much

rather have to be able to vote for something that is time certai ending in oe year and before, and if there is not a definitive end, then i will offer a briffed resolution to get out of libya, but i don't want to abandon my friends in the arab states who are now struggling for democracy. why is syria different? why is yemen different? why is bahrain different? you are absolutely right because other forces are engaged in syria, yemen, and bahrain. and the arab states are attempting to negotiate. so i'm not interested in willy-nilly going into all kinds ofars. i'm not interested in going there but i am interested in being consistent. we now have an operation and we can tell that there is movement by those who are rebels and i'd like my friends to document for me if they have got a documented presence of al qaeda, then they can tell us that. but right now we have an

obligation and we can't play politics. and this resolution is nothing but politics because it does not end when we are supposed to get out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. smith: additional 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: it is a continuous, unending obligation to be able to be in libya. i would much rather have a definitive act which is to say that we have no more than a year and would offer to the white house that we would like reports sooner than that and some of us may wish to go forward with another resolution to move us out. i will not be supporting politics today. i have to support those who are fighting for justice in libya. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich: i would beg to -- prior to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, because there are those of us who oppose this bill in principle an we

believe we are fighting for justice as well. i want to state that if you believe the war should end, then at least believe we should limi it today. that's what mr. rooney does. i oppose this war, it's unnstitutional, it's in violation of statute, and there's a way to end the war, vote for rooney step one and the kucinich-amash amendment which defunds the d.o.d. bill, you can do that when we come back. but to claim that the arab league is somehow asking for us to continue this attack on libya is plain false. the fact of the matter is we have al jazea reporting that italy's foreign minister and outgoing head of the arab league have called for a halt to hostilities in libya. it was reported that two days ago, the outgoing head of the arab league, said now it's time to do whatever we can to reach a political solution and that has

to start with a cease-fire under international position. you don't have the arab league here saying come on, go for, it prosecute the war. bomb libya. they are not saying that at all. we have to be very clear about that. en china who is eating our lunch financially, they are not involved in this war. they are saying there ought to be a political solution. that from the chinese minister two days ago. we have to be careful about our intentions here. and our intentions should be to end this war and we can do it with rooney's bill. the resolution isn't perfect. it doesn't end the war in its entirety immediately. but it does make clear that the unitedtates will not take over the war as european support continues to diminish. the kucinich-amash amendment is compliment complementary. we want to end u.s. involvement in the war in libya. vote yes for mr. rooney's bill which ends direct hostilities immediately and support kucinich-amash when it comes up in two weeks. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for three minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. i thank ranking member smith for yielding me the time and ask unanimous consent to place extraneous matials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objeion. ms. kaptur: i rise in support of this bill as the prior resolution, better late than never. here again in libya, congress follows in the wake of major executive branch military action absent congressional authorization. i sent a letter to president obama on march 22 regarding what was then called operation morning dawn and never gotten an answer. when one looks at the duration of u.s. military engagements in the middle east, north africa, and central asia and what the future might bring, these are the longest wars and military actions in u.s. history. our nation has llen into deep debt directly connected to our

expenditures of over $1 trillion in the past decade onars that have not been paid for. and creepin defense commitments in that region and globally now consume over half of the u.s. discretionary budget annually. it is an astounding predicament 20 years after the end of the cold war. as jobless americans question whether our federal government sees their plight. we all know freedom is not free but it is largely the american people that are bearing this military burden more and more each year. what is most striking that other nations in the region in which we are fighting are simply not carrying anywhere near their fair share of the load of boots on the ground nor have they measured up in tms of putting their treasuries at risk. unless an alliance of nations in that region fight for freedom themselves, they won't own it and we can't transfuse it. sadly compared to the moral justification for world war ii which historians termed american's most just foreign war, our natio in the current period is drawn into resource wars in far-flung place that is history is likely to judge as

morally indefensible. the world is full of bad dictators but it always seems the dictators america's most interested in are those that sit atop huge oil reserves. libya has the world's nine largest oil reserves and exports 1.5 million barrels a day. i'll be placing several articles in the record that document west europe's dependence as well as canada's reliance on libya. the west utter and growing reliance on imported petroleum has twisted our foreign policy and crippled our domestic economy time and again. as we import half of what we consume, until americans clearly see our predicament, our nation will keep repeating these same mistakes. let us be clear on the nature of the libyan economy. 95% of its exports are oi 80% of its government revenue derives from oil sales. oil represents 25% of libya's g.d.p. and its most important industry. and libya is africa's third

largest oil producer. the major powers involved in this military operation have vast interests at stake to the multinational oil corporations that operate in libya. whether it's from italy which gets 22% of its oil from libyan operations through firms like aimee or canada whose nato general is leading operations while canada's second largest corporation has major oil operations in libya. might i have an additional 15 seconds? miss smith: an additional second miss -- ms. kaptur the son of colonel gaddafi warned that in the event of a vil war, libya's oilt wealth would be burned. -- oil wealth would be burned. one can see why global powers took note. history will judge whether these resource wars and selected dictator disposals are justifiable, but the answer for america is to invest here at

