extremist elements can flood once again and over time they might be in a position to rebuild themselves. what i laid out was a plan in which we are going to draw down troops from afghanistan after 10 very long years an enormous sacrifice by our troops. we will draw them down in a responsible way that will allow afghanistan to defend itself and give us the operational capacity to continue to put pressure on al qaeda until that network is entirely defeated. >> [inaudible]

>> we understand that there will be events like this on occasion. the question in terms of overall friends, capacity increases. cobble, which contains huge portions of the population as a whole, has been largely policed by afghan forces for some time. they have done a reasonably good job. kabul is much safer than that was an forces are much more capable than we were. events like this will likely go on for some time. our work is not yet done as i said in my speech, the tide of war has receded and we have shifted into a transition phase. much like iraq, where we have

drawn down troops, the remainder will be coming down by the end of this year. iraq has been able to maintain a democratic government and tamp down government -- violence there. these are still countries digging themselves out of a lot of war and conflict. these are dangerous places. they will not be perfectly safe, even if we were there. we can improve the chances for the afghan people to defend themselves. jim shooter. >> thank you, mr. president. you are aware that senators kerry and mccain have options on the floor so that you can continue in libya for one more year. you call this an operation that

was limited in time and scope. days, not weeks. are the american people prepared to continue for a further year? is there any other definition of success than gaddafi being removed from power? >> first of all, a slight correction. what i told the american people was was that the initial phase where the american people were in the lead could take days or weeks. and that is exactly what happened. after around two weeks, a little less, we had transition where nato had taken full control of the operation. promise made, promises kept. second, i think that when you have the former republican nominee for president, john mccain, and the former nominee for president on the democratic side, john kerry, coming

together to support but we are doing in libya, this is important and i appreciate their efforts in that regard. third, when it comes to their definition of success, the un mandate has said that we are there to make sure that we do not see a massacre directed against libyan civilians by the libyan regime. their capacity has been greatly reduced as a consequence of our operation. that has already been successful. in the east and west we have seen opposition forces that can mobilize themselves and people are starting to see the possibility of a peaceful future on the horizon. also true, as long as gaddafi is still presenting himself as the

head of the libyan government and still controls large numbers of troops, the libyan people will be in danger. there is no doubt that gaddafi stepping down from power is, from the international community's perspective, going to be the primary way that we can make sure that the old boat -- overall mission of the libyan people being protected is accomplished. i want to point out, knowing something that you know, the international criminal court identified gaddafi as having violated international law we have seen reports of troops engaging in horrible acts, including potentially using a rate as a weapon of war. when you have someone like that

in charge of large numbers of troops, it will be hard to feel confident that the libyan people will be protected unless he steps down. what that means, whether there is the possibility of libyans are arriving at some sort of political settlement, that is something ultimately the libyan people will have to make a decision about. the international community is there in service of a peaceful libya. >> would there be a success from the american perspective? >> i would accept him stepping down so that he is not directing the armed forces against the libyan people. he needs to step down. he needs to go.

>> would you like to see some sort of tax break stimulating the economy? even though that would add to the deficit? following up on one of your earlier answers about same-sex marriage, you called it a positive step. does that mean that you personally support same-sex marriage? >> i will not make news on that today. good try. with respect to the deficit debt talks and where we need to go, it is important in a 10 year window as well as beyond a 10 year window to understand one of the most important things that we can do is grow the economy. if there are steps in the short

term that may reduce the amount of cash in the treasury and in the long term mean that we are growing at 3.5% instead of 2.5%, we said that a payroll tax cut makes sense in order to boost the economy. unemployment insurance makes sense in order to boost the economy. all that stuff puts money in people's pockets at a time when they are still struggling to dig themselves out of this recession. the american people have an extra thousand on dollars on average because of the tax cuts that we initiated. that has helped to cushion some of the tough stuff that happened in the first six months of this year including the effect on oil prices as a consequence of what

happened in the middle east as well as what happened in japan. i think that it makes perfect sense for us to take a look at can we extend the payroll tax for example. that is initial year. the tax break could make a difference in terms of this right now. what we need to do is restore business confidence and the confidence of the american people that we are on track. we will not get there right away. this is a tough slog and we're still moving forward. i think that makes sense as we're looking at the overall package to see if there are some things that we can do to sustain the recovery. so long as the overall package

achieves our goals, the goals that i have set out which is four trillion dollars and making sure that we are bending the costs of things like health care over the long term. >> what you said before really let me to believe [applause] and -- what you said has really led me to believe what is the position that you are trying. >> i will give the the same answer until i give you a different one. that will not be today. [laughter] >> thank you very much, mr. president. if you receive a mandatory bill

only without legalization, are you planning to -- that deal? members of congress and the government of mexico are still waiting for answers. are you planning to replace the leadership and when can expect the results of the current investigation? >> on the second question, as you know, my attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into mexico. the investigation is still pending. i will not comment on the current investigation. i've made very clear my views that that would not be an appropriate step by the atf and we need to find out how that happened. as soon as the investigation is completed, appropriate action will be taken.

we need comprehensive immigration reform. i have said before, i will say it again. we have to have a system that makes sure that we uphold our tradition as a nation of laws and that we also uphold this as a nation of immigrants. that means going after employers that are illegally hiring and exploiting workers. making sure that we have a pathway for a legal status for those who are living in the shadows right now. we might not be able to get everything that i would like to see in a package, but we have to have a balanced package. -- can be an important tool if this is not riddled with mistakes, if u.s. citizens are

protected because what i don't want is a situation in which employers are forced to set up a system cannot have certain works. we don't want to expose employers to the risk where they end up protecting a qualified candidate for a job because the list says that that person is an illegal immigrant and it turns out they are not an illegal immigrant. that would not be fair for the employee and would probably get the employer in trouble as well. i think the goal is to let's continue to see if we can prevent -- to see if we can improve the system and if we have some components to immigration reform. the dream at kids, the kids to think of themselves as americans, who are not illegal

in no fault of their own. let's make sure those kids can stay. we need to have a more balanced approach than just a verification system. >> [inaudible] >> i don't have an answer to whether this is completed debt and it would not be a corporate for me to comment on the investigation. i don't have an answer to whether this is completed yet and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation. congratulations. your first question here. >> thank you, mr. president.

your administration has laid out four different dates by which you said that the debt ceiling must be raised or earthy -- or we would face financial consequences. some of your critics have said this is scare tactics. why should the american people believe that the august 2nd deadline is the final deadline by which a deal must be raised? would you spell out what you believe will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised by that date? >> let's be clear, we have not didn't -- we have not given up four different dates, we have given out days that are markers for us getting into trouble. this is the equivalent of you driving down the street and the yellow light starts flashing. the yellow light is flashing. this has not been a red light yet.

what timothy geithner has said is that this speaking, we are in a position now where we are having to do a whole bunch of things to make sure that our bills are paid. by august 2nd, we run out of tools to make sure that all of our bills are paid. that is a hard deadline. i want everyone to understand that this is a jobs issue. this is not an attraction. for the.s. government' first time cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences will be significant. this is not a good thing. we don't know how capital markets will react.

if capital markets decide, you know what, the u.s. government does not pay its bills, so we will start pulling our money out. the u.s. treasury will have to start to raise interest rates in order to attract more money to pay off our bills. that means higher interest rates for businesses, higher interest rates for consumers. all of the head winds that we are experiencing in terms of the recovery will get worse. that is not my opinion. i think that is a consensus opinion. that means that job growth will be further stymied. this will be further hampered as a consequence of that decision. that is point number one. i want to address what i have been hearing from some quarters which is maybe this debt limit a thing is not that serious. we can't pay interest on the debt. this idea has been floating a round and some republican

circles. this is the equivalent of me saying, i will choose to pay my mortgage but i will not pay my car note. i will pay my car note but i will not pay my student loans. a lot of people and really tough situations are having to make those tough decisions. but the u.s. government to start picking and choosing like that is not going to inspire a lot of confidence. moreover, which bills are we going to decide today? these guys have said, maybe we will pay the interest on bondholders. so, are we going to start paying interest to the chinese who hold treasurys and will not pay people their social security checks?

or, we will not pay veterans for their disability checks? which obligations are we going to say that we don't have to pay? the last point i want to make about this, these are bills that congress ran up. the money has been spent. the obligations have been made. this is not a situation, i think that the american people need to understand this, this is not a situation or congress will say, we will not buy this car or take his vacation. they took the vacation, they bought the car. now, they are saying, maybe we don't have to pay are we don't have to pay as fast as we said we were going to. that is not how responsible

families act. we're the greatest nation on earth and we cannot act that way. so, this is urgent. disney's to get settled. -- this needs to get settled. i'm the president of the nine states and want to make sure that i am not engaging in scare tactics. i have tried to be responsible and somewhat restrained so that people do not get spooked. august 2nd is a very important date. there is no reason why we cannot get this done now. we know what the options are out there. this is not a technical problem any longer. this is a matter of congress go ahead and biting the bullet and making some tough decisions. we identified which are possible. we have identified which cuts are possible.