home and to restore america's energy independence. and to extricate ourselves from all these foreign oil involvements. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlen from florida. mr. rooney: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. rooney. i appreciate the time and also your advancing this resolution. the president has not made the case for committing our military to the conflict in libya. the president claims that these military actions do not constitution hostilities. however the americ people know otherwise. the president is engaged in military action against libya and the gaddafi regime without congressiol approval. in addition to ignoring congress, many believe that the president has exceeded the scope of the u.n. security council resolution imposing an embargo, a no-fly scone zone, and authorizing civil protection of the libyan people. the president has told us who we

are against, gaddafi. but he cannot tell us who we are for. secretary gates has indicated that we know little about the opposition or rebels. we do not know their geopolitical view, their neighbors, or us. we do not know their commitment to domestic diversity. are we going to have atrocities? we do not know their ideology or preferred form of government or if they have a commitment to nonproliferationf weapons of mass destruction, an issue that is incredibly important in the area of libya. the president has used the united nations approval of liffle protection to wage an all-out war on gaddafi without congressional approval or american support. u.s. admiral lockleer in charge of the nato operations recently stated that ground oops would be needed to provide stability in libya once the gaddafi regime falls. and yet the president has not provided us any information about what a post-gaddafi libya will look like our our involvement. he is committing us to an

extended military action and for congress to be relevant, the voes of this body need to be heard. i support the passagof mr. rooney'sesolution limiting the use of funds appropriated in the d.o.d. in support of u.s. activities in libya unless otherwise authorized by law. this passage of this resolution is an important step to limit the role of the u.s. military. i urge passage of h.r. res. 2278. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, member of the appropriations committee, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thankou, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if this resolution passes and we weaken nato's mission, gaddafi may very well prevail. his forces will then kill, rape, and torture all those libyans who oppose him as he is already trying to do. gaddafi has reportedly kidnapped thousands of people, including

young students to serve as human shields and march at the vanguard of his forces. if any of his own soldiers refuse to gun down unarmed innocent cilians, they are shot immediately. once he's done with his own people, he'll turn his attention to those nato and middle eastern nation that is attacked him and seek revenge. remember, this is a man who is already responsible for the deaths of 189 innocent passengers on pan am 103. let's face it, this is not about whether the obama administration has beefellow enough in explaining the libyan rationale to congress. members understand why the president intervened. we canead. we can think. we can decide. the real question is, will we policize this effort in the same way that the republican congress politicized president clinton's successful intervention in a nato-led mission in bosnia 15 years ago. .

the limited action we're taking to support the no mission in libya does not rise to a level of conflict meant to be governed by the war powers resolution. presidents of both parties have initiated similar actions. in granada, panama, somalia, bosnia, hatey, kosovo. -- haiti, kosovo. you know, what this really is about, the purpose of this mission is to seize an opportunity to show the world, particularly the young majority of the arab and muslim world, who are thirsting for economic and political freedoms, that we are on their side. we have the opportunity to show the arab world at every -- and every nation on earth who we are as a people. it shouldn't matter who's in the white house, we should be united in the cause of democracy. we should debate, but when the debate is over, politics should take a backseat to policy. the legacy of america is that we will fight tyranny and defend innocent people as best and as

forcefully as we can. and good economic -- in good economic times and bad. this debate should come to an end. we know what's at stake. if gaddafi is allowed to violently suppress the uprising in libya, it will mean many more years of rule, isolated by his repulsive acts of repression and he would have nothing to lose by aiding violent, subversive groups in neighboring country, including those with vulnerable fledgling democracies like tunisia and egypt. that wouldn't only be a defeat for democracy in the region, it would be a death blow for nato, the most important military alliance the world has yet achieved. imagine if just two weeks after secretary gates -- one more minute. do you have one more minute? mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. imagine if just two weeks after secretary gates put some of our nato allies for skipping on

their commitments to the structure that is a key to our economic system and the open societies that safeguard our prosperity and our way of life, imagine if now we turned our backs on nato. what a global embarrassment. now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator, to give democracy and opportunity in a part of the world that has not experienced it. a part of the world which is vital to america's secury. that's why i urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, mr. lynch from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized f two minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of mr. rooney's resolution. mr. speaker, it's it's a sad irony that at the same time that we're committing our sons and daughters to an armed conflict in libya in support of democracy and the rule of law that we are also hear at home trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain language of the united states constitution which is the

supreme rule of land in -- law in our land. i've hrd sever times now that this is an argument about politics. well, politics is to congress like wet is to water. we cannot avoid that. but the united states this issue is really within of substance and the united states constitution clearly states that president's power as commander of chief to introduce armed forces into hostilities may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances. first, a declaration of war, secondly, a specific statutory authorization, and number three, a national emergency created by an attack on the united states or its territories. none of those circumstances is in evidence here today. so despite my great admiration and respect for our president, a lawful premise for this libyan operation does not exist. i've also ard the argument

that we have to join with our international neighbors, that we can't dessert them. we, as a matter of fact -- desert them. well, as a matter of fact i've been to iraq 13 times, i've been to afghanistan 10 times. when i first wt over to afghanistan after hostilities started, it used to be 50% united states and 50% the rest of the world. now when i go it's about 75% the u.s. and 25% the rest of the world. they have migrated out of afghanistan. at the same time they're asking us to pick up the load in libya. i also on my trips, i don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of duty anymore. when i meet our kids they're on their third, fourth, fifth tour of duty. we're stretched very thin, our military families are stretched very thin and i think we should allow our international neighbors to pick up this load. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support

mr. rooney's amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: the strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by mr. rooney of florida would end our involvement unilaterally. i believe this action would be unwise and that it would materially harm our relationship wi nato allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future. it would also undermine the worldwide effort to protect the people of libya. now, in this amendment there are exceptions, search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning. and i ask th majority if they would put in suppression? because you can't conduct these other missions without suppression. and if we don't have the ability to suppress enemy air defenses,

the allies will not be able to continue the bombing campaign. so all of these things that the gentleman says he wants to do and have exceptions for will be undermined by not having suppression. to date, f-18 growlers go in on these missions, ey suppress the enemy ray doctors a so that the bombing can -- radars so that the bombing can continue. i think this is fatefully flawed because of the lack of suppression and i think that we now have to vote against this because of that fact. and i tried to offer this as an amendment but i was told that they weren't interested. so i just hope you understand that you really are undermining this mission. you are really undermining nato. and this deserves to be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and coeague, the gentleman from new york, colonel gibson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes.

mr. gibson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for -- the gentleman from florida for yielding me time to speak today. i've been opposed to this operation in libya from the start. in terms of national security priorities, we should be focuses -- focusing on completing operations in iraq and afghanistan, reorganizing the national security establishment to more effectively wage counterterrorism operations against al qaeda and resetting the d.o.d. to defend our cherished way of life in a manner consistent for a republic. not an empire. going forward we need to learn from these experiences and exercise more discipline. not getting involved in operations like libya where vital national security interests are not present. we should cease our involvement in libya immediately. i'm supporting this resolution to cut off funds for combat operations. i view this as a good start. but i want to be clear. i will not be satisfied until all funds are cut off for this operation, no exceptions. then we need to revise e war powers act to make sure we never again end up with a president taking this country to war

without proper authorization. we need to rediscover the founders' intent on this critical issue and i've introduced legislation, the war powers reform act, to make it so. the war powers reform act arifies when the president may deploy forces into hostilities or imminent threat of hostilities. one, declaration of war, two, statutory authorization or, three, a national emergency created by an attack on the united states or an imminent threat of an attack on our country. if none of these circumstances are met, the president must first come to congress to obta thorization before deploying forces. the key change in the war powers reform act is that without por authorization, the president may not obligate or expend funds to deploy troops into combat. congress must act to restore constitutional balance in the voice of the american people. we need to reform the war powers act and i urge my colleagues to support both this bill and mr. rooney's resolution on libya that we are voting on today. and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you for yielding. america is a beacon of light around the world. and in a time when many were cowering in their house, wondering if this genocide that gaddafi was bringing to their doorstep would come tomorrow or the next day, american fighters came in and pressed gaddafi's forces back and pushed him back into tripoli. america has stood for the side of freedom in this arab spring. america has stood for people that don't have a voice for themselves. don't let a dispute between the legislative branch and executive branch result in us pulling the rug out from standing up for freedom. america has a responsibility to finish this through. to stand with our allies. to leave now means gaddafi wins. period. i urge a no vote to this resolution and i thank my

colleague for yielding and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise, mr. speaker, in reluctant opposition to this amendment. of this resolution. it's well intentioned, without question. it's meanto limit our involvement in libya, it's meant to support our allies and it's meant to rein in a president who in my opinion is conducting an illegal and certainly unauthorized war. it does both too little and too much. it does too little, frankly, because even after it's passed, the president wi continue essentially to be able to operate as he's been operating for several weeks. and it does too much because it ts us into a situation where we effectively micromanage the military by literally listing what missions they should take. the resolution needs to hold the president -- neither holds the president accountable nor ends r involvement in libya and it

essentially leaves things exactly where they are. congress should reassert its constitutional authority, mr. speaker, by eith authorizing the use of military force or ending it. this resolution avoids either course. it ptpones a decision and in doing so, in my view, it erodes the constitutional war making authority of congress and enhances an executive branch that is already overreaching. we will appear to do something and we will actually do nothing. and so for that reason i reluctantly urge the rejection the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: ask unanius consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. when the president of the unit states went to the united nations security council to urge intervention in the libyan civil

war, he frankly missed a stop. he should have come here first. and this congress should have debated the wisdom or lack thereof of that effort. knowing what i know about this, had that debate taken place here, i would be one who would have voted against authorizing the use of force here because i do n believe we have a vital national security interest in the libyan civil war. i'm going to oppose this resolution, however, because i think that two constitutional wrongs do not make a right. again, i believe the president should have come here and sought the authorization of this congress before he initiated thes hostilities. and they are hostilities. but when we have people at risk, when we have lives on the line, i think this resolution raises a