we have identified what health care cuts are possible. we have identified which loopholes can raise the debt level. the question now is, we stepped up and get this done. my daughter's generally finished their homework a day ahead of time. they do not wait until the night before, they're not pulling on lighters. -- they are not pulling all nighters. i am very amused when i start hearing comments about, well,

the president is to show more this/ship oon right after we dealt with dealing with the government shut down, i said we had to get this done. i have put vice president president -- vice president biden in charge of the process. i met with every single caucus for an hour to an hour and a half each. republican senators, democratic senators. republican house, democratic house. i've met with the leaders multiple times. at a certain point, they need to do their job. so, this thing is not on the level where we have meetings and discussions and we are working through the process and when they decide they are not happy

with the fact that at some point you have to make a choice, they say, the president needs to get this done. they needed to do their job. now's the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. that is why they're called leaders. i have already shown i am willing to make the decisions that are very tough and and i give my base of voters another reason to give me a hard time. there's no point in procrastinating, there is no point in putting it off. we have to get this done. if by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress, then i think members of congress need to understand that we will start having a cancellation and stay here until we get it done.

they are in one week, they're out another week, and then they're saying, a obama has to step in. you need to be here. i've been here. i've been doing afghanistan and bin laden, the greek crisis. you stay here. let's get it done. ok. i think you know my feelings about that. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. president. you talked about the payroll tax holiday and possibly extending that. are you worried about adding short-term measures on the economy into these discussions about long-term deficit reductions that that might complicate the conversation and make it harder to pass the debt limit? >> if we had a good deal on debt

and deficit reduction that focuses not just on the 10-year window but also the long-term, we will get it done. then we can argue about some other things. i think that is very important. i will say that precisely because tough votes in congress are often avoided, it might make sense to also deal with something like a payroll tax cut at the same time because it does have budget implications. the american people need to know that we're focused on jobs and not just on deficit reduction, even though i said that this helps to serve the job agenda. they want to have some

confidence that we have a plan that is helping them right now. i don't think it should be a complicating factor because if mitch mcconnell and john painter said that we're married to make a deal, here is a balanced approach -- john boehner said, we are ready to make a deal and they want the tax cuts to expire. if that was a situation that they presented, then i think that we would have a serious conversation about that. i would not discount that completely. i think the steps that i talked about to deal with job growth and economic growth right now is vitally important to deficit reduction just as deficit reduction is important to grow the economy and create jobs. this also helps to reduce the deficit. if we just increase the growth rate by one percentage point,

that would drastically bring down the long-term projections of the deficit because people are paying more into the coffers and less people are drawing unemployment insurance. this makes a huge difference. this might be a good place to wrap up. you know, every day i get letters from folks all around the country who show incredible resilience, incredible determination, but they are having a very very tough time. they are losing their homes, some have lost their businesses. some have lost work and have not been able to find jobs for months, maybe a year, maybe a year and a half. they feel some desperation.

some people who are working are just having a tough time paying the bills because they have not seen their wages or incomes grow up in 10 years and the cost of everything has gone out. every day, that weighs on me. every minute of every day, that weighs on me. i ran for president precisely to make sure that we righted this ship and critics situation where middle-class families and those who aspire to this have been working hard. the structural changes have been going on for a decade, in some cases, longer. they will not be solved overnight. we know what to do. we know that if we are educating our kids well, they will be more

competitive. we know that if are investing in things like infrastructure, this pays off. i was in alcoa and iowa, they took a big hit during the recession. they still invested $90 million into equipment into a plant that makes airplane wings and parts for automobiles. they have bounced back and fired back all of their people and are increasing market share because they have made those investments. america has to make some investments. we know that we have to get control of our deficit. there are some things that will not solve all of our problems that can make progress right now. the question is whether or not democrats and republicans are willing to put aside the experience of short-term politics in order to get it done. these people are counting on us.

they desperately want to believe that their leadership is thinking about them. i think if all leadership here in washington has the faces and the stories of those families in mind, then we will solve this debt limit issue, we will put in place steps like a payroll tax increase -- -- a payroll tax cut. we'll continue these are solveable problems, but it does require get out of the short-term and frankly selfish approach that sometimes politics breeds. we have to think long-term. thank you very much, everybody.

>> you can see the president's news conference again at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. also on our video library at c-span.org. the president will be part of a tribute to outgoing defense secretary robert gates. tomorrow morning at 9:45, and the joint chief's chairman will be there. that will be on c-span 3 and online at c-span.org. c-span has launched a new website for 2012 politics and the presidential race with campaign trail info, bioinformation on candidates, political reporters and links to c-span media parters -- partners. vice president us at

c-span.org/campaign2012. >> senate democratic leaders have been meeting at the white house this afternoon, possibly talking about con selling next week's session after president obama chided congress for taking breaks while the debt ceiling talks are stalled. the is not majority leader and caucus will discuss being in town next week. earlier today, senate republicans talked about their support for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution requiring the president to submit and the congress to pass a balanced bug each year. here is that 25-minute briefing. >> we understand the president is having a news conference at exactly the same time we are. we expect that he will be pushing for tax increases as a condition to get some kind of deficit reduction package. our view is a good first step

is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. all 47 republicans are in favor of that. we call on at least 20 of our democratic colleagues in the senate to join us. speaker boehner has indicated to me and maybe to you as well that they will be dealing with this issue, a balanced constitutional amendment july the 25th in the house of representatives. so we think it is pretty clear, regardless of what we are ultimately able to negotiate here in the short-term, that we put the federal government in this kind of fiscal straitjacket for the future so that we cannot get into this position again. with that, let me turn to our leader on this subject over the years. he was here the l.a. time we came very close to approving this constitutional amendment, the ranking member of the

finance committee, senator hatch. >> thank you. we are 62 trillion in debt in this country. we know that we just found out that by 2035 if we continue on the same path, our debt to g.d.p. ratio will be 190. greece right now is 150. if that doesn't give you some idea of what we are into, i don't know what will. we have to pass this balanced budget amendment that 49 states have. 49 states are required to balance their budgets. individuals are required to pal their budgets. i am convinced we have to have a strat jacket to get congress to do what it should do. we came within one vote of 1997 of passing this and getting it to the states. we intend to pass it this year and get this mess under control. >> the balanced budget mepped i

am is the best way to cut out smoke and mirrors when it comes to federal government budgeting. we know we are spending 40 cents of every dollar from foreign money, and most of that is from china. we don't want to be at the mercies of countries that may not have other best interests at heart. this is the number one threat to our national security, our debt is, and we know. if interest rates were to go up, imagine what that would mean in terms of the burden on taxpayers. this is the sickle most important thing we do, and i commend the leader, and senator hatch for leading us through this effort. >> our country is in grave danger. the number one threat to our

country is the national debt. 14 respect% of the public agree that congress is doing a good job, that congress has been a good steward of the taxpayers' money. 75% of the public, republicans, democrats and independents believe we should have a balanced budget menment. i firmly believe we will not ever surmount our fiscal problems until we get the balanced budget amendment, and i hope the democrats will join us. >> $1.5 trillion annual deficits. $14.3 trillion in accumulated debt. trillions of dollars in con contingent lives, and tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded programs. if we don't change the path we are on, this could lead to a financial crisis that will be absolutely devastating. the mountain of debt we are

running is already having a -- an affect. businesses are unwilling to hire with the threat of high inflation and taxes that this debt implies. we need to act now. a balanced budget amendment is the best way to put us on a sustainable fiscal path and help encourage the type of growth we badly need. >> although congress has a lot of power, it wields too much power as many of us feel, congress locks the power to bind any future congress. we can pass laws that affect us right now, but we in this congress have no guarantee that the next congress or the one off that will repeal what we enact today. there are some things we want

to standpoint the test of time and be beyond the reach of future conscience. that is why we need an amendment. we have to bind future consciences' ability to continue to burr aye our prosperity under a mountain of debt. it is killing job creation and our economy. it is eroding liberty. it has to stop. when we promise only to cut, even if it is trillions of dollars, if that trillions of cuts is stretched over a deck eight or more, we can't truly commit to that. it might be a promise, but it is a promise we can't keep if we are purporting to bind few congresses. the only way to do that is through an amendment to the constitution. >> in a series of town hall meetings across my state, i would display a chart, and the

chart illustrated the goat in the federal deficit. it occurred to me one day that in 1970 when i was a 20-year-old young man, our nation owed $380 billion. then at age 65 it is projected -- and i think these are optimistic. our nation willow $20 trillion. that is a crisis. that has gun going on year after year, administration after administration. that is why the balanced budget amendment makes so much send. it brings reality to the budget process. one last thought. i have governed under a balance budget amendment as a governor. in the state where i come from, we don't borrow money. we have no indebtedness

whatsoever. that is the state of nebraska. how has it worked? great every year. why? because it forces us to make real decisions about where we want our state to head. during this economic time our unemployment rate never competed 5%. our unemployment rate today is 4.1%. i believe strongly that a reason for that is that we are responsible not only with our money today, but with the money of our children and grandchildren, which is something that does not exist here in washington. >> i want to thank our leadership and senator hatch's leadership on this issue. we have to live within our means. what this comes down to for me, i'm the mother of two children. i don't want my children saying to me mom, what did you do about it? i think we should all be asking that question when we look at

the amount of national debt we are bearing right now as a nation. it is not only going to impact were here, but our children and grandchildren. we have always made a promise in this country that we would leave our country at least the same, if not better for the next generation, and we are breaching that promise. all we are saying it let's live within our means. i don't understand why we shouldn't get full support for a balanced budget amendment in the senate when almost every state in the nation the same requirement and every family has the same requirement at home to not spend money we don't have. we have proven time and again that without these types of restrictions on the spending addiction here in washington, that we will continue to spend money that we don't have. i urge my colleagues in the