practical and a constitutional problem. the practical problem mr. dicks alluded to a few minutes ago and i can think of another vary yags. if a nato -- varation. if a nato ally is sending people into libya on an intelligence gathering function and asked to us provide air cover for that function, is that an intelligence operation or isn't it? i don't know. there's a good argument on either side, but it's an adjudication that i don't think a u.s. commander in the field ought to have to make. i think it's a practical confusion that does not serve us well when people are at risk. and then secondly just as the president has the obligation, i believe, to seek approval of this body and the other one before he initiates hostilities, he also has the responsibility to conduct those affairs once they begin. our role is to oversee and fund or not fund such activities, but it is not to interfere with

them. i think this is an impractical interference si'm going to vote no. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, can i inquire as to the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 14 minutes remaining and the gentleman from washington has 12 minutes remaining. mr. rooney: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague from california, mr. shman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: this bill defunds libya unless authorized specifically by law. if it passes long before it's passed by the senate the president will come to us and ask for authorization. and i for one would want to ant limited conditional authorization. . we justejected a limited

authorization. all authority and no limbation. that's how it would be interpreted by the white house legal counsel given how it was drafted. the house should consider real binding limits and conditions. because democracy and rule of law for the people of libya is important, but democracy and rule of law for the people of the united states is more important. there are those who regret they cannot offer an amendment to this bill. yes, they can. the motion to recommit will be in order just asoon we end debate. i know that we have had important resolutions from the arab league, the u.n., and nato. those are not subitutes for congress. the war powers act is the law of the land and if we don't stand up for it now, when will we? and if this president won't obey it, which president will? the speaker pro tempore: the gentman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mrsmith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from georgia, member

of the foreign affairs committee and so a member of the nato parliamentary assembly, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. smith. what we have here is two essential arguments. one is more of an intramural argument between congress and the white house. but it a misplaced argument because there is no president that's come to this congress for a declaration of war since world war ii. and granted we have been in seven or eight major conflicts. so this is much greater than this conflict between the white house and this congress. unfortunately i believe that this msure is just an attempt to rather in a strong way get the attention of the president. maybe to chastise the president a bit. so surely. but i think if you look at the record there were communications here, but there is a larger profound message here. it's not a message that this is

send to the president. this is a bad time piece of legislation because it sends the wrong message to the world. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, we are the leaders of the free world. america is a great country and our standing is at stake and this move, this bill will pull the rug out from under nato at precisely the time when we ned to be sending a strong message of encouragement. the united states is in a support role here. so it is very important that we defeat this amendment and make sure that we send the right message to our allies that we >> the house rejected both

measures. the measure on defense spending for most libya operations fell. you can watch coverage of the house when it returns wednesday, july 6. they are expected to continue work on defense spending. live house coverage as always on c-span. washington representative adam smith, the ranking member of the armed services committee discusses president obama's decision to drop them troops from afghanistan. the house votes on libya on friday. defense spending bill will be the first order of business after the july break. "newsmakers" today at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. next, a look at the u.s. economy with remarks from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. he said on wednesday that the recovery is going at a moderate pace, though more slowly than

expected by economists. he made these remarks after eight meeting with the policy committee. this is about one hour. >> threw out the briefing, michael will be to reflect the consensus of the committee while taking note of the diversity of views as appropriate. my remarks and interpretations are my own responsibility. as indicated in the policy statement, the committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at zero to point to 5%. we continue to anticipate economic conditions are likely

to warrant low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended time. the planned purchases of $600 billion of treasury securities will be completed by the end of the month. the committee will continue to reinvest principal payments going forward. in conjunction with the meeting today, participants submitted projections for growth, the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate for 2011 to 2013 and over the longer run. these projections are conditional on their individual assessment of the appropriate policy needed to promote objectives. i will focus on the information in the figures did. the lighter areas show the full range of predictions. the long run projections on the right represent the assessments

of the rate to which each variable will converge under appropriate policy and assuming no further shocks to the economy. the longer run projections have a central tendency. long run projections for the employer rate have a rate of up to five. 6%. these projections may be interpreted as indicating participants'. estimates of the normal and trend rate of growth. it should be noted these estimates are inherently uncertain and subject to revision. longer run rates of growth and unemployment are determined largely by non-monetary factors that may evolve over time and cannot be directly measured. the central tendency for inflation is measured by the price index for personal

consumption expenditures. since the longer run inflation outlook is determined almost entirely by monetary policy, these projections can be interpreted as indicating inflation rate to be consistent with the mandate of fostered maximum employment and stable prices. consistent inflationn rate is supposed to be 2% or less. as indicated in the policy statement, the recovery appears to be proceeding at a moderate pace. it is somewhat more slowly than the committee expected. recent indicators have been weaker than expected. the unemployment rate has risen by 0.3 percentage points since march. new claims have moved higher. the reduced pace of recovery partly reflects factors likely to be temporary.