senate on both sides of the aisle to come together and pass this common sense measure to get us on a path of fiscal sustainability for our children and all of us. >> after years of trying, the time is right for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it is time for the federal government to adhere to the same fiscal discipline that america's families and 49 states follow. it is important because the fiscal crisis is at our doorstep. it is also important because we are not going to get this economy growing. way it should be. that amendment would send the right message to get jobs and get our economy back on truck. >> my citizens back home constantly are talking to me about how irresponsible we are here in washington. i tell them that no matter how irresponsible they think that

we are, i promise them that it is even worse. we haven't had a budget in the senate for 791 days. think about that. we are penning $3.7 trillion. we haven't had a budget for 791 days. the oxygen is out of this building. the only way that congress ever acts today is if there is a crisis or some law that they have to bump up against. most of you know i have offered something called the cap amendment. it takes us from where we are today spending relative to the economy, from 24.5%, which is an all-time high, and takes us down to a nominal level of 20.6 percent. statutory caps, over time people fall off the wagon and

they figure out ways of getting around it. the reason we need some type of balanced amendment is that congress ress will fall off the work. when the are american people stop looking here, we will resort to our old ways. i would suggest something to anchor us in so make sure congress acts responsible. in this day and age, unfortunately, it is only position like that that make us do that. thank you. >> i strongly commend or leader, mitch mcconnell, and my colleague, other than hatch, especially for brings us together to come to a solution with lasting value. the value is the balanced budget amendment and the procedures to adopt it finally require work on the things back

home. require votes in legislatures and debate of citizens all over our country. this initiates a very, very important cause. it initiates it at a very timely moment. it initiates a discussion in which all of us around the country willities pake. it is and honor to be with my colleagues at this point, and thank you for paying attention to our concerns. >> i had the opportunity to speak on the floor this morning in favor of the balanced budget amendment. i am pleased to be part of 47 senators that are sponsoring this balanced budget amendment. we want to reach out to our fellow senators across the aisle and ask them to join us in this endeavor. this is not just about the federal government stepping in to get spending under control and make sure we live in our means. but it is also we will send out

for their ratification. i served for the last 10 years as a governor. as you know, the states balance their budget. we need to do the same. to review where we are for just a minute, today we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. our debt grows $4 billion a day. we need to take action. we need to take action now. that is what this amendment is about. again, we have 47 republican senators on board. we ask our colleagues across the aisle toin us in this endeavor so we can get it passed in the house and send it to the states. we need to do it. our debt is almost $14.5 trillion and a deficit that continues to grow.

$1.5 or $1.6 trillion a year. the time is now, and we invite everyone to step up. we hope to get this balanced budget amendment to the floor for a vote by the middle of y'all denver july. [inaudible question] >> this is about the federal level, and the states as well, we need to do it now. [inaudible question] , from what we have seen this would send a tremendous signal to the markets that would help with private investment that we need for job creation and economic growth. this provides the certainty that we need to get economic growth going. the uncertainty with the

spending and the debt ceiling issue is part of what is holding private investment back. we need that private invex to get our -- investment to get our economy going and get us out of the debt problem that we face. >> i do believe that the debt we are carrying at this moment is pulling down the economy. the experts have told us when you have debt-to-g.d.p. reach 90%, you lose 1% of growth, and 1% of growth is equal to the loss of a million jobs. this is not an academic matter. we came within one vote of passing a constitutional

amendment to balance the budget when i first came to the senate. i do believe it would be a positive step for the future. i think it is another example of the represent leadership -- the republican leadership. it would change the course we are on, and i am pleased to support the amendment. [inaudible question] >> well, over the last 40 years, we have averaged about 18% to 18.5%. spending has been around 20%. the fact of the matter is we are in an all-time spending risk at 25.3%, at least the last time i heard. the last time we hit that

spending limit was in 1945 at the height of the second world war. we have to do something here. we can't do it. i have been a part of every balanced budget amendment since i have been here in 35 years. can i imagine if we would have had that one more vote in 1997? we actually had 67 votes when i opened the open before the final vote, and one of our people flipped off, and we lost it. but had we passed this back in 1997, we wouldn't be in this colossal mess that we are in today. we would have to make things work. we would have to rely more on state governments and leadership. i don't think anybody can deny that. >> the president has said that the republicans would come to their senses in passing new

taxes. >> their answer is to increase taxes for everything. we have learned by increasing taxes, we are at all all-time tax increase rate. we have three straight years with $1 trillion deficits. the lowest the deficits are projected over the next 10 years is $10 billion. if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does. also we are going to be at 100% of g.d.p. in a short time. when you get there, you are going to lose 1% of job. and we are headed right there, and if we get to 190% as projected, you are talking about a country that is worse off than greece is it right now with more complexity. [inaudible question] >> he wants to know if i am willing to close tax expenditures. the fact of the matter is we need to completely change the

tax code, make it fair and simpler and get rid of the mess. if we are going to do that, we odd to talk about tax expenditures and use them in the overall resolution of our problems. tax expenditures are not loopholes. thuve put in there for very good reasons, and we have to be very carolful with what we do that. >> the oil and geas expenditures, those are put in place to help the independents who are doing most of the drilling in our country today. you don't selectively do it. you do it across the board, and you do it by reducing tax rates. i guarantee you this group will spend every dime they go. and i'm talking about both

sides of the hill. yes, sir? [inaudible question] >> well, of course we would have to reconcile. if we passed it in the senate, i think the house would take it. if they passed theirs, we would certainly consider taking theirs. we think this is the amendment that puts the proper restrapets than 0 government. we need 50 democrats. if 50 democrats will step up and say you are right, we are tired of it, too, we have to do something about it. well pass this. for those who don't like the balanced budget amendment, it is not over for them if we pass it through congress by a 2/3 vote. all they have to do is get 13 states. why aren't they willing to battle it out in the states? frankly, i think it is because they know they would lose. but it is going to take a year,

if then. it isn't over even if we pass it. that is why we have to pass it. if these people really believe they can win the debate out there, then let's pass it and try and have them win the debate. i think we will win that. yes, sir? >> spending 18% of g.d.p. -- >> well, there is nothing easy. we are talking about amending our most important document in history. keep in mind we have only had 28 amendments to the constitution, and there is good robe for that. so whatever we do is going to be difficult. that is why i don't see the democrats wanting to vote for it. i think they are afraid to

believe that we would pass it. [inaudible question] >> well, because if you just pass that, that doesn't do the job. we have put language in here that really would give the teeth to doing the job. that is why this amendment, i think, is going to work. plus is brought all 47 republicans. i have been on every balanced budget amendment since i have been here, and this is the first time i recall we have had all republicans on board. we know we are going to get some democrats on board. the question is can we get 20? i think so. they are all going to be mad about it, because we are not getting things under control the way things are something. there is no personal animosity there because we are not doing the job. he has to satisfy a whole bunch of special interest groups that live off the federal

government, and frankly, we have to end that. i have to give it up. thanks so much. >> after senate republicans held their briefing, senate democrats spoke with reporters on repealing ethanol subsidies as a part of a final day on the debt limit. they noted that 34 senators recently voted on the floor to repeal the same subsidies. this is 25 minutes. >> well, thank you for joining us this afternoon. we are here to ask basically a very simple question. it is to the republican leaders and to our lesion on the other side of the aisle. should a repeal of ethanol subsidies be included in a debt limit agreement? in any measure the answer to that should be an obvious one.

senator mcconnell voted to repeal subsidies of ethanol this money as well as others. at the time of huge deficits it seems to me that that is a bipartisan step that we can all take to save money and to meet our challenges as a country. however, since that vote, is not mcconnell has gone out on a limb and come out in favor of opposing revenues of any kind. even if that means closing tax breaks. the ethanol one is a huge example of that. we subsidies it. we subsidies the growth of corn. we have tariffs as it relates to consumers.

a majority of the senate voted for this, not a filibuster-proof majority, but a majority, which is the $21 billion in oil subsidies to the big five this they certainly don't need with record profits. if you begin to look at ethanol, if you begin to look at oil subsidies, you can see a way which you begin to ultimately end the tax breaks that americans shouldn't bear anymore and that we can put towards deficit reduction and meet the challenges this country has and ensure this economy doesn't take a body blow by failing to meet its credit responsibilities. that is what it is all about. the question is are you going to join with us on the revenue side for which there have been votes in the senate, bipartisan votes in the senate, that make

the compelling case that it is time to close the subsidies, time to close the loopholes, time to stand up for the people's interests instead of the special interests. >> thank you very much. president obama just delivered a talk to the nation where he made it clear that congress has the responsibility to send a responsible plan to deal with our deficit and to raise the debt ceiling, he meng -- he mentioned to make this work we need to remove tax loopholes and provide the revenue necessary to pay our bills. the republican leader in the senate has said he would not consider any revenues, even to those that eliminate wasteful tax expenditure loopholes and breaks that are no longer needed. we all understand that we need to move force with a

responsible plan to reduce spending and bring our budget closer to balance so we can create jobs. that is the most thing for us to do. the ethanol subsidies should be the easyiest ton to agree on. senator mcconnell appears to bet needed. that is hurting our economy. it is hurting our economy directly. we represent maryland, the larva, kentucky, the impact on poultry. the cost of corn associated with ethanol. they hopefully will bring us a credible plan to deal with our

deficit. ethanol is just one example of loopholes and tax breaks in the tax codes that we could agree upon. it starts with putting forth their response will plan to reduce our deficit. we need to reduce our debt ceiling. we need to make sure that our nation is not clear progress. we should call on senator mcconnell to be responsible and allow us to consider tax breaks that should not be there, who polls that we could close the that we can move our nation for. i'd turn it over to senator white house. >> i join my colleagues in asking be republican leadership to question why it is the ethanol subsidies are off the table in budget discussion when we have had so many just votes

for them. this is a prop -- a question of being for it and against it at the same time. if we could resolve the discrepancy on ethanol, there is no reason why we should not go forward on oil and gas subsidies at a time when quayle and gas companies are making the biggest profits in history. there is no reason we cannot start going through the tax code for special interest corporate tax deductions. these are nothing but your marks in the tax code. when there are earmarks, republicans are vehemently opposed. when day help their corporate supporters, then it is a different story. while the physical security of our nation hangs in the balance, this is the wrong time to be forcing those wrong priorities on the american people.

>> i have been willing since january 11 to vote for cuts. i supported the ban on earmarks in january. i've voted for $41 billion worth of cuts. in march, i once again voted for $10 billion of cuts to avoid a government shutdown and to move towards a more balanced, frugal government. i stood on the senate floor ed voted to get rid of lavish subsidies that do not grow our economy but simply grow our deficit. i want, along with my colleagues, i want this to be part of the deficit reduction deal as we move into the debt ceiling. i want the republicans to put their votes where their mouth is.

i want them to say that the if they want to reduce the deficit, they have to look at where we can cut. they want to close social security offices. i want to close loopholes. they want to get rid of teachers. i want to get rid of sacred cow was. this is why i won the ethanol tax subsidy eliminated and the depth revenue saving go into the budget. ethanol is costing us jobs on the eastern shore. corn is now $7 a bushel. chicken processing distances that have them around for almost 100 years are filing for a bankruptcy. this is unacceptable to me. i want to make sure that we have jobs that make maryland rate. i want to get rid of the subsidies that had to our deficit. i want to say this to my

republican colleagues. what happened to the party of lincoln? happened to the party of teddy roosevelt? what happened to the party of ronald reagan when people could come together and find a sensible center to solve the nation's problems. every day, their rigid d., they are clinging not to a philosophy of principle, but rigid ideologies that will bring our country to the brink of disaster. we are not a third world country billing through some sort of the than the republican regime. the if that went to the act like a banana republic, they can sleep on their own -- slip on their own peel. let's not fool around here.

>> i have just learned that the first lesson of my short senate career, never followed barbara mikulski at the podium. the american people really get it. the ethanol problem epitomizes what is wrong with washington. giveaways, loopholes, the ethanol is the poster child for what is wrong with washington. and did this subsidy will not solve the budget problem alone. it is a start and a necessary beginning towards ending the special breaks for special interests that riddle the tax code and the budget. that is why there is overwhelming support among republicans, overwhelming support among democrats, overwhelming support from the american people for ending the ethanol subsidy.

i believe that we can reach a bipartisan solution to both revenue and fiscal responsibility by taking this step on a bipartisan basis to end of the ethanol subsidy, gain revenue, and begin the steps towards fiscal responsibility that are absolutely necessary. this $2 billion is a solid start, real money. more important is the symbolic and the message step that it will embody. i am proud to introduce chuck schumer. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. you heard the passion and the st. forwardness with which they speak. we are setting crunch time in these debt ceiling talks. less than we are going to reach

a grand bargain, either side can claim to their theological positions any longer. the republican leadership is struggling to let go of their sacred cows, even though momentum is not on their side. he took the cure its position against any revenues whatsoever. not only do the tax breaks of millionaires need to be protected, it is wrong for any republican to rollback and the loophole in the tax code, the matter how wasteful. this approach was so extreme that 34 senate republicans rejected it. 34 senate republicans voted to get rid of the ethanol subsidies. this was a rejection of the grover norquist approach to revenues. even after that vote, leader mcconnell this trying to resurrect this approach. he has decided to lock out on the same them as grover

norquist. he is being fatima that we should find a way to achieve $4 billion in debt reduction without increasing any revenues at all. it seems that's senator mcconnell is willing to the tank the economy for tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jets. leader mcconnell's proposal is pretty much a mathematical impossibility. the bipartisan deficit reduction committee recognized the need to include revenues. the gang of six also included revenues the president will negotiate with speaker boehner em leader reid. many in senator mcconnell's own party are abandoning mcconnell's approach. one said that i think that the president's on fiscal commission said that there is a lot of

money being used in tax expenditures. we should get them all on the table and see which ones makes sense. senator alexander, another member of the leadership. it is a the time to take a hard look that and more tax breaks. not one of us. another member of the republican leadership. yesterday, fox news reported that the senator is putting together his own debt reduction plan that seeks to cut $9 trillion and $1 trillion of that is from revenue breaks. senator mcconnell's command is being contradicted by many in his own party. it seems that he has ventured out on a limb and many in his own caucus are sawing that off. he was one of the 34 republicans that voted to end the ethanol subsidies.

he is for and against it at the same time. it makes no sense for leader mcconnell to say that he agrees the ethanol subsidies are always full. -- are wasteful. he is sticking to a wide out ideological principle. which is it? our view of -- for eliminating the ethanol subsidy or not? are you ok with including a it in the debt ceiling? that is the question that the six of us are asking today. no matter what the answer, it is clear that certain republicans are twisting themselves into knots in the attempt to justify this. >> [inaudible] $6 billion a year subsidy. >> look, whenever the amount

of money, it is significant. it could be $3 billion to thank senator feinstein and another come to a compromise. it is a significant amount of money. hopefully, it will break this logjam that no revenues can be included. let me turn to some of my other colleagues to answer questions, too. look, people on our side can say that we are not making any cuts. you cannot stay in your theological corner and keep the united states of america salt and in terms of paying its debts. we couldn't get up and make that comment, too. there are no votes unless you do

it our way. that is a formula for disaster. the crisis that america will face after on the second if we do not raise the debt ceiling will be one that will create trauma for millions of innocent people and send us back into recession. that kind of comment is not productive or helpful. every house member said in my way or no way, then we are not going to get anything done. >> we all have a responsibility to act here. the voters gave us a congress that was divided. we have a democratic president, a democratically controlled senate and the republican house. we have different views. we have a responsibility and the american people to expect us to work together. we do not have to compromise our

principles. we need a credible plan to deal with our deficit. the democrats are prepared to do it. we are prepared to do the bourse with our republican colleagues to bring about a real plan to control our deficit. we had a deficit before in the 1990's. we worked hard and brought the budget into balance. we know how to do it. you have to have a responsible party. when speaker boehner says that there is not the votes for any revenue, he is telling you that the republicans are not prepared to be serious about a credible plan to deal with the deficit. we will not accept that because the issues are too important. we will continue to work for a bipartisan agreement on the budget deficit. we will stand up and defend the principles that we think are critically important for america to be able to create jobs.

>> [inaudible] >> we are not going to prejudge what is going to be brought forward. we certainly want to have a credible plan to deal with the federal deficit. we think that is very important for this country. our negotiations are aimed at an incredible plan to deal with the deficit. we also understand the debt ceiling. many of us understand the seriousness of this. i am confident that we will raise the debt ceiling. we will see what is brought forward as part of that. if we are going to deal with this deficit, you cannot do that without a balanced approach. you need to eliminate the loopholes that we cannot afford. >> let me join you in that.

when speaker boehner says that there are no votes in the house to pass an agreement that has revenues, he is basically telling americans in this country, middle-class america, bill thank you are struggling around the kitchen table about how to keep your mortgage paid, how you pay the tuition, how you take care of a loved one in your family, we are going to past few to make enormous sacrifices on behalf of the country. we are going to tell the top five oil companies in the country, not in one sense out of your pocket. we are going to tell the severe -- one cent out of your pocket. we will tell this moment the ethanol industry, not one cent

out of your pocket. the special interests are free from any of the sacrifice. that is what he is telling us. there will be some of us that will find it extremely difficult. we want to be responsible. we believe the nation has to meet its obligations. the consequences of is not meeting its obligations are tremendous to our economy. we could take a body blow that would send us back. would make more people unemployed. at the end of the day, to suggest that it is either their way driven by the tea party in the house or nothing, then that is to create a train wreck. there are those of us who will have difficulty in supporting a debt ceiling increase without revenue. and i am talking about revenue, by and talking about ending the tax loopholes and tax breaks the

americans are getting. -not know how americans will accept that. every poll i see it wants to see them close, especially when they're making tough decisions are around the kitchen table. >> [inaudible] >> speaker boehner should realize that we are in a different war than we were even a few months ago. he means democrats to pass a bill through the house. there are enough republican caucus members that will not vote for any debt ceiling increase. he cannot do it without democrats. he does that have the votes for it. he does not have the votes in if he doesn't have revenues.