purchasing power has been damaged by higher food and energy prices. the aftermath of the earthquake and cinnamon in japan has been associated with disruptions in supply chain. some moderation of gasoline prices is now in prospect. the effects of the japanese disaster are likely to dissipate in the coming months. the first figure shows the change in real gdp. the committee expects the pace of recovery will pick up over coming quarters. projections for growth and the central tendency about 2.9% for this year and 3.7% for next year. those are growth rates faster than we have seen in 2011. participants responded to the slowing by marking down the growth projections for 2011 and 2012. those are nearly 0.5% lower than

the april projections. the growth projections for 2012 -- 2013 is four. 2%, essentially the same as the april projections. the second figure is titled and a plenary. that is expected to resume the gradual decline towards levels judged to be consistent with the dual mandate. the employer rate is projected to edge down over coming months to 8.9% in the fourth quarter of the year and then decline gradually over the next two years to a low level of 7.5% in 2013. that is still well above the central tendency of the long run projections. we expect the unclear rate to continue to decline. the pace of progress remains frustratingly slow. inflation has moved up reflecting higher prices for some commodities and imported goods.

prices of motor vehicles have risen notably as a result of the recent supply chain disruptions. as the effects dissipate, the committee anticipates it will subside to levels at or below the mandate consistent rate has shown in pce inflation. the central tendency projections decline in both 2012 and 2013. the trajectory is similar to that of april. the economic outlook provides important policy context. the committee policy strategy is intended to foster both aspects of the dual mandate. that is promoting economic recovery is so the unemployment rate returns to the long term normal level and insuring that inflation over time is at levels consistent with our mandate. the current and a limit rate

remains elevated. progress toward more levels is likely to be slow. the inflation rate picked up in recent months. it is expected to subside to levels at or below the rate of 2% -- or a bit less than than what most. is this just to be consistent with the mandate. these are key reasons for the decision to maintain the current high degree of monetary policy accommodation. thank you. i would be glad to take questions. >> does the guidance apply to the fed holdings?

will they be maintained at a high level for an extended time? >> we have not made any such commitment. when we begin to allow the portfolio to run off rather than reinvesting, that would be a first step in the process of exiting from the highly accommodative policies. we have not chosen to make any commitment about the time frame. we will be looking at the outlook in trying to assess the appropriate time to take that step. >> why give guidance on one policy tool but not on another when the fed has talked about the two policy tools working together? >> that is a good question. it is something we have on the table and have thought about. to this point, we have not taken the step.

>> do you want to stand up? >> the committee lowered this central tendency forecast and also for 2012. the statement of the committee attributes most of the revision in forecast to temporary factors. could you explain what seems to be persisting in terms of holding the recovery that? the statement says some factors are likely to be temporary. are there some that are producing a worse outlook than three months ago? >> as you point out, what we say is that the temporary factors are in part the reason for the slowdown. in other words, part of the slowdown is temporary. part of it may be longer lasting. we believe growth will pick up going into 2012, but at a slower pace than anticipated in april. we do not have the precise read

on why the slower pace of growth is persisting. one way to think about it is that maybe some of the head winds that have been concerning us like weakness in the financial sector, problems in the housing sector, balance sheets, deleveraging issues -- some of these may be stronger or more persistent than we thought. accurate to to be some things to those but acknowledge the some of the slowdown is due to factors that hurt longer lived and will be operative next year. in 2013, we have growth at about the same rate we anticipated in april. >> mr. chairman, could you

describe to extend this recent increase in europe was discussed at the meeting and what policy conclusions were reached -- could you describe the extent to which greece and europe was discussed at the meeting? >> with respect to greece, it is a very difficult situation we have been in close communication with our colleagues in europe. we have been kept well-informed. we had a call over the weekend. i think the europeans appreciate the incredible importance of resolving the greek situation. if there were a failure to resolve it, it would pose

threats to the european financial system, the global financial system, and european unity and would conjecture as well. we did discuss it. it was one of several potential financial risks we're facing now. thee mostly just following situation closely and making sure as best we can that our own institutions are well-positioned relative to the sovereign debt in the so-called peripheral countries. with respect to additional asset purchases, we have not taken any action today. we will be reviewing the outlook going forward. it will be a committee decision. the point i would make about where we are today versus last year is that at that time,

inflation was very low and falling. many indicators suggested was a non-trivial risk. i think the securities purchases have been successful in eliminating deflation risks. deflations can be a very pernicious situation with long- lasting effects on economic growth. growth in payrolls has picked up. in the four months before the speech in august, there was about 80,000 per month. increase. in 2011, the average is closer to 180,000. there has been improvement in the labor market. it is not as strong as we would like. as of last august, we were

missing significantly on both sides of the mandate. inflation was too low and falling. unemployment looked like it might be beginning to rise again. the case for monetary action was pretty clear in my mind. i think we are in a different position today. we are not where we would like to be, but we're closer to the dual mandate and objectives than we were at that time. the situation is different today than last august. we'll continue to monitor the economy and act as needed. >> i am with dow jones. budget cuts may begin at the end of the year. will that help or hinder the economy? with this fiscal policy like in your 2012 growth forecast?