he will not get democratic votes without revenues. he doesn't have enough republican votes on his own. that is a major difference between this. the house cannot just lob things over to us. as for amounts, the should be negotiated. everyone of us could come up with a negotiation plan in the senate. everyone in the house could come up with their own budget plan. they would have 435 budget plans with one vote. that is paralysis. we have to swallow some things that each of us the stop light for the income of america. that is what the american people have told us to do. you heard what barbara mikulski said. she disliked and doing lots of the things that she had to do. she was willing to do it for the

the of the country. the leadership of the republican party has to learn that lesson or we will face a disaster. i cannot hear you. i am sorry. >> [inaudible] >> we need revenues to contribute to deficit reduction. grover norquist does not want to contribute one nickel of revenue to deficit reduction. >> [inaudible] >> look, we are all hopeful that senators feinstein and club charge can come together for an

agreement. whether they do or do not, i am andresearch into celluosic ethanol. that is the way to go towards the future. i am for helping the research. we will have a minimum of $2 billion for deficit reduction. let's hope they can come to an agreement. >> let me make one final point before we go. the speaker has used the word, tax increases. they use that all the time. they are trying to convince the ordinary american with an ordinary income that there is some intention to increase that american's taxes. you have a responsibility to make clear that that is not true. people making less than $250,000

are not in this question. we are talking about very high and in come. we are talking about subsidies and very -- and other stuff. you should not allow them to confuse that. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> democratic senators from earlier today. a republican senate to paul will be our guest on newsmakers. president obama held his first news conference since march. it ran over an hour. he talked about the debt limit talks, libya and more. we will show it to you this evening at 8:00. charles grassley will be talking about the debt ceiling negotiations and what they stalled over the last few weeks. more about the independence of

bernie sanders and somebody from the juvenile diabetes foundation. and scott baker will discuss how bio-medicine can treat diabetes. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> after 4.5 years and two presidents, robert gates is set to retire this week. he will be replaced by outgoing cia director leon panetta. you can watch online gets c- span.org. you can look back and both men's careers. it is washington, your way. >> in addition to the president's news conference, the white house released their counterterrorism strategy. john brennan spoke at the

school of international studies. we will show that to you at 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> the focus of our efforts since president obama, office is the network that poses the most direct and significant threat to the united states and that is al qaeda, its affiliates and adherents. we used those terms of deliberately. it is al qaeda that has murdered our citizens in the bombings of our embassies in tanzania, to the bombing of the uss cole, to the attacks of september 11. that is the al qaeda affiliate's, groups that are part of its network or share his goals that have attempted to attack our homeland. on the peninsula based in yemen attempted to granholm an airliner over detroit then they put explosives on cargo planes

sent to the united states. they send somebody on a failed attempt to blot up and suv in times square. sometimes it is individuals that have succumbed to his ideology and have engaged in or facilitated terrorist activities in the that the states. these misguided individuals are spurred on in yemen. they speak english and preach violence and show videos over the internet. we have seen the results of the murder of emmett tillage -- military recruiter in arkansas. this is the first counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al qaeda and its network to inspire people in the not the states to attack us from within. this is the first

counterterrorism strategy that emphasizes the homeland as the important area. it is also shaped by a deeper understanding of al qaeda's goals and tactics that we have a game over the last decade. i am not talking about global domination through a violent islamic caliphate. that is absurd. we are not going to organize our policies against a delusion that the stock point to happen. we are not going to elevate the thesethugs and their murderous aspirations of of something more than they are. president obama has said that our policies will not play into their strategy for their ideologies. al qaeda seeks to terrorize us into retreating from the world stage. president obama has made it a priority to increase our leadership in the world.

al qaeda seeks to portray america as an enemy to the world's muslims. president obama has made it clear that america is not that war with muslims. under president obama, we are looking to end the wars in iraq and afghanistan irresponsibly even as we keep unrelenting pressure on al qaeda. we will be mindful that if our mission is threatened, our best defense will not always be deploying large armies of prague, but rather than delivering targeted, surgical pressure to groups that have gone against us. the united states will continue to expose al qaeda as nothing more than murderers. they report to the islamic, but they are neither religious leaders or scholars. there is nothing in islamic or holy about slaughtering innocent

men, women, or children. they claim to protect muslims, but the vast majority of their debt stems are innocent muslim men, women, and children. the overwhelming majority of muslims reject al qaeda end its support continues to decline. it is clear about how tauscher as well ... of our goal. this is a war, a broad, sustained, and relentless campaign that harnesses every element of american power. we seek nothing less of the destruction of this evil that calls itself al qaeda. we need to dismantle the core of al qaeda. its leadership in pakistan and its ability to reestablish a safe haven. in other words, a weim to render the heart of al qaeda incapable of having attacks against our

homeland or our allies. of the same time, the feeling, the means of addressing the serious threat posed by its adherents outside of south asia. this does not require a global war, a focus on specific regions. places like yemen, somalia. this is an important distinction that characterizes this strategy. as the al qaeda core has and the weekend under our pressure, it has looked increasingly to these groups and individuals to take up the cause. to destroy al qaeda, we are pursuing a specific counter- terrorism objectives. we are protecting our homeland by reducing our vulnerability is an updating of defenses. we are taking the fight to

whether the cancer of the al qaeda manifest itself and interesting as operations. we are denying al qaeda in the safe haven, a physical sanctuary that it needs to launch attacks against us. we are aggressively confronting the ideology, which attempts to exploit local and legitimate grievances in attempt to justify its violence. we are depriving al qaeda of means. we are working to prevent al qaeda from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction. that is why president obama it is leading the global effort. in many respects, the specific counterterrorism goals are not new. they track closely with the goals of the previous

administration. this illustrates another important characteristic of this strategy. it neither represents a wholesale overhaul of nor a wholesale retention of previous policies. president obama's approach to counterterrorism is pragmatic, not ideological. it builds upon policies and practices that have been instituted and refined over the past decade, in partnership with congress. it reflects an evolution in our understanding of the threats and their capability of our government and the tools and technology at our disposal. what is do and what i believe distinguishes this strategy is the principals better guiding your efforts to destroy al qaeda. first, we are using every tool and authority available. no single agency or department has sole responsibility because no single department or agency possesses all of the capability

needed for this fight. this is and must be a whole government effort. that is why the administration has strengthened the tools that we need. we're constantly working to improve our capabilities and learn from our experiences. for example, calling the attack at fort hood and the failed attack over the district -- detroit, we have improved -- we have enhanced cooperation among our intelligence agencies. including better information sharing. we have strengthened our military capabilities, increased the size of our special forces. we have strengthened homeland security with a multilayer defense. bolstering security at our borders and airports, including partnerships with state and

local governments. learning the lessons of the recent attempted attacks, we have increased aviation security by strengthening our watch list procedures ensuring information in real time, and hence in screening of cargo, and injuring one under% screening of all passengers traveling in to and from the united states. that was another recommendation of the 9/11 commission. we are constantly improving our defenses. in addition, we are using the full range of law enforcement tools to build an effective endurable legal framework for the war against al qaeda.

this includes our single most effective tool for prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing suspected terrorists. if provincial for gathering intelligence and preventing -- a proven tool for gathering intelligence and preventing attacks. in this framework, it includes the recently renewed patriot act. we must have a legal framework that to -- that provides with the loft -- the tools that they need to do their job and keep our country safe. we must not tied their hands. for all of these tools to work properly, department and agencies must work cooperatively. court personnel are working more closely together than ever before. as we saw the operation that killed osama bin laden that success was not due to one single person. it was the result of many people working together closely over

many years. that is what we will continue to do. even as we use every tool our government, we are guided by a second principle, the need for partnership with institutions and countries of around the world. no one nation alone can bring about al qaeda's demise. over the past decade, we've made enormous progress in building and strengthening an international architecture to confront the threat of al qaeda. this includes greater cooperation with the united nations, our nato allies, and regional organizations. over the past 2.5 years, we have increased our efforts to build the capacity of partners so that they can take the fight in their own countries. that is why the key element of the strategy in afghanistan is growing afghan security forces. it is why we will soon begin the transition so that afghans can take responsibility for their own security.

that is why we must continue our cooperation with pakistan. in recent weeks, we have been reminded that our relations with pakistan is not without tension or frustration. we are now working with our partners to overcome differences and continue our efforts against our common enemies. it is essential that we do so. as frustrating as this relationship can sometimes be, pakistan has been absolutely critical to many of our most significant successes against al qaeda. tens of thousands of pakistan is have given their lives in the fight against militancy. despite recent tension, i am confident that pakistan will remain one of our most important counterterrorism partners. the critical intelligence that allowed us to discovered explosives shipped to the united states and the cargo planes was provided by air saudi arabian partners. al qaeda in iraq has suffered major losses at the hands of

iraqi security forces trained by the united states. r counterterrorism cooperation with yemen continues. the recent territorial gains only makes our partnership with yemen more important. around the world, we will deepen our security cooperation with partners, whatever al qaeda attempts to take root. they -- it is the opposite. the international community, including muslim majority of nations and communities are united against al qaeda. >> we are going to show you all of this remarks tonight at 10:00. you can read the white house national counterterrorism strategy online at c-span.org. president obama held a news

conference today at the white house. he talked about the economy, the debt negotiations, libya, afghanistan, and more. we will show it to you tonight at 8:00. president obama will be part of the tribute tomorrow to defense secretary robert gates. that will be happening at the pentagon at 9:45 eastern. we will have it live for you on c-span3. >> c-span has launched a new website for politics and the 2012 presidential race.

visit us at c-span.org/campaign 2012. members focused on and diminishing the u.s. military possible in iraq. we will hear more about a report that said the diplomatic security service is not well prepared to handle tasks left to the military in the past. this panel runs one hour and 20 minutes.

>> i called this hearing to order. i want to say welcome to our witnesses and to all of you and thank you so much for being here today with us. the subcommittee held a hearing in 2009 to examine staffing and management challenges at the diplomaticrtment's security bureau. today's hearing will build on the previous hearing, as well as examine the results of the government accountability office and review of diplomatic security training challenges. since the 1998 bombings of u.s.

embassies in east africa, the mission has expanded dramatically. to meet the state department's evolving security needs. with our military planning to withdraw its remaining 50,000 troops from iraq by the years and, diplomatic security people face an unprecedented challenge. the bureau will be responsible for many security functions now performed by the military, such as clearing explosive devices and defending our u.s. posts against rocket attacks. in addition, the bureau is expected to implement a state department recommendation to provide high threat awareness

training to all employees in both high and critical fred -- threat pots. sts. the responsibility it would continually expand with the planned troop reductions in afghanistan. as we deploy it more civilian federal employees to support democratic reform in iraq, afghanistan, and other areas, it is very critical that diplomatic security has the training, resources, and support needed to protect them. the government accountability office report released today

makes clear that ds is doing a remarkable job preparing its people to provide robust security in an unpredictable environment, but i do want to highlight a major concern. report finds that diplomatic security training facilities are inadequate. the bureau is using 16 different borrowed facilities. i some of these sites, the training means art -- at some of the sites, the training means are not a priority. some facilities are too small or in need of repair. although the bureau is in the process of selecting a site to

build a consolidated training facility, this will take years to complete. another significant concern that i have, which i asked the bureau to address today, is how it overseas its large contracted work force. it grows increasingly reliant on contract staff. contractors make up about 90% of the total workforce. this requires the bureau to train its work force in contract oversight in addition to physical and personal security.

the 2007 blackwater shooting that killed 17 iraqi civilians, while protecting a state convoy, it reminds us that ds contractors must be held to the highest standards for training and accountability because the stakes are tremendously high. i also look forward to hearing about what steps of the bureau has taken to address key issues raised at the subcommittee's 2009 hearing. i am particularly interested in the progress addressing language proficiency shortfalls and staffing gaps, balancing the need to provide strong security with carrying out the diplomatic mission, and improving its

strategic planning, which is important for targeting limited resources in this budget climate. i know that the ambassador and his team are working hard to address these challenges. i look forward to hearing about the efforts as well as discussing ways we can work together to move forward. thank you are witnesses for being here today to discuss these critical issues. i look forward to hearing from our first panel of witnesses and welcome them here today. ambassador, the assistant secretary of state of diplomatic security, the director of international affairs and trade

at the government accountability office. i understand that mr. ford is retiring on friday after 38 years of federal service. this'll be his last time testifying before the subcommittee. over the years, mr. ford has done extensive work on improving state department operations and management of the embassies. we will certainly miss him. the gao informed us that you have testified before the subcommittee more than any other staffer. this subcommittee has placed great value and trust in your work and it is with great appreciation that i say thank

you very much for your gears a valuable service. i wish you success in your future endeavors. as you know, it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear in all witnesses. i ask both of you to stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give the subcommittee is the truth, the whole tree, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let it be noted that the witness's answer is in the affirmative. you're full written statements will be made a part of the records and i would like to remind you to please limit your remarks to five minutes. ambassador, it is always good to have you.

please proceed with your statement. >> thank you, senator. i am honored to have appeared before you today. i would like to thank you and the committee members for your continued support and interest. this support enables diplomatic security to safeguard american diplomats and facilities while maintaining our robust programs, which serve to protect the u.s. borders. the training program is at the heart of our readiness to fulfil these missions. would your permission, i will make a brief statement. as i have stated before this committee in the past, ds continues to provide the most secure environment possible. i must reiterate that the scope and scale of our responsibility and authorities have grown immensely in response to emerging threats and security

incidents. resources are necessary if we are to meet the requirement of securing a diplomatic facilities in iraq, pakistan, sudan, yemen, mexico, and other dangerous locations worldwide. the department now operates diplomatic missions and places in the past we would likely closed the post and evacuated all personnel. however, the need to conduct diplomacy in the post-9/11 environment is essential to our nation's security. to me are challenges, personnel and resources have grown and evolved. we are engaged in a recruitment campaign. we have increased or outreach to colleges and universities. as a result of more ambitious recruitment efforts, we have reduced our vacancy rate. and this expansion has changed the requirements for training our people.

training has progressed tremendously in the past several years. the review of training that accurately reflects the success of our training directorate despite the challenges we face. to ensure that the personnel we deploy our highly qualified, we evaluate our training programs. by incorporating student feedback, we can offer the highest quality instruction. this evaluation process helps to verify that the training offered is relevant to the new realities of the department's mission. it ensures that personnel are prepared to assume increasing security responsibilities in challenging environments. however, existing training facilities and resources are now at maximum stated capacity. a new foreign affairs security training center would expand and improve the delivery of training for u.s. government employees. personnel serving in contingency zones must only be trained and

prepared to assume the increasing security responsibilities, but also have the necessary support services available both during and after their assignment. the department fully realizes that when one of its employees serves in a high threat environment, the whole family serves with him or her. a full array of services is available to the personnel and their families. i want to assure the committee that we are paying attention to all personnel who have been or could be affected by ptsd. the department uses private security contractors to assist in meeting security staffing requirements. as a result of operational changes already implemented, the

department is able to provide proper management, oversight, and operational control. the worldwide protective services contract awarded in september 2010 inc. essential lessons learned to ensure that they perform their activities in a responsible and professional, culturally sensitive manner. we must continue to develop the personnel who can think creatively, who can speak the language, who can work closely with their embassy colleagues to succeed without sacrificing safety and security. i want to assure the committee backed we are -- that are fully prepared to provide a secure environment to meet the

challenging diplomatic responsibilities we face in this ever-changing world. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. we will ensure that the diplomatic security remains a valuable and effective resource for protecting our people and information and the structure are around the world. >> thank you very much, ambassador, for your statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking you for your kind comments regarding my lengthy career at gao. 38 years is a long time. i am looking forward to ramp parliament -- looking forward to retirement. my testimony is based on our report, which is being released today. diplomatic security is responsible for the protection of people, information, and property at over 400 embassies.

they have expanded the mission and they have had significant growth in their budget and personnel over the last decade. diplomatic security trains its work force and others to address a variety of threats, including crime, espionage, passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence, and terrorism. to meet its training needs, and diplomatic security relies primarily on its training center. it is the primary provider of diplomatic security training activities. the training budget has grown steadily from fiscal year 2006 to 2010 from approximately $24 million to $70 million. today, i will talk a little bit

about two main issues in our report. i will talk a little bit about the challenges currently facing diplomatic security. we reported that we have had to meet the challenge of training more personnel to perform additional duties while still getting its agents, engineers, technicians, and other staff into the field where they're needed. we have largely met this challenge by maintaining high standards for training, specifically, incorporating federal law enforcement training accreditation standards into its operational -- operating standards. certain issues have constrained the effectiveness of some training activities. in our report, we noted that ds

lacks a comprehensive system to evaluate some of its online training. we said that ds d.s.l. has not been able to accurately track the overall training on all the people to take training. this is an issue with non-state staff who have been trained in certain courses that are required when they are stationed overseas in dangerous locations. we made a couple of recommendations to improve this systems and the state has agreed that both of them. our report also identifies other challenges facing ds. ds must train diplomatic security personnel to perform new missions in iraq. as they take over responsibility. ds has had little or no

experience in driving certain types of training that the military is currently responsible for. because of this increase security responsibility, we anticipate that it will have to rely heavily on contractors to carry out these types of responsibilities. ds officials noted that the additional training that will be needed and will likely increase their need to put more people into the field. any delay in finalizing state expanded mission in iraq could also affect the ability to develop and deliver any types of additional training. a second major challenge that we identified has to do with increasing requirement laid out in the state department

diplomacy and development review. the review calls forced -- for ds to significantly increase training at a more critical posts. they would have to increase training from 23 to 178 posts. the number of students could increase to 10,000. this could have significant implications in terms of the budget and training requirements. the issue that you identified in your statements has to do with the training facilities. currently, they have a highly centralized set of training facilities. you mentioned the 16 that we have in our report. many of these are substandard and had a number of inadequacies. our report detailed a number of examples where they are unable to effectively and devote --

deliver realistic training because of shortfalls in these facilities. recognizing that these existing facilities are inadequate, ds has proposed establishing a consolidated trading center. they are currently looking at potential sites. they are helping develop the site. it is unclear what it will be. it is unclear when it will be available. we have some concerns about how the state will be able to meet this increased. i think i am going to stop here and answer any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. is thank you for your statements. let me start with a question for mr. boswell.

president obama recently announced plans to withdraw 33,000 troops from afghanistan by next summer and transfer security responsibilities to the afghan we are asking them to undertake. what planning is under way? to make sure that d. > will will protect them?