-- what is fiscal policy liking your 2012 growth forecast? >> it depends on the timing. i have advocated negotiations on the budget focus on the longer- term, say 10 years. that is the budget window. even longer if you are taking into account entitlement reform, for example. by taking a long-term perspective, we can help the economy by reducing the risk that interest rates might rise suddenly. we may help increase confidence for households and businesses. it is desirable that we take strong action to lower our budget deficits over the longer term. in doing that, it would be best not to have sudden and sharp fiscal consolidation in the near term. that does not do much for the

long-term budget situation. it is just a negative for growth. onanswer is that it deterdepens the timing. i hope the congressional negotiators will take a long- term view as they discuss the issue. >> i am with pbs. there seems to be a growing view in the country that the deficit is the problem with jobs and that immediate cuts in the deficit would grow the economy and immediately create jobs. many economists disagree. do you want to talk about that issue and whether you agree with that view? >> i do not think sharp and immediate cuts and deficit would create one job. in the short run, we're already ag cominge school dru from state and local governments

as well as the withdrawal of previous federal stimulus. in the short run, the fiscal tightening is at best neutral and probably somewhat negative for jobs creation. people should understand our budgetary problems are long run in nature. the cdo talksections by about the ratio in 2025. that does not mean we should wait to act. the sooner we can act, the better. the most efficient and effective way to address our fiscal problems is to take a long-term perspective, not focus the cuts heavily on the near-term. by taking a long-term perspective and making a credible plan for reducing future deficits, we will lower

interest rates or prevent them from rising and increase confidence. that could be very constructive. i do not think focusing entirely on the near term is the proper way to proceed. >> i am with "the washington post." do you believe they have the authority to set the to% inflationary target on its own? do you need to go to congress to get that made more explicit? are you considering doing it? the considering going to congress to ask them to do it? >> i have been a long-term proponent of the target. i think it would help expectations and make it easier to reach our objectives.

it is not inconsistent with our and plymouth objectives. keeping inflation low and stable and keeping expectations low and stable gives the fed more leeway to respond to shocks in the economy. it is worth considering. in terms of the '30s, and would say there are multiple models around the world. the european central bank has a mandate for price stability. they set their own definition of the using input from economists and others. i cannot think there is a barrier to setting a target. however, it is important that we communicate to the public what we are doing.

without sufficient explanation and background, people might think we were abandoning our employment target. we need to make sure it is well understood by the public and congress that having a target would not mean we are abandoning the other leg of the dual mandate. i think under any circumstances it would be important to take it to congress. we might have the legal authority, but i think we do need them to take that step. we continue to discuss the issue. it is part of our ongoing discussion. there is nothing imminent. we will continue to discuss this. as appropriate, we will be consulting about it. >> i am with the "new york

times." what is your assessment of the impact on the economy if there is a default by one of the european nationals? what steps has the fed taken to assess the consequences for u.s. financial institutions and examined the impact on derivatives? >> to answer your second question first, we have been assiduous in examining the exposures of financial institutions to the peripheral countries. the banks we regulate are not significantly exposed to those countries directly. they have significant exposure to european banks in the non- peripheral countries and indirectly have the exposure. the statement i made includes credit default swaps. the gross numbers do not fully

account for a wide variety of hedges and positions. we have lost the banks to reduce stress tests -- to stress tests. we've asked them to look at the effect on their capital increase defaulted. -- increase defaulted. the effects are small. -- we have bounced them to look at the effect on their capital greece defaulted. the effects would be small. the situation is similar in some sense in that with few exceptions, the money market mutual funds do not have much direct exposure to the peripheral countries currently dealing with debt problems. they do have substantial exposure to european banks in the core countries like germany and france.

to the extent there is indirect impact on the core european banks, that does pose some concern to money market mutual funds. it is the reason why the federal reserve and other regulators are looking at ways to strengthen money market mutual funds. in terms of the impact problem in greece on the united states, direct exposures are pretty small. the. doing all we can to monitor those -- we are doing all we can to monitor those. in a small case last spring, a disorderly default in one of the would have a big impact on credit spreads, stock prices, and so on. in that respect, i think the

effect on the united states would be quite significant. >> i am with "american banker." global regulators are meeting this week to finalize a proposal that would name the world's most significantl banks and surcharges. some argue regulators are going to far, too fast. where is the line where you go too far and hurt credit, lending, and the economy? >> i will be attending that meeting. i will have a chance to hear the views of others and contribute to the discussion. it is only been cheated years since we have the worst financial crisis since the great depression and possibly in the history -- it has only been two

years since we had the worst financial crisis since the great depression and possibly in the history of the united states. since we cannot know exactly what threats will come in the future, the best all-purpose way of strengthening the balance sheets of banks and financial institutions is by capital. i am very supportive of increased capital and better quality capital to help insure these banks will be stable and able to land in the event of another crisis which i hope we never see. in terms of the surcharge, i think it is appropriate to have additional capital requirements for the largest and most important institutions. their failure would have strong effects in the financial system.

we need to take steps they will be unlikely to fail. it provides a more level playing field. by having higher equity requirements, the largest institutions avoid some of the funding advantages that will accrue to firms who are viewed as being too big to fail. it is important to do that. we will be negotiating and discussing with our colleagues internationally on what the appropriate number of firms is and what the appropriate criteria are and the amount of capital. in choosing the amount of capital, we will be trying to balance the need for 64

systemically important firms. for the systemically important firms. as they reduce lending, some of that might go to other institutions. in terms of going too far, it is difficult to make a broad based assessment of the overall impact of all the rules and regulations. i would like to make clear that by law and our internal practices the federal reserve does cost-benefit analysis of every rule that we write. we publish those. we're looking at the cost- benefit for these regulations. we have worked actively with the bis to do analyses of the effect of capital requirements on the probability of a crisis and on the cost of lending and the effect on growth.

those studies have been published. we believe the capital imposed thus far would significantly reduce the threat of a massive financial crisis. it would have small effects on growth. i do not think we are on the wrong side of the trade off at this point. >> robin harding from "the financial times." to not expeexpect unemployment remain high. do you think the trade-off between unemployment and growth has gotten worse? has the unexpected rise in inflation change your outlook? >> to take the second question

first, that is a possibility. as you saw from the projections, the committee sees the long run the unemployment rate somewhere around 5.5%. that would suggest the committee believes the opposite gap is large. -- output gap is large. with respect to core inflation, some of that is temporary. the supply chain disruptions brought about by the japanese disaster led to a significant increase in auto prices for new and used last month. as the problems are resolved, we would assume prices would come

back down as competition increases and costs are reduced. that is one example. another would be the fact that energy prices -- that is only directed energy products. air fares are very sensitive to the cost of jet fuel. those are also part of the corps. you would imagine that as the price of oil declines that you would see some decline also in the four measures of inflation. given that there is still a large output gap, that expectations remain well- anchored, that some temporary factors are likely to recede, i

think it is reasonable to think core inflation will fall back towards the mandate-consistent levels. if you lifted the projections we have marked up a bit, those are up for the quarter projections. >> what is the extended time now for exceptionally low fed funds rates given the recent developments in the u.s. and global economic picture? is it a year or two? under what conditions with the extension be extended even longer? >> the reason we use terms like extended period is not to be paid. it is because we do not know how long.

the thrust of it is that we believe we are at least two or three meetings away from taking any further action. i would emphasize "at least." depending on how the economy evolves and with inflation and unemployment, it could be significantly longer. it will depend on how the economic outlook changes. if we do get improved job creation and inflation close to or above the mandate-consistent level, that would be a sign we need to consider the exit process. we are not there at this point. - what about-conditions -- ive conditions?

>> we would not exit and would not change the language. we would not want to give -- we have chosen not to give an explicit time frame because it is our intention to monitor the economy and revise our outlook. we have revised its significantly since april. we will make a judgment based on the incoming data. we do not want to convicmmit ourselves to a fixed timeframe. >> i am from bloomberg news. to get to the world of 2013 when

we have unemployment falling and inflation at a nice little, what would your appropriate policy be to get there? would it be a gradual exit? no exit? >> i do not think it would be constructed for me to give you a tentative projection. there is no alternative but to watch the incoming data and make a judgment in terms of when the and also withgain the slope. what the slope of tightening would be, how quickly we would tighten. we all have estimates in our minds. it is a far cry from saying this is what is going to happen.

the fmoc has to forecast its own favorite in the way it has to forecast the economy and change. given the developments in the economy, we might in of doing something different than what we currently think is most likely. >> if i ever stand correctly -- understand correctly, you are bringing your own forecast to the meeting. how did you fall in the central tendency? were you on the high or low end? where would you put yourself on the range of the forecast as the first among equals? i do not think your predecessor did this. what benefits do you get by bringing your own forecast? your predecessor recently

suggested we should urgently move back to the clinton-era tax levels because of how bad the debt situation could get. without getting into what congress should or should not do, what would be the benefits or costs of moving back to the 1999 marginal tax rates? >> i am the member of the fmoc. i have submitted my own forecast. i would characterize myself as being consistent with most of my colleagues. i am not taking an extreme view in any way. i believe the slowdown is partly temporary and we will see greater growth going forward. i do think that the best guess

would be that growth might be less than anticipated. on tax policy, the main point i would like to make -- i am reluctant to get into the specifics, but the main point is that we need to urgently address the overall fiscal situation by taking a long run perspective to .o that how is done is the responsibility of congress because there are trade-offs. truces. those choices reflect fundamental values about what you think government should do,

so i do not generally make truces. i do think addressing the deficit problem is very urgent. >> i am with bbc news. looking at your unemployment projections, it seems to expect weak jobs growth. does that mean you do not think there's a structural issue? can you give us a time frame of when we return to normal? >> we expect growth in the second half of this year and next year to be faster than it has been in 2011. we would expect to see healthier job creation numbers. if our forecast is correct, we will see payroll numbers