>> thank you for that question. we are engaged in a marathon of planning. i think that is the right way to describe it. the planning for the transition is probably the most complex planning effort ever undertaken by the state department and perhaps one of the most complicated civilian planning efforts ever taken by the u.s. government. we have been working on it for years. we think we have a very good planning structure is set up. we think we have a good plan. i think we will be in a position to provide the security for our people in iraq after december 31 of this year when all u.s. troops will be gone from the country. having said that, it is a very complex and difficult task. we are going to be dramatically

increasing the number of security personnel. we will be increasing also the use of contractors in part for some of the things he mentions. there are certain functions and activities that are not state departments. we are taking over functions. we think we have the structure in place to do it. combat operations in iraq ceased over a year ago. u.s. military has been providing security. they have been providing it without any assistance be on its very specialized function. he asked about afghanistan.

we are not there yet. there is a transition. the president has announced the beginning of a drawdown in afghanistan. we have learned a lot in the process. we will apply those lessons in afghanistan. >> as the military withdrawal from iraq and later afghanistan, ds will provide certain protective services that the military is performing now. such s recovery and explosives and ordinance disposal. however, the military provides many services such as intelligence collection invisible deterrence in ways that they cannot. how will the loss of these important capabilities affect the way they provide security.

are they equipped to handle all the function it will be asked to assume? >> i was in iraq several years ago. it is infinitely better than it was at the worst of times in 2005-2007. certain key functions will be absent. notably a counter rocket fire. we are not an offensive units. some intelligent functions as well. as we normalize, we are going to

rely in this country. we will rely on the iraqi forces and the iraqi police for these functions to the maximum is seextent we can. .o. recommended the strategic review of diplomatic security mission budget was part of state. did they agree with the recommendation? there is a strategic review. it may affect ds operations. >> the me respond to that. first of all, i can say we were

disappointed that it did not take a more strategic look at the operations. our report suggested that it has been required to expand the number of missions. there is reactionary posture. we did not think it is good from a planning point of view. the goal is that it would take a longer look at ds and take a way to make more strategic. i can say that our current reports that this focus on the training part of ds suggests that there still seems to be a gap here. they are certainly trying to respond.

the fact that the training facilities are not but to speak. in response to the likely increase growth in training capabilities. they will have to develop a lot of those issues. they would like to see the department take a broader view of ds to give them more lead time. these are the kinds of issues that they will be faced with. we can do a more comprehensive review.

as far as we are concerned, that recommendation has not been fully enacted. >> let me follow up the question. while continuing to protect your diplomats worldwide, to meet these challenges, ds must use the limited resources strategically. what steps does the bureau taken to develop a strategic plan? they have two recommendations on strategy. one was that the department

in a strategic>> dds manner. i certainly agree that they should have their own strategic planning. we applaud together a unit that is closer link to our budget process. in terms of the broader question that he just raised, we will certainly take that back with us. the qddr which was secretary clinton's initiative was a strategic review. we have had this. it is not one.

>> ds performs many important roles in addition to protecting the state department employees. it includes protective details to foreign dignitaries. and supporting security and special events. in november, hawaii will be hosting the asian pacific economic cooperation leaders' meeting. what do they have in place to provide security at the meeting?

>> this is been designated as the national security events by the white house. the lead agency is the u.s. secret service, which is appropriate given the number of the u.s. heads of state that will be visiting. ds will also have a major presence in honolulu. we have a lot of protectees. we will be working very closely with the secret service and the local authorities and other federal agencies as well to have a safe and vince. >> thank you. >> as i mentioned, they found

that ds has adequate training facilities. the bill currently uses 16 different facilities for training. some of which are overcrowded. your report suggests that it is not adequate to support all of the training needs. especially with the rock tradition. would you please -- i iraq tradition. would you please elaborate on the straining facilities? >> there are several issues that we identified in our report regarding the condition of the facilities. some of them have to do with access and whether the department can get access to certain types of training. the one we cited in our report had to do heavy fire arms training where they get at the

marine base. the issue there is the u.s. does not, because it is a marine base, they have to schedule their training around the brain needs which is not always correspond with the requirements of the department. there is an access issue that they have to address. other facilities that we visited, and they just are not realistic in terms of the type of structures that are there to carry out the type of training what ds is trying to provide to staff. it is a realism problem. we report a case where they are trying to simulate conditions to simulate a facility. the facilities themselves and not have walls. this is very realistic -- this

is not very realistic. we found that some of the fire arm liens were not adequate to the needs. their issues with regard to the physical infrastructure. it is the type of training they need to carry out. it is whether they will be able to expand their training mission with all the people they will have to train in iraq and afghanistan. eventually, that have to implement this fully. it is not clear whether the current facilities they have will allow them to have that capacity to even do the training. that is a second issue. for the third issue has to do with their goal of having a

consolidated training center. it is years down the road before that will be up and running. there is an interim time here where it is not clear whether ds will have the capabilities. q >> let me follow up with that. i like to hear from you on that issue as well. would you please discuss how they are coping with these challenges and how the bureau will meet to expand training needs until the consolidated facilities? >> yes. mr. by saying i completely agree with everything that mr. ford said. i welcome all the conclusions of the doe report appeared that one is particularly close to our hearts.

the problems he describes are real. we have long needed and long sought a foreign affairs security training system. we have been in the process for years of trying to obtain such a facility. we had obtained start up funding. we went through an extensive process with the general services administration which is the u.s. government real-estate tsar. we were identifying sites for such a facility within reasonable distance of washington, d.c. we had a look at well over 40 interests from other government agencies, the private sector, etc. we looked at about 40 sites. it may have been a little bit more. we ended up after a long

process settling on one. it became a cropper because of local opposition to the site. it is one of the problems that we had. to do all the training that's we have to do, -- that we have to do, we need a large site. it is hard to find a large side appropriately configured with n a reasonable distance of washington, d.c. we have to go back to the beginning and start over. this process is ongoing. we are closing in. we are closing in on a side. we had to change our criteria a little bit to permit us to look a little further out from washington. that is a little bit of a problem for us. it makes the selection of sizes little bit easier. it also means that since it is

beyond a simple driving range that our trainees will have to overnight. that means the construction of storms and cafeterias. that adds a little bit to the cost. we are closing in on a site and helps to have something to announce in the coming months. we absolutely require this. they have a range of facilities. the biggest problem is that we do not own any of these facilities. these are joint use facilities. it causes a problem for us. i'm going on a little too long. i want to cover the long a question. had to redo our training in the interim? we are years away, even if we

get a sight. we are years away from having a full-fledged facility. we will have to continue doing what we are doing. we are going to continue to make do with some imagination with what we have. withr their requirements the qddr, will it be expanded well beyond what is offered now? that is a real conundrum for us. we would have to have a new facility to do that. we would simply not be able to do it without a new facility. i cannot imagine that we would never end with a new facility in training 10,000 people a year. we are working now with the

state department what posts should get this kind of training. right now we get it to people going to the war zones. we also give it to people going to pakistan and sudan and to the mexican border posts which have become a much more dangerous place to work than in the past. we will certainly have to add some posts to that. it will bring up the numbers. i do not think we will ever get to 10,000. >> thank you. in your testimony, he mentioned the implementation of specialize security emergent training costs.

will you please describe what this cost in tales, including whether it involves foreign language training? >> sir, the fact course is a course that is 5 days long. it does not address language training. it addresses and provide some skills -- it is not designed for ds agents but for regular government agencies that are going to have threat areas -- that are going to high threat areas. it has such things as first aid, primary first aid. a goes into surveillance detection. it goes into how to drive a car in a high threat area. it goes into it -- basically, it tries to prepare people for what they are going to encounter when

they are in iraq and afghanistan. >> mr. boswell, foreign-language skills are critical to carrying out the diplomatic mission including security operations. i am pleased that the percent of regional security officers who have been filled language requirements has increased since 2009. would you please discuss what actions they still plan to take to continue increasing language. and >> 10 years ago, i consider

that very few positions overseas were language designated. that means required language training. i come back after an absence of 10 years and i find that 2/3 of the rso positions of our language designated. i think that is a very positive step in the right direction. i cannot tell you how valuable it is to see rso speaking in the native language appeared hours just in poland watching him yammer away with his polish counterpart in fluency. that is something we will not have seen 10 years ago. i completely support ds language training support -- i'm pretty support ds language training for ds for agents.

to lower proportion of language designated rso positions were filled by people who not tested up to their required level. as he said, we much improved in the ensuing two years. in 2009, it is 47% of positions that were held by language qualified officers. that meant 53% were not. now we are above 60's are being filled. we are being extremely tough on language weavers. that is the way you go without the language. we think the numbers are going way up and will continue to go way up. he had a personal commitment. i made it to the director- general of the foreign service. we are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that we have full language

compliance. >> thank you very much. thank you for that commitment. >> as you stated in your testimony, g.o. the weakness in the training systems such as in not obtaining feedback from all the training participants and not tracking all individuals who received training. please, elaborate on why these weaknesses are important and how they may affect the training. >> a couple of issues here. first of all, to answer your question as to why it is important to get the bat, at the end of the day a quality assessment is whether the training you are providing is useful in the jobs. they need to know that. then you can make any modifications. he know what kind of changes to

make incident guessing what works and what does not. that is not unique to the state department. that is a requirement of any training program. our concern had to do with the systems. they will be able to track the feedback they get on certain types of training. there are training requirements of people who taking it. they are using spreadsheets to keep track of people of the department is wherever this ds us about the to

foreign service institute. they use their tracking system. at the time, i do not know if this had been resolved. there was the potential that the system could be a vehicle to help this. on the feedback loop, it is more difficult. ing onlinencreas training. it is difficult to know whether they are completing the training. it is an area that we think some improvement can be made in the system. in both of these cases, we consider these recommendations to the management improvements. we do not think this is the case. we do believe they need a more systematic process. >> thank you.

he testified that they are working with the state foreign service institute on a learning management system to provide tracking. >> i think both recommendations.