improving relatively soon. in terms of the unemployment rate, growth is not much above the long run potential rate of growth, with an estimate of 2.5% to 2.8%, it takes growth faster than potential to bring down unemployment. since we are not getting that, we predict unemployment to come down painfully slowly. if growth picks up as we anticipate, job numbers will start getting better. we're still some years away from full employment in terms of 5.5%. that is frustrating. it means many people will be out of work for an extended time. that can have significant long- term consequences that concern

me very much. >> given your response just numb and given the fed's belief that the recent uptick in inflation is transitory, why would the fed not take more action to stimulate growth? if it considered that, with bond purchases in your preference question -- would bond preferences be your preference -- would bond purchases be your preference? >> the current outlook is significantly different than what we were facing in august of last year. we no longer have a deflationary risk. inflation is above target. we expected to fall.

we're not in a deflationary situation. notwithstanding the disappointing news recently, the labor market has been performing better than last year. we have a lot of uncertainty right now about how much of the slowdown is temporary and permanent. that would suggest some time to see what will happen would be useful in making policy decisions. we will continue to look at the outlook and will act appropriately as the news come in and projections change. we do have a number of ways of acting. none are without risks or costs. we could do more purchases or structure them in different ways. we could cut the interest on excess reserves that we paid to banks.

as suggested by earlier questions, we could give balance sheet of ice and give a fixed date to define extended period. those are ways we could act further. these are untested and have their own costs. we are prepared to take additional action if conditions warrant. >> mr. chairman, and with a japanese newspaper. -- i am with a japanese newspaper.

it was suggested recently that the u.s. was facing its own lost decade. what do you think of japan's experience and what is facing the u.s.? is there anything we should be reminded about? thank you. >> i am a bit more sympathetic to central bankers now than i was 10 years ago. i think it is very important to understand in my published comment a decade ago and in my speech from 2000 to about deflation, my main point was that a determined central bank can always do something about deflation. inflation is a monetary phenomenon. the central bank can always create money and so on.

can be at deflationar debilitating factor in growth of the economy. we acted on that advice in the united states in august and september of last year. we could infer from tips and inflation bond prices that investors saw in 1/3 chance goingright deflationar forward. there were significant risks. the securities purchases we did were intended in part to stop the risk of deflation. i think is widely agreed that we'd succeeded in ending the deflationary risk.

i think our policies were constructed on the employment side. -- constructive on the employment side. we did take action to address deflationa. that was the crux of my remarks 10 years ago. we have been consistent with that approach. >> i am with market news international. do you and your colleagues have the statistical trigger or particular level of unemployment or inflation at which you would begin the exit process. barack if you do, would it make sense to announce it? -- and if you do, would it make sense to announce it? >> we currently have 17 independent members of the fm with their own outlooks on

monetary policy and the risks to inflation and unemployment. we do not have a formula. we have staff produce various scenarios that gives some indication of their projections of the most likely points for the beginning of an exit. as i said earlier announced about my own projections, those are tentative and depend on a lot happening and the forecast evolving as expected. they are subject to change as new information comes in. >> i am with the associated press.

on permanent factors, in november you said a second round of asset purchases would ease mortgage rates and make housing more affordable. you have seen housing become more affordable and rates decline. you are seeing underlying fundamentals still very weak sales prices. many economists have pushed back economic forecasts to 2014 for any meaningful rebound. what could be done cannot sector -- to be done for that sector to stimulate growth? >> the housing sector is important to overall recovery. we have paid a lot of attention to that. we did succeed in lowering the mortgage rates.

people are able to buy more house than they could have a few years ago. unfortunately, there are problems including the fact that credit standards for mortgages have tightened considerably. the bottom 1/3 of people who might have qualified for the prime mortgage in terms of fica scores a few years ago cannot qualify today. that is an important problem. there is a lot of uncertainty about employment and economic recovery. that is affecting people's willingness to buy a house. there are a number of fundamental factors slowing the housing market. they do present difficult challenges. the fed is trying to address this in a number of ways.

our monetary policy is intended to promote employment and income gains. that will help housing demand. as regulators, we have recently issued a cease and desist orders to servicers to try to improve servicing practices. we work with the regulated banks to ask them to do modifications when appropriate and manage their real-estate in a way that is supportive of the economy. the federal reserve has also been involved in giving input to other agencies which have responsibilities for housing. we have provided device to the treasury on their modification programs. i am the head of the oversight board for the tarp that now

mostly consists of the housing program. in that context, and kept well informed. the federal reserve is doing a lot and what it can. i would like to see further efforts to modify loans where appropriate. we're not appropriate, to speed the process of foreclosure and the disposition of foreclosed homes to clear the market and get the hose out of the pipeline and allow people to operate in a market where they are more confident prices will be stable rather than falling. house prices are declining overall. all that is concentrated in distressed properties.

house is not being sold on a distressed prices have more stable prices. that suggests if we can reduce the current number of home sales on the distressed basis, that do a lot to stabilize the market. it would give people confidence they can buy and not be buying into a falling market. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]