we can do better. we do it. our training course has been modified several times in reaction and response to suggestions and people going through it, suggestions from the field. we send a team from training every year to the combat zones with the sole mission of evaluating the training by interviewing the people that to get trained. we have made a number of significant changes since then as a result of that. we are working with the foreign service institute to resolve some of the system of tracking problems and feedback problems.

relies heavily on contractors to conduct the mission. contractors represent over 92% of the work force. has ds conducted to take work force planning to determine whether the current work force balance is appropriate and will ds reassess this balance as the mission changes? >> if i could clarify. the contractors you are talking about are largely static guards at u.s. embassies overseas.

we use static guards and contracts for static guard at every embassy. they are almost without exception contracts with local firms were directed to hire contractors that are local /nationals. if the part of our contract thing that has been controversy 0 has been the use of contractors in a war zone. they are not largely local hires. we have had to go to third country and americans, because of difficulties that teen -- vetting the local population in the war zones. of the ones you just mentioned, the vast majority are in paris. they are protecting our embassies. that is appropriate. it is the area protested for years.

in iraq and afghanistan, we have not been able to go with that model for the reasons that i mentioned. there is notably the commission. this is the congressional commission. it is the meeting for 1.5 years. i went here years ago in the wake of the horrible incident involving black water contractors that resulted in the debt of a large number of innocence.

this is part of a small group of so-called experts. it was brought in to look at how the state department provide security in the war zone. one of the things we looked at was whether the use of contractors was the appropriate way to deal with it given all the circumstances. we determined that there really was no reasonable ternate said to the use of contractors agree -- reasonable alternative to the use of contractors. every outside consultant has come to the same conclusion. i do not see a radical change in that. what i do hope, what i sincerely hope, is that as things become more normal in iraq over the years and as things eventually

and hopefully become more normal in afghanistan, that we can revert to a use of local/nationals for these positions. we are being very careful about doing it. we have a rocky nationals integrated into our security forces in the north. that is the kurdish area. we ultimately hope to be able to kinney to do that and expand that to other sections -- to be able to continue to do that and expand that to other sections. >> ambassador, to separate -- two separate report in 2009 by state inspector general's revealed that the regional security officers were not receiving adequate training to

prepare them for their contract oversight responsibilities. theig has reported that contract oversight may not received sufficient attention among the many responsibilities rso's must the field. what is ds doing to address these issues? >> before i answer that question, let me clarify something i said in response to your last question. i said contractors are used for local guard functions instead of guard functions around the world. that is true. we also have a much smaller number of locally engaged staff, not contractors, that to that function. it is a minority. let's put it that way. in terms of contract oversight, it is fair to say that ds were not aware when they joined diplomatic security what they were going to becoming expert

on, they are now aware of it. we do this. it is a major function of our agents overseas. and i think the 100 plus agents that will be in iraq at the beginning of torn men at the beginning in 2012 -- will be in iraq at the beginning of 2012, i think about 80 of them will be doing contract oversight. they will be overseeing the contract forces, led the contract and bodyguards. there are two kinds of guards. one of the static guards and the other are the what we call the protective security details. these are the body guards, the movement people that travel in the motorcade. the run the motorcades.

our agents are getting expensive in service training on contract oversight. agents are contracting officer representatives at posts overseas. they are assisted by other agents that are representing. we also have another category of oversights of government technical monitors. they are co-located with the camps. they make sure things are there. daises the contracting officers and oversight of the contract. the training is very extensive and continuous. beyond the job training is also very important. >> thank you. in response to shortcomings in the contract oversight, they

have created a new category of security protected specialists. what policies and training are in place to make sure that these specialists scan conduct effective oversight of security contracts? >> that is closely linked to the answer i gave the in the previous question. our security specialists are a new kind of specialists in the state department. they were started as a pilot program. they rapidly of all the way from a pilot. they are not full-fledged ds agents. and agents have -- agents

have for years of training before they go overseas. there are also criminal investigations. they have badges and this sort of thing. the exercise a direction. the commission i was part of, of the committee, recommended we make 30 of 40 recommendations. all but one were adopted by the state department. one of the most important islands was every motorcade which is manned by contractors and agents have a ds ai

in control. they require them to hire a bunch more agents. this causes some of the other problems you have spoken up. we had to get a large number of agents to iraq and afghanistan. it is not ds agent himself.

>> allied to give you an opportunity as well. >> a couple of comments i would like to make. they have an ongoing engagements specifically with this issue and regard to contract oversight. i'm not in a position to comment directly about what we are finding. i need to comment more generically about the types of the elements that should be considered in over some contractors in general.

most of these are pretty well known. the first one has to do with strategic planning concept of how you will do these contractors. they have the right skills sets. non-government positions are some situations when you really do not want to have a contractor. the oversight capacity is one that comes in frequently. it is related to contractors. we have frequently commented on the need to ensure that we are making the right kind of decision. contractors are working.

finally, i think the issue of having adequate resources is critical. if we do not have the function, those seven elements need to be put in place. i think the ambassador has touched on many of them. it is whether these elements will be put in place on a timely basis. the military will be out by the end of the year. that is an issue we hope will be addressed. hopefully we will show a little more detail and how the department is responding to this

problem. >> let me talk about personality. in 2009, they found that approximately 1/3 diplomatic security domestic officers for operating with a vacancy rate of 25% or even higher. what are the current vacancy rates with in it ds for both domestic officers and overseas posts? what cecil they take to address the shortfall? -- what steps will they take to address the shortfall? >> with the ankle for the support we have had over the years, particularly since 9/11.

there is the intervention. the support we have had from the congress on a budgetary side. as all the testimony has shown so far, the state department has radically expanded in size. we have had an active recruiting campaign going on. we have to be able to meet our recruiting goals. we never had a problem with this. this is a prestigious career to many people. we do not have problems. we do not have problems attracting recruits. one of the strong impressions i have from having been away from 10 years is the quality of the agents is even higher than it was. i'm very pleased with that.

we also had some recruiting shortfalls in certain areas. we have largely resolve them. i was really worried that we would be able to attract the number of people. these were limited career appointments. the fell ourted to fil quota. this is a very important parts of ds. there is a subcategory of engineering. the rate is about 9%. i have to tell you that anybody who goes to our field offices in

the states is often struck by the number of and the desks in this field offices. it is not due to a vacancy rate. it is because our agents are in the field and represents -- we tell our agents not to have a wedding anniversary in september rate for children born in september. everybody's going to be at the u.n. general assembly. we are rather satisfied with the vacancy rate. >> i am pleased that they are taking steps to support employees and their family is one officers serve in these post.

they are establishing peer support groups. this will be especially important as more employees serve in conflict zones. halladay assessing the effectiveness of these efforts to make sure that they meet the needs of employees and their families? >> -- how are they doing this? >> we have only been in combat zones since 2003. and the seven years we have acquired a considerable amount of experience with employees working in sons of conflict. as i mentioned in my opening statement, we provide, we have

learned a lot from the military to do this extremely well. we provide our employees with a full menu of services. medical, doctors, psychologists and other qualified medical people. there is a peer support group. agents are working with agents to provide support for those coming out of the combat zones. we had a program that mandates a high creeks outburst of anybody coming out of the combat zones. at which problems can be flagon dealt with.

it is a very different experience for an agent to serve in iraq supervising a motorcade. . there is a cultural and emotional shift that goes on. those folks have to adjust to different environments. we help them to do that. we also give a heads up to the indices that are gaining these folks. they have to be aware of certain issues. i think we do a good job of that. we included as part of ambassadors training. they will be having people that come out of the war zones. they need to be aware of that. i think we do everything that we can.

>> i certainly appreciate all of your responses. i have a final question for you. then i will give him an opportunity to make a final comment. providing your secure environment for the diplomatic mission, especially in high threat areas requires significant resources. they have created a great deal of uncertainty. what risks and trade offs would ds have to make if they were not provided.

you are absolutely right. we are extremely difficult funding this. the discussions in the congress about our budget have been extremely active to put it mildly. the point i want to make is that we have been looking at our numbers extremely carefully. we have scrubbed our numbers very carefully. we are confident with the numbers, the budget numbers we have put forward. if we do not get the kind of funding from the congress that we need to do what we have to do, we will simply have to do

less. nobody in the state department, and no one in the leadership of the state department has ever as a compromise on security. they have lasted a look at my numbers. then never asked me to do less security than i feel comfortable. if we do less funding, we would get fewer things. where rigid planned to open for conflict in iraq. it is down to two. the other ones are still on the suspended animation. i've never been as a compromise on the security of any this. >> would like to make any final statements? >> said think your last question is a good one.

the government will be having to address this issue. they are asking all agencies to conduct this overseas. i would echo the concerns raised by the ambassador. there is a trade-off. when you are talking about security, the role as protecting other u.s. officials overseas. to the extent that resources may not be available to conduct their security, there would conduct policy and affairs. that is the problem. this is what will likely come to grips with in the next couple of years. we would like to see a little more strategic thinking on this

issue verses' reaction. the could have been preplanned. and should have to deal with this every day. i am sure they do a fine job of it. the department as a whole neneed to be more forthright with the contingencies if we did not get the resources. this will be a challenge that they will be faced with in the next several years. i am hopeful that they will take it seriously been. security policy must support the mission that we have. >> thank you very much.

i want to miss -- wish you well in the future. ambassador, thank you so much for your work and what you have done enter service for our country. it has been great. i want to be as helpful as they can. thank you so much for years service. you will certainly help us in our work here in the united states senate. thank you. aloha to you.

>> now i like to call our second panel up. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> after four